Basic Style Structure Potencial Comparation.

*CV=Chord Variation

1.X1 DRUM/BASS/ACC1-5/GROOV
3INTRO/4MAIN/3FILL/BREAK/3ENDING
2 CV INTRO/ENDING
3 CV MAIN
3 CV FILL/BREAK
36 DIFFERENT RIFFS
2.ROLAND ALL MODEL
DRUM/BASS/ACC1-6
2INTRO/4MAIN/4FILL/2ENDING
3 CV FOR ALL PARTS
36 DIFFERENT RIFFS
3.WK8 DRUM/BASS/ACC1-6
4INTRO/4MAIN/4FILL/4ENDING
3 CV FOR ALL PARTS
48 DIFFERENT RIFFS
4.PA80
DRUM/PERC/BASS/ACC1-5
2INTRO/4MAIN/2FILL/2ENDING
2 CV FOR INTRO/FILL/ENDING
6 CV FOR MAIN
36 DIFFERENT RIFFS
5.KN6000
DRUM/BASS/ACC1-6
2INTRO/4MAIN/2FILL/2ENDING
NO CHORD VARIATION
6.PSR9000
DRUM/PERC/BASS/CHORD1,2/PAD/PHRASE1,2
3INTRO/4MAIN/4FILL/BREAK/3ENDING
NO CHORD VARIATION


My opinion:

I perchase arranger keyboad because
autoacompany capacity. I think Chord Variation is most important feature of arranger keyboad.
SOLTON/ROLAND/GEM/KORG has this feature.

ROLAND established ther 8 tracks, 12 parts, 3 Chord Variation style structure in old E series, And aply for all ROLAND model.
Therefore, vast original styles are freely disponivel for all model.
Recently, Solton/Technics/Korg changing to 8 track too.

With Chord Variation, arranger can play complete different riffs following chord input. Only hardware arranger can offer this wonderfull capacity. Software arranger can't.

YAMAHA SFF has not real Chord Variation Capacity, SFF use one source riff, Seaquense change only adapting chord input.
Cheap Soft arranger (ex.Music Companion) can do this type of style.
I think this is a reason why SFF sound very simple. It is SFF's potencial limit.

I like YAMAHA sound quality, but never change my EM-50 or GEM WK2 to PSR9000.
EM-50's or WK2 's well created chord variation style is wonderfull, and can't expect this type of style with PSR.

YAMAHA has great marketing and tecnology.
YAMAHA got great success with new PSR, but
I think YAMAHA shall change SFF.

** In detail, SFF can use some tracks for Chord Variation, bur yet very limited.

** Thanks to great contribution of EMC Style Works, we can compare style structure and style quality of all model easily.

Riki

Very interesting analysis Riki!

It is also interesting that the companies that support dynamic arrangements also support chord variation, but do not support pianist mode (according to reports).

It would also be interesting to find out which arrangers recognize what chord forms.

Clif

[This message has been edited by Clif Anderson (edited 11-28-2000).]

Hi Clif,

You mentioned that:

It is also interesting that the companies that support dynamic arrangements also support chord variation, but do not support pianist mode (according to reports).

"Pianist mode" - Do you mean the "rootless" chord recognition mode mentioned by Scott Yee?

Paul Ip
from Texas

Hi Clif

Other point.

OK,Roland/Solton/Korg/Gem has Chord Variation.

But very difficult to encounter one style created using max hardware potencial.

I have vast style collection of Roland, Korg....
But a few has main part riffs variation.
Possibly, makers not using much energy for style creation.
Korg can create 6 variation for main part !
I wonder if programmer use all hardware capacity to create one style, how musically wonderfull this style is !

Last year, this forum had crazy feever of "Jammer Live", inovative software arranger because "real time random riffs feature", "open arquitecture" etc. But, nobody following this new tecnology.

I think in arranger keyboad area, user lacks capacity to follow tecnology advance.

Riki

Hi Paul

Yes, by "pianist" mode I mean Scott Yee's rootless chord recognition. I probably should have said it that way. As I understand it, only Yamaha and Technics support rootless chord recognition. These seem to be the same companies that come up short on chord variations and dynamic arranger functions.

As a side note, I have come to realize that Scott and I relate to keyboards very differently. Of course, he has skill and I do not, but that is not all. He has played in Jazz Trios with a bass and drums. When he plays an arranger, he wants to play piano as he does in the trio, and have the arranger play the other two parts. He plays one part and the arranger plays the other two parts.

