Hi there

My name is Andy and I am a demosong maker.
I have watched with a certain masochistic horror at some of the comments concerning demosongs in recent posts and felt that it would be a good idea just to clarify a few things. I do this as an individual rather than on behalf of one of my clients - the locked post below is your point of reference, and in no way is representative of them, or their point of view.

Most demosongs are composed, programmed and performed by just me. On a lot of occasions they are edited by one of my best friends (he's better at it than I am). Most are played by me in realtime - Super Articulation Saxophone and Nylon guitar for example, occasionally something will be programmed only. I am given a "picture" or reference for what is considered the right direction and then I conjure up the piece. There is some back and forth discussion, sometimes there are complete rewrites. It is my job to deliver what my customer wants.

Sadly it is not a recording studio full of musicians - I would be very happy if it were - it is me and my imagination, a brief or specification, and the desire to try and make the instrument sound as realistic and inspirational for the buying customer as possible. This is quite a challenge but I think that I am getting a bit better at it now.

There are many retail outlets that are unable to provide staff with enough in-depth knowledge or skill to present a product as perhaps it might be shown to best effect, so it is the function of the Demo button to replace or enhance the face-to-face relationship. Lets face it, how many shops could afford Peter Baartmans or Michel Voncken on their books for 5 days a week?
Or even, how many Peters and Michels are there out there in the world?
(The answer is - less than 2)

I strive to deliver a piece of music that combines musical, arranging and programming integrity whilst achieving the desired effect specified by the client, just as I do when composing for TV, corporate functions or producing records. If you dislike the melody - fair enough - I am not a huge fan of Mahler myself. The aim is to make it sound as good as it can be. Do we not all strive for this everytime we turn on or tune up?

It is an immense privelege to be offered the opportunity to work with such great people as I do. The small team that I work with frequently go way beyond normal physical limits in order to get this stuff to you. If you saw it from my position at, say, 3 in the morning for the 4th straight week you would be as in awe of them as I am.

I hope this sheds a little light - I thought I would like to let some steam out of what appeared to be trench warfare - I can hopefully consider removing my flame resistant apparatus now and go back to work.

On an additional personal note, I had the further privelege of visiting Domenico at his Lionstracs factory in Italy a few years ago, and I can tell you, he is a real hero. With the resources he has to hand compared to the market leaders he is doing an incredible job.

Ciao Domenico

and peace to all you keyboard lovers out there

Hi Domenico,

Please tell us what demosongs (what brand(s)) are yours, just to listen at your tracks and have a clear view at your work.

Roel - if you press your T2 Demo button you will hear me several times

So Domenico are you currently working on Tyros 3 Demos...or others also....Like Roland?

I have not had the pleasure of working on a Roland Demo. It is not possible for me to discuss what I am doing presently - I just wanted to clear a few misconceptions about how Demos have been made in the past as there were some surprising things being stated that I felt needed more information.

I personally would rather hear demo songs on Kb's that reflect what a average player would be able to do on the KB in question versus some trumped up sounds & songs that were done in a studio that can never be replicated at home....its just more marketing HYPE to me. But thank you anyway for enlightening us on this topic.

Hi Dnj - thank you for your comments - I understand where you are coming from.

Thanks Domenico.... those sound great!

Domenic your very welcome.....btw can you share briefly the process for making these demos & gear used?

Hi Dnj

Basically as I mentioned above a discussion takes place concerning musical direction. Once agreed I turn to my trusty PC and Cubase (either SX3 or Cubase 4) and start to compose, looking at what keys are good for what instruments. If a theme is involved then it requires coming up with a piece that can be used in several ways for different instruments - a kind of Variations on a Theme approach.

For instance the T2 Nylon guitar Demo is all about what makes the guitar sing in the way it does - E min is usually a good key. I played it remembering the limitations of the source instrument and attemted to think in a guitar-like manner. As I play (the guitar)a little bit it is slightly easier to visualise what is valid - chords and inversions - and to try to emulate the behaviour of the real thing as accurately as possible. This approach is carried forward to everything else, whether it be Accordion, PanPipe or whatever. Understanding how the source instrument is played allows me to try and recreate that. Of course it's not perfect and the limitations of Midi mean finding odd solutions sometimes.

For programming Drums or Bass I had the privelege of working with some top class UK musicians in the 80s and 90s and so I try to think like them (or rather my memory of how I thought they played) mixed in with the many influences in my life - Drummers like Gadd, Weckl, Coliauta, Omar Hakim, Bass players like Nathan East, Jaco Pastorius and Marcus Miller, Piano players from Art Tatum through Duke Ellington, Oscar, Thelonius, Horace Silver, Elton, Bruce Hornsby, Keith Jarrett, Lyle Mays etc. Each has a definitive way of playing and articulating and as I am a kind of Musical "sponge" it all gets soaked up and spat out.

I spent a few years working on the first GM midifiles for Roland SC55 and Yamaha TG100 when the standard was invented and implemented, and as a consequence learnt to deconstruct records to their base elements in order to work out how they were put together, understanding the interactions between all the elements. This was an invaluable exercise, however it forever changed how I listen to music and as a result I find it very hard not to disassemble records when I listen to them. I find minor tuning discrepancies particularly painful.

