Arrangers sure have come a long way in the last ten years. Curious what people think the arrangers will be like in 2017 or so...

I think the samples will continue to just getter better and better, and memory will also expand as it shrinks...

I'm sure there'll be numerous other enhancements...

If Yamaha, Korg and Roland held a conference for all of us and wanted us to design an Arranger for 2017, let's say...and they really wanted it to be a new generation, not just a slight upgrade board...what would it wind up like?

(This should be interesting...)

I'd like to see a neural input device... for those times when my brain knows what it whats to hear but my fingers just aren't up to the task

That's only 3-4 keyboards ahead of what they're planning now. Since memory configurations will be different, a lot of the new features will be centered around increased memory. Size is pretty much determined by keyboard and panel buttons/dials, so the overall look will be similar, but weight will continue to go down and plastic cases will be sturdier.

Live drums are here, so live instruments will be next - even better than they are now. Polyphony will be a non-issue. Arrangers will be the standard type prokeyboard, as more musicians will be playing and recording solo. The arranger section will be essential to pop music, just as it is to standard music today. No more cables, everything will be wireless.

Fran will be proclaiming that his Roland Sonic A73 is the cat's meow even though it weighs a whopping 19 lbs. And Scott Yee will counter that his Yamaha Astro 3 is just as good with only 61 keys. The big difference is that the Astro takes pictures of the audience and projects them onto the speaker grilles of his new Bose L5 column - just 42 inches tall and capable of filling a 500 seat auditorium with surround sound.

Whatever computer interface is dominant in 2012 will be the interface of the 2017 keyboards - yuk.

Sad to say but I dont think we will be using anything ...but Software based instruments way beyond anything traditional that we have now.

I'm not so sure about that ... all digital keyboards are software based and have been for 20 years now. Digital = Software based. The software currently just happens to be embedded in ROM rather than loaded from a computer's hard drive. I still think there will always be a market for stand alone keyboards but they will be competing with computer based synths. But I do think that keyboards similar to Lionstracs will become more and more common in the future.

2017
Samples will be DEAD all sounds will be produced by Sound Modelling of the original instruments. (Wersi OAS 7 has already started down this route)
The future looks bright

Bill

Cassp, ROFL


If I could bet, my money would go to Abacus. Sound modelling relies on algorithms, and processing power. Processing power will be aplenty in 10 years, (heck we have enough as of now), and algorithms are a clever programmer's mind away.

We simply have to ask ourselves how we will be able to afford those wonderful new instruments in 10 years!

No problem. They'll be given away with the latest mobile phobe !!!!

That should be PHONE of course.

Yamaha will own all the other keyboard companies, so we'll all be playing Tyros 12 or PSR-Z9999.

Tyros 12 will finally get 76 keys.

Ian

Hmmmm, ten years?
I'll be using the same thing I use now......the same thing I used 20 years ago!

1) A good mic
2) Something to play bass with
3) A solid drum pattern generator
4) Something cool to bang out chords with.

That's all I've ever needed or wanted. I buy the new stuff to stay up with my competitors, and keep myself amused, but if it all went south tomorrow .... I'd sing, play LH bass over drum tracks and make my own chord arrangements while my (former) competitors watched my dust, crying about the state of electronics and why the new "whatchawhooziee" is falling short of their desires.

Seriously ..... I could live very nicely without any auto arranger features or sequences, but the current audiences I play to seem to require more than that to stay attentive. I'd have to relocate or retrain some clients' thinking, but hey - that's why I became an entertainer in the first place.....I wanted to share what I knew and taylor it into a package that the public would love, and love to PAY for !

So, bring on the newest, baddest, greatest digital revolution we've never dreamed of....I'll still be singing, playing and people watching ... just like always !

This may shock some of you to hear from me, but it's really never been about the gear.

It's about what I can do WITH the gear. Odds are - if I'm happy .... my audience is too !
I've always said that from the stage -
"I have the best seat in the house!"

I agree Dave, although some of us started out that way and could easily slip back into if necessary, many players are tied to the auto accompaniment or SMF and would be lost without them.

Then again...it sure is nice to have all those cool backup styles.

Ian



[This message has been edited by ianmcnll (edited 10-12-2007).]

What will I be playing in ten years? If I change my ways now and am lucky, probably a harp. If it goes the other way (down), probably a pedal steel.

chas

....or, if hell is worse than we thought, an accordion.

chas

[This message has been edited by cgiles (edited 10-12-2007).]

Nigel, you are right.
Musician right now and in the next 10 years future, they will always have one hardware stand alone keyboards. This because not all musician are prepared and have know how about PC system. They can pay a lot of money, BUT they will all ready to play, turn ON the keyb, press some keys and PLAY!

PC system with softsynth are right now the new future, BUT untill you are able to assembly one working system, integration of the all sounds engine with latency under 3ms..you need to be one software engineers!

For that normally musician prefer to continue buy closed embedded system, because are so simple to use and ready to play.

Untill you there will be happy with the USB 1.0, 64-128Mb ROM sounds, slave to PC connection, more cheap and plastic possible...the big brands there will be always so happy to continue sell you the same sup every 6-8 months.

The future anyway is around the PC system and for sure someday they maybe will arrival too.
But for this need:
+ AMD CPU 64bit system
+ Powerfull 24bit Audio card with min 126dB Dynamic range
+ Possibility to connect external Fireware/usb audio cards in the internal mixing
+ Full open controlled API/Midi/USB hardware pannel
+ Double OS, Linux 64bit and windows as slave server (lol)
+ Unlimited VST loader and Clients
+ Unlimited ASIO Clients
+ min another 540.000 line of new C, C++, for try to manage the only keyboard system ( not included the all other engine application)
+ make that this all dream can really working
= Mediastation hardware and OS 2.0.
This we have right now. http://www.lionstracs.com/store/information_pages.php?info_id=24

IF someone try to start with this Open technology ( and need more 4-8 years for see some working) in the next 4-8 years waw the Mediastation will be able to do?

Of course, if someone there will start with this new technology, for sure in the next years we wil see a lot of new products, PC based that are able to LOAD the all what you like.