My more limited musical background is folk guitar, mainly pattern picking. Obviously, I chord with the left hand, pick with the right, and sing. When I play an arranger keyboard, I think of my left hand as doing the chording, my right "sings" the melody, and the arranger does my right hand's old job of pattern picking. However, the arranger picks multitimbrally. I think of myself as playing all the parts, even though I could not do it physically. I control the bass line by using chord inversions. I never use rootless chords. (I am not saying I should not explore this, but this is not how I think.)

I am trying to think this through. At the moment, I think rootless chords are useful to someone who switches from arranger playing to trio playing and wants to play the same way in both cases. It seems to me I can use the same chords that Scott does, but just play the root and get the same sounds. On the other hand, I am not sure that a full keyboard mode without rootless chords makes much sense. I wonder if some of the information we collected was taken with keyboards in full keyboard mode. Maybe someone can help me see what I might be missing here.

Another factor in all this is the sophistication of the chord recognition system. In fingered mode, the 9000Pro recognizes 35 chord forms (counting root position only). It is hard to imagine a style with different riffs for each chord form, and maybe different riffs for each inversion of each chord. I am wondering whether the keyboards that provide for Chord Variation recognize as many different chords as the 9000Pro.

Clif

[This message has been edited by Clif Anderson (edited 11-29-2000).]

Clif,
There are many playing style options available when playing both acoustic piano as well as arranger keyboards. Playing rootless type chords is only "one" style I like to have at my disposal. I play this style (on my KN5000 arranger keyboard) when I want to play as the 'pianist' with the arranger supplying the auto-accomp rhythm section (drums, bass, etc). For other types of playing, I split the keyboard into two sounds (bass sound in the left hand and keyboard sound in the right hand) though still maintaining the entire keyboard for chord recognition (full keyboard mode). I then play chords in the right hand while my left hand lays down the bass line (similar to what Uncle Dave does) with the drums (rhythm section) only and/or with other instruments (minus bass) playing as the auto-accompaniment. Then there are the more traditional arranger keyboard playing method approaches. Each has its' strengths and weakness' but the wonderful thing is that every playing style offers something different. Having many styles of playing at your disposal only enhances the music. I come from the "less is more" school of music. I look at the backup arranger as just that, a backup for 'MY' LIVE playing & singing. I don't want to get bogged down with the details of the backup parts (such as different chord riffs for each different chord inversion of a given chord), afterall, I hope the audience came to hear me, not the arranger backup band (ha, ha, ha). In my opinion, the most important arranger keyboard function (which helps to make the backup band sound live and spontaneous) are the drum "fill" and "fill to" buttons. When used in the right places (via foot controller), it will greatly enhance the drummer's realism.

Make music and make people happy,

- Scott

Thanks Scott

I should have known that you are flexible enough to play many different ways.

The Korg i30 is much more advanced in this than the other arrangers. In here the profesionality is shown (along with 16 parts instead of Yamaha's 2!!).

Ilija

Ilija!!! Lightin' up with the I30 thing already!!! I just sold mine, had for a year and a half, enjoyed it! BUT IT IS NOT THE G-R-E-A-T-E-S-T Arranger in the world!!Woah?!?!

My opinion.
There are various discussion topics.
My principal interest is technical and hardware.
One of arranger keyboard�fs targets is human-like automatic back-up band.
Various approach:
 Style Structure
 Real audio integration
 Real-time control
 Sound sample reality
 Etc., etc.�c

In the style structure aspect;
Korg�fs more chord variation is unique
approach.
JammerLive�f random selectable multi riff
is very interesting.
Gem�fs more riffs is interest too, etc. etc.

But, there is no champion.

Long measure per riff ;
Korg and Gem specify max. 16 measures per
riff, but I am thinking it difficult to
compare because it depends on memory
capacity and style compression rate what
most makers not specify.

Sometime Korg has more than 16 measures
riff.
Soft developer of Korg seems creating
longer measure style than other maker.

To have all merits in one product is impossible. More hardware capacity means more product cost. User�fs feedback concern of musical effect / cost analysis of each approach is important.

In this discussion, top arrangers grouping possibility is very interesting.
I vote on Roland group chord variation capacity , because I can�ft use complicate chord or rootless chord play style.

Riki