Hope I am not waffling on too much. Thanks for letting me share.

Domenic thanx for sharing your experiences very very interesting indeed.....you certainly sound like you have it down pat now....besides Demos do you record music of your own?

Did you work with the guys I knew back then..? Eric Persing, Paul Youngblood, John Campbell, and Jim Mothersbaugh..

Which Demos on the T2 are yours and if you would be so kind please let us know how you recorded the demo's.

I had a band called "Paprika Soul" - you can find stuff for sale on Amazon - we released stuff from about 1993 to 2002. Sadly I never got paid so never mind, lesson learnt. I actually hardly have time for personal pursuits anymore as other than working looney hours I have been lucky to find true love and am also now the proud owner of a baby boy who has just discovered my leads box.

The next personal project will be for my wife - you can check out one of her songs which I produced for Sequel
http://www.sequel-music.net/see-it-hear-it.html

The song is "Broken Inside" (I also did "The Sequel" with a couple of friends who are beginning to be successful in the UK.)

God I love this forum!!! Where else would you get this sort of great and fascinating information, and learn something along the way, but right here!!

Dennis

Hi There

No my work was through Music Sales Ltd's Special Projects Division. There was a lot of collaboration between the publishers and the Manufacturers while I was consulting for this department - I concentrated more on Audio Books about the time that XG and the MU80 came out - this blossomed into the XG Project but I was not involved with Yamaha from about 1994 until 2001.

The Demos are all midifiles created with Sequencers.

The Demo process is a collaborative effort for which I wrote the melody and initial arrangement which then goes through various stages. Then all the sub level demos are based on the idea of that melody. I did not do the best demos which are Rock, Orchestral and Bigband. Those were done by an absolute genius (who continues to make me look like a complete beginner - we were both in the same band together in 1982 as our first pro gig- him on Bass, vocals and Trombone with Pitch to voltage convertor (I am not joking) and me on Rhodes, Polysix and lighting display) and a colleague in Japan who is also a fantastic musician/programmer/drummer.

Sorry forgot to mention that my friend the lunatic also did the Latin Demo - I particularly enjoyed his impersonation of Arturo Sandoval. . . .

For the XS owners out there I wrote "Return of the King"

Personally, I don't ever listen to the demos on keyboards because the artists are so talented it makes me want to quit playing! Wow, I only dream to be that good. If The Insider is ONE OF THOSE than I'd love to hear anything he plays

Zuki - that is not the intention - Dnj also made a point about Hype and the use of the Demo. I am asked to make it sound as good as it can, as an inspiration not a barrier. We push the technology to the limit to show what it can do, and also discover along the way what it cannot.

When I wrote and played the S.A. Sax demo I thought "I wonder if I can make it sound like Michael Brecker" so I wrote a piece that reminded me of a performance I saw of his in 2001 at the Barbican and found that if I played the inflections and chose the right sort of notes,I could get someway there.

We A/B'd it with a recording we had to hand afterwards and it was nice to see it was not a million miles away. for a keyboard. . . .


[This message has been edited by The Insider (edited 08-06-2008).]

The Insider,

I don't know you or what your musical capabilities are but I do know one thing for certain. The demos that Yamaha uses to tout their instruments such as the Tyros 2 and upcoming Tyros 3 are not physically played and recorded on the actual instrument. These demos are done using Cubase, Logic, and only use the instrument as a sound source and nothing more. The demos are then heavily edited i.e. notes shifted, quantized, and even parts step recorded. Why? Because you can't actually play the part on the instrument itself and make it sound anywhere near as good as the demo.

I'm not knocking you for what you are doing, you are paid to make the instrument sound so good that it makes people want to buy one. The fact the customer could never actually play the instrument and sound like the demo is irrelevant to Yamaha. It's called marketing.

I'm curious if you actually had the keyboard version of the Tyros 2 that you did the demo with or did you have one of the rack mount prototype Tyros 2 units Yamaha made?

First of all, I'd like to say it is an honor for us all here to be able to converse with one of the most talented players and programmers we have ever had here. Those ARE exceptional demos, and go a long way to selling the product...

I believe there is a lot of misunderstanding here about what, exactly, a demo is supposed to be. Many here feel that they ought to be of basic arranger play, essentially a 'capture' of someone playing the arranger live. Personally, I'm not one of those, preferring to hear just how far they CAN be pushed, by the most talented players that can be obtained by the manufacturer. If I want to hear simple live play, by a moderately decent player, I can play the damn thing myself! I want to hear what it COULD do when played and programmed the very best it can. Give me something to shoot for, damnit!

At least the demos ARE being played by the arranger itself, and not audio tracks that could have all kinds of unavailable tricks put on the sounds

The thing is, at Yamaha's website, there are PLENTY of audio demos of their arrangers, being played in standard arranger mode, to give those that want to hear straightforward arranger play a listen, but the demos in the arranger itself...? Those are supposed to show just how far you CAN take the instrument, if you use all the technology that is available in it, and computer sequencing, etc... I believe the whole point is to show that, far from being simple 'home entertainment' products, modern TOTL arrangers are capable of close to TOTL workstation results, if you use them that way.

