I have been involved in some projects and worked close to some of the manufactures in off to became aware that to make an arranger module, first they have to based in a keyboard they either already have or is on the process, the second, they have to design it to fit the footprint of the motherboard of the keyboard, as an example, take a look at the SD5 keyboard and the SD3 module, is not small by any means, is the same dimensions on the control panel area to fit the motherboard size.

Perhaps in other pass times, Manufacturers like Roland (RA series), Korg (with the I series) , Wersi, Bohm and GEM made modules that not necessarily had a keyboard counterpart, like the RA90-95, the 800 was based on one of the upper models on the E series from the late 90’s and so on, the GEM Genesis module was based on it’s keyboard counterpart, etc.
One of the current exceptions is the Midjay and Midjay Plus, SD2&4.

In a marker that is “highly special” like the module arrangers, is not profitable for most of the factories to make a module, whatsoever, there still a market for them, and I am glad that Ketron has made modules since it’s beginning, with the then Solton MS5, MS40, X4, XD3, etc. and now the Ketron SD3. SD4, SD2 and Midjays, for those for fellow musicians that their main instrument is a Guitar, accordion, etc. and even for studio use, where sometimes space is an issue.
As simple as it seems, it cost a lot of money to have this done, and the most important fact is that module sales are marginal in comparison to their keyboard counterparts, what makes it not profitable.

That is my take on that, I used to gig with my Yamaha Electone EL90 (Japanese version open) and I midi that to an RA95 Roland, I really like that combination, since the Electone was midi and I found the way to get the most of both, it was a blast to play, later I changed the RA95 for the Solton X1 HD, was even better yet.


------------------
mdorantes

I have to agree, despite how many feel about Ketron. Many of our guitar and accordions friends would have to carry around keyboards. I wish other companies would also carry modules of their arrangers but they know what they can sell or not sell.

I'm surprised that Yamaha didn't keep going with the QY Series. The QY700 was by miles a head of it's time. I have one myself in the Studio in mint condition.

A little more development on them and you would have had one hell of a mean sequencer with arranger built in.

Regards
James

The arranger module market is a tiny piece of the already small arranger pie...so why would a manufacturer go to the trouble/expense of developing one, just to get a portion of an already small segment?

It may be more likely to see accordions sold with arranger units built in...Roland's V-Accordion would be a great candidate.

There must be some way to get the innards of the GW-8 or McPrelude into one of those units?

James, the QY-700 was the ultimate end product of Yamaha's QY "Walkstation" line.

I very nearly bought one when Yamaha was clearing out the warehouse at year's end....back then I was using a cut down Clavinova CLP-300 and an Roland RA module.

I decided to go with 61 keys and forgo the piano altogether (most gigs were becoming more arranger based), especially when the PSR-8000 came out.

Still, the QY-700 was a quite a smart concept...wonder where they could have taken it, especially with today's technology?

I don't quite follow what this thread is about … are we saying that a manufacturer is considering producing a module based on a top of the line arranger? Or, is it that based on your observations, a Korg PA2X, Roland E series, Yamaha T-3 or Audya based module will never happen because the manufacturers can’t make enough money making and selling them?
Ciao,
Jerry

Your primary problem with a TOTL arranger module is that the physical buttons themselves are a LARGE part of how we play the thing, and they need to be as close to the keyboard as is humanly possible. No remote keyboard offers enough buttons or flexibility of programming them, and no arranger has remote codes for ALL the functions you are going to need...

Modules used to be great when they were fairly simple beasts (used an RA-90 for quite a while), but as laden with controls that are needed for their operation and touch screens that can't be obscured by other gear as modern WS's are, I just can't see how it would physically be possible to get the two close enough together to work well.

I think, on the whole, we are pi$$ing into the wind on this one What MIGHT be more worth our time, and might actually be responded to if enough of us got a hold of our manufacturer reps and dealers, would be to DEMAND that full MIDI implementation be restored to arranger operation, and a unified, cross-manufacturer set of MIDI codes for arranger operation.

This would simply be a matter of software, and wouldn't require the manufacturer to tool up for an entirely new (and VERY niche) product. If the arranger can't be made into a module, that can be controlled by a WS, why not control a WS module (or another arranger) from the arranger you are playing? Pretty much all the WS's have rack module versions. It doesn't really matter WHAT MIDI keyboard you are playing on, as long as it can send any MIDI code you want it to...

