Just wanted to get ideas as to why people might NOT like a particular Arranger keyboard. Please keep the critique 'positive' - in otherwords, realize that developers might use this for research.

E.G.

Ketron X1 - Price, OS, Synth sounds.
Yamaha Tyros 2 - Latin Styles, Drums, Arranger Bass.

Etc ...

Again, please focus on the TOPIC ~ or at least, let's try too.

Thanks,

AJ

I think it has a lot to do with what you are familiar with in the past. Then a little lack of opportunity to thoroughly appraise the new and different because they are either not available in your locality, or you cannot get sufficient time on the keyboard to make a thorough appraisal.
Keith

AJ,
For me an arranger has to have styles either preset or widely available that suit the music I play - which is light jazz and old standards - including the latin stuff.

That is the problem - how does a company create such an instrument that suits a multitude of players playing different kinds of music. Perhaps offering various preset style sets when ordering might be the answer.

Also, to many gadgets make it very hard to use live and almost impossible for the serious gigging musician to learn about all the features of any keyboard - not enough time to do both.

As for realistic sounds - well - how many opinions do you want? Everyone's experience and frame of reference is different so how do you please everyone? As an example - how many arranger players do you personally know that have never sat in the audience of a major symphony concert? How would they know what a live string section really sounds like? Or, how many players have never really heard a great big band like Basie or Woody in person to know what that really sounds like?

The issue of weight always comes up on this forum as well as 76 vs 61 keys. Well, again - if you are a certain age weight is a problem - but not for everyone.

I also want a completly finished arranger when it arrives - not one that I must wait for "upgrades" to fulfill all the pre-release "hype" and promises.

Hammer

I don't like an arranger if it does not have the following:

-a good price, sweet price range for me is $500-$1000. I understand anything below $500 might jeopardize quality. Roland GW8 is a good example that falls in the range but the 61 keys are limited.
-does not have 4 variations/fill-ins
-does not have at least semi-weighted keys or just bad feeling keybed. Hard to play piano with nice feelings without good keybed
-nice frequently used sounds such as piano,fat basses, strings, elec piano, brass, sax, flutes, guitars and drums.
-difficult to navigate like the Korgs, yuck

I use arranger for pleasure at home and maybe once or twice a week for gigs at churches playing contemporary songs with many styles (rock, ballad, 8 beat, etc).

If the arranger is not flexible i.e if i need to use additional hardware like a computer to edit sounds, sequence, or create and modify styles, i wont buy it. It has to have good pianos and drums and guitars and brass. If its awkward to navigate around i wont buy it. And if it does not have internal speakers i am less likely to buy it, but its not a deal breaker. It must have a lot of modern styles as well as great jazz styles too. And if the build quality is poor (is not durable and would crack or get easily damaged when carting around) i am probably not going to buy it.

Hi AJ,

I asked a similar question once. The answers I received were similar to the few you have gotten so far; basically 76 weighted keys, full sound and sequence editing, at least 1GB of sample RAM, a million free styles to choose from, weighing less than 15 lbs., huge color touch screen, etc. all for under $500.00. I would take one.

But seriously, I tried to get another company to do something that I thought might solve several customer requests. Build an instrument with a decent sized touch screen with soft-buttons along the bottom, dedicated buttons for sound selection, sequence/arranger control and storage functions, and a group of assignable buttons that could be used for arranger functions (start/stop/fills), vocal processor on/off, one-shot sample playback, sequence phrases, a good amount of assignable battery-backed RAM, etc. Get FATAR to make a 76 note version of the TP100LR. Then have a choice in operating systems, one with basic workstation functions (sounds and sequencer with editing), one with basic arranger functions with lyrics display (no multi-track sequencing, in-depth sound editing, etc.), and then a full blown O/S including the full workstation and arranger programming, vocal processor, multi-buss/multi-effects processor and so forth. The I/O on the back panel could consist of stereo line outputs and two 1/4" TRS mic/line inputs and 3 dedicated assignable pedal inputs that can accept switch or variable pedals, and then a user installable accessory module, consisting of 4 additional audio outputs and two XLR audio inputs, S-video output, balanced XLR stereo outputs and maybe a digital output, etc.

