So the XS plays arps. So does the G70.
That’s right. All a style is a collection of different arps.

It is just that the arps on the G70, T3 Pa 2x pro have more advance real-time features than the XS.

I guess people would start rewriting history and say arrangers from the 80s and early 90s did not have styles. After all, they had the same limitations yesterday as does the XS have today.
Remember the old Casios?

OK...let's see if the XS is has arranger functions ...AND we all know it's a bunch cheaper that a T3..and you can get them in 61, 76 & 88...why, then do we buy a REAL arranger..the T3??
Do you suppose it's for the fantastic VP, NOT, how about the superb full arranger function, into's, vars endigs ect CONTENY and available content...Yep!

A Motif, Fantom, PC3 etc. can make some great music in the hands of a very talented PRO player...arrangers are for the most part home keyboards, also..used some for song writing, and pofessional entertaiment (Paid)

Terminology does not change what it will and will not do....That said..my Kurzweil K600X (and a PC3 for a while)can play sequences, ARPs etc and sounds real good...but it is not an arranger as MOST of us would describe it!

From what I have observed..the main utilization of most WS's is to go on stage, play along with all the much louder instruments, especially guitars screeming, to be part of the group.
Beautiful instruments and talented keyboard players..that you rarly can even hear. Exceptions of course...like the Bee Gees etc.
And of course studio work.

Of course some of us have both so we can use the right tool for the job.

Lee S.

Having played an XS extensively, let me tell you I wouldn't DREAM of using it as a substitute for an arranger. There are some VERY significant differences between running a WS loopstation and an arranger. First of all, the simple triggering of the divisions. I already posted about this, but somehow spalding seems to find making four or five button presses with great timing precision no more bother than pressing ONE... I guess actually PLAYING anything with your LH, even just chords, isn't really that important!

Add to that, let's just say... no Bass Inversions (what, don't use them, eh, spalding?) no complex mode changes, no accurate voicing of guitar chords for complex chords, no velocity switched changes to patterns, no automatic changes in patterns depending on what chord is played, the list goes on and on just in an operational level.

Then, forget all the live gigging conveniences of an arranger (lyric readout, songlists, with programmable transposition, sensible placing of controls to allow operation AND playing at the same time (WS's just have a more studio approach to where they place the knobs and sliders, etc. - for instance, the arp selection buttons are all in the MIDDLE, just under the screen, rather than close to your LH).

No, sorry, only a person that hasn't TRIED gigging on a WS would suggest one as an alternative to an arranger. Spalding LOVES to taunt us with how these things OUGHT to be possible, but it's pretty obvious he's never tried. Or he would already know this stuff.

Oh, and BTW... what possible reason would one try to create a STYLE, to compose original, creative music? I admit, as a simple scratchpad to sketch out an idea, the arranger is pretty good, but after that, if you are doing the job PROPERLY, you go ahead and replace almost everything with real playing. But if you have to create an original style in the first place, JUST to make the scratch track, and THEN chuck it all away, that's doubling the work you need to do. I LOVE using commercial styles as the scratchpad for a song, but if I haven't got a style that does what I want it to do, I'm not going to create one first, THEN chuck it all away!

I just do what everybody else does... Sequence up the song from scratch. If you want to BE creative, unless your goal IS to produce repetitive mindless music with instrumental parts no REAL player would ever play, that's what you end up having to do anyway. Sorry spalding, but you can't brow beat us on this. Many, many of us have worked extensively with the latest WS's as well as TOTL arrangers. We are all too well acquainted with what each of them does, and does best (and worst). And if choosing to use each of them at what they do best is being less creative, then sorry. I look forward to hearing your magnum opus done entirely on the arranger...

Ah, but what's this? You apparently seem to have a pretty good working knowledge of WS basics (but apparently come up a little short in the practical live application of them), but surely, if an arranger is ALL a creative person needs, why do you bother with WS's at all in the first place? I'm sorry, but it appears all too obvious you are as aware as the rest of us that the arranger isn't the be all and end all of keyboards.

I would suggest you take your own advice, and rather than start topics based on factory demos and plain flat out gear lust, actually go ahead and USE one for a while, then their shortcomings (and strengths) might be more easily ascertained... After all, it's just a bit bipolar to, on the one hand, say that ALL any creative musician needs is an arranger, then turn around and admit you really like this Motif, just because it has a few ten year old arranger capabilities on it. Because, simply following VERY basic chords around, VERY basically (compared to a TOTL arranger, for instance) is a nineties, maybe even an eighties arranger trick. They've come a long way, baby...

You are hard work dikki :-)

Have you ever made a style and then just chucked it away ???? I dont. I use them again and again in different ways just like an arranger was designed to be used !