But full MIDI functionality MUST be implemented for this to work. I have long said that, rather than hold my breath waiting for the PERFECT arranger to come out, it already (at least for me) exists if I could merely MIDI two current arrangers together. No reason why I couldn't add a WS module to the mix too... But while MIDI transmission and reception are as barebones as most manufacturers make them, this is a pipe dream.

C'mon, Yamaha, Korg, Roland, Ketron... it's ONLY code, no hardware changes needed in the slightest. Every knob, button and slider should be able to send a user defined MIDI code, and every function of operation should have a user defined code. Make it an 'expert' setting that normally hides from view if you don't want to frighten the 'home' users.. But you'll sell a BOATLOAD more gear if two can talk to each other. Otherwise, we GOTS to use just the one

Your choice. We are waiting, with our wallets ready...

I think you are right about the futility, and, personally I don't know how well a big corporation like Roland will respond to any demands...what will you threaten them with?

Certainly it won't be, "I won't buy your gear!"

What will you use then?

I'm not trying to be negative, or shoot down your idea, but, let's be realistic....they hold the reins, not us....we just like to think that we do.

Roland realizes that the percentage of people who will hook two arrangers together, will be infinitesimally small, as arrangers are inherently complete instruments...as are workstations.

The wind as your urinal seems likely.

You'd have more luck just finding a tone module to augment your arranger.

But to demand something from Roland (or any one else)? Not going to work.

Just not enough demanders(?) to back it up...most, if not all, arranger players, don't care if they ever add a module.

I know, adding a module to my S910 is the very least of my priorities...just another piece of gear to drag around...that's why I use an arranger...to eliminate the issues I used to have with carrying a drum machine, bass pedals, two (or three) keyboards etc.

I like self contained, and I waited quite a few years to have it...I'm not going backwards by adding more stuff.

That's also why I like my arrangers to have built in speakers.

But, you can try your plan and organize a bunch of arranger players to demand that Roland (or whoever) release the info to you.

I know I'm certainly not going to demand anything from Yamaha.

Don't need to; they read this forum...

Well, the market itself DEMANDS action from the manufacturers. The will of the customer, if the basic premise of supply and demand is true, basically says that whatever the majority want, the majority get... They simply get it faster if they are vocal about it. Look at how Yamaha responded to Roland in the eighties (or early nineties)... Roland were ahead, and Yamaha users DEMANDED (whether tacitly or vocally) that they catch up and surpass them, or wither on the vine.

Yamaha responded.

Korg owners DEMANDED (whether tacitly or vocally) that Korg develop something the equivalent of SA voicing, or users would move to what DID have the feature...

Korg responded.

These guys do their market research. If they read enough about how the majority of arranger power users want better MIDI capability, that is a powerful voice for them to ignore at their peril. The first guy that implements it has a definite advantage. As Yamaha DID with SA. Now Korg have nearly caught up (just waiting for the samples). Did anyone DEMAND it from Korg, or did they simple FEEL the demand? That's splitting hairs.

But personally, when NO-ONE has a particular feature (like user definable arranger codes), if enough users that WOULD like it were vocal on the issue, that's a demand that no arranger manufacturer would ignore. Not if they wanted to get a leg up on the competition, anyway...

What astounds me is the thought that it MIGHT not happen, yet is simply code, and fairly easy to implement code at that. We aren't talking SA technology, or Guitar Modes, this is MIDI 101...

And if the manufacturers, after seeing what happened in the eighties when MIDI was first introduced, and an explosion of synth buying happened because FINALLY we could control two keyboards from the one can't see that exactly the same thing would happen in the arranger world IF they could talk to each other, then capitalism is a fiction.. The goal is to sell as many units as possible. If a feature that would enable that to happen is ignored, the market itself DEMANDS they implement it.

I just happen to feel that we COULD help it along, by telling them that IF they implemented it, we WOULD buy a secondary arranger.

I have completely given up on expecting Roland's best features to be implemented in a Yamaha, and Yamaha's best implemented in a Roland. But if I could link the two and they work as one. I GUARANTEE I would be buying a Yamaha to go along with the Roland.