For now...enjoy what you have in your hards and have FUN!
cheers

[This message has been edited by LIONSTRACS (edited 10-12-2007).]

Yep, one of my favorite Far Side cartoons:



-mike

standalone controller KB only maybe Nigel.....but hooked to a laptop of some sort of computer instead of lugging a big unit.....20 years from now is another story

In 10 years some of us will be in the home. And when you younger guys come in to entertain, we will be quick to tell you about how we did it in our day. You know, we had to carry heavy equipment uphill in the snow....hehehe.

Ciao,

Joe

------------------
Songman55
Joe Ayala

I'm not sure if sonic improvements over the next decade or so are going to be that important. I believe that what we currently have on TOTL arrangers is sufficient (and my audiences seem to agree!). But I think the major improvement may come from more elaborate OS's, and chord tracking and triggering algorithms that respond more like real players.

The Korg implementation of Guitar Mode is a good start. Finally, something on an arranger that works IN arranger mode, that accurately tracks chords and inversions like a guitar player, NOT just transposing the original performance, but re-voicing it AS A GUITARIST WOULD, according to where on the keyboard you play, how hard you play, what key you are in...

Non-linear things like this are the way, at the moment, that we can tell arranger play from real performance, but as computers get faster and cheaper, sophisticated algorithms to adjust the performance based on real-life rules and player techniques will make the arranger close to indistinguishable from live performance. We already have software libraries and players that chose different sets of samples according to your live playing (selecting legato, staccato, slurs and trills, etc.)... Imagine these (kind of like SA voices on steroids!) on ALL kinds of sounds, triggered from your chords!

I see a move away from simple 'four variations and seven fills' choices to FAR more elaborate variation choices, perhaps triggered by an intelligent analysis of what you are playing (LH and RH!), it's intensity, frequency of fill usage, etc.. I see some effort made to have a more intelligent fill system, that does a better job of smoothly flowing from each variation to the next. If these kinds of things can be achieved by algorithmical extrapolation, rather than some poor programmer having to laboriously come up with umpteen fills, styles may eventually get sophisticated enough that they rival live playing in non-repeatability and sophistication.

Imagine rules that not only provide variation for several different chord types (like we have now) but also provide variability depending on what chord type goes to another (so a change from major to minor would be different from a maj 7th to minor 7th, etc.).

Imagine a chord analysis engine that, after you've played a set of changes once, and start to repeat it, it would recognize this, and adjust bass-lines and other single note lines to better suit this set of changes...

I just feel that, instead of concentrating on SONIC improvements, from a player's perspective I would honestly like to see most of the changes come at the OS and arranger engine end of things....

JMO, yada yada yada....

Diki, what you envision is creative, inovative, and well thought out. While I think some of the processes you describe (chord tracking & triggering algorithms)WILL be implemented on non-arranger keyboards, I think the increased complexity of operation will be over the heads of the senior citizens that arrangers are targeted for. Not many 70yr olds are going to buy a high-performance sports car with 8-speed manual transmission. They are going for the comfy sedan with auto everything and voice-recognition GPS nav.

While it would be greatly appreciated by PRO's and OMB's, my guess is that they probably make up no more than 10% of the arranger market.

Furthermore, for the time it would take you to master the instrument you describe (including the MediaStation follow-ons), you could actually learn to play a real instrument.

As much as I like the sound (and weight) of my Nord C1, all the digital crap, including the digital drawbars, is driving me nuts. I'm having to relearn to play a "B3" and man, it ain't easy.

But, truth is, I hope you're right.

chas

Just remember a s us dinosaurs fade away little by little each year so does OUR music ....with the ever increasing technology & baby boomer of today "our generation will wilt and be overtaken very briskly by today's youth & music which will dictate what happens 10/20/30 years from now...its already happening in all aspects of music....ever watch a Philharmonic Orchestra of today? Hmmmmmmmmm? 90% Asian musicians, why? because they are the only ones studying at conservatories vs the Hip Hop rap generation who is in a totally different direction musically....DJ's rule the roost in most private affairs, weddings, corporate, clubs, etc etc ....so you see the trend before your eyes.......that said we can always still enjoy ourselves in our bedrooms playing what WE want with our instruments no one can take that away from us.......or if you are luck enough to make a full time living playing music somehow finding YOUR Little niche somewhere in society.....but look around you things are changing fast EVERYWHERE music included.......computers are at the wheel like it or not...its just that we will be the last generation from BOTH non computer & computer worlds......enjoy your memories, make them last with everything you do in life....what happens in the future you cannot foresee or change.....
Live For The Moment!

Now wheres my "Meet The Beatles Album?"

Donny, I think "private affairs, weddings, corporate, clubs, etc" are only a small part of the music world and will NOT determine the direction of music in the future. One of the reasons that jazz and classical music endures from generation to generation is that it is played by real musicians on real instrument.

Although the economy will force club owners to scale back the entertainment budget (opening the door for good OMB's.....but also DJ's), the largest and most upscale of these venues will continue to have live bands.

I also don't agree with you (we can agree to disagree ) that we (whoever "we" are) are no longer producing young, trained, musicians. If the Asians in your Philharmonic reference happen to be Asian-Americans (which I'm guessing most are), do they count ("THEY (huh) are the only ones studying at the conservatories")?

If we backtrack, say, from MP3's to SMF's to Arranger styles to programmed arpeggios, etc., what we see is that the real creativity, the enduring music, comes from the flexibility of being able to manipulate the most basic elements of music.

We need to differentiate between the future of technology and the future of MUSIC. JMO.

Chas

Chas... what I envision as to the future of arrangers, all of that is background technology. In other words, you don't change one iota what you are playing now... chords in the LH, comps and solos in the right. But what I see already starting to happen with software libraries like VSL (rule based sample switching), I can see happening to arranger's chord recognition and variation choice.

All that extra stuff goes on in the background, well away from the player's consciousness, just like what is happening with chord variations now. It will hopefully just be a LOT more sophisticated than it is now, with regard to chord analysis and variation generation.

I am looking for MUSICAL improvements in arrangers, not SONIC ones.