Arranger 'features' does not mean the motif is an arranger. Noone is saying that it is . What is so hard to understand when i say it has arranger 'features' ? The whole point i made when i posted the clip was to show arranger features being used in a workstation. The clip showed exactly that. But a blind person cant see. My mistake really ha ha !!!!

Not all the arranger features are present just like they were not on the mediastation and possibly still are not but it still has arranger features right ? Why do these discussions always have to go to the extremes ? Just as the arranger has workstation features, but not all workstation features. I cant believe (actually i can) how stubborn some people can be just to score points . But it is a debate about music so i guess its all good !

I dont know how individuals make music in terms of songs here whether from scratch or from styles or both or if anyone has ever remixed a song . But when i do, i experiment with chord progressions and styles and mostly just grooves that i have doodled with (created myself) . The grooves i do mostly have some sense of build up just like an ordinary style that can be get busier or plainer as you wish. Using my PA1X ,i sing and play with bass drums and guitar and keys with a style or groove or combinations of both i have programmed earlier when just doodling in arranger style for fun or for a specific project,singing a melody out loud ( to the annoyance of my daughter ha ha !) . If i like the general direction of the song I drop it into the sequencer as a rough draft in one pass. i might do this again in a different style . Instant remix if you will :-).if i come back to it later and dont like those progressions or want to extend or change the progressions i punch in the chord changes etc using that same style . i might do this several times as the inspiration takes me in different styles or grooves, whether original on my PAx1 or ones that i have developed over the years myself.

Now i have a song or maybe several versions of the same song that i can work with in the sequencer in the traditional way. I might let the choir leader listen to what i have done to see which version/versions she likes best . We have songs that we do in morning worship which are geared towards the main church and the remixed version of the same song for concerts where we might get a bit livelier haha !! The key advantage is that she can hear the song not just piano and me singing (which could completely sour the song) ha ha !! but with some accompaniment so she gets a good idea of the feel of the songs etc. I can then use those tracks in terms of editing the drums keys guitars additional strings horns effects breaks fills manually until i am happy with the end result. The rough draft, once i have the basic structure of the song, might have taken just 5 minutes in a one pass in style mode recording to lay down. The creative thinking, experimenting with progressions and developing the melody might take a few hours or even days just like any song creation but the physical laying down of the tracks takes no more than 5 mins and i can lay down several different versions of that song with full tracks in separate recordings if i wish and each recording would take around 5 minutes. Each version of the song could have a different groove feel and i can edit any version that i choose as i wish at a later date. This is particularly usefull if i am remixing a choir song using differnt grooves or feel for someone else to tell me what they prefer.

If i did the same on a workstation using just the sequencer. I might spend hours producing something that i like and put it in the sequencer manually. Bass drums, keys guitar. Each track taking about 5 minutes each if i play each track note perfect the first time.(of course that happens every time right guys ?) If i dont like the progessions in the first draft or want to try it with a different groove or feel....well you can just imagine the work ! i have to reprogramme every track just to mess about with the structure of what i might have done before. Anyone that has ever done this will know it can take hours.

So an arranger helps at the very start of the writing process in the creative phase in a way that a workstation cannot.

Now an arranger is not exactly like a workstation neither is a workstation exactly like an arranger . i hope that clarifies it for some here that continually , perhaps deliberately miss the point !! but thank God someone at yamaha had just a tad of creativity and imagination in them to see how arranger 'features' could help both pro and hobbyist musicians to make music.

I hope this information is useful to somebody. Sorry if i come accros as brow beating. Thats not my intention at all. I am not just debating to score points or come across as being superior or more knowledgeable than anyone else. we are all musicians here trying to help each other (apart from those that are not ) and i am just throwing out there new ways of making music easier to make. You cant hear the tone of written responses but generally i am just trying to help and maybe being a little cheeky too ! If it helps just one person see the potential advantage of arranger features in both types of instruments then all these words did some good.

I hope you all accept the spirit of my posts.

Cheers .

Spalding


[This message has been edited by spalding1968 (edited 09-08-2010).]

I understand what you are saying....I don;t know which Motif XS8 you have But Performance mode on mine is nowhere near the Style playing mode of my Tyros. The only thing they have in common is they both track chords played. For one thing you are limited to FOUR voices in Performance mode while the Tyros has EIGHT and 10 instantly and perfectly timed variations on the fly and multi pad loops.... No variations on the XS HUGE difference...and when you do use the ARP changes in creating patterns you have to time them correctly.

You cannot select different variations breaks, intros and endings in "Performance mode" which means performance meaning "on the fly" playing live. All you get is chord tracking of 2 voices a Bass and a Drum Track that stays static for a "style" of music and a right hand voice. Not exactly something a "one man band act" would want to use. There is where the similarity ends.

The XS has the capability for better sounding voices because they can be edited in great detail. Not so much with the Tyros WYHIWYG...