Another widely held misconception is that the demos were done by multiple players on MIDI instruments. Thank you for clearing that up, and showing that you don't need a roomful of expensive MIDI guitars, MIDI drums, etc., etc. to play amazing stuff. But you DO need to work incredibly hard at your craft, to understand how a guitarist thinks and plays, how a drummer creates grooves, how a saxophonist phrases...

Far too many assume that the instrument is supposed to do it all for you, play a simple melody, you are done! The Insider has given us all an invaluable insight that great recordings, and great playing, especially imitative playing, comes from long and hard study of how the best actually play real instruments, and tireless work at getting behind their thinking and technique, and working out how to do it on a keyboard. This is not rocket science, guys...! It's MUCH harder than that

And, for all those saying (or thinking) 'oh, it's all done by sequencing and editing', trust me here... I am positive that, was The Insider to simply PLAY something for you, your jaws would all drop! You can't edit genius into a track... You can only polish the genius that is already in it You polish a turd, you still end up with a shiny turd!

I can only hope that The Insider will stay and drop in as often as he can, and perhaps throw us a tip or two, perhaps some insight into creating good demos, and some advice about playing techniques that get the most realism out of today's incredible arrangers. I know we come off as a crusty bunch, from time to time, but trust me, there ARE some here who would be incredibly grateful for any advice and wisdom you can pass on...

And to Donny, Ensnareyou, etc., what part of



didn't you get..?

HE ACTUALLY PLAYED THEM... In realtime, no less!

What stops us from doing the same?

Talent, not technology, I'm afraid

Lee - just checked out your website and all I can say is Wow! Who would not want a set of friends like that!

To be fair, yes the demos were played on the product (it's the only way that the SA voices respond correctly) and recorded onto my laptop for manipulation of the setup bar
,Volume pan reverb send etc. The Nylon had 3 passes and I changed the velocity of 3 notes on the pass that ended in the product. The Sax I moved 2 notes and added 2(Demisemiquavers just before the high F) as I didn't think about playing those notes as I played them but felt that they just added a touch more realism for the climax, forgive me.

As far as my playing is concerned
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=music&field-artist=Paprika%20Soul&page=1

I played the Theme tune to the last prodction run of "Top of the Pops", I was the Deputy and Musical Director of "Blood Brothers" form 1988-1991 and arranged much of the underscore, I have been Musical Director of Joseph, Jesus Christ Superstar, A Tribute to the Blues Brothers, deputised keyboards on Damn Yankees (with Jerry Lewis in the West End), arranged and designed the (to my knowledge) first Musical rum live by sequencer (Great Expectations, Theatr Clwyd 1994)and written over 120 commercials for my friend Tony Gibber who won a D&DA Gold Award for Best Music in and advert (1991/2 I think). I also remixed Mark Morrison's Horny as part of Mindspell, Dina Carroll (Run To You) Lighthouse Family (Ocean Drive) Shola Ama (You're the One I Want) Martin Okasili (Freedom) Foxy Brown feat. Jay-Z (I'll Be) amongst others.

If you want more info checkout
www.esession.com/andyspiller

Peace

Andy

Hi Lee - love the desk!!

If money were no object it would definitely be an API Vision with ATC 200/100a's for me. . . .

Diki,

Why is it when I state that the Wersi or Medistation can utilize various software and samples to enhance the features that are actually used inside the machine and played on the keyboard you bitch and complain... and yet when "The Insider" utilizes external software and hardware to enhance the sound demos he's producing for Yamaha you're OK with that? You sure waffle about too much.

Contrary to what you think I have never recorded any music of mine any other way than playing it live in real time. Yes, I said REAL TIME. Even parts I record into a sequencer are played live and never edited. I do not edit, manipulate, or tweak any musical notes of my music. My motto is if I can't play it then I shouldn't try to fool someone that I could. Now on the other hand.... when a artist, band, or label hires me to produce their music then I will employ whatever means necessary to make their music sound as good as it possibly can. Most often that means hiring studio musicians to play any parts that the Artist or Band can't. I'm a firm believer in using live musicians and even though I am a keyboardist and can mimic many live parts with my keyboard arsenal, I prefer to hire real players. What a concept!

It's sad that in todays society many people's playing ability isn't up to snuff and they've become reliant on the computer and editing to manipulate and fix things they could never have played. The Insider is an exception as clearly his talent is one that few people have. He's the type of guy I would hire when producing an act in the event myself or the artist couldn't play the part.

I've been fortunate to work with some amazingly talented people and I don't profess to being a great musician but I can play my own music quite well and nobody has seemed to complain of my skills so far.

Andy,

API and old Neve's rock. I've never recorded on any other desk that compares in sound to these two bad boys. SSL's are great when using automation but I'll take an API or Neve desk any day over an SSL.

As you are well aware it doesn't matter what you record or mix on if you can't play it right first, it doesn't matter. You are quite talented and that's very apparent.

Hi Lee

I mixed quite a few things on SSL and to be honest I thought they were not great sounding - unfortuately I used to live directly opposite the factory in Begbroke (actually my daughter still lives about 100 yds down the road) so it was a shame that I felt that way as who knows, maybe I could've got a proper job :-).

I am sure the K series and AWS900 etc sound much better, but in the end I mainly used ORAM desks as the possibility of using Neve or API on the remix budgets we had was non-existent - either there were'nt any (API) or the record companies specified SSL.