Half time and double time buttons... Intelligent 'swing' options, to swing 'straight' styles and vice versa.... There are many things we could all use on a day to day basis that are not yet available. The return (of course!) of the Chord Sequencer, with even more interactive options... Live audio 'loopers' for recording vocal backups or acoustic performances to be integrated with the arranger.

I don't believe the bottom of the barrel has even been reached, yet alone scraped!

i'm not sure what i will use in 10 years.... but i have a pretty good idea of what I might be using in 20 years:..............DEPENDS, FIXODENT, AND A HEARING AID. ....of course, that's being optimistic.

Some new updates..
Now we can open Unlimited ASIO clients:


and here the shot of the 10 VstHost opened: http://www.lionstracs.com/store/images/gui2007/10vsthost.jpg

Of course after this 10 VstHost are opened, we can also play in background the new Reaper 2.0: http://www.lionstracs.com/store/images/gui2007/reaper2.jpg
And play also with the B4 II Stand alone mode under another ASIO clients: http://www.lionstracs.com/store/images/gui2007/B4asio.jpg

Are you able there under windows make this?
cheers


[This message has been edited by LIONSTRACS (edited 10-13-2007).]

Hi

I wonder if *true* musicality rules - or technology rules!

Jørgen

Hi Lionstracs
Studios have been doing this for years.
Home players however (The Target market for Arranger manufactures) want something that they can just switch on and play, and if they wish to add other things, (Such as VSTs) a simple way to load and play them with minimal technical knowledge and effort. (Professionals who use arrangers live also want something that they can easily setup to suit the audience at the time)
Remember keyboards are designed for music players, not technology experts. (How do you explain to the layman that although you can load 100 or so VSTs, you can only use 3 or 4 high quality ones at the same time before the CPU/Ram gets overloaded)
Golden Rule
Music First, Technology Second

Bill

Bill, you and I are saying many of the same things, you perhaps better. One thing the members here simply will not acknowledge, is that this board is probably not representative of the TOTAL arranger market in terms of home player vs. working pro. If you profiled the average arranger player (in America), you would probably find a middle-aged, middle class guy that quit taking music lessons when he was nine and can now afford to buy his way into giving the appearance of being a competent (even amazing) musician without going through the agony of actually learning how to play. A surefire way of being the hit of the party (man, that's one long run-on sentence).

Further, he has not fully figured out all the options on his car's nav unit and still can't program the VCR. He's figured out his cell phone but only after his son or daughter has set it up for him. Fat fingers has severely limited his ability to text message. He has to read the manual twice each time he has to reset his clock radio.

To this guy, that screenshot of the Mediastation with 10 VST's open will look like the schematics of the space shuttle. Nothing wrong with technology but as Diki noted, it will have to be implemented in the background with the same kind of one-button-push simplicity that exists today. That is why, despite their technological superiority, units like the Mediastation will probably always have a limited market and trail the big three who have been successful by embracing the KISS principle for this particular market.

Music rules, technology assists.

chas

Chas and Bill,

You guys are spot on!

After almost 20 years of follow-up arranger clinics, both in home and in store, I have learned that the majority of arranger buyers are as you describe.

Most never learn how to make a style, or edit voices...most of my efforts were concentrated on teaching them how to use the on-board recorder, registration memory, or, as of late, how to make an MP3 from the audio to USB recorder.

A lot of correspondence I get is for more styles, not new sounds or samples...they seem quite satisfied with the on-board sounds.

A very small, and I mean VERY SMALL, number of home arranger users would ever get involved with VST as they are now.

They are too complicated for the average arranger user.

In my experience, playing rather than programming seems to be most important to the vast majority of arranger owners.

Good posts, guys.

Ian

Makes you wonder why they even waste the money on these features that most NEVER use or will ever know how to use in an arranger instead of adding what people want as described in some of the wish list topics & posts here on SZ like quality build, keybed, chord sequencers, etc etc ....

As I said on another thread...

"ALL brands of arrangers suffer from having features that aren't used by the average buyer.

I have addressed this issue with Yamaha many times, but I am only a very small spoke in a VERY big wheel.

All manufactures use these "features" as a marketing ploy...people then feel they are getting a lot for their money, even though they'll never use them."

Ian

Ian just keep addressing them.....we dont want what we have now to tank like Technics did a few years ago leaving dedicated loving players holding the bag.

Hi Bill
I know well too that is possible loading many Vst's in the studios and from some years.
I was only SHOWN that now under Linux is possible loading Unlimited Hosting ASIO clients application and NOT Vst's only.

I have here windows Xp too, BUT when i start to loading the first ASIO application then I'm not able to open another and use it in the same time, because the audio card is already take from the first application.

Try yourself to open Reaper under ASIO, then open cubase SX, Kotakt stand alone asio version and so on, then let me know if you can use all together.

This feature we need because we will use some Vst/hosting under background system, like:
-Kontakt ASIO for the second background Sampler
- Vst hosting ASIO Voice machine/harmonize
- Vst hosting ASIO Voice Vocalist
-2-3 VstHost ASIO for open more Vst effects/revebs/delay

If all this where under Vst mode, only ONE application like reaper-cubase can drive and then we are NOT able to use it for other realtime and backend application.

Just look the all Openlabs video, they have the same problems:
OR they can open Reaper and then with the keyboard play the sounds under the Vst tracks
OR they can open the Karsym sound manager for multiple sounds realtime players.

IF they will open both togheter, the keyboard can not working with the Karsym sound manager or reverse.
This is NOT a openlabs problems is a Windows limitation.

Under Linux now is more simple than windows, just one click and the ASIO host is open, Jack connection where you like and all is done. Need less than 5 seconds.
Linux Jack connection kit is like one Printer server, where 1-10-100-1000... PC and ASIO applications, can print ( here mean Print Audio and Midi data) in the same Printer ( audio card)
Understand the concept?

IF then you don't care to use a lot of Vst, this is another argument, BUT under linux need only one click and connect audio-midi to the desidered device, game made.
We can also simple run any desidered Vst, ASIO applicaton under the desidered Mediastation hardware buttom that you feel like one embedded system.
More simple like that, I really dont know what the Linux developer can do.
Cheers

This is a somewhat cynical view of the arranger as an instrument though... Let's get rid of all those features that the 'average' home user doesn't use.

