Originally posted by cgiles: Seems to me that the MS only gets into trouble when it's FANS (owners and non-owners) try to promote it's talents as a 'superior' ARRANGER while it's MANUFATURER has said (at least, recently) that this is merely a 'secondary feature'; a side benefit of it's 'open architecture'. Seems to me that comparing it to a TOTL DEDICATED arranger is like comparing a laptop computer to a dedicated controller for your house's security system. Sure, the laptop can do it (along with many other functions), but will it be as easy to program, have all the built-in safeguards and backups. Can we add more sensors without screwing up the programming, will the program still run when the 'generic' OS is upgraded. But mostly, how much does that powerful laptop cost compared to the dedicated controller (which most will concede, does a better job with that specific task).
I think we should just concede that the MS is probably never going to be able to compete with an instrument whose every atom is dedicated to one purpose, arranger style play. We should also concede that it (the MS) is probably infinitely superior as an integrated VST/VSTi player with (probably) better filters, ad/da converters, clocks, preamps, etc., than the average synth, workstation, or arranger kb, along with the resources necessary to host more sophisticated sequencers, samplers, audio recorders, etc., than the usual 'closed system' keyboard.
I think that GOOD or BAD in the keyboard world has a lot to do with the intended task and how well it performs THAT task. JMO.
chas
Agree. Except I would add that from the MS perspective it is possible for the MS to compete with a TOTL arranger but that is not the major feature of the MS and its arranger ability is not a function of the MS but a function of the user.
For example, the PSR S910 has the ability to compete with the Korg PA2x pro but that is not the major feature and for it to compete with the Korg PA 2x pro, it depends on the user.
Previous Topic
Index