Heck, if the codes for the arranger WERE standardized, we might actually see the return of the arranger module, because it could be made a LOT cheaper if it weren't for the need to duplicate almost ALL the controls from the keyboard version. I have no idea why anyone expects a module version of a TOTL arranger to be much less expensive than the full version... the only thing it drops is the keyboard and the slightly larger case. All the electronics are still exactly the same, buttons, sliders, knobs, etc.. But if the MIDI codes were comprehensive, it wouldn't need anything much more than a power button and a volume knob! That's a HUGE saving, right there...

But unless we talk about it, unless we make our desires known, there's no DEMAND for it, and probably no action.

It's up to us. Korg users got SA technology. We could get this too, if we want it bad enough. Aren't we TIRED of always having to make SOME kind of compromise between arrangers? Wouldn't we rather have two (two MOTL would probably do!) and have NO compromise?

I know I would...

Well my friend, as I said, Yamaha reads these forums.

Why don't you put up a poll, or a post, that deals with the release of these codes and have the "arranger power users" respond and state in their own words why they want/need access to them.

I'm sure someone from Roland reads SZ as well, and perhaps from Korg, too.

It would be a start, and we have to start somewhere.

Just because I am not interested in carrying/adding more gear, doesn't mean that it applies to everyone...it's only this past decade that MOTL arrangers became good enough to use on a pro gig (for me) instead of TOTL arrangers, and finally I can simplify my kit even more, but perhaps I am in the minority of "arranger power users".

In any case, it would be good to make the manufacturers aware that there are people who want these codes, and there's no better place to start,than here on SZ.

Here the new Expande module.
You can also install the Livestyler..

mistake, sorry

[This message has been edited by cgiles (edited 11-02-2009).]

Wow! That's....ahhhh...groovy, Dom.

At a quick glance, it looks like a crossword puzzle...sorry, couldn't resist.

Seriously, when will we be able to buy and use this product...before the New Year?

It's out now.
http://www.lionstracs.com/store/groove-x6-d-p-235.html?osCsid=ddec396f59ee33fe340ad0db3f3a7f12

Regards
James

So, I'm supposing this is a derivative of the Mediastation?

That product had a rocky beginning, and a less than enthusiastic reception here on SZ.

I hope the Groove fares much better.

I must say, looks far better in black than red, but that's just my relatively conservative taste.

Since this is a General Arranger forum, are there any demos using styles?

Great Topic

I really think the Arranger module is going to end up being a laptop arranger. The prices of PC's are now so cheap, it would make sense for any of the the Major Players (Roland, Korg, Yamaha. Etc) to create a Program on a Dongle ready to plug in.

They have the resources (sound Styles Etc) so it could be a really vaible and profitable medium.

Jerry

Jerry

Now, that's a cool idea, Jerry. Isn't there a PC program that plays PSR styles in an arranger sort of way?

Would just be a matter of developing it further.

Also, what about Band-In-The-Box? Would it be that difficult to allow it to be played "live", like an arranger?

I think you're spot on with your prediction.

They have been out for donkeys years
http://www.live-styler.de/home/
http://www.1manband.nl/omb.htm

Regards

Bill

But these are just little home made donkeys...Jerry is referring to the Big Three taking it to the next level, and making thoroughbred race horses.

They could even make some sort of adaptor to attach the laptop to your Wersi, Mediastation, or Ensoniq Mirage.

The basic idea has been done, sure, but, not to the level comparable to a full featured TOTL arranger.

Kudos again, to Jerry.

Hi,
it would be a great concept, but I doubt they'd do it.

Wouldn't something like that cut back on their keyboard sales? Basically how much will a user be willing to pay for a piece of software?

We've got software like One Man Band & Livestyler, only thing holding them back is that they don't have a soundsource 100% compatible for the "psr styles" that they're capable of playing.
I bought a Ketron SD2 soundmodule to try & use with OMB software, psr styles need a fair bit of editing to sound any good with it.

I'm thinking of giving an XG soundfont another go as a soundsource. This time in a V Machine instead of the laptop itself.
Be interesting to see if it works.
James (IrishActs), thank you for offering to try loading a soundfont for me, won't be neccesary, I ended up buying a secondhand v machine on Ebay for less than half price, all but brand new. Couldn't resist, just waiting for it to arrive.

I still think it's a pity the main manufacturers have stopped making arranger modules. I've had all the Rolands, the Korg, even a Technics. Plus I used to own a QY700. Sorry I sold it, many years ago.

best wishes
Rikki

I don't know, Ian. I keep posting this stuff and VERY few chime in or add anything to it.