This way one hardware shell can cover a number of different user needs.

Dave

------------------
Wm. David McMahan
LearnMyKeyboard
JazzItUp Band
The Modulators

Korg - user interface
Ketron - user interface, lack of local dealers
Yamaha - user interface, fragility
Wersi - where do I start?

I think one of the main achievements that manufacturers must attain in their totl arranger products is "quality" Drum Kits. Let's face it, high end arrangers can cost "thousands" of dollars MORE than your typical top of the line Workstation keyboard e.g. Motif ES/XS etc. If people fork over top dollar for a totl arranger they should expect and get top of the line sounds - including Drums.

The Audya has accomplished that mission but so far the others haven't really, including Yamaha to name just one. Not that I'm picking on them of course.

Portability is at the top of the list too but as it's been mentioned already - if it's light but shabbily made i.e. flimsy, easily scratched or damaged, it will be a big drawback. If manufacturers can succeed in making it light and built like a tank also, then all the better.

Must have the latest technologies i.e. USB 2.0 , etc. And would they PLEASEEEEE!! give us some "decent" amounts of internal memory for once! Flash RAM is incredibly cheap these days yet manufacturers doll out these amazingly (in a bad way) - "paltry" memory amounts that just doesn't make any sense. Nuff said..

A great key bed feel/action is a must as spongy limp keys just don't measure up for most players. There are exceptions of course.

76 or 88 keys is preferable for me and has actually been proven to be preferable for half of all arranger keyboard players worldwide. A fully weighted key bed for the 88 key version would be nice too of course.

Keep the Mod/Pitch wheels (or Stick) at the immediate left of the keys, since that is the most convenient place for it in my opinion. With the Audya you have to 'reach' for them, and because of it, it takes longer and can detract from your performance in my opinion.

Balanced Inputs and Outputs would give arrangers more of a "professional" feel too. A stereo Mic input would be nice also.

A Large LCD display is a must in today's world if you ask me. Yamaha seems to be ahead of the pack in that arena currently, but Korg, Roland, and Ketron each have suitable displays on their totl arrangers. An easily navigable OS is essential as well. If you have a huge LCD display and it's tough as nails to navigate around the OS you might as well keep the LCD dinky instead. Again, Yamaha seems to have the easiest OS layout and functionality on the market. That may soon change with Roland's new offering though. We'll have to wait and see.

The NUMBER ONE priority of any arranger should be the sounds of course. The more realistic the sounds are the greater the chance that an arranger has of accumulating additional sales.

A Sampler with the ability to add AT LEAST a Gig of RAM is essential in today's world too in my opinion. And DDR or DDR2/3 compatibility would be extremely helpful as well. It's getting extremely hard to find PC 100/133 in large sizes today. Bump it up to DDR or DDR2/3 guys.

I could go on and on but I'll spare everyone for the time being. [img]http://www.synthzone.com/ubbs/smile.gif[/img] Good thread topic though AJ. [img]http://www.synthzone.com/ubbs/cool.gif[/img]

All the best,
Mike

My only want would be an PSR-S900 with a 76 note weighted, hammer action.

It has everything else I need...great OS, lots of styles, built in speakers, excellent sounds.

Dislike Roland's OS, lack of contemporary sounds, heavy weight(on TOTL models), pitch/mod paddle.

Can't comment on Korg, Wersi, or Ketron, because I haven't played them.

