Not trying to be sarcastic or looking for a fight, but I think it's a little bit insulting, not to mention a whole lot patronizing, to post such a response to Spalding. Judging from his posts, I think you'd have to conclude that he's intelligent, articulate, musically sophisticated, and technologically up to speed. So why talk down to him like he's a mentally challenged two year old?

Also, with all due respect, the examples you cited in the previous post either makes no sense on a forum such as this (ARRANGER, NOT EXOTIC SYNTH) OR it completely explains why there is such a disconnect between Liontracs and it's advocates and the 'Sweet Car-o-line' crowd that makes up the majority of this forum. None of the music in those examples is EVER played at the gigs these guys play. Most of the guys on this forum probably hate it. For sure, nobody's audience requests it. I would call it 'synth' music before I ever associated it with 'arranger' music. It sounds a lot like the patches I quickly skip over on my Fantom G (which someone like me probably shouldn't even own ). Like I said, if this is a shining example of what the MS or Groove can do, then that explains a LOT.

One last thing, although admittedly more expensive to implement, all 'closed' systems aren't limited to ONE sound engine. One example in my own arsenal is the Fantom G, which can host two (yeah, only two and they're expensive - but wait till you hear what's on them) ARX cards which are total, independent, full blown synthesizers with (IMO) even better integration with the host.

Look, I'm not saying that the 'open system' concept doesn't have it's appeal (and promise), but the proof is in the pudding and so far, for whatever reason, this concept has not caught on. There's probably even less chance of it catching on among arranger players. JMO.

chas