I guess it's far more entertaining to sit around and bitch about each arranger's weak points (or ignore them completely to justify its' purchase ) than to actually DO something about it

I guess the day I start a topic about adding full MIDI codes to arrangers and it fills up quickly with other players going 'I want that TOO! ', that MIGHT be the day any of the manufacturers take any notice..

Answer 1 Question

Would you pay $1000 for the software Dongle or small module version of a Tyros, Kopg PA series, or high end Roland arrangers. Think how easy it would be to have your modules sent back to the manufacturers for new styles & sounds and other goodies. That my dear friends is the kind of business I think is king.
Residual income ??????????

Why did I say Dongle or attachement versus the Total software aproach. Protecting their investments and keep upgrading.

Keyboards are going to be around for a long time & so will some arrangers. For a lot of folks quality is very important. People will pay for the sounds & styles they want.

Just my 2 cents worth maybe someone from the big 3 might be thinking - Small up front cost got all the rest of the stuff all ready.

Styles & Sound

(Qoute)
Diki "Your primary problem with a TOTL arranger module is that the physical buttons themselves are a LARGE part of how we play the thing, and they need to be as close to the keyboard as is humanly possible. No remote keyboard offers enough buttons or flexibility of programming them, and no arranger has remote codes for ALL the functions you are going to need

Really good point!!!!

What are your thoughts of a touch screen Laptop. you could make it jump through hoops.

Have fun Every one.

Been a great topic

Jerry

Hi Jerry,
I think personally I'd be inclined to go for a mix of software arranger & hardware sound source. A T3 in a box the size of the SD2. That would be interesting.

Actually there was a guy on the ketron forum developing arranger software that plays sd styles & uses the sd2 as a soundsource. Not sure how he went. My SD2 crashed when I installed the latest update, & I haven't sent it off for repairs yet, so I've lost track on his progress.
best wishes
Rikki

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mainer:
[B]

Hi Rikki
The full version of Livestyler http://www.live-styler.de/home/ has a patch setup specifically for the SD2, and also allows Ketron styles to be converted and use the module instead of/or in addition to other sounds.
Regards

Bill

You hit the nail squarely on the head there. It's why I've never been persuaded by the organ/keyboard + module route. The early promise of MIDI, that no organ or keyboard would ever be obsolete, and that we'd just be swapping one "expander" (remember when they were called that?) for another, fell over the first time anyone actually tried it.

I'm always harping on about the importance of UI to arrangers. The physical proximity of all controls necessary to enable live play is absolutely essential, IMO.

Even with the RA module on the flat top of my Clavinova CLP-300, the controls were not very ergonomically ideal...everything had to be, and was, controlled by my left hand (except start/stop)...I couldn't put the module in the center, because of my music stand...

And, even though the buttons on the RA module weren't that far away, they had nowhere near the accessibility afforded by the buttons being on the keyboard/controller itself, and spread out to allow use by both hands.

I think you would need a dedicated, and specially designed controller to work with a module....and, thereby basically defeating the purpose of having the latter in the first place.

May as well just buy the arranger itself.

Sure, you can assign some functions to a foot-switch, but that's only a band-aid solution, and some of us don't want more pedals to deal with.

Just thinking out loud.

Early arrangers really only had the two variations and a fill up/fill down, so a simple footswitch could toggle between the two. Nowadays, with four variations and six or so fills, a simple toggle is insufficient.

While some people eschew pedals, I think for the person that is actually PLAYING a lot, rather than 'operating' the arranger, having at least Variation selection (with AutoFill ON) at your feet removes most of the player having to take his hands off the keyboard (and consequently, stop playing) during the song, especially for songs with a lot of changes. I use the Roland seven switch pedal, and other than intros and endings, can go through many songs without needing to push the panel buttons at all except for tone or registration changes.

Timing always seems to suffer when you have to dash back and forth to the buttons. Fills and turnarounds especially always seem to have more changes than many verses or choruses, but that is precisely the time when you DO have to go hit buttons.

Organists seem to have no problem playing from between 13 to 27 'switches' at their feet well enough to actually play a melody (or bass line!), and yet some consider that even ONE pedal is too much... I just don't think they are trying hard enough

Probably the one operation you do more than any other while you play is trigger the variation changes (you ARE using them as much as possible, aren't you?!). Shifting this ONE thing to your feet allows you to concentrate on the playing, and less on stabbing at buttons and dashing madly back to the keyboard (where you usually make a clam in your haste)...

the finger is faster then the foot always!