Might as well start with those pesky black notes, too, as I am sure most of those 'quit when they were nine' wannabe's mostly play in C... Think of the money the arranger manufacturers could save (and the complication for the user!), and of course, how much lighter it could be

The perfect arranger.... for morons!

Not cynical, Diki, just an honest evaluation after many years of clinics.

Ian

Actually, I believe that the average buyer has all they want from these arrangers. They have fast, easy music creation...withot or without lots of
(or ANY) musical training.
I keep reminding myself that as a pro, I am in the minute mirority of arranger users that perfrom on stage, worldwide. I'm sure most of these units sit home.

Bottom line - As long as they make something that enables me to entertain a crowd....I'm open to suggestions !

I play in C, lol.
I also use some black keys occasionally.

That's all most buyers want, Dave, but the pro manages to take it several steps further and makes the most of features that are lost on the average owner.

Personally I'm glad they keep adding features...just as long as they don't replace or drop the ones that are very useful...like Diki's chord sequencer, or dedicated panel buttons for most often used functions.

Ian

And therein lies the problem... Perhaps a Linux engineer CAN'T make it any simpler, but a MUSIC engineer would know it has to be...

He would know his market, and realize that most of these people (musicians) haven't got a clue about print servers, yet alone most of the technobabble that instruments like this make you confront. The reason that arrangers are wildly popular is that they DON'T make you confront the nuts and bolts of the instrument's design. You turn it on, you press Bossa Nova 1, hit the OTS button and play - and the instrument sounds the best it CAN sound. NOT after you have loaded up the (hopefully) compatible VST instrument of your choice and jacked this into that, opened two incompatible sound players together, wired the effect sends from one VSTi into the inputs of another VST reverb and software routed the outputs of that back into a control matrix so you can control reverb depth with an onboard slider... (I'm exhausted just thinking that up!)

Of all the things to tie complexity of that degree to... an arranger?!! It's kind of like getting Bugatti to design a dump-truck.

It's like watching a traffic accident... Guys like Ian (who demo and sell arrangers) are going 'take all the complicated stuff off', and guys like Domenik (who build them) going 'look at all the complicated stuff I've put on'!

And all the rest of going 'we want all the good stuff... just make it moronically easy to use'.

I guess NOONE wins...

You know what's crazy...the majority of arranger buyers don't even know what MIDI is...and that's been around for decades.

Make an arranger look the slightest bit too complicated, and most potential buyers will walk.

Ian

Yes Diki, you are right!
Musician like you need to press one key, like Bossa nova and play..

For that we have inmplemented the PERFORMANCE system.
In the Mediastation:
Press CALL or LIST button
look and the desidered Group list ( or just inputs some character song) and the display will shown you what have found.
Press the desidered Performance
Press ENTER
The mediastation now will recall the all setup pannel saved before, includig Jpg, TXT, PDF, VST.....

If you need more simple, then just buy one CD song disk and play it with one 20$ CD player.
More easy, cheap and totally original sound that no one keyb can compete.
Why looking for more complex?

cheers

Ian, have you ever taken a look at the ratio between total arranger sales (in your area) and the number of people you do clinics and lessons for?

Let's be optimistic... Say about 10% (that's still a LOT of clients!).

You are basing your opinions on the dumbest 10% of the total sales figure, NOT all arranger buyers. It would be easy to slip into the assumption that MOST arranger users can't figure out or use any of the more advanced features, if the only people that come to see your clinics are precisely the people that COULDN'T figure these features out for themselves...

Maybe more than 10%, you say? OK, then... But until you give clinics and talk to over 50% of the total arranger sales in your area, you are still talking about the minority.

It's kind of like the remedial teacher who goes around thinking that kids are dumb. Rather than the gifted child teacher, that goes around thinking that kids are quite smart. You tend to assume the majority are like the minority that you actually deal with. The truth is, kids vary. Some are smart, some are dumb, most are average. Setting the world up for the benefit of the dumb ones penalizes the majority, not just the smart ones.
-----------------------------------------------

But to get back on topic, I just feel that, unlike Domenik's Linux version of the future, that the future as designed by musicians will have all the complex features we all want. But they will be designed to be totally transparent to the user...

Few of us ever think carefully about what is going on in the background in the arrangers we already have, things like different patterns for different chord types, how a fill smoothly flows from one variation to the next, etc.. It just happens. All of the ideas I posted earlier here should fall under the same category. While the technology behind them is quite fierce, we will be completely oblivious to it. All we will realize is that the auto accompaniment SOUNDS so much more realistic than it does now, more in tune with our musical intentions, but we will have no more knowledge of it's inner workings than we do of our current keyboards.

That is the way it SHOULD be. You don't have to know how to build a piano to play one. You just know that nearly a couple of centuries of skilled craftsmen and engineers have labored so you can sit down and just play. Domenik could learn from this. If you had to build a piano before you could play one, there would be few pianists!

So, to Domenik, and to all arranger designers, I say this; HIDE THE TECHNOLOGY.... but keep putting more and more in. Figure out how to make it automatic, transparent, invisible. And spend a LOT more of your time on ways to make the sounds play less repeating phrases than making the repeating phrases play better sounds. The sounds we have now are more than adequate, but the repeating small chunks of music (the styles) could be FAR more variable, even with today's technology, with little or no more complexity to the player.

THIS is the future of the arranger.... I hope!

JMO, yada yada yada.....

[This message has been edited by Diki (edited 10-13-2007).]

Sorry buddy if my post went over your head, but that's okay.

You obviously don't know how my job is set up, and quite frankly, my friend, I don't have the time, or feel the need to explain it to you.

Suffice to say, my opinion doesn't need your approval to be right, which it is in this case.

Now, time for more something more serious...a cuppa tea.

Cheers,

Ian

Domenik, you crack me up...!

The ONLY time I have ever hit Bossa Nova 1 and an OTS is to do an OOTB demo for the G70 for the folks here at SZ (that tend to like that kind of music)... Strangely enough, I am one of the few really technical players here that use VSTi's, Kurzweil's and modeled analog stuff on a daily basis in the studio. Along with networked and node'd computers for audio production, yada yada yada.