My priority is to be able to use the sounds from the manufactures I choose, not just what the Arranger manufacture makes for you. (Akai sample loading should be just a start, and VSTi can pretty much solve the rest)

Downsides of arrangers I have tried (All relate to TOTL)

Bohm: Limited styles, No Touch Screen, A little too Germanic sounding

Ketron: Small Screen size and no touch sensitivity, a lot of the sounds tend to lack body, not the easiest OS, Layout

Korg: Small Screen, Not 100% sure of the OS

Lionstracs: No practical experience, so cannot give a definitive answer (Unless you have heard or tried something live with your own style of playing, there is no way for you to really know what is like)

Orla: A bit old sounding, but a nice pleasant sound

Roland: Apart from the styles (Some of the best out there) the sound engine is way outclassed by every other manufacture (Time has not been kind to them (Now if they bought out an arranger with the new Atelier sound engine, then all other manufactures would really have to pull their finger out) small screen, heavy keybed (I prefer a lighter feel)

Wersi: (OAS 7 but without OAA with which I have minimal experience) dated styles, Re-worked voices (From previous OAS versions) not entirely successful (New voices only bettered by the new Atelier) Drum module. (The drums really are an abortion Thank goodness for Akai samples and EZ Drummer)

Yamaha: No touch screen, limited onboard control/editing, styles (Much to song specific and repetitive for me)

In the final analysis it comes down to personal opinion, so in truth there is no better or worse arranger or feature, just what suits the player.

That pretty much says it all. Everyone has different needs and ways of working (thinking) and one person hears things a little different than the next person. That's a plus for instruments like the Lionstracs that run soft-instruments, although that can be fairly expensive and then you're still stuck with whatever the manufacturer thinks sounds good.

To me, I would rather have a huge assortment of ROM waveforms to work with consisting of acoustic samples as well as a good number of synthetic waveforms and an extensive programmable sound section in order to create the sounds that appeal to me.

Something else I forgot to mention-
Space on the manufacturer's website for instrument owner's to register and gain access to an ftp sharing area. Sounds, styles, smf's, tips and tricks, gig photos, etc. could be shared there. And a company rep that monitors the space on a daily basis to offer help when needed. Not trying to take away from this and other forums, but having one specific place to go for these types of things would be far more convenient than the way it is now, i.e. currently members upload data to a variety of file sharing websites, some of which you have to register to get the file. I avoid this like the plague. Plus it is easier and more realistic to ask a manufacturer's rep to monitor a single site rather than jumping all over the place and never quite catching up.

------------------
Wm. David McMahan
LearnMyKeyboard
JazzItUp Band
The Modulators

[This message has been edited by WDMcM (edited 07-02-2009).]

I think in general these arrangers today are pretty darn good when you take into consideration what each offers..., and what each model offers to its intended market.

I'd love to see more arrangers actually sound like they were made TODAY rather than 30 years ago in regards to the preset styles. Even the traditional styles today have changed quite a bit over the years.., but arrangers don't seem to do a very good job at covering that IMO.

What I'd also like to see is the PRICE MATCH THE QUALITY. Arrangers are just too freakin expensive when compared to their cousins on the other side of the fence. At the price these things sell for there is NO reason they can't be built better... The price is always going to be higher on them as long as the older generation (the intended market) keeps shelling out that dough for them. Hopefully one day consumers send a message to the makers (all of the keyboard makers) by simply NOT upgrading to the next model. Force them to either price them properly or BUILD them to the level of their pricing.



[This message has been edited by squeak_D (edited 07-02-2009).]

Dave ..that sounds like the MediaStation...

Hi Fran,

Why yes it does. Although with one big difference. I'm not talking about something that runs virtual instruments. I'm referring to a dedicated instrument like most other workstations out there. The difference would be in that the manufacturer would offer a choice of operating systems based on the feature set desired. This is nothing new. One company I worked for used the same mainboard in several different instruments and it was the operating system that turned the instrument into a particular model. The trick is designing the necessary I/O's into the board layout in order to allow access from various front panel designs, different displays, audio ins and outs, etc.

The idea of the MediaStation, and the Open Labs instruments is very cool. But as seen in a multitude of posts throughout this forum, the average arranger player is not going to spend the time installing and configuring the necessary software to make one of these instruments suit their needs. No, these type of instruments lend themselves more to the tech-heads, tinkerers and pro studio types. I certainly don't mean that as a slam, I happen to consider myself as at least two of those types. And a few other words that I shouldn't say in public.