Good points, Diki, but I'd rather stick to using the one pedal...sustain.

With the arranger accompaniment and voice buttons laid out properly, you, or at least, I, developed a sort of choreography with my hands and fingers, and each song had it own steps.

Sometimes I use a second pedal, but not often...I suppose it's as much as what you get used to, as well as what you prefer.

I got used to doing things with my hands because I was using my feet for bass pedals, although having a toe switch on the volume pedal was...er...swell.

I was never into multiple floor switches, and really have no desire to start using them.

Simplicity is my goal, these days, and what simplifies things for you, may not do quite the same for others.

You are unique, you know...just like everybody else.

Only if you are not using it to PLAY...

(or were you simply referring to the 'middle finger' )

Quick question. Let's say you HAVE to play a chord AND hit a fill button at the same time. Which one do you decide is going to be late (or early)..?

The foot is incredibly precise. Look at how accurately it is used for sustain (well, OK, in your case, not.. But in MOST people's case it is! ). What makes you think it can't be that accurate for a fill?

I only use the one pedal, too... an FC-7 The left end of it is for the Variations, the right end of it is for my sustains (I prefer to have separate UPR and LWR sustains, for live use). As long as I am not using the swell pedal (only tend to use it for organs, mostly) I simply sit there with one foot on the sustain, and one hovering over the four Variation selects. I never have to look at them, and rarely miss-hit...

Perhaps if it was an option for the PSR's, you might get to like it, but it's easy to tend to dismiss something that you can't use even if you wanted to...

Hi Bill,
thank you.

I downloaded the demo version of Live Styler a few days ago & haven't had a chance to check it out yet.
It's come a long way since I tried it for the first time, a few years back.
Problem I had with it back then, was that it didn't appear to play back piano arpeggio's correctly. I use a lot of piano styles ( with just bass & strings), so if it messes up the arpeggio, it's really noticeable. I ended up using One Man Band instead.

As for the Ketron conversion, haven't checked into that. Sounds interesting.


Thanks Bill.

best wishes
Rikki





[This message has been edited by rikkisbears (edited 11-03-2009).]

The multiple switched pedal seems to work well for you, my friend.

I have used a similar rig by Yamaha on the Tyros, can't recall the model number off hand...tried it...dismissed it.

{edit to add}..now I remember...it was an MFC-10 Programmable MIDI Foot Controller.

I'm pretty sure it will work with the S910 as well (I believe the PSR has a midi template all set up for it), but, again, I only want to use one pedal...sustain.

I'm a "hands on" kinda guy.



[This message has been edited by ianmcnll (edited 11-03-2009).]

http://www.yamaha.com/yamahavgn/CDA/ContentDetail/ModelSeriesDetail.html?CNTID=1158&CTID=208500

Yeah, I can see your point about THAT..! Way to over engineer the problem, Yamaha!
http://www.rolandus.com/products/productdetails.php?ProductId=832

Simpler, cheaper, and the pedals are MUCH further apart from each other... Maybe if this worked with a Yamaha, you'd be thinking differently...

Yep, the MFC10 is a pretty cool pedal, alright.

It's designed not just for arrangers, but also for the G50 Guitar MIDI Converter and the WX11 Wind MIDI controller.

The Roland unit is cool too.

No, it's nothing to do with the ergonomics...I found the Yamaha system worked fine...I just don't want to use a multiple pedal unit, that's all.

I use a Roland sustain pedal...the one with the rubber flappy thing for your heel...got two of them...must be nearly 20 years old, or more....what a brilliant design....so simple, too.

Neither company have cornered the market on best designed accessories, so it's nice to be able to choose.

But that's a generic MIDI footcontroller, there... got to be a boatload of programming to get it to do whatever you want... (unless you stick to Yamaha's preset assignments)

Roland is just seven dumb switches. But the arranger does all the assigning to them, storable on board. Make a simple task simpler is usually the best solution

Perhaps in regular arranger mode, if you aren't doing stuff that has changes all the time you have time to mess with the fills, but in either Pianostyle mode (where BOTH hands are playing full time) or fast uptemo stuff with changes every few beats, I just don't see how you can play them without SOME kind of foulup getting to the buttons and back.