But I am also one who realizes that the truth about the arranger market IS more towards Ian's bleak assessment of arranger users, and their complete technophobia, than your 'as long as it CAN be done, it doesn't matter how complicated it looks' approach. I don't believe that either end of the spectrum is the real truth, but from working with JackOSX and Sunflower on the Mac, and the blank gaze I've got from otherwise VERY accomplished musicians when talking about networking computers and music apps and soundcards, I am led to believe that there IS a technology 'ceiling', above which you lose the majority of players.

Staying WELL UNDER that ceiling should be the prime goal for arranger designers, IMO. Workstations? No problem... Sky's the limit. But while I don't agree with Ian about exactly HOW dumb the average arranger user is (or even the not so average!), I think I DO know what the main upper limit is. And I think it is well under what the MS makes you deal with.

Diki..
maybe you don't know how much new money my company are investing now for one New Audio-Midi-GIGA-Vst Arragner engine.
If you there don't believe me, just ask around some my MS clients...

My developers and oher 3th party developers are working for full editing the Qtractor sequencer Audio-midi: http://qtractor.sourceforge.net/qtractor-index.html

Qtractor is one really SIMPLE realtime audio-midi sequencer with unlimited audio-midi tracks, including the all Free audio plugins for each audio track.

The work now is re-organize the traks under folder system, where each folder propiety can be one realtime pattern.
Each folder/pattern can be set the BARS length with automatic looping
In each Folder/pattern you are allowed to record/import tracks under Chords system ( Maj, Min, 7th, 7thDim...)
Each audio tracks can be set under Elastique ( zplane.com) engine for the BPM time scratch and Transpose scratch.

What this mean?
It mean that for each pattern you can record any type of midi or audio track and the engine then will automatic transpose for each chords that you have pressed.
Of course for the Min, 7th... tracks you have to record the relative audio traks under this chords too.

Other possibility is import some midifiles pattern and then you press Audio record and from the audio input you will record your Vocal, Guitar, sounds...riff...all under audio streaming!

This new arranger system then can be used like for a DJ system for ONLY audio parts: each pattern can have one different audio loops and when you change chords the audio loops will change too.

Under one Streaming Pattern Audio-Midi SEQ you will be able to play any type of realistic audio OR midi styles!

Do NOT foget that for one style like this, need a lot of Mb data: the HD streaming ( like gigastudio/kontakt) will be the best way for play the all styles in realtime.
This features you can TOTALLY forget from one embedded system, so... forget to waiting the big brand to offer you this new generation of styles because they have to pass under one PC system.

well, if you are happy to waiting 10-30 minute before one audio style is ready( look the T2, audya and others for the sampler..) then I don't have nothing to add here.

Enjoy what you have now.
cheers

Enter Wersi OAS, which in its latest version (OAS 7) makes the computer almost totally invisible to the user.
Each version of OAS gets rid of more and more of the computer, and the next version will probably banish the computer from the user completely. (This last statement is an educated guess, I have no inside knowledge)
The future certainly looks bright.

Lionstracs
You are correct about the Jack system for the Mac and Linux, which gives a lot more flexibility then Windows, however as the Jack system is also under development for Windows, the advantage may not be there for much longer. (Vista also has more advanced Audio drivers, even though in its current form the rest of the OS is a bit of a disaster)
We will have to wait and see what the future brings

Bill

Personally, I think that for anything other than drums, elastic audio is a HUGE step backwards for arranger users.

The main problem, as I see it, is that there needs to be an audio loop for every conceivable chord type you could possible play, which is just not currently available. Sure, Maj7ths, diminished, 7sus, etc. MAY be there, but what are you going to do when you play a chord that ISN'T in the set?

Currently, most TOTL arrangers are capable of recognizing and playing some pretty whacked out extensions, which if you play jazz (or just want to get weird!), you really need. Enter the 'live loop' player, and poof! There go all those delicious chords. Try playing some Gilberto, or Jobim and Stan Getz, and weep as the guitar track plays simple chords instead of what you tell it to...

And forget inversions, slash chords, passing chords, all those things that the arranger in it's current MIDI form CAN do, but elastic audio, that can only change the tempo or key of a chord recording CAN'T. And forget about editing the style, or creating your own.

Once again, we see an attempt to make the arranger SONICALLY better, but less responsive to the actual input of the musician. Not really what I was hoping for...

Where's the Guitar Mode? Where's the Bass Mode? Where's the Piano Mode? Having these kinds of tools, that make an algorithmical attempt to emulate REAL playing in response to where on the keyboard you play, how hard you hit the keys, what tempo you are playing at, how busy you are playing, will always give a more satisfying experience to the player and listener, than audio loops of pre-canned playing, that totally ignore what YOU are doing other than what chord you are playing (as long as it is in its' limited chord repertoire).

Guitar Mode on the Korg is revolutionary. It is one of the first things on arrangers to make an attempt at figuring out what a real player would play in a dynamic situation, not just one chord at a time. THIS is the technology that I wish arranger manufacturers and programmers would pursue.

Imagine a Piano Mode where you didn't get those weird jumps from one chord to another, as it simply figured out how to revoice the chord to blend smoothly with the previous chord (something we all do ourselves all the time). Imagine horn sections and string sections that did the same intelligent voice leading (something that some of them can already do on single note lines).

Revoicing chords to avoid unnatural jumps is something that could be achieved quite soon. But only if we stay away from seductive dead-end streets like 'live loop' technology, and concentrate more on making the auto players more life-like.

Guitar Mode from Korg is the start. Who will carry it on...

There's a reason that a TOTL arranger like the Tyros 2 has all those little "paint-by-numbers" graphics of all the drums painted under the keys. For a professional musician, that's like Artur Rubinstein playing with one of those note templates overlaying the keyboard of his Steinway. Sorry Diki, but MUSICALLY (and technically), the majority of arranger players ARE morons. Don't believe it? Just look at how many post music that THEY think actually sounds good.

The big three; given their target market, they're just playing the hand they're dealt.

As for the "PRO's" that use arrangers (and they are DAMN few in number), their needs are always going to be secondary to the needs of the great majority who buy these instruments. Get used to it. For the true "geeks" among us, get a Mediastation. The big three knows that you constitute only about 1% of it's customer base, so your needs and wants will go into the "circular file" (uh, that's trash can, in case you don't work in an office environment).