I really think dedicated hardware with a choice of O/S's would be a great idea. Maybe I just need to start my own keyboard company and do it the right way. Yeah, I'll get right on that.

Dave

------------------
Wm. David McMahan
LearnMyKeyboard
JazzItUp Band
The Modulators

AJ ... What I want most is quite simple .....
A arranger that has a USA style library!!
No Schlager styles no world styles that I would not need in a "Million" years!
Good Old American Blues, Jazz, Rock and Pop!!! Why is that so hard. I am not asking for a different design! Not asking for the black keys to be white and the white to be black!! Just styles that apply to an audience that live here in the USA.

love the bread and butter styles and sounds of AUDYA,
the "old" styles and "acoustic" instruments are great...

BUT

add LOTS of modern styles and modern sounds, analog stuff, which would work for Pop, Dance, Techno, House, Hip-Hop, R&B, you know the stuff you actually hear on mainstream radio,

the stuff that's popular and stuff people want to hear

Everything written here says it all. It also made me stop to think of the many needs of so many different players. It’s impossible to get a “one size fits all” keyboard, no matter how accommodating a manufacture is.

My thoughts:

Why can’t we get all the “action” in a computer program? And then change “arranger software programs” as we see fit according to our own performance needs? Styles, sounds, fills, etc I can see sitting in front of a laptop computer controlled by a semi-weighted 76 note keyboard and a hardware interface for whatever buttons need to be pressed.

Or…..why not build an arranger keyboard in modules and let the customer order what he wants in his own personal unit? Not unlike building your own computer and deciding how much memory you want, how big a hard drive, what styles you want to purchase, what sounds you want included, semi-weighted or full weighted keyboard, 61, 76 81 keys, pitch and modulation wheels, popcorn machine, nail trimmer, etc.

I personally like the idea of modules as I would go for the Korg M3 instrumental sounds, the G-70 looks, the versatility and realism of the Audya, the complexity of the PA2xPro.

Lucky

Not what I don't like, but what I would like:

Put the Technics' composer, panelmemories and userfriendly operating system into Audya.
Build it like a tank as i.e. Roland G-70, and also try keep it more close to the price
level that compete to the other top of the range arrangerkeyboards, (not twice as much
like Audya does in our area).
To me that would be a WINNER!

Cheers and Happy Playing
GJ

The ultimate TOTL arranger would be called:

KoRoYaKe

Absolutely. After all, don't Yamaha and Korg make Oriental versions of some boards, don't they?

I would like to see a step away from this 'live loop' idea, which is anything BUT, IMO.

For me, the whole idea of arrangers is their spontaneity, their ability to say take a rock kit pattern, and play it on brushes (sometimes it works!), or an electric guitar pattern on classical guitar. You can't do this to a loop. The feature 'Cover Tools' on the Roland's, where you can take any style, and give it a wide selection of alternative sounds can stretch enormous variety out of just a few patterns. Loops, sorry. WYSIWYG...

WS's and TOTL arrangers are starting to get ROM sample sizes up close to the point where VERY detailed sampled instruments can be used. Go to the websites of things like EZ Drummer, BFD, etc., and you will hear demos AT LEAST as realistic as the Audya's. But they have NONE of the drawbacks. Listen to the Guitar Modes of Korg (and to a lesser extent, Roland) and especially Yamaha's Mega Voice patterns. Imagine them with simply a much larger sample size to get greater dynamics and inflexion from them, and once again you have something that sounds as good as the live loops, but with NONE of the drawbacks.

Live audio loops is a dead end that is going to draw us all down into uniformity, because once you get them, there is NOTHING you can do to change them. So we all end up sounding identical. Personally, this is the last thing I want!

