There are some songs I like using SMF to get the perfect NON repetitive sound that most styles give you. To me as a singer its like playing with a real band where I'm the KB player. Lets you play with two hands also if needed. Of course there are pros & cons but mixing it up makes you very flexible & less repetitive. Your thoughts?
But If I went more SMF I would have to use a Roland KB they do it the best. Although I enjoy styles & sound play....My S900 is less then efficient in the SMF playback mode for many reasons, hand claps, excessive reverb, navigation, editing on the fly etc etc...in a live situation.



[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 05-13-2008).]

There's no doubt that using SMFs gives a more realistic interpretation of the music - if that's what you're looking for. And Roland's COVER feature makes adjusting instruments in an SMF even easier and can make the midi file even more life-like. Having owned Y's, K's and R's I agree with
Donny that Roland is probably the easiest to work with SMFs.

As always, the major limitation to SMFs is the format and length. But most of the newer file players permit marking, jumping and looping of files so that playing extended or abbreviated versions is easier.

I also feel SMF are more for singers than instrumentalists. With the chords structured just like the record, it's sometimes harder to do instrumental solos because the comping chords are missing.

I never use SMF for arranger gigs, preferring the control of playing my own chords, and changing style variations when I want.

I do use SMF (my own) at home for practising my combo chops whilst using my P85 piano.

I'll sometimes use them on arranger clinics, to demo the fact they can be used in a performance.

I agree with Cassp in that they are more suited for singers than instrumental players.

Ian

I mix in some of the better SMF files when singing, and playing over them. One reason I bought the Roland G70, was for it's excellent handling of midi.

Before that, I used to use my lap top with an Echo sound card, and Notation Composer(MidiNotate). I would arrange the file as a lead sheet with chords, mute the parts I played, and read right off the laptop.

Both ways have advantages and drawbacks. I think a mixture adds interest.

Bernie

I try to be as diverse as possible

Basicaly i still use styles, because they are very versatile in repeating chorusses and so

But when playing piano most of the time i only use background drums.

Sometimes i play along midi files or even audio tracks or Instrumental MP3 files

I even have some performances where i use a drum beat and use some arpegiator..

And i am planning on adding a lot of knobs and pads to my setup that would allow for a more Deejay like style....

I like to be as versatile as the music i like to play.

Which is enjoyable for me, being a piano player. However, playing over a SMF can sound very busy, depending on the SMF. In most cases, I'll strip much of what's there, often leaving only drums, bass, and perhaps chording guitar.

Two additional advantages, IMO, is having the freedom to keep my left hand on the pitch and mod wheels for sax and guitar solos. Also, spending less time looking for and punching buttons means better interacting with my audience.

Glenn

The nice feature on Qranger is also to use it for play standard midifiles/audiofile BUT with included up to 32 markers pointer: http://www.lionstracs.com/demo/qranger/Qrangermarkers.jpg

in this way you can LOOP some parts of the midifile/audio/mp3 like in one arranger system.

After we have loaded one media file on the session, we can just add the marker pointer where we like and save the session.
The Mediastation qranger engine will reload the same session like a normally styles, BUT under this way will be alble only to jump to the 32 markers, global transpose and global BPM change.
This is also a nice DJ GROOVE BOX features that a lot of DJ ask us, just for import some Mp3 files and loops the parts how they like.

With this features believe me that playing normally midistyles will be really so boring, the problem is that your keyboards there can not offer this features and then you have to use forever the styles only.
Pity..but maybe someday they will add this amazing features too.
enjoy what you play

Hehe

I am currently building a linux box (Pc) just to test out the linux giga sampler and Qtractor..

And to see if i can get some other musicall stuff working under linux (live-styler, fruity loops and some vst's)

Sure the mediastation is the most versatile music workstation, but it isn't finished yet... But when you can get the Q-ranger to play styles of equall quallity or better then simple hardware keyboards you have a true inspirator...


The mediastation tough misse one thing to become the most awesome deejay station, and that is knobs and pads....

[This message has been edited by Bachus (edited 05-13-2008).]

I have 20 or so midis I use and play on top of them. A few like the original recordings of Ray Charles, Steve Tyrell, Sinatra and a few others.

I hadn't done any in a while, but I have edited them in an old version of Cakewalk. For example: Turned the volume down on the lead part or deleted it. Turned the volumn up on some parts and down or others etc. I even copied and pasted a section or two somewhere along the line to make the tune longer.
I have them on my HD on the i30 and play them through it. Georgia, I Can't Get Started, That's all, The Way You Look Tonight really get the peoples attention where I play.

