Why don’t I like this arranger?

1. Because it tries to concentrate on style content rather than style development tools. The power of the arranger is not what style content is onboard but what you can do with an arranger.
2. It does not have 76 semi-weighted keys.
3. It is not well built and less than 30 LBS.
4. It does not have assignable knobs, sliders and buttons for sequencer and style controls.
5. It does not have XLR mic inputs.
6. It does not have a feature where you can freely import and export loops to the keyboard.

Customizability and not content should be what arranger manufacturers should be concentrating on.

As you can tell with the Audya, it has styles and live sounding ones, but that is not enough; the cry is for styles to be editable.

I would like to see an arranger that has the style edit ability like the MS. The keyboard should be 76 semi weighted keys.
It MUST have excellent sounds both acoustic and synth. It MUST have the ability to load other sounds in other formats like SFZ, wave and VST.



It MUST have great live sounding Drums, basses, pianos/organs, guitars and brass.


As it relates to styles, OTB, manufacturers should only have around 100 styles. Those styles should give the user an idea as to the type of styles that can be used on the arranger.
Then the manufacture should have plug-in boards with genre specific styles available for the user. So, if I am an arranger player in the USA and want USA styles I would purchase the USA styles pack that would have at least 200 styles. The same thing for oriental, Latin, Caribbean and so on.

What that would do is help the manufacturer focus on the real part of the keyboard like editing and creation tools and ease of use on a gig. Also, manufactures could sell the arranger cheaper, increase the number of sales and the plug-in for styles could be priced at a premium and the user would be willing to pay for just the style libraries he or she wants and does not have to pay for something he or she does not want.

In order to encourage style development and creation, the arranger MUST be able to integrate with the computer. You MUST be able to create and edit styles on the computer with or without the keyboard connected to the computer. How, it still must have style and sequence creation directly on the keyboard.


For those of us who are involved with and are familiar with modern music, In order to capture the modern music market, you MUST have audio playback and manipulation (that is where the technology is headed).
If you want to have an arranger used for modern music, it is not about sounding like a band, but it is about sounding like a DJ. The arranger must be able to manipulate audio.
That is why the ELASTIQUE BPM feature on the MS is so useful.

So to recap, the old school arranger players who are just able to play by turning on the keyboard; pressing a button to call up a style and using a finger in their left hand to get the accompaniment and their right hand to play a melody, then they would get the keyboard at an affordable price and purchase what ever style packs they would want at a premium.

For the serious gigging musician who wants to get the most out of their arranger, they would also have the style packs available to them but they would also get the benefit of computer integration, extensive style creation and editing.


The arranger would also cover persons in-between those two extreme user types.

Arranger manufacturers should also start to form relationships with software developers like Sonar, Celemony Melodyne
and band-in-box.

P.S one feature I would like to see on arranger is a drum lock feature.
So that if you are playing a style, and you change to another style, you can have the same drum pattern play. Perhaps the same thing could be done for all the style tracks.
But it should also be able to be done when changing to midi songs.