I would also like to see a move more towards integrating styles, SMF's and chord tracks, so the whole thing is interchangeable. Want to play the verse with a style, do the solo with an SMF, play a vamp back in style mode then have it repeat while you jam? Most arrangers make this (if even possible in the first place) much harder than it needs to be.

The arranger should never get in the way of what YOU want to do. All too many off them say 'this way only' or put up considerable roadblock to making these kinds of moves on the fly, at your whim. Too many of them seem designed by guys with pocket protectors, rather than by arranger PLAYERS.

Well...This in my mind creates a LONG list of things that would make me not like any particular arranger keyboard (in other words if I designed one myself):

(Not necessarly in order of importance)

This list is about a TOTL arranger.

1) #1 is lack of TOP QUALITY PRO Workstation level sounds, especially acoustic sounds. If they can put them in a worksation they can put them in a arranger.
After all this is a musical instrument and without the great sounds...nothing else matters. (Also, many have technical problems with some of the sounds, and it can ruin a performamce). Of course currently we have a few sounds that are better than the WS's, Keep those :-).

Actually I want all the instruments to be superb, realistic, beautiful as if I am listening to the real thing. No vibrato, tibre, digital noise, volume, or other tech. problems.

2) Lack of quality styles for the music I play

3) Poor MIDI implementaton (it needs to be at the same level as a PRO workstation)also, EVERY button, slider etc needs to send AND respond to external MIDI data.

4) Lack of an OS with lots of great, musically useable functions

5) Lack of a touch screen (10 inch) (Also, ALL main operating functions need to have a button in addition to the touch screen) It is very important to me to be able to do config/programming ect using a keyboard (touch screen or PC) not just buttions...especially when keying text.

6) Lack of FULL style, sound and sequencer detailed editing.

7) Lack of Sampling. Should have PLENTY of sample RAM. At least 2 GB. user ram (Memory is cheap now)

8) Not having ALL sound samples in RAM or EEPROM...or whatever technology to be able to replace poor samples from the factory or just your own in some cases...with user samples. I don't want to be stuck with a poor sample with problems.

9) Lack of great MFG support AND forum support.

10) Lack of a top quality keybed. Models need to be available in 61 and 76 synth action AND 76 and 88 weighted hammer action and need to be PRO quality

11) Lack of full PC software to edit all aspects of the sounds, styles , midi data AND organzation of all data in the keyboard. Especially any user data.

12) Lack of build quality in general, want metal chassis, not all plastic

13) Lack of all arranger functions (VARS, FILLS, INTRO, ENDINGS) to be perfectly smooth with the fills working with each VAR without any glitching. (Is this too much to ask after all these years of development?)

14) Lack of a optional footpedal with at least 10 buttons to control any functions on the arranger, include also 2 continuous controlers pedals built in of top quality and smoothness.

15) Lack of the function to have a any/all sound on Upper (1,2,3)or lower (1,2) to be able to be programmed EXTERNAL with midi bank/program change to be able to directly select any user sounds on an external sound module ot soft styth just by selecting a style, performance, OTS etc. (My PA2 has this, Yamaha said I don't need it!)

16) Lack of a full function PRO quality voice processor including pitch correction, voice modeling and 4 part harmony. Or better yet...take out the cost of any VP and I'll just get a TC Helicon voice live 2.

17) Lack of the feature that has my coffee ready at any pre-programmed time...and the slot in the cabinet that holds at least 2 cold beers! :-)

Lee S.

Actually the GEM Genesys Pro S has 14 of the 16 items you mentioned. 17 not counted, though it is a very good idea. Of course some of the items are based on personal taste such as great sounds and style types. But sounds can be edited deeply and there are many styles to choose from and it is easy to create your own.



------------------
Wm. David McMahan
LearnMyKeyboard
JazzItUp Band
The Modulators

delete

[This message has been edited by AFG Music (edited 03-06-2010).]

Yeah..but where is the coffee maker and cup holders...?