I had the great honour of meeting John East at the original SSL factory in Stonesfield (he was the circuit designer, I believe) one weekend before he moved to Sony Oxford - he used to tweak Bass wiring circuits for a hobby and my friend Phil Mulford had a Roger Giffen(?) Bass modified by John - it was one of those truly great tones.

It's quite weird when I think about it actually, as I lived in a town (still nearby now) that makes Wal Basses and Martin Audio PA, and currently is the home to Focusrite, so maybe it was fate that got me into this business.

Either that or stupidity. . . . .:-)

[This message has been edited by The Insider (edited 08-07-2008).]

Andy,

It's good to hear you actually played the tracks from the Tyros keyboard but they were still recorded and edited in Cubase. My beef with the recording method is that most manufacturers never tell the consumer that the demos weren't actually done on the keyboard they are touting.

Roland was notorious for having highly polished demo's that were done in World Class studios with world class musicians utilizing tons of outboard gear. When Eric Persing was doing demos for Roland all the music was mixed on a custom modified Trident console using Roland outboard gear, Eventides, AMS's, EMT plates, and various other high end gear. The demos sounded awesome as they should.

Please don't think I was questioning your playing ability or skills, that wasn't even a question and your resume is impressive to say the least. As I said, you're hired to do a job and whatever means you employ to finish that job is up to you. My complaint is that Yamaha (and other manufacturers) would have the consumer believe that the demo maker played and recorded the demo on the actual instrument which is most often not the case. Some of the demo's were done with rack mount sound modules that employed the Tyros 2 soundset. It's not rare for the demos to be recorded this way since the actual product is most often nowhere near production level when the demos are made.

While you are the exception I know that many of Yamaha's demos were recorded using MIDI based instruments that were played into Cubase via live musicians. Sometimes the only way to mimic a instrument is to actually trigger and play a sample with the real instrument.

Andy,

In my opinion the old SSL's sound was horrid but the J and K series and AWS900 are considerably better. As you are aware many labels request that an album be mixed on SSL and that always makes me cringe. I'd rather mix on an old school Neve or API any day. At home I mixed on a custom Amek desk which I really loved. I modified the hell out of it so it bore no resemblance to a stock Amek desk but does that matter?

As to you getting into the music business... I'm going to say that it was stupidity rather than fate. :-) I entered the business much like you did and have stuck with it through thick and thin.

Sorry to hear of your woes with Higher Octave. I almost got involved with them but ended up at BMG where I faired about the same as you did with Higher Octave. Same concept, different label. Let's not go there!

Lee - No Problem.

I can't comment on other product lines as I am not involved - the only thing I have done outside PK work is the arrangement for DTX Extreme
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjXgblyNHRk&feature=related

which was composed by Akira Jimbo-san of Casiopea and the aforementioned Motif Rack and XS Demos, and the Steinberg Sequel Demos previously linked.

Anyway I must return to my sweaty palmed keyboard and get back to my 12 hour working day . . .

As my good friend pointed out once

"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy. . . . "

Just to clarify (and avoid legal disputes of course :-) ) HO were great and offered to fly us out to Catalina and all, it was the jerk in London and my former partmer who screwed it all up.

Too funny Andy. Yes, so as to avoid legal disputes. Wasn't the Higher Octave complex in Malibu breathtaking? The first time I went there I thought I had died an gone to heaven. The view from the living room was awesome and that house/office was huge!

Hi Lee - never got the chance, I'm afraid. All the dealings were done through Timewarp/Baseline in London and let's just say that I discover my tracks are for sale in the States via the Japanese deal and on Weather Channel Compilations, but I see no money, 6 years later. . . . 25% of original run seconded for publicity purposes but only 50 given out, and on it goes.

I got the email when they (HO) closed and was sad about that as they gave us a shot at breaking the States, but we were scared of being $20-30k in debt for one album and the London label did not let us know how desperate they were for the follow-up which I could have made 2 years earlier.

It's quite funny (not in a good way) how unbusinesslike the music business is., really - iTunes and the like are definitely a step forward for the independent musician who would like to keep 80% of the revenue rather than give it away . . .

There are two sides to this issue. The first is,what is this keyboard capable of doing? That's where demo programmers come in. Together with good sequencing onboard there are wonderful things available. I had a DGX 300, and the sequencer stunk on it. I have a YPG 525 now, and the sequencer is incredibly easy to use. It's easy to program almost any instrumentation you want with it. The only problem I have with this keyboard is with the registrations. It will store 16 different registrations available internally in the keyboard, but only one downloaded one.

On the other hand, some of us play well, similar to a Baartmanns, or a Vonken. Then others play "Chopsticks" poorly. One thing that Yamaha has done right is to put teaching software into the newer keyboards so that anyone can learn to play better.

Perhaps the demos built into the keyboards should include something from each area for every person who would be interested. I'm not sure if this is possible.

Rob

Sorry, but I am not sure exactly where you are getting this impression. Do you actually READ my posts?

Far from bitching about using software, I have always been upfront about the fact that I already use the damn stuff, computer based, and have been using VSTi's since they came out. I've been a Cubase user since the Atari days, and before that, Dr.T's on a Commodore SX

What I HAVE been vocal about is the way so many tout all this as 'the future', and it's undisputed superiority over hardware 'closed' systems, and yet (and this brings us back to the initial post from Andy) mysteriously, no-one can translate this into a demo that is anything but plain horrible to listen to.

