Hi Squeak,
I'm probably diversifying from what you're trying to say, but do you use the style blocks in your xg works.
To me even though they're based on an arranger concept, they're still blocks that can be chained together to form a song. ie if you used the styles from your psr or actually created your own, as style blocks within xg works, ie just say you did the chord progression, then the style progression ( intro variations fills etc )then when you finish that, you expand the arrangement into individual tracks and do the further editing that you require to get the song right.

The last synth I owned many years ago was the Korg o1w Workstation. Since then I've pretty much had arrangers. I haven't checked out the latest synths ie motiff etc, just in case I get tempted.
I only just got my xg works a couple of weeks ago, so I may sound a bit too enthusiastic about the program. It's just that I hated the sequencer in my 9000 pro , and this program has allowed me to create and edit backing tracks from the pro's internal styles so easily.

best wishes
Rikki

I sometimes use the pattern chaining function on the Motif, mostly for drum parts. Unless I'm doing a synth oriented tune, in which case this doesn't matter to me, I generally do the rest of the stuff I want in real time because I don't want repetitive sounds. I would rather add my realtime playing nuances. Otherwise, to get a piece to sound less mechanical, I'll need to edit the resulting files afterward, including changing and varying note lengths, velocities, timing ( placement of notes ), etc, and I find it to be faster to just play the piece, and then if I need to edit at all, the amount of editing is a lot less than I would do when trying to "humanize" a pattern produced bass line, rythym.. etc. I don't use all of the power ( features ) of the Motif, but some of the features that are helpful to me are not available on my arrangers. These include the pattern chaining function, the real time ( and fully programmable ) knobs, sliders, pedals, and mod wheel, sampling functions, access ( slots ) for plug-ins, arrpeggios ( including user ), and easy to understand / use, but deep synth editing power. The key feel here is also a big plus for me.

In the PA80, you can really "pattern chain " too, by mixing and matching various style parts and editing them in it's excellent pattern sequencer, along with adding some of your own playing if you wish. The step record function ( for the song sequencer ), finishes the job for me. Pretty much the same with the PSR2000, except that it's voice set ( internal sounds ) is the least favorite of my three boards. One nice thing that the 2k has that the PA80 doesn't are the programmable multi pads, which can be used like "arps" ). The PA80 has them, but they are limited to pressing and getting one sound at a time ( or they can be used to change controller data ), rather than having the ability to play a loop of midi data as the 2000's do. Of course the 2000 allows for user multipads too.. ( the PA80 does not )

I remember too from my M1 days, that it didn't have much internal seqeuncer memory. Using and "chaining" drum patterns allowed for the use of substantially less memory than laying each individual note.

AJ