Look guys, flame away all you want. I'm not talking about (on this thread) factory demos, which tend to
be all SMF's done by incredibly talented players using the arranger's output only as the starting point for
the song (mind you, in the real world, that's a very legitimate way of using the arranger), but on user
demos, and style demos.

All I have ever done is try to put an honest set of ears onto EVERYTHING I hear. I could care less if a
demo is made on an S910 or an MS. All I do is LISTEN to it, and see if it impresses me. NOT with the
technical specs and 'potential' of the arranger. Just with the MUSIC. Arrangers are SUPPOSED to provide
a large part of that 'music', we input the chords, play a melody or comp (or both!) and the arranger does
the rest. Some of them achieve this, some of them don't. Some of them OUGHT to achieve this, but don't...

I'm sorry if you think that my honest assessment of these demos is driving people away from posting
them. OTOH, I tend to think that perhaps I am causing some potential posters to reevaluate honestly
what they DO think of their work, and perhaps decide to not post what is obviously inferior. I can't
for one minute believe that someone that HAD managed to make style demos far superior to a
closed arranger was so insecure as to not post them just because of what I would say...

And, I'm sorry, James, but I am a musician. NOT a sound designer, NOT a sample set developer, NOT a
computer boffin, impressed by the bleeding edge. The ONLY reason I play arrangers is to make music. The
'potential' of a piece of gear doesn't impress me in the slightest, at least when it is so painfully
demonstrated time after time that no owner out there (let alone the factory employees themselves) IS
capable of achieving that 'potential'.

An F1 car is an AMAZING piece of technology. Potentially, the performance to go faster than
anything else on the road. Problem is, only one in a million have the reflexes and ability to drive it, the
rest of us mortals just crash it, first turn we get to (if we are not pulling doughnuts just trying to drive in a
straight line!). Does that stop the F1 car from being amazing? Depends who is driving it.

The MS has yet to meet its' Michael Shumacher. You think you have the skills, have at it. But I am starting
to get REALLY fed up being told what this thing can and cannot do by someone that hasn't got one, and
who can't point to anyone that DOES and has achieved its' potential. How about just a LITTLE 'proof
of concept'. Or is it just a coincidence that no-one has achieved better than a closed arranger yet? 300+ out
there, no demos yet that demonstrate that any of them have achieved its' potential yet.

You REALLY got to get one of these James. As convinced as how much better than your PA2 it is...

And AFG, the whole POINT I've ever made is, all these style demos are just more proof that, yes, while
it is POSSIBLE to convert styles, it appears all too obvious that, in the hands of those that ARE willing to
post, no-one yet HAS managed to either create styles, or convert styles to the full potential of the
MS. Is it me, or is it crazy to go to the prodigious effort (must be prodigious, or a boatload of people
would have achieved it by now) of all this work, to end up with something inferior to the original?

Maybe some people LIKE tinkering with the technology more than they like making great music. I
am not one of those kinds of players, as you might have gathered Yes, futzing around with the deep
programming of my K2500 is fun now and again, but I wouldn't want to HAVE to do it all the time, just to
be able to go out and do a pick up gig... And, from the resounding yawn the MS got from the arranger
community (c'mon, just a few hundred in four years? Yamaha are NOT quaking in their boots!), I am afraid
I am in the vast majority.

The whole point you've been trying to make is, sure, the MS can play Yamaha styles. Big wup! Until it plays
them BETTER than a Yamaha, what's the POINT? If you want a few VSTi RH sounds, a Muse, a
V-Machine, a laptop, all of these do the job. But until the MS actually DOES do the job better than a
Yamaha, not 'does the job IF you are a GREAT style composer, editor, technician, computer guru, etc.'
which from all the evidence we have heard, no-one IS, why recommend something that makes doing
what 99.999% of all arranger users actually do a total PITA?

I have no agenda, no axe to grind. I am just trying to keep a few fanboys honest. The day someone posts
some style demos from the MS that makes me go 'Holy cr*p! That is MUCH better than a T3!' (and I will
if they do), you will never hear word one from me again. Other than to post my own MS demos up...

But until I hear it, until someone is honest enough to say how LONG it took them to get it to sound like
that, I still don't CARE what else the MS does. If I need a VSTi WS, you can bet I'll be looking at the MS
VERY closely. But if I want an arranger, it's going to have to be better than what the closed ones do. Dom
has already axed all arranger development, so best of luck getting Bass Inversions out of it, not to mention
all the plethora of other things that caused Miden to give up on it.

The MS as an arranger is dead in the eyes of its' creator. And I sure as hell didn't kill it... What's left to
blame? Because it sure looks like you are looking for SOMETHING to blame for its' failure.