Lord knows, it's one of the things I notice a LOT in amateur demos. Timing of the fill, or the notes themselves get screwed up a LOT when you have to dive off the chord hit one tiny button amidst a bunch of other tiny buttons, and get back to the next chord (usually late and/or clammed ).

As I asked Donny... if you HAVE to trigger a fill on beat 2 AND change chords, which do you choose to play incorrectly?

I vote for a "...small module version of a Tyros, Kopg PA series, or high end Roland arranger(s)..."
Ciao,
Jerry

I never use piano-style mode on my arranger....always split keyboard, usually at F#2, G2, or A2.

Getting to the fills has never been a problem...fast tempo, slow tempo...doesn't matter...it's second nature...I could practically do it in my sleep...hey, that might come in handy some day.

The Yamaha style control buttons are perfectly located on the S910 and Tyros...close enough to reach easily, and far enough so there are no accidents.

The S910 has rubbery buttons that feel great and never get slippery....they should be on all arrangers.

I'd no sooner use a multiple foot switch than I would use bass pedals again.

We all have our preferences.

What do you envision controlling them with?

Unless you strip off all the buttons, sliders, knobs and the great big diplay, it's going to cost pretty close (if not more, because of economy of scale) to what the keyboard version does...

And I have yet to see any MIDI controller keyboard with enough knobs, sliders and a touch display (or Yamaha style 'buttons surrounding the screen') for full arranger control. With an arranger, it's VERY important which side of the keyboard which controls are... If you can't have a bank of buttons (for Variation and Fill select, Start/Stop, etc.) VERY close to your LH's chord area, you are screwed...

Count how many of the controls you actually use on your current arranger, and where they are positioned. Now look for a controller with the same layout. Not so easy, is it?

[This message has been edited by Diki (edited 11-03-2009).]

My preference is to be able to use ANY mode that the arranger provides..

That's nice, my friend...you certainly wring the most out of that G70.

Personally, I like using split mode and style play, because it is the most enjoyable method for me. I could sit and play for hours, and time just sort of wafts by slowly and peacefully.

Not many lines of work that give you that feeling.

I played the arranger for fun and personal enjoyment...and somebody decided to pay me...how cool is that?

To be honest, if Roland provided a 'wrap-around' for Fill UP or Fill Down (in other words, once you got filled up to Var4, and hit it again, it would go to Var1) you wouldn't NEED a multi switch pedal (be nice if you had the option to go either 1-2-3-4-1 or 1-2-3-4-3-2-1, though)

You could simply use a sustain pedal and that would be it (two or three VERY fast taps would get you from Var1 to Var 3 or 4). It's how I used to run the G1000, never bothered with the FC-7 back then (although I bought one - glad I kept it, now ), and kept stage clutter to a minimum. All I use my FC-7 for is Variation section, sustains, and the one left over is my Leslie F/S. It's not like I'm trying to do the WHOLE thing hands free, but Var selection and fills is something you do dozens more times a song than Ending selection, or OnBass on/off, etc..

It just makes sense to me to delegate the one thing that interrupts my playing the most to a foot I'm not even using!

Does Yamaha allow you to cycle through the Variations (Up and Down) with a single pedal? If they do, maybe it's worth a try? How could it HURT, anyway?

I used to think a footswitch was essential for an arranger, but that was because I was so used to holding keys down when playing chords for solo piano.

When you develop the "arranger" technique, whereby divorcing your left hand from holding keys and simply activating them, the need for a pedal mostly disappears, I found.

All of a sudden I had a free hand to change buttons etc...And on any beat too,all it needs is just a smidge of mental pre-planning, and practicing the move, then even time critical changes are pretty straight-forward..

Just my 2c

Dennis

PS: as for the original thread, the actual cost of a keybed only adds around $300 for a 76 non-weighted and around $450 for a fully weighted, so all the additional manufacturing costs against the less than stellar profits would be one very good reason there are not mroe arranger modules.

PLUS they are a P.I.T.A. as Ian pointed out, to actually use live.

Yep, you can cycle up through the Variations, and down through the Variations...but...you can't do both...at least with the one pedal.

I got so used to doing store demos under all kinds of conditions...sometimes there wasn't a pedal available(I started taking one in my kit bag)...sometimes I was presented with an instrument to demo, with no previous time at all with it...had them take one in the store right off the courier truck, out of the box, and away ya go...those times were quite the experience.

So I minimized, and I got used to it, and now I really like it.