While VSTi's are great in a studio context, and can even be good as part of a live rig using a Receptor, etc., the whole thing about arranger use is integration... How well does it work with the other sounds already provided, how practical is it for general day-to-day usage, how quickly does it load up and play in live conditions, etc.?

So far, I have heard next to nothing posted on either of the VSTi host arrangers that wasn't just plain embarrassing. Latency issues with chord loop guitar libraries, drums that sit in the mix horribly, sonic mismatches in level, EQ and effects, and just a general audio impression that these sounds are merely tacked on, not part of an integrated whole.

All of which are supposed to be perfect in a live product. That's what an arranger is, on the whole. Yes, you COULD use one in the studio as a VSTi hub, but on the whole, it's a VERY expensive solution compared to a master keyboard and a computer. No, you are using a Wersi or MS for LIVE use, and questioning it's ability (or yours, that's the rub - once you start to add VSTi's to an arranger, how well they integrate is up to YOU... so far, no-one has impressed me in the slightest) to show good integration is part of the 'reality check' I like to apply to the hype I so often read here.

So, if that is 'waffling', I guess I must be! It's not that it CAN'T be done, it's just that it apparently seems beyond the abilities of anyone to do, including the factory demos... And, given that fact, it seems irresponsible to go ahead and promote the technology to, let's face it, a bunch of players that have enough trouble getting the best out of finely honed 'closed' system arrangers..

The whole point of an arranger is the 'instant play' factor. Sure, you CAN use them as WS's, but that's not it's primary job. So, tack on your VSTi's of choice, and all of a sudden, the USER has to do all the work that normally, VERY talented factory guys do, tweaking voices, tweaking keyboard response, tweaking EQ's (and sometimes the actual sampling) to make each and every new sound integrate into the whole. This is simply beyond the scope of the vast majority of 'home' players, and most pros from what I hear.

If you have recordings that prove otherwise, I, and everyone else here would be fascinated to hear them.

As to Andy using computers and outboard gear, let me get this straight... the demos in the T2 are files played by the T2 itself, aren't they? They are not audio demos, correct? So what outboard gear is he using? The sound engine of the T2 is ALL that is being used to produce the demo. And the performances have been edited (in part) on a computer. Well, we've ALL got one of those.

So accusing him (or his employers) of some kind of musical dishonesty for daring to touch the raw output of the arranger is kind of quaint I hate to burst your bubble, but basically, 99% of everything you hear today has been touched up with a computer, whether MIDI or audio. Beat Detective, Auto-Tune, Melodyne, all of these are basic go-to tools in the studio, and, as you point out, when your clients need them, you use them. How is Andy any different?

The factory demos show what CAN be done on the arranger, by itself (it has a sequencer built in, doesn't it? - no need to use Cubase if you don't want to) in the hands of the incredibly talented. Now, I don't know about you, but if I want to hear demos by the incredibly UNTALENTED, I can come here or a half-dozen other web sites and hear that

Theoretical capabilities are one thing, but I'm a 'show-me' kind of guy. If you can't back up your proclamations of superiority with something that reflects your opinions, I am going to be skeptical... Just as, if the demos for the T2 were simple 'live play' capture, at the sort of level that many here feel comfortable showing in public, I would be as skeptical if they started touting the T2 as 'the future' and all the other hype the VSTi's get.

But Andy, and the other T2 demo-ers have quite clearly demonstrated what you CAN achieve with nothing more than a T2 and talent (sequencer is on board if you don't want to use a computer).

That, for me, is what a demo is supposed to do.

And hey, Andy...

If you are tight with Domenik, why don't you talk him into hiring YOU to make demos on the MS? Lord knows, he needs SOMEBODY that has a clue to rescue him!

I have always said that I think he has a product with great promise, but until he gets someone to make demos for it that PROVE it's capabilities, he has an uphill task promoting the product, given how universally appalling the factory demos are

It's all well and good to sink 100% of your budget into constantly improving the OS, but at some point or another, you are going to have to try to SELL them. As Yamaha, and just about all the others have figured out, some decent (no, brilliant!) demos are one of the primary ways of doing that...

Give him a call, please

Hi Diki

I had a very pleasant chat with Lee and it's been great to be conversing with you too as well as all the other guys and gals (if any are watching).

Domenico is a lovely guy and has a product that is in a way (my opinion only so please don't shoot me) a similar concept to the OASYS. It offers flexibility and true workstation/ Open Source Architecture with some clever guys providing unique solutions.
I particularly like the internal patching ( I have not looked at it since I played it so I am sure many things may have changed).

Being a "button head" myself his product is definitely up there too :-). . . . .

I spent a lovely day with him, his family and his smokin' Corvette (yes all Italians drive FAST). I played his product, I liked it and thought that I could help him, but as always there are budgetary considerations on both sides.

Style Data and Demosongs versus OS are prioritised differently with every manufacturer. This is a major financial commitment for every system, I am sure,so all I have to say is that he is a good guy and deserves your support. He has mine. I enjoy his humour in his posts, as always.