Donny gave me some of these. Donny send some more friend please.

Donny you are absolutely right about mixing it up. I do that with some SMF's. I also take others into the studio and record background vocals over them I've even been known to use a couple of MP3's now and then. For instance, tonight I did a Senior Citizen prom in an upscale retirement complex. There was a large crowd of all ages from high school up to the seniors. I put on the Cha Cha Slide, and Cotton Eyed Joe as well as performing the electric slide and other line dances I do and you couldn't move on the dance floor it was so crowded. You've got to use every tool at your command to make it happen.

Ciao,

Joe

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

Joe sounds exactly what I did last month at a big High School here in NJ Senior prom with real Seniors . You HAVE TO have a packed tool box to Get Er Dun!!!...as for everything else you mentioned what can I say?....

GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE

Boo......let me delve into my resources stay tuned buddy!

DP

Just try to remember one thing... playing over an SMF does NOT mean necessarily playing over a commercial SMF. You don't HAVE to sound just like the original (and probably even the original artist doesn't perform the tune EXACTLY like the single)...

One of the best things that SMFs can do is to make your styles even more realistic. The nature of arrangers is that repetition thing... Same bassline for each variation, same fills for each transition, same horn licks in the second chorus as the first. But if you make your OWN SMFs from the arranger's output (so essentially, you are getting what you WOULD play if you were still in arranger mode), but then go the extra mile, and edit the SMF to help get rid of the repetition, and give it a bassline that sometimes moves in the direction of the NEXT chord change (something no arranger can do - anticipate a change), fills that are non-repetitive, etc., etc., you gain a backing that is NOT just a copy of the record, it is still your own creation.

Add to that the ability to play at least TWO parts at a time yourself on top of that backing (you've got two hands, don't you? ), so less need for automated parts at all, and you get something that the audience will definitely notice is more live, more PLAYED, than just sitting there inputting the same old changes over and over again while you bang out the melody with your RH.

Even though the backing is initially derived from the arranger output, you have knocked the sharp corners off the machine-like nature of it, and increased your degree of involvement in the final sound. Now take Mark/Jump abilities into consideration, and you have back a large degree of the arranger strength of re-ordering the sections.

And one last thing. Make the registration include the Link to the SMF, and also the original style it was derived from, and midway through the SMF, or at the end to extend or segue into another tune, you can simply stop the SMF and sync-start the arranger (some arrangers do this seamlessly, others simply need practice to do it manually, but it CAN be done), and carry on in the usual fashion.

Just don't get the fixed idea that SMF's ALWAYS have to be commercial files, and ALWAYS have to sound just like the record, and ALWAYS have to have too many parts.

They can be, if you let them, be just as distinctive and unique as your arranger playing, and if you use them to free your LH from the tyranny of inputting the same chords over and over again (I'm sorry, but I see few here with the ability to reharmonize a tune on the fly, from what I've heard -at least intentionally! ), you can at least DOUBLE the amount of music that YOU are playing (not the machine), and that is something the audience WILL notice, being different every night...

Diki
That's a great post.
Thanks
Bernie

Well said Diki.

It's funny, but what you suggested (using SMFs created from your own modified arranger styles) I actually use for songwriting - I mean, that's WHY I use arrangers (as opposed to Synths/Workstations).

Live, I use SMFs (from so many different sources - free "off the net" (but ALWAYS modified/tweaked/stripped by myself), Pro files, and Custom made sequences occasionally written by myself, because whilst I agree with the "SMFs are mainly for singers statement" - we're Singers first, instrumentalists second - we are also very much a "Dance Act" and all the dancers we play to almost invariably practice with the original recordings, so SMFs/MP3s of those original recordings from the specific artists required, help beginner dancers, intermediate, (and even advanced) do their (sometimes complex and meticulous) routines perfectly.

Just another way to look at the reasoning behind using SMFs.

I really think that arrangers are by far the easiest way to START making music, but SMF's are the way to polish it off. Until that repetitive thing is dealt with, I always feel I am playing with a machine, but as soon as you go into the derived file, and start to mess things up a bit, suddenly it starts to sound like music that people played, not a machine...

People are FAR more aware of mechanicalness of music than you give them credit for. No matter how untrained, most people's ears can distinguish when a section of music is just a cut and paste repeat, and not an actual 'replaying' it a second time. Once you edit the arranger's output so you get this impression, things start to feel a LOT more like playing in a real band... Whether for original music OR for cover tunes.