If I needed a second pedal, I'd certainly use it, but, I never seem to, and the spare pedal I carry is just that...a spare.

I play arranger very simply and very casually...it's just my style...I'm the same way with most things in life...I like to think I'm laid back, but I'm probably just lazy.

Why develop 'arranger technique' when one simple footswitch can negate the need to? I still do a fair bit of actual playing in the LH, especially in Pianostyle mode (even when I'm not playing full piano) where you can play a couple of notes without retriggering the chord...

Instead of making the arranger do a 6/9, you can have it do a straight C and ONLY your LH part add the extensions. It's cool and subtle effect. But you can't do it if you are constantly diving off to hit the fills... The way to avoid the arranger's repetitive nature is to play as much as possible, not delegate it ALL save the RH to a machine, IMO...

And you STILL haven't solved the problems with tunes that constantly change chords (as much jazz and standards do). One bar's fill quite often has a different chord for each BEAT When have you got time to hit any buttons?

Sure, simple stuff you can get away with that, but it gets harder and harder the more complex stuff you play...

Same with Roland... Maybe it's something to mention to the Head Office? Sure would work better if they wrapped around...

However much I would like an Arranger Module I don't think Yamaha, Korg, or Roland will delve into producing them any time soon, if at all, in my opinion. Ketron is the exception and by the looks of it Lionstracs is now giving an effort on it too. Kudos to Dom for venturing off in that direction but it remains to be seen how effective it will be for the User and/or Dom's own bottom line. But just look at the price of the Groove Box module if you will.. it is priced above some totl arranger "keyboards". And just one more piece of equipment to lug around if you happen to gig.

If the price was right then a full featured arranger module would be an interesting alternative. Since they seem to be so expensive I would personally just keep getting the whole "enchilada" i.e. an arranger "keyboard" instead.

It will be interesting to see what shows up at winter NAMM '10 which is only a couple of months away now. I am really hoping that Roland finally comes through with the successor for the "fit for the museum" G-70. I had heard through "inside" sources that Roland is indeed producing a G70 successor but when it will actually show up is anybodies guess. When it is revealed it will be really interesting to see (and hear) all the new improvements and upgrades it will have compared to the saber-toothed G70.. BTW, I'm not trying to put the G70 down or anything but we all know it has been around for a lllooooooooooonnnnnggggggggggggggggg time and is now well overdue for a replacement model to succeed it. We'll see..

Two more years or more before we will likely see the T3 successor hit the market though. When it does show up at the end of 2011?? it will most likely be revolutionary in its arranger style functioning in my opinion. I believe Yamaha was granted patent(s) for the technology it will use, which will go a long way in producing random variableness into Style play; along the same lines of the Audya's 'intelligent' arranger aspect but perhaps much more comprehensive in its ability to do so??? We'll see.. In about two years or so..

The PAX2PRO OS hasn't been updated in almost a year so Korg may be getting ready to shelve it and announce something new at possibly 'summer' NAMM '10 or winter NAMM '11. Korg is also on a roll with their new SV-1 digital piano and with a possible M3 replacement showing up in a couple years or less possibly as well. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Roland Fantom G's successor shows up in two years or under either. Yamaha's next totl Workstation should be coming out in a year or two max also. So there are many things to look forward to from both the Arranger side and the Workstation side as well. Casio's next totl (to them ) Arranger Workstation should prove to be very intriguing as well. It will most likely have 128 note polyphony and a host of other great features included in it too. Casio is getting better all the time as we know and may indeed take a sizable "chunk" of the marketshare away from some of the other manufacturers down the road because of the huge price discrepancy and value that Casio brings to the table. Winter NAMM '10 may be the place where Casio's next arranger workstation shows up perhaps too. There may even be a new arranger module from Ketron or..??? >> I'll personally stick with the arranger "keyboard" concept most likely though. And since I don't currently own an Arranger keyboard I am starting to salivate as I think of all the possibilities that lay ahead for possible considerations i.e. Tyros 4, PA3XPRO, Roland G90GXP, Audya 2 (the completed version [img]http://www.synthzone.com/ubbs/biggrin.gif[/img]), Casio WK-????, etc., etc..

All the best,
Mike

Actually, the Variations do wrap around...using the pedal (set to FILL UP) to go up through them, it goes A, B, C, D, and then starts at A again, then B, C...etc.

There are about 49-50 functions for each foot switch on the S910.