I should also like to make the point that I understand entirely where Lee is coming from. I would say that for my own materiel I am less "focused" on the accuracy as a personal taste. However as in Lee's scenario where he employs all options to make things work for his clients, so do I in this case. I suspect (although don't know) that it may be the same for other programmers and manufacturers. I can only speak for myself.

I mentioned the OASYS in the previous post - I had the chance to play with it for a couple of days and there are some outstanding factory demos in there - however the likelihood that they were created in the product (mixed, definitely) are slim, as I don't think they have 16/32 inputs to record the country band and the R&B ballad, the latter of which sent shivers down my spine when I heard it! I will be more than happy tp be corrected if that impression is misinformed. . . . :-)

Dom and I have our testy moments, but I realize the promise of his product, which is why I always feel so let down when I hear it being used. You have to understand that the VAST majority of arranger users are looking for basically a turn-key system, and then the more tweaking you can do FROM THAT POINT the better. But, for it to succeed in the market he chose (still not sure why he went the arranger route, given the majority of it's users needs - I would have thought a WS approach for this product would have got him the more adventurous customers it needs ), it needs to at least sound as good as the competition OOTB. Which, sadly to say it doesn't, at least from the demos. And given that you can't find one ANYWHERE, this is the ONLY way you can hear one.

It would be interesting to hear what you feel about this type of keyboard, where doing the voicing of almost everything you use is the responsibility of the user, not the highly talented factory voicers that 'closed' systems enjoy...

In fact, do you actually use an arranger at all for anything (other than providing demos)? How do you see their use, and capabilities?

It would be interesting to hear from you....

Hi Diki - I have used the T2 on many projects outside Style and Demo programming because I am familiar with it and it offers quick solutions when I am constrained by tight deadlines - programming a large Orchestral library voice by voice and articulation by articulation, while gratifying, is also very time consuming especially, as, when you get the opportunity to, say, let an egocentric 2nd Violin Section have it's head for 4 bars this can take an hour to sort out, and I am probably the only one who notices as it is swamped by the voiceover anyway!

Oh and by the way the client calls from Belize at 21.00 and wants a 2 minute track by 23.30 the same day, so for speed it is my default for certain voices and definitely for Guitars and Sketching.

I played live for a while with my wife and in the end I was using a laptop to run Bespoke Cubase Arrangements running a JV1080, T2 and a couple of VSTs in Cubase 5.1. The reason for the 5.1 was that you set up al the VIs in the song then import the arrangement (quickly!)with all the reset data but don't lose the core VST settings I also started automating my Vocals (mainly mute!) as I have a ProMix 01 for live /location work.

I don't have an electric guitar (and am not good enough anyway) and so if there is no budget, I'll program - this usually takes as much time as the whole of the rest of the arrangement(especially if it's acoustic strumming), so I try to make sure there's a budget.

Well it's a different solution. Voicing is a real art - I am fortunate to work with some of the best in the world, and my very limited experience shows it to be very time consuming. However in an X76 scenario I guess you are building the specific blocks you want. It's really the answer for those dissatisfied with OOTB solutions, make your own Soundset, Styles, Audio backing, whatever you want. I use a lot of software and as a PC user struggle at times for processing power. A hardware device is a different animal - I am still using my JV1080 for Bass, sometimes for Rhodes, occasionally for PCM Synth voices form the 80s. Some soft synths cut it, some don't. Using the Polysix emulation in the OASYS was beautiful, but from memory, not REAL. . . but then again, no midi, 32 patches, battery eventually dies while on tour, buy a DW8000, need for a show, buy a Wavestation AD etc

We all love gear, lets face it, and one guy's E80 is another's PA2X is another's Orla, Gem, Wersi (if you're really loaded! :-)) ois another guys XS or Fantom,so who knows.

i have used the yamaha sequencer. There is no way Insider would have have done those demos using the T2 Sequencer Diki. It would have taken him a month :-) If i understand him correctly Insider used external sequencers to sequence the midi files for his demo's?????

If my understanding is correct that is the basic problem with demo's that i hear on the Tyros because it would be very difficult to produce a demo that sounds like the demos on the instrument itself without using external gear.

Insider talked about tweaking a riff on one of the SA sax's . I have no doubt that he could have played it live if he re-recorded it again directly into the keyboard but it would have been very difficult to micro edit that sax using the onboard song player/sequencer.

Hi Spalding - last post before I away to bed.

I consider the interface of Cubase to me the modern equivalent of a Score. I can see the entire arrangement, display controller data and get an immediate overview of what's going on. Of course, I have also written the score too, and it is setup in a way that all those who come after me may look at in the same way, so there is a common language and any changes are all easily accessible.

I have been using the program for a long long time now (coming up for 20 years) and I suppose in some ways it is difficult to break old habits too. Every note and piece of data in a composition can be up for discussion and has to be justifiable - this is how seriously this is taken. The same goes for Style programming, a lot of care is taken to try and make it as good as it can be and it will be picked apart with a fine (digital of course) toothpick.

So tweaking the riff was a decision based on "I like the performance so that's a keeper". However to drop in beats 13.2.4.40 - 13.3.1.00 is a bit of a challenge, so I wrote it in because it made it sound that little bit better - I already liked the rest of it, I just wanted a bit of Icing too. Maybe I am the only one who knows it's there, well obviously you know now, too.