As much fun as an arranger is (there is nothing in my studio that I enjoy more) and as useful as it can be as a compositional tool and musical sketchpad, I just don't believe that they were ever intended or designed to be, professional instruments. I believe they are the modern-day Thomas's and Lowerys and Wersi's. You never (well, hardly ever) saw those things in the clubs....and it wasn't the weight either, as B3's or C3's or A100's could be spotted practically anywhere.

My prediction; ten years from now you will still be able to walk into the top 20 clubs in any major city and not find a single arranger keyboard. But I bet there'll be synths aplenty.

chas

There, I had my tea...mustn't rush these very serious posts.

Now...where was I?

Oh yes.

I agree with you, Chas.

Also, it's quite obvious that the Tyros2, the S900, the G70, the E-series the PA series are all HOME keyboards...they ALL have "easy play chords", "One Touch Settings", and "auto-accompaniment"...all features of HOME keyboards.

In my opinion, other than a VERY small percentage of pro users, the MAJORITY of arranger buyers just want to come after work, sit and play and get lost in some music...or have something to fill up their time after retirement....but, the main goal is to have FUN.

FUN sells...FUN is profit.

The big three know this and exploit it to the max...why wouldn't they?

Ian

Actually, I am STILL trying to point out that these 'under the hood' things that I've described are NOT 'pro' features. And, in fact, while the MS beavers furiously away to make the SOUND better in arrangers (a worthy enough goal), it's ARRANGER technology is no more sophisticated than a Casio (live loops aside).

It is actually the big bad three, for all your purported claim of dumb and dumber, that ARE introducing these new technologies... Guitar Mode on Korg (and to a lesser extent, Roland), Adaptive Chord Voicing on Roland's, SA voice technology from Yamaha. All of these use sophisticated technology that didn't exist three or four years ago, but to the user, it is transparent. Unless you want to edit it extensively (on the whole, unnecessary, IMO), it adds no more complication to selecting a style and playing as there ever was.

THAT is the ideal arranger technology... All you EVER do is play chords, and comp and solo with the RH (or both in Piano Mode). All these enhancements happen out of sight and mind, but simply add up to a more enjoyable, responsive musical experience. And THAT can be appreciated by any level of player, from the one finger wannabe's to the full-on pro.

Don't sell the majors short, or ourselves! If we really COULDN'T tell the difference, or cared that little, we WOULD still be playing Thomas's and Elka's...

In 10 years I'll be using my old Roland Jupiter 6 and 8 and Roland JX3P as well as the latest keyboard/synth on the market. You gotta keep up with the times, but also keep up with the past. Long live analog, but the future is clearly digital, it's been digital for 20 years already.... now its time for new input devices, not just a keyboard but some other types of interfaces to control the sound.

Its not always the big 3 that produce the innovations in arrangers, (The Wersi OAA (Open Art Arranger) is probably the most advanced arranger section out there, as well as being dead easy to use) but they are the only ones that have the finance and muscle to be able to set up mass production, so to provide thousands of dealers with products at relatively cheap prices. (Selling thousands of boards at cheaper prices soon pays off the R & D costs)
If Wersi had the same resources as the big 3 you would probably find their prices would easily undercut the big 3. (As well as being more advanced instruments)
Until then it’s a matter of staying with the higher end market. (Home users tend to have more disposable income the most musicians, which is why TOTL boards easily sell)
Enjoy Life, Play a Wersi.

Bill

Anyway back to the original thread which asks what we will be playing in 10 years, rather then what’s available today?
Mine will probably still be the Abacus with whatever OAS version is available at that time.
One thing is certain, the future looks bright

Bill

An Abacus is basically computer based, isn't it?

So think about a ten year old computer... How many of us are attempting to run contemporary VSTi's on a ten year old computer. Even with upgrades, no ten year old computer that I am aware of is capable of running the latest things out there. Yet alone several at a time.

And no matter HOW powerful any current system is, I guarantee that in ten years time, they will be writing software instrument programs that can't be run on it. How about Vista? That working OK on Abacus's yet...? because, in ten years time, even that will be outdated, and yet probably doesn't run even on contemporary Wersi's. (And will be needed to run any forthcoming VSTi's developed in the Vista environment)

The Synclavier and Fairlight showed many people that if you hitch your wagon to a VERY expensive computer-based engine, within a decade or so, you have a VERY expensive doorstop (or at least, an instrument that is no more capable than when bought)...! If you wish to chase the elusive butterfly of technology, staying with a computer is going to be the least expensive AND most forward looking way of doing it. I'd rather replace a $2k computer every three or four years, that be saddled with a $20k arranger that can't be upgraded to modern standards (whatever THAT will be in ten years time!).

And, once again, we are talking about SONIC improvements, NOT arranger ones. Pardon my ignorance (not exactly a plethora of information about Wersi's in English on the web), but what ARRANGER improvements are there in Wersi's? Are there more variations and fills than a T2 or G70? Is there a Guitar mode, like Korg? Any kind of intelligent revoicing technology? Does the Wersi interpret how you play chords and solos to vary the backing any better than any other arranger? Does it, in fact, have ANY arranger feature not already on the big three? Variable swing? Half time and double time buttons?

THOSE are what I'm talking about, not running the same old, same old through better and better quality sounds... Hopefully, ten years from now, we will have got over our fixation with sounds, and start to realize that the TRUE source of enjoyment is not in the 'ultimate' piano sound or drum kit, but with artificial players that respond in natural, musical ways to your input, not in the short snippety, wild jumpy, 'the only thing you can do is tell us the chords' fashion we now have.

When you play with REAL musicians, the ones you always remember the best and look forward to playing with the most are the ones that LISTEN... To you, and to the others around them. Until arrangers start to LISTEN to us better, and vary their accompaniment in response, sonic improvements only accentuate the difference between the quality of the sound, and the lack of 'quality' in the actual PLAYING.

JMO, yada yada yada....