Trouble is, as Diki has often pointed out, the "open" arrangers like Lionstracs (and Wersi) are doomed to be an obscure curiosity in the industry until such time as they have the talent the likes of Roland, Korg etc have programming styles for them. An arranger succeeds or fails purely on the basis of its styles. Everything else is just gravy. Without compelling, musical, styles an arranger - however well specified it might be otherwise - is just another keyboard.

Correction...The MediaStation is an "open keyboard"....not an "open arranger"...It is not "just another arranger"....

The MS is not the average keyboard...thus the owners/users are also "Not" average..

I would never base my purchase of an "arranger" keyboard on existing styles...to me a style is a style...The ability to edit or add styles are more important than what ships from the factory..

Also for me...The capabilities to do "all" aspects of keyboard players needs...makes the keyboard..not just the arranger section..

I want a keyboard that can stand on it's own, as a piano..organ...synth...A board that can sequence/edit..a board that can handle the mixing on the gig...a board with a great mic input and effects...Least on my list is the "auto" play of the arranger mode..I use this mode, but sparingly, and edited the way I want it ...not the way the factory wanted I and everyone else to sound..

Fortunately..I have this in my 2 main keyboards..The MediaStation, and the G70...

Another way to look at it is the talent will be in the hands of the user for the 'open' systems. What I mean is the person who purchases an open system is typically going to be more technically advanced and has the desire to create their own styles. The trouble as I see it is there are just not many arranger players, at least in the U.S., with the level of programming expertise to be able to take advantage of instruments like the MediaStation. Or if someone does have the knowledge, they may just not want to take the time.

------------------
Wm. David McMahan
LearnMyKeyboard
JazzItUp Band
The Modulators

Fran, have you made any of your own styles on the Mediastation...from scratch?

I know it uses Yamaha styles (not exclusively, of course), but have you done anything to them significantly?

How about a simple demo of one or two of your own styles, considering you are "not average" since you own one of these instruments, and have had it for some time now?

"I use this mode, but sparingly, and edited the way I want it ...not the way the factory wanted I and everyone else to sound"
..

Ian, did you read this quote too...

Yes I did, Fran...I would have thought you were one of the "advanced" users by now, considering you've had it for quite sometime...my mistake. Sorry.

Ian, you are misconstrued what "average" means...it has nothing to do with skill level....

And of course I am advanced....in many ways..

I do not use styles as many folks here do..I find them way overdone, and do not leave room to play over as I would like..

I rather record the arranger and save as a sequence..

I prefer playing over sequences...My boards also read chords with sequences..giving me a guideline to play over them...And my "crutch"..lyrics to read...


You mentioned the Roland's sound as the E-70..nothing changed...I think you need to revisit the E-70..

The "best" sounds are not the only criteria for a great over all sound...The G1000 was not the "best" sounding board..although there are many sounds as good as today's offerings...what made it sound great using the G1000 banks....were the balance of the patches, and how well they blend...One of the reasons the G1000 plays SMF's as well as any other board...Matter of fact the G1000 (bank) plays SMF's better than the default G70....until you modify pianos, bass, drums..etc..Than the G70 is the "best" at SMF play...

Another example..The newer Yamaha's have some of the best sounds available...but not all, and far from it...The XG sound bank is still the worst of all manufacturers..(probably need the XG bank to play SMF's..but not very pretty)..

For every super guitar, sax patch there are many duds...and they are not balanced enough to be used universally ..as in other instrument resources (sequences, styles etc)..They are designed to be used exclusively with Yamaha gear...but I believe they missed the mark..

My point....when I refer to "average"..it is the majority of players that will just power up a keyboard...judge what they hear...and play what they hear, without the need to alter anything...Also the vast amount of "average" players simply want to play a melody line over the style...."Average meaning the majority"...

So....I am not "average"...

Maybe well advanced...

Of course you are, dear.

Well, one would imagine an "advanced" player/person as yourself would find it easy to edit the styles into something more manageable, or perhaps something more suitable to your style of play.

