That SHOULD be true, but so far has not proved to be the case when applied to ARRANGER keyboards. I think the problem is that no MAJOR manufacturer has taken that approach and THEY are the only ones with the resources necessary to pull it off. I think they realize that the costs involved in developing enough quality styles to satisfy the entire spectrum of potential arranger users and the relatively small size of that market, just makes it plain economically unfeasible. It's a lot cheaper to just make technical improvements to the existing arsenal. Frankly, I think Yamaha has developed the best BUSINESS model.

I think that the key to the 'failure' of the concept of 'open architecture' arrangers lies in the fact that it's a conflict of goals between open architecture developers and the average arranger user (especially the non-pro user). One envisions a system where YOU can do anything; the other wants the KEYBOARD to do everything for THEM. Never the two shall meet . I predict that this concept will NEVER be successfully implemented. JMO.

chas