For the purists, apologies, just tryin' to do my job. . . .

i wasnt knocking you brother. I just know how cumbersome the yamaha sequencer is and it killed many great ideas that i had because i could not develope them in the way that i wanted to as the inspiration came to me ....at the instrument itself. I dont work with external sequencers , dont have the space and inclination. Thats why Yamaha did not get my money last time and korg did. I can take my ideas and produce them right there at the keyboard. If yamaha were to upgrade the T3 with a decent sequencer they would be have a good chance of toppling my PA1X .....nah perhaps not !! good night fella.

Andy,

Would you mind telling me how you learned to emulate all the instruments so they don't sound unnatural when played from a keyboard? Or did you simply have each instrumentalist go over the characteristics of their own instrument and take each instrument one by one. I'm eventually going to do that with a guitarist as a guitar can be played in so many ways.

Example of what I mean: to play like a violinist, I learned to set the vibrato to come in with aftertouch, bend the notes with the pitch wheel, and (I used to use) portamento. With the trumpet, I did the same thing for a "spit" effect.

I'm a bit of a perfectionist and would like to have more knowledge than what I've figured out so far. Any suggestions?

Lucky



[This message has been edited by Lucky2Bhere (edited 08-07-2008).]

Sorry, spalding, but you seem to be determined to do things the hard way...

Firstly, no sequencer editing if possible, all played live, no edits, yada yada yada... And now, no use of a computer sequencer, only the built-in ones for you, apparently. Fascinating. Very old school. I guess you use what you get comfortable with, but for the life of me, I can't see how working with a built-in offers any advantages over a computer sequencer, and I can name several editing options available in Cubase that exist in no hardware arranger sequencers, that I use on a daily basis. Groove quantizing, conditional edits, positional edits, amongst many others. Then there is the issue of a completely ungraphical interface...

As my arranger and other keyboards sit around my computer rig, I can't for the life of me think of one good reason to use the crippled, unintuitive and poorly displayed sequencers built into arrangers these days. It's all about speed, and I guarantee I can fly around on Cubase MUCH faster than any hardware one.

Is there some kind of philosophical reason you prefer hardware sequencers, or is it just familiarity, and lack of desire to try newer methods? I USED to use hardware sequencers, but the day I got Cubase, I have never used one since!

Lucky you are already there- you are looking for the solutions that work for you. For me the Violin is all about attack so if I am looking for an emulation that sounds real, swelling in expression and legato/staccato arpeggios and inflections are some traits to look at.

Similarly, guitar-like behaviour as a lead voice may be a 2-handed affair - thinking about what is going on in both hands and resonance of other strings, hand position on the fret board and what might be playable in that position and mute effects all combine
to add to a more interesting solution. (Edit: also think about a guitarist's vibrato - really it is pitchbend up - the modulation wheel is a Whammy bar inflection really, isn't it.)

Megavoice technology was invented to enable more realism. It is clearly not really a playable voice, hence the SA voice Architecture. However as a programming tool, I believe it redefined the hardware arranger behaviour and sound, and so it's something that if you're interested in getting into the nuts and bolts of, is worth spending time
investigating.

I would also recommend looking at some of the conversion tools that come with the T2 as it is possible to take a non Megavoice file and add some spice to it. Some effort was put in to create this ability and it's worth checking out if you have the inclination, as it does a great job mimicing solutions that programmers employ.

[This message has been edited by The Insider (edited 08-08-2008).]

[This message has been edited by The Insider (edited 08-08-2008).]

[This message has been edited by The Insider (edited 08-08-2008).]

I did not feel knocked - just slightly bruised :-) - just kidding. You found the priorities that work for you and that is fantastic. I also think that it is marvellous that there is such choice out there. Everybody gets to sample the different takes and ideas that the manufacturers put out there. Everyone votes with their wallet and clearly the diversity of choice can only be a good thing, can't it?

Your loyalty and commitment to your brand of choice is admirable and completely understandable, and I think the inter-brand rivalry is ultimately healthy, rather than negative.

I posted in the first instance, as I too am passionate about what I do and frankly spend a large part of my life doing it. I am not going to say I don't get disheartened if somebody slags off what I've done, and perhaps this is unprofessional of me to even be taking part in this discussion, however I do try my hardest, and when it is liked and appreciated, that is very satisfying and I'll take any knocks to push myself further in the pursuit of the unachievable.

All the best

Andy

The Insider. Just to say...Great Article and very interesting read.

Hi Diki. It is just about preference for me . My brother uses cubase , i use the onboard sequencer. The difference is that where ever i am i am just seconds away from capturing an idea and padding it out on my onboard sequencer into a very detailed production whereas my brother cant. There are very many like me and my brother which is why the manufcaturers continue to make instruments that are capable of dealing with both sets of requirements.

Thats not to say i will never use a software sequencer but for speed and accessibility you just cant beat a hradware sequencer buiolt into the instrument you make music on.

I am with Spalding on this topic..I have always been comfortable with my G1000 on board sequencer and now the G70 sequencer...

For the same reasons as Spalding...Immediate access to anything I want to sequence or edit...correcting sequence problems..eliminating system exclusive problems..all can be quickly done right on board...anywhere..

