Anyone from Yamaha, Korg, GEM, Roland or any other major companies could tell me the reason behind a scientific learning curve for professional workstations (Motif and such) and RELATIVELY no learning curve for professional arrangers? They all have somewhat same features in most cases anyway.

I have a feeling that this is one of the main reasons people don't wanna get into pro workstations; because they just wanna make music and not a rocket and don’t wanna spend months of learning (sometimes without a success). If it takes a huge headache and numerous hours on some idea that you want to implement in your song - is it really worth it?

I wonder why whoever creates pro wks making them so hard to learn? Taking into consideration that artists, in most cases, don't have this mind set of figuring out technical things of the instrument.

Imagine John Lennon would get Motif ES he would throw it out of the window due a frustration he would get out of it! He can write songs? Of course! Would he create one with Motif? I don’t think so

ENGINEERS: CAN YOU PLEASE CONSIDER ARTISTS MIND SET AS OPPOSE TO ENGINEERS AND ROCKET SCIENTISTS???

Man, writing songs to engineers is a rocket science, and to create music workstations to artists is a rocket science too. Can this have a combined existence??? Maybe engineers should invite artists when creating their “toys” or at least not only these forums but make instruments based on artists’ feedback.

------------------
New Yorker