It's nice to know you find it easier to play over an SMF...I would, too..in fact, most players would.

What I have found, that even with "markers", the SMF is still too rigid for my liking...I'd like to be able to react more spontaneously, than have it all spelled out...having chord changes locked in, style already set; it's not for me...it's far more fun, to be able to do songs in many style arrangements, not just ones I have already recorded, or preplanned, but we all have our preferences, and if yours works for you, that's peachy.

I play a lot more freely at my gigs, and I usually don't do tunes exactly as written, but prefer to put my own "stamp" on them...it's not for everyone, but I'm not stuck for gigs, and have actually turned several down this month.

It's all in how you market yourself, I guess.

I would hardly call myself an advanced player on the arranger (I'm more of a piano player), but I'm rather the more basic type...you know, style and RH play...but, I'm accurate and I work hard on my styles (and arrangements) so that I have my own sound, rather than someone who picks a factory style and works from that.

Ian

I am not sure that the average listener, your typical audience, knows the difference between a 'tweaked' style, a ROM style, or a completely user created style. When WE worry about such things, I think we are somehow thinking of each other, or our competition, or just some nebulous 'other arranger player', whatever... But I am pretty sure that most of our audiences couldn't tell you if what they are listening to is custom, tweaked or ROM.

AS LONG AS IT SOUNDS GOOD.

But this brings me back to what I keep saying... it really doesn't matter a toss about the arranger's OS, or it's sounds, or layout, whatever. The primary reason most of us pick an arranger is whether the ROM styles suit us. Are they well programmed? Are they well balanced? Are they too busy, or too sparse? Are they authentic in the genre we know the most about?

It seems obvious that many Ketron users have fallen for the Audya because of the great Latin styles, despite it being a very restrictive OS for tweaking, editing, or even changing much at all! But OOTB, this thing makes many Latin music players happy. The Mediastation, OTOH, seems to be one of those things that dreamers like to THINK will answer all their problems. Truth is, though, so far, I have still yet to hear anyone using it as an arranger and the results seriously challenge the Big 3. As even Fran has pointed out, the reason why some things are just so good is how INTEGRATED the whole soundset is. The MS is the polar opposite. There is no integrated soundset. You have to design it yourself. Given that even Yamaha can't create a well integrated XG soundset for SMF playback, how egotistical do you have to be, to convince yourself that YOU can do it better than Yamaha, with all their talent, experience and money?

Add to that, the fact that the style and the soundset are inextricably linked. You write styles for a SPECIFIC soundset. Translated styles only demonstrate how poor a style sounds when played back on different sounds. It is close tyo impossible to separate the two. I have long said that Dom needs to load the MS with TOTL VSTi's himself, and then get talented style writers to develop styles for that particular combination. Without that happening, what chance does he have of creating an ARRANGER? Because an arranger IS it's content. Look at Ketron...

I am still waiting for the day someone comes here and goes 'listen to all these amazing styles I created for the MS and a boatload of TOTL VSTi's'. Maybe then, that's the day I start to believe. But just as VERY few of us can create styles for our well-balanced soundsets in 'closed' arrangers, even LESS of us are likely to be able to create them for the totally open, do it yourself soundset of the 'open' arranger.

To be honest, I think that it is FAR more likely that a Big 3 manufacturer will develop the 'open' architecture that the MS enjoys, but will mate it with a well chosen and developed soundset and use their vast experience in making TOTL styles and make the MS that we all actually WANT... Unless Dom finally figures this out, he is vunerable to the first company that realizes this FACT of arranger use.

Styles, styles, styles. This is the FIRST and almost ONLY thing you need... (look at Ketron! )

I keep hearing the more wishful of us go Of course, so far, I haven't really heard any of these so called non-US 'experts' create anything that really rivals the ROM styles themselves, either. Yes, they find themselves HAVING to make styles, when playing an ethnic music completely unrepresented by ROM styles, but let's be honest, can we? Have you REALLY found a rich pool of talented style creators doing it for themselves ANYWHERE?