Hi Diki
Computers are just a motherboard, CPU, Ram and Hard Disk and so can easily be upgraded to the latest spec, in fact OAS 7 will not run on the earlier OAS instruments as they are just not powerful enough, (They also ran on WIN 98) and this is why it cost a little bit more to upgrade for older uses, as the computer parts and OS have to be upgraded.

As to Vista, Wersi are no doubt experimenting, but I have to say the current version of Vista is a bit of a disaster. (Certainly not worth upgrading from XP yet)

Wersi owners have been pushing Wersi to get all there information in English for a while now, and they did promise at the Pakefield Festival that they would be addressing this problem, so hopefully it will be easier to find out details in the future.

OAA
As far as fills/breaks etc are concerned, if I have interpreted the German manual correctly (Fortunately it has screenshots in it) the styles can be broken up into 18 different parts in various combinations.

Chord recognition system algorithms are also way in advance of other manufactures instruments, plus many other features unique to Wersi are incorporated. (With still more under development) Unfortunately most people always seem to mention the direct play of Yamaha styles, (Which actually sound more live then the originals due to a better sound system) when in actual fact it is only a Small part of the OAA.

BTW Did you know that Wersi were one of the first manufactures to incorporate a Humaniser function on their Rhythm and Accompaniment units fitted to their organs in 1984.
Enjoy whatever you play

Bill

As an addition here is the manual for the OAA, unfortunately still in German but with plenty of Screenshots which should give you some idea. (The manual is for Revision R17, however the latest OAA (OAS7) version is R22 and so there are additional new features that are not included in the manual)
http://download.yousendit.com/7CA6CA4C1F7AE461



[This message has been edited by abacus (edited 10-14-2007).]

My very first synth was a JX3P...

Ah, the memories!

It's not that way now, and chances are - it's be more lopsided in favor or arrangers tehn. Just watch !

Chas, I'm sorry but this smacks of musical snobbery to me. As long as arrangers have been around there has been this fear that they somehow negate the skill of percieved 'real' musicians.

It amazes me how many musicians have this real fear that should the label on their board read Tyros instead of Motif or PA instead of Triton it takes away something from their own musical ability, or worse still is seen as a 'cop out' by their peers.

It is not the silly graphics above the keys or the lack of depth and 'tweakiness' that prevents arrangers being seen in more of your top 20 clubs, it is musicians who would rather miss out on the technology and options that modern TOTL arrangers offer than have anyone in any doubt about their abilities to do it for 'real'

I must have spent a massive part of my teens practicing my scales at the behest of a dragon in the guise of a sweet old piano teacher. Of course now I am glad I was subjected to such torture....but I certainly don't think that this makes me any more of a musician than someone who learns chords and has only ever played an arranger. In fact there are many people I know who had no formal musical training who could whoop my proverbial on anything with keys.

I have never understood why someones musicianship is somehow related to their choice of instrument, and why these petty distinctions are made only by fellow musicians. Surely it is the creation of music that matters, not what we create it on?

My first 'arranger' was a very basic casio. It was basic because that is all you could get then, I saved my paper round money for months to get it. It made music come alive for me after years of doing it 'for real' in the dragons den! When I was done with this 'toy' I passed it on to my mates little brother who had never shown the slightest interest in music, or instruments of any description. He just thought it was cool. These days he is a session musician and probably one of the best pianists I have ever heard.

David Bowie was performing on TV a couple of years ago and in an instrumental part of his song he picked up a Stylophone (remember them?) and used it.

My point is that it should be less about the tools and more about the music. Anything that inspires people to create music should be welcomed and not feared by those who think that a few bells and whistles challenge their own abilities.

Ten years time?.....we will still be having the same discussion because human beings have a desperate need to promote their own skills and abilities by trampling on those of their fellows.

Apologies for the verbose post. Bet you wish I had stayed in lurkers corner now
Best wishes
Tony x

Good quality Instructional Tutorial DVDs on all KB features, education is key

We may be on holograms by then Donny Imagine, a virtual tutorial arriving on disc, ready to pop into your holo player and away you go! You could look over his/her/it's shoulder and not have to rely on the sometimes dubious angle's chosen by the video director!

-------------------------------------------

It's musical snobbery because I said I didn't think arrangers were intended as a "pro" instrument? It's my opinion, nothing more, or am I not entitled to have one? Would a musical snob own TWO (Tyros2 and PA1x pro)? I just don't (or wouldn't) use them to gig with. Not flexible enough for the type of music I do. That's the reason, pure and simple. If that makes me a snob, what can I say. I don't sing and I enjoy playing with other musicians; I don't do OMB gigs (don't have the requisite skills for that) and my preferred instrument is the organ (followed by piano). I would feel uncomfortable (in public) sounding like a complete band when the audience can plainly see that I could not possibly be playing all these parts. This does not make me a snob. It makes me someone who plays in an environment that I feel comfortable with. I think I'm allowed to do that without having to feel guilty about it. Different strokes for different folks. I belong to this forum because I am totally intrigued by arrangers. What I do with them and how I perceive them is my business alone and I don't think I should be called on the carpet because my opinion doesn't happen to be the same as yours.

-------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------

Depends on how you define musician. In my mind it absolutely makes you more of a musician; not necessarily more talented, but definitely more of a musician.

-------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------

It's not. If you suck on one instrument, you'll likely suck on another.

-------------------------------------------



-------------------------------------------

And does he still play arrangers? On sessions?

------------------------------------------




------------------------------------------

Where and at what point did I indicate that I feared arrangers. If that were the case why would I have the wretched things in my house?

--------------------------------------------




-------------------------------------------

Could you point out examples of that my posts. The larger question is; why are you so defensive? And why me? Others have expressed the same sentiment.

-------------------------------------------
Best wishes
Tony x [/B][/QUOTE]

Tony, since this was directed at me, I have to assume that the "Best wishes" is said with a bit of sarcasm. That's okay. I sometimes do the same. Rarely with strangers, but sometimes. In the meantime, lets not forget that it's all just opinion and we're all entitled to them.

Peace,

chas

Whoah.....Chas!

Slow it down a bit! I apologise if you took my post as being directly aimed at you, and no-one else.

Neither did I mean to infer that I had some kind of beef with you personally.