Maybe an elaborate start to finish project in the studio..the PC has merit, but for everyday..spur of the moment..give me the on board sequencer..
Now I am use to Roland..maybe other brands may or may not fair as well...

Well, I guess I need to qualify what I said about on-board sequencers just a bit...

I DO use the G70's Recorder, which does a grand job of 'capturing' the arranger's complete output with minimal hassle, but usually, unless my editing needs are almost non-existent, I'll bang the SMF quickly, via USB, straight over to Cubase, and do any major surgery there.

My G70 tends to either be at a gig, or at home in front ofd the computer, so it's rare that I am in a composing situation where I DON'T have the computer handy. The G70's sequencer is about as full featured as any on board sequencer can be, but it is still a shadow of the power and ease of Cubase...

However, the Roland's have this section called Makeup Tools, where you can edit sequences and styles, with respect to their headers... Patch, volumes effects, dynamics, and detail editing INSIDE a drum kit (change sounds, dynamics, volumes, effects for each drum sound) that is head and shoulders better than doing it on a computer (most of this is sys-ex, anyway).

So, if the 'capture' doesn't need more than just a remix, and some tweaking to the drum kit, occasionally, the piece doesn't end up in Cubase. But that's a rare thing, as it's next to impossible to edit out any 'glitches' (OK, just difficult and tedious ) in a list editor... MUCH easier in Cubase, IMO...

Ciao,

You mention that you use Cubase SX3 / 4. Do you know if it is possible to make styles using Cubase? If so, how?

There's something about it in the manual but it is very cryptic and nobody I called at Yamaha could help. I now have the T2 and the Pa2x, and on the Pa2x it is so easy. If I could get Cubase to do the same for Yamaha that would be amazing!

Thank you,
Chony

Hi Chony

you would need to speak to a product specialist about that - Cubase is being used to create the midi data only.

Andy

Could you please refer me to one? My email address is cmilecki@yahoo.com.

Without trying to toot my own horn, I make hundreds of ethnic styles and I think if somebody could guide me in this I would be an asset to the Yamaha community...

Thanks,
Chony

[This message has been edited by chony (edited 08-09-2008).]

I certainly wish keyboards had a more inuitive sequencer on board because I am often using the keyboard without a computer attached and it would be nice to be able to make sequence edits in that situation. As it is that is not usually the case and I have to wait until I get home to make those edits. There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON an onboard sequencer should'nt be just as intuitive as Cubase or Cakewalk.

Nigel,

I completely agree with you. Why MI manufacturers don't have onboard sequencers that match their computer counterparts is beyond me. It's not like the program would take up much memory so clearly that's not the reasoning for the lack of incorporation. My main beef with most arrangers and workstations is that the manufacturers tout them as "all in one solutions" which isn't the case. How am I supposed to compose, record, and mix within the unit if I don't even have a decent sequencer or recording software built in? If I wanted to hook the arranger/workstation up to my computer I wouldn't have bought the damned thing in the first place. There are many sound modules and synths I can buy to do that for a lot less money.

Wersi has used Cubase as the included sequencing software since the inception of OAS so there's no need for me to use a computer, its all in there. They have also included their own custom sequencing software in OAS 7 which allows the user to do extensive style editing, sequencing, and audio recording. Every manufacturer should offer this type of sequencer in their systems.

I love you guys! I really do!

You honestly expect them to put something as powerful and as graphically intuitive as Cubase in a hardware arranger, squeeze it through a tiny four inch display, and not charge an arm and a leg..?

Retail price on sequencers as intuitive as this run at least $500. THEN, try to work them through a tiny 4" monitor... Yikes! Even a 17" is pushing it...

Look, I'm sorry if I don't understand this, but each and every one of you posting (or even reading) here has a computer easily capable of running at LEAST the MIDI side of the latest Cubase... I simply cannot understand the reluctance to move to Cubase (or something similar) to make sequencing easy. It's no harder than a built-in, in fact, far easier (fewer limitations), and it's already in the house with you...

Trust me... spend as much or as little time on it as you did learning hardware based sequencing, and it will be MUCH easier to achieve better results than any hardware will EVER be...

I think I can shed some light on that...No mouse and no keyboard (qwerty)..without those two simple items ANY keyboard (instrument) sequencing/editing is going to be clunky and fiddly..

The new Fantom G has the right idea in that you CAN connect a mouse and it interacts with the screen, so perhaps there is some light dawning on manufacturers.

D

No but I do expect an inuitive and useable sequencer interface. A MIDI sequencer user interface is NOT rocket science despite what you think and doesn't require a lot of cpu resources or screen space. It simply requires some thought and design. I have used sequencers on computers 20 years ago that were easier to use than the one on my Yamaha Motif 6. Those computers didn't have a fraction of the power of a modern keyboard and didn't really have much more screen space. I am not sure what features of Cubase's MIDI editing and processing seem so astonishing to you. I think most of Cubase's basic MIDI features could easily be implemented onboard a keyboard.

I am a professional software engineer so I do have some basis for making a judgement about software design. I wrote MIDI software on computers as simple as the Commodore 64 and know that MIDI processing and editing doesn't actually require a lot of resources.


[This message has been edited by Nigel (edited 08-11-2008).]