I know (from listening to the MS ROM styles) that Dom hasn't, anyway If these are SO prevalent in Europe, why hasn't he hired them?

No, sorry. I am unconvinced. Creating an exciting, usable, dynamic style is possibly one of the hardest things to do. It's even harder than making straight linear music. There are all sorts of considerations that don't come into play when making normal music. It's about time that we acknowledged this....

Or someone provided example rather than rhetoric.

Styles need to be created by the hundreds, not ONE style you have slaved away at for months. If anyone actually WAS creating great styles at this kind of volume, well, they would be selling them and making a fortune, wouldn't they? I see no evidence of this. Just Dom's customers alone could make a good style developer some serious money. But where is this mythical guy (or gal)?

It's nice to dream. I have this recurring one where I am a talented soundset and style creator, and live in a mansion bought and payed for by all the arranger users crying out for killer styles... But then I wake up.

Time for the rest of us to do so, too...

Why don’t I like this arranger?

1. Because it tries to concentrate on style content rather than style development tools. The power of the arranger is not what style content is onboard but what you can do with an arranger.
2. It does not have 76 semi-weighted keys.
3. It is not well built and less than 30 LBS.
4. It does not have assignable knobs, sliders and buttons for sequencer and style controls.
5. It does not have XLR mic inputs.
6. It does not have a feature where you can freely import and export loops to the keyboard.

Customizability and not content should be what arranger manufacturers should be concentrating on.

As you can tell with the Audya, it has styles and live sounding ones, but that is not enough; the cry is for styles to be editable.

I would like to see an arranger that has the style edit ability like the MS. The keyboard should be 76 semi weighted keys.
It MUST have excellent sounds both acoustic and synth. It MUST have the ability to load other sounds in other formats like SFZ, wave and VST.



It MUST have great live sounding Drums, basses, pianos/organs, guitars and brass.


As it relates to styles, OTB, manufacturers should only have around 100 styles. Those styles should give the user an idea as to the type of styles that can be used on the arranger.
Then the manufacture should have plug-in boards with genre specific styles available for the user. So, if I am an arranger player in the USA and want USA styles I would purchase the USA styles pack that would have at least 200 styles. The same thing for oriental, Latin, Caribbean and so on.

What that would do is help the manufacturer focus on the real part of the keyboard like editing and creation tools and ease of use on a gig. Also, manufactures could sell the arranger cheaper, increase the number of sales and the plug-in for styles could be priced at a premium and the user would be willing to pay for just the style libraries he or she wants and does not have to pay for something he or she does not want.

In order to encourage style development and creation, the arranger MUST be able to integrate with the computer. You MUST be able to create and edit styles on the computer with or without the keyboard connected to the computer. How, it still must have style and sequence creation directly on the keyboard.


For those of us who are involved with and are familiar with modern music, In order to capture the modern music market, you MUST have audio playback and manipulation (that is where the technology is headed).
If you want to have an arranger used for modern music, it is not about sounding like a band, but it is about sounding like a DJ. The arranger must be able to manipulate audio.
That is why the ELASTIQUE BPM feature on the MS is so useful.

So to recap, the old school arranger players who are just able to play by turning on the keyboard; pressing a button to call up a style and using a finger in their left hand to get the accompaniment and their right hand to play a melody, then they would get the keyboard at an affordable price and purchase what ever style packs they would want at a premium.

For the serious gigging musician who wants to get the most out of their arranger, they would also have the style packs available to them but they would also get the benefit of computer integration, extensive style creation and editing.


The arranger would also cover persons in-between those two extreme user types.

Arranger manufacturers should also start to form relationships with software developers like Sonar, Celemony Melodyne
and band-in-box.

P.S one feature I would like to see on arranger is a drum lock feature.
So that if you are playing a style, and you change to another style, you can have the same drum pattern play. Perhaps the same thing could be done for all the style tracks.
But it should also be able to be done when changing to midi songs.