Compared to 7-10 years ago, have the advancement in keyboard technology helped to make your performance better in terms of the quality of the show. Is it easier or more efficient?

If so what specifically makes it so. Is it the hard drives, more and better sounds, larger screens, the ability to connect to different storage drives and not just floppies and …?

Are you kidding? Absolutely!

Large storage,
Mic input with effects,
Vocal harmoniser;
Lyric read,
Text edit,
Improved sounds,
Get around in live situations...etc..

Much Lighter

Better sounds
Smaller packages
Superior rhythms

For me sounds have been improved to my personal taste and liking. Having more storage space means that I can go from song to song with out taking a break. More spaces to put user styles makes it better to make the performance more individuallised.
But what about the audience and club owners. Have you noticed a difference in their reaction to the music through the changes in keyboard technology? Has it meant more gigs or more steady gigs?

Lyrics display - My memory for words of songs is abysmal.

KF

[This message has been edited by KFingers (edited 10-18-2004).]

Ten years ago I did a OMB gig using:

Roland R-5 drum machine
Ensoniq Mirage rack sampler (for bass/guitar)
Roland MC-500 sequencer
Kawai K-1 tone module
Korg CX-3 keyboard (organ)
Kurzweil K-1000 (mostly for piano)
Peavey mixer
Peavey CS-800 power amp
Bose 801 (pair)

and today I use:

Yamaha 9000 Pro
Motion Sound KP-200s

I can do everything with one keyboard today that I could with that ensemble of equipment back then and more, and I think it sounds better now too. And if you go back to my OMB rig from twenty years ago, the difference is even greater.

Well i dont think this thread in any way makes up for the comments made on the g70 thread, not that they were aimed at the g70 in particular but arrangers in general which i still believe havent improved by a whole lot on THEIR OWN TERMS.

The advancements have come in the form of technology as a whole. In 2004 you can put your entire 'family' collection of music on one hard drive and listen to it at your leisure (anywhere). Thats real progress, yet theres still gripes on these forums about a keyboards lack of this feature or that, which should be part of the system from day one. Addons like a $350 firewire box, £300 for an mp3 player, £250 for a CD writer for a keyboard. I mean c'mon.

The cows been milked too many times, but lets keep plodding along..............................

That's a good question - to some people it makes a difference that I can setup with minimal equipment in just a few minutes in a fairly small space and still sound like a band. A couple of my clients are gadget freaks and they take note that I use an expensive high-tech keyboard whereas some other guy might use an outdated or cheap instrument. And yes, because audiences are surrounded by great hi-tech sound systems in their homes and cars I think they know when they are hearing good modern music equipment and when they aren't. So improvements in technology has made some impact on my ability to stay booked. But there's still a lot of OMB's who stay booked with minimal and/or outdated equipment on the strength of their talent alone, so I'd have to agree with many past comments made here that ability still outweighs technology.

Huge differences...

The ability to sound like a band and provide a huge variety of entertainment as a solo is my first thought. Back then, I relied on working in an ensemble. Now, of course, I do more work as a soloist than with others.

Back then I was using a Roland JXP-3 Synth, a Fender Rhoades Suitcase-88 and a double manual Farfisa organ on the road.

Now, Tyros is the only KB I use.

Issues in sound, power, flexibility, weight, etc. are significant.

As the Pro says, ability is still the number one criteria for solo success. For those of us that perform full time and who do this for a living, musicianship, knowledge, professionalism, etc. still far outweigh simple techno-advbances that any Tom, Dick or Harry can go out and buy.

Its the tasteful application of current technology combined with a high musical skill level that separates the men from the boys.

Wonder what advances we'll see in the next 10 years or so?

Bill in Dayton



[This message has been edited by Bill in Dayton (edited 10-18-2004).]

I disagree and made several points to that effect in your old posts. I wouldn't have considered any arranger ten years ago and today I wouldn't consider anything except an arranger for stage use - they certainly have improved on their own terms or I wouldn't use one. But there is nothing to stop you from creating your own arranger if today's offerings don't meet your needs: the Open Lab's eKo could be customized into any configuration you could want, from sounds to control surfaces, the latest processors and moemory to every I/O you can imagine - in effect it could be the best arranger ever concieved - and it isn't selling because the price is too high. Those of us who want a fully-customizable arranger are making our own (see some of the FLR threads in this group). So there's nothing to stop you from making your own dream arranger with stock stuff if you have the time and money.

One other thing: you have to remember that the arrangers talked about on this forum are mostly the portable and less expensive kind... home arrangers that go from $10k and up include many features that we've been asking for but they don't get discussed here because we're not in that price market (I sit in on a forum of Yamaha CVP-series users and their needs/concerns are much different from ours).

Why don't you start your own thread on arranger technology instead of hijacking the threads of others?

I wouldnt know how to hijack a thread but isnt taking part in discussion allowed here or do we all have to conform and buy into the standard, whether thats yours or an established one?

If going by previous threads there are many visitors reading these posts (it would be interesting to know just how many), then we all must take a responsible approach to drive for stuff that we want, and that doesnt mean pointing out hardware faults that maybe 3% of users might have and making a big thing out of it, which really at the end of the day doesnt amount to much. You may know what i mean

it would be fairly easy to look up the net for OMB gear over 7 years and quote this product against that, but all that would do, would be to show cosmetic differences to most people reading and if anything prove some of the points here, BUT ONLY COSMETICALLY. In 1997 we had products with touch scrreens, 64 notes, thousands of sounds........

The question boils down to, for you or anyone is "do you want better products?""

I would have, at the very least, given the wealth of experience here thought that there would be many ideas to help improve your working life? I aint seeing them?

Major difference in weight and versatility. For years I used a B3, Suitcase Rhodes, a small Korg synthesizer (don't remember the model number) a string machine I built from a kit (ugh), a 147 RV, a Kustom PA with a separate delay unit, a cheesy Multivox drum machine...no active eq, no monitors and two of the heaviest, almost square 15" cabinets.I've ever seen. That was an upgrade from a Shure Vocalmaster and those long multi-speaker colums and an echoplex.

Still, I miss old Jimmy Smith style playing,
and look back fondly at everything but transporting the stuff. Back then it was nothing for house jobs to last 5 or more years, so moving was limited to outside jobs.

I guess that's progress...

russ

digitalvision:

Again, you are ignoring my answer to your question. It's very difficult to discuss much with you if you refuse to acknowledge the replies that your posts generate.

The topic here is "Have the different advances in technologies helped to improve your live performance?" and all of the replies have delt with that issue, except for digitalvision's. Unless you plan on answering the original question then you should start your own thread. (FYI: "hijacking" is taking the thread away from it's topic). It's just a matter of courtesy, and it helps to organize the subjects and responses better.

I would be happy to discuss your topic of "do you want better products" in it's own thread, assuming you are at least somewhat familiar with the technology I have already mentioned in my replies to you. That would also answer your question about how much interest there is in your topic.

Yes and no to the first part, with room for a lot of improvement from the manufacturers.