I was merely replying with my observations about an attitude that is prevelant and to which your post had alluded.

I used parts of your post (quoted) that seemed to me to highlight what I was talking about.....not particularly because you personally said them. I merely wanted to expand on what you said and opine my own view on the matter.

I certainly won't be drawn into any on board fighting on the matter, If you took my words as antagonistic and a personal affront then I apologise unreservedly. You are no less entitled to your opinion than I am to mine and I would be the last person to try to shout you down.

Maybe with hindsight I should have made the post more general and not preceded it with 'chas' ..... given that your comments had initiated my thought process I considered it warranted, I thought that is how conversation worked?

I stand by my original comments regarding this (as an attitude prevalent among musicians) which was my intention.

I did not think I was being defensive or even God forbid offensive...merely taking my turn in offering my opinion. I am more than a little surprised to see your response thus. I know very little about you, why would you leap to the conclusion I was berating you personally?

It seems to me that there is a tendancy here of late to look for the hidden agenda in any post. Let me make it clear so there is no confusion. I belong to no particular 'faction' on the zone, I won't judge anyone by anything other than their own words or actions and I certainly won't be drawn into silly playground fights. I have no agenda.

Hell fire, now even I am wishing I stayed in lurkers corner. This place is a minefield!

My best wishes were meant sincerely btw and still stand :P
Tony

Sorry Tony, no minefield here. I believe it was YOU that started your post with "Chas, this (your post) smacks of musical snobbery". If any mines were laid, I believe that was the defining moment. On this board, if you choose to name names, followed by re-interpreted quotes, you can expect to get a response. If you are a long-time lurker, you should know that. Very nice bit of spinning, though (in your last post), to cast me in the role of the bad guy and you (and all arranger players) as the injured party. Not difficult at all, as I already have a dedicated cast of boo-birds. I really liked the part about being dragged into a fight and threatening to go back to lurkersville.

Here's a tip. Got an opinion, express it. You don't need to re-write my script to conjur up support for your point of view. You're a very articulate guy and have obviously learned a lot about the art of spin (been listening to the Republican debates? ), and your protestations of innocence will play well with many on this board; however, there are also a few very bright guys that also reside on the premises who will perceive this whole situation accurately.

chas

Oh dear
So be it. My apology still stands if you were offended.

As for your 'tip' to express my opinion I was under the impression that my doing exactly that is what annoyed you in the first place?

It seems a touch paranoid to me that you read so much into my posts. Your determination to make it into some kind of issue 'there are bright guys who reside here who will read this for what it really means' (forgive the paraphrasing) makes your own motives rather suspect in my opinion.

Mind you as my old Gran used to say " Just because you are paranoid does not mean the buggers ain't out to get you"

regards

Tony

Here we go again...

Within 10 years the arranger will probably still have the same buttons/sliders/keys or whatever, but the contents will be quite different. Probably only O/S + mainboard, processers, ram and audio card.
All the rest will be software instead of hardware, which basicly means that your arranger keyboard changed from arranger to controller keyboard.

The reason is obvious. It's much cheaper so commercially very interesting.

Fred

Mind you, most old Grans are crazy as a hoot. I'd take what she says with a grain of salt.

Tony, as much fun as this has been, it's time to put it to bed. See you and your arranger in Carneigie Hall (sp).

chas

Freddy,
I certainly think it would be wonderful if your vision of the future were to materialise. I used to think it would never happen,that the big guys had too much invested producing hardware arrangers to see them diversifying much into software options. Then TC Helicon offered their voice modelling technology as a software option and I realised that there was more incentive for manufacturers to offer this. Less overheads and a retail price that was not much different to the hardware option.

I suppose it will take one of the big three to make the first move and offer a software option of their current TOTL arranger and then the gloves will be off. Imagine you could buy the keybed of your choice as a controller and wham in the latest and greatest of the software arrangers at will.

You could get to choose your keys, screen, mic inputs, on board FX ....heck the possibilities are endless.

If that is how the future is I can't wait
Best wishes
Tony

[This message has been edited by Tony W (edited 10-14-2007).]

I agree we should leave this be. Hopefully when you get to know me you will realise that there was truly no malice intended in my post. As for seeing me in Carneigie Hall, I fear I am ill equipped for the gig. Emptying the hall.....now maybe

Tony

So much of the reason for arrangers getting the thumbs down from session pros is the deliberate dumbing down of the feature set, IMO.

Roland use a Fantom engine, Korg use a Triton, Yamaha... not sure if the engine is Motif based, but many of the samples sure are. But where they diverge is the depth of control. Zone ranges... Most workstations make no rules to follow. Any Part can play any range of keys, or velocity range, or a combination of both. Arrangers.. Fixed assignments to Upper, Lower, MBS, sometimes a third split. But nowhere NEAR the flexibility of their WS cousins.

You can't blame the engine. It's well capable of any of this. It's the software, the assumption that, if we get enough choice, it will confuse us. As if getting into the depths of TVNs and Style editing isn't complex enough already...! These arbitrary choices you are forced to make on arrangers, effects routing, zone ranges, tone editing, even patch storage and recall, etc., etc., are most likely the reason many pros eschew arrangers.

Shame, really, as very little needs to be added in the way of OS improvements to compete with workstations. But, of course, therein lies the problem. If arranger capabilities WERE grafted onto full WS OSs, that would be the end of the WS as we know it. And profits stay high when we are forced to buy TWO different products to do two jobs, rather than making one capable of both. Money, pure and simple.

Mind you, the last couple of sessions I've been on, I've taken my G70 in to do piano parts, rather than use the Kurzweil K2500X in the studio. That piano is so warm and intimate, on the right material, it is giving even the Steinway a run on a few tracks (we have a 1928 baby Steinway). And on live call gigs (no idea what we will play) I'll take the G70 over my K2500 simply because it is easier to call up sounds and effects for splits and layers in a hurry. If I have a lot of time to prepare for a show, then probably the K2500 gets the edge. But for fast and simple meat and potatoes, the G70 can't be beat.

But I sure wish it had MORE flexibility, and editing depth, and I might be able to let the K2500 go... Nah! I still need a great sampler and some whacked out sounds from time to time (two of it's strengths)...