Arrangers give the jumping off point, but they aren't the finishing line

Now this would be an interesting meeting session. In addition to get-together jams, an educational workshop on just how to do these type things would be GREAT. There's simply not enough support hands-on support for the consumer that explore all that can be accomplished.

zuki

Zuki......aside from instructional DVDs which are hard to find due to the lack of manufacturers who dont want you to learn your unit "in depth" because then you wouldn't move on to the next so fast which in turn = less money for them. So instead we have to hope that some dedicated players or third party people are willing to put in their time & efforts to produce DVDs for certain units & hope you can get something out of them.

Some great thoughts here, let me add mine.

With my KN7000 I would alter the style variations, intros and endings to my taste. I am having a bit of difficulty doing that on my S900.

Having a noticeable changes in the variations and then having 4 custom pads to add, (again made to my taste) I feel the boredom is gone. What is left is my left hand, full chords and my right hand --- and my ability to make the changes on the fly.

I change the bass lines, volumes and sometime the drums. It only becomes boring when I am boring. Or when I am not sure of the song I am playing – my concentration is diverted to finger and melodies and searching. When I edit the variations I picture what a live band sounds like when they change from mood to mood, it can be interesting.

This does not put down playing along with midi files, it’s just another approach to making music.

John C.

John the lack of "EASY" flexible editing regarding interchangeability within styles, variations, Intro/Endings parts has always been something that holds a player back from his creative juices flowing to the best of his/her ability to really make an arranger their own. Each company just gives you a mere few features to wet your whistle but always omits a few so you always need more. IMO Roland has the most to offer regarding this, eg: makeup tools are the best Ive used so far,easy & precise. Style are the engine of an arranger and being able to manipulate & FULLY Edit them in any way possible to achieve your goals is a major factor that needs to be addressed & included in future units.
Cut, paste, record style parts in an on-board simpler fashion needs to be added with FULL DVD instructional volumes in all levels. Otherwise its business as usual, bad manuals, lack of players needs, and buying & selling year after year.



[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 05-21-2008).]

Donny, thanks for your impute. Getting away from Technics after 14 years has been a major move. Before I make a move to a Tyros 3 I will check Roland for the features you mentioned.

John C.

John your very welcome ....good luck to you.

Sorry, guys, but I have never had a DVD to learn from about any of this stuff. Somehow, I haven't turned it into an excuse not to try, and to not teach myself.

Sure, the first few times aren't going to produce much of any quality. Remember piano lessons (if you took them)? You didn't sound that good back then either. But it got better didn't it?

There are a plethora of resources on the web, and plenty of books on how to use MIDI sequencers. Manufacturer websites, third party instruction, software forums, you name it. How much time do you spend at them? Expecting the manufacturers to spoon feed it to you is unrealistic. This is YOUR job, not theirs.

How many of you are so computer phobic, you don't even HAVE a MIDI sequencer? Or a computer based DAW..? From all the enthusiasm that greets utterly lame on board keyboard versions of these, I would say a lot... And yet, here you are, posting on the WWW, on a forum, getting your email, doing your taxes, downloading stuff from YouTube, the iTunes store, whatever...

Put that determination into learning a decent sequencer, RTFM (most of you wouldn't even NEED a DVD if you just did this AS YOU ARE TRYING THINGS OUT), and the whole concept of editing your arranger's MIDI output to get rid of the bloody repetitiveness of it would be a snap.

But refusing to even try because your arranger manufacturer doesn't make a DVD (that you will outgrow in a week) smacks of defeatism.

JUST DO IT! ?

Diki easier said then done....

there are many levels of knowledge here regarding arranger keyboards NO ONE knows it all.....some are experts in playing, others aren't that good of a player at but are technical wizards for the tweaking & editing. To say we dont need instructional DVDs or anything else that can help an individual learn more is silly. Its only a plus....Everyone needs different things regarding their keyboard & uses it as such.
I have been playing arrangers since day one....many have had a Sampler, I have never needed or even know how to use one....so what? Out of all the features you can pick & choose what YOU need for your needs. Self taught, or manuals, taught by someone, or DVDs who cares.....the more we have available the better I say.

carry on

RTFM...

Isn't everything?

Whether you get it done or not depends on how much you want to do it. Want to learn to ride a bicycle? You get on the bicycle, fall off the bicycle, get back on the bicycle, sooner or later you are riding. No-one gives you a DVD.

Want to learn to program your own styles, or edit an arranger SMF? Same system. Yes, you use what is available, but when nothing is available, you teach yourself. Or you don't learn.

It's up to you...