You cannot do many things on either machine that you can do on the other, No pattern mode on the Tyros.....No variations to record in real time on the Motif XS in Performance mode. The Tyros mainstay is in Performance mode. Playing the Motif Live not many would use Performance mode as usually you are playing with a band. You create voices using eight elements, some of which can be ARPS.

The recorded "song" is created on the Motif stringing together patterns or in linear mode. Every voice has to be played unlike the Tyros where eight of 16 tracks are completed for you. Some voices can be ARPS which will track chords (or Drum parts which obviously don't) You record the pattern chaining in real time to create a song..In the Tyros you record the VARIATION changes to create a song. You are limited to four (excluding intros and endings). In the Motif you are not limited to the number of "variations" or patterns when creating a song. The EM review is misleading as few would use the Motif as a one man band instrument when keyboards like the PA1x, GWa and Tyros are available for that purpose exclusively. One thing they both do well is voice guitar parts correctly but to my ears even there Tyros beats the Motif. The ARPS on the Motif are plentiful but limiting at the same time.

Motif and Tyros Apples and Oranges.....in the same fruit bowl. They compliment each other but are not replacements for each other on any really useful level.




[This message has been edited by Kingfrog (edited 09-08-2010).]

I can understand what Kingfrog is saying but with one correction. You do have variation on the XS. As I said before the SF buttons below the screen are used for variations and fills in real-time.


When you are using the styles in performance mode, you do not convert them to a pattern. You play the style straight from performance mode.

And, one of the great features on the XS is for song writing.
When in performance mode and you pull up a style, you can recorded your playing the style in real-time by just pressing the record button.
So you have in one take 4 track being recorded at one time.
The drum track, the bass and chord instrument that are following your changes and a lead sound. You can even record the variation changes in real-time. And if you want to send it to some one you can even record it as a wave file.
The same thing you would do on a G70 when you record a style to the sequencer without the Audio recording.


Now can you use the XS in a one man band application on an everyday basis? Absolutely!! If you have never played an arranger and are prepared to spend time customizing the XS it can be done.

Can you take the XS out one or two nights a months on a lounge or dance gig an use it a similar way you would use a G70?
Absolutely.

The XS allows you to play drums, left hand bass and a sound in the right hand. The XS also allow you to play simple styles.

If you are accustomed to using a T3, G70 MS or PA2 X pro in full style mode 100% of the time, is the XS the keyboard to replace your keyboard? Absolutely not! Don’t even try it.
The XS is not for you.


P.S Not too long ago, arrangers had no Bass Inversions, no complex mode changes, no accurate voicing of guitar chords for complex chords, no velocity switched changes to patterns, no automatic changes in patterns depending on what chord is played and they were still call arrangers and they still had styles.
You know keyboards like the PSR 510 and earlyer arrangers.
So some persons seems to be confused that as time goes by, a keyboard could be an arranger one time then a few years later it is not.


[This message has been edited by to the genesys (edited 09-09-2010).]

well said Genesys.

If you think you can use patterns like Variations and Fills on an arranger, you are sadly mistaken. Yes, you can use them to make accompaniment, but the whole paradigm is utterly different to how an arranger works. An arranger is all about spontaneity, about being able to do ANYTHING the second you decide to do it, a loop station is something you decide IN ADVANCE what you want it to do. You can't drop a fill in wherever you want it, you HAVE to cue it up a bar in advance. You can't preset where it goes to, you HAVE to input it's destination by hand... Perhaps not important in a studio setting, where you don't need it to be realtime, but it makes a HUGE difference when trying to play live. Trust me on this one (I've tried to do it!), you might like to create a song on a MoXS at home, but take it to church, and decide to mess with the structure live, you are going to be cursing it's obstinacy probably more than how you feel about me..!

As to song creation, well, there's no right and wrong way... just whatever works! But some ways are easier to do than others. I've used your system, I've used others. To be honest, when simply working on arrangement and structure, I tend to do it the old fashioned way and simply PLAY it, sans backing, until I hear it flow the way I want it to, then start to add the fluff. I find too much fluff at the start tends to color my impression too early. But there's no WRONG way, as long as it works.

And, sorry, but a ten year old WS isn't going to impress you very much in the ability to create live arrangements. And current WS chord following abilities are at LEAST ten years out of date. If the ability to voice complex chords correctly, to have bass lines follow inversions, and all the other things we take for granted on an arranger are in the least bit important to you, having them completely missing even on the TOTL WS's is going to be a hassle. You wouldn't trade your PA in for a ten year old arranger, you'd miss WAY too much stuff. Sadly, you are going to HAVE to miss that stuff if you try playing on a loopstation WS.

Neither is an adequate substitute for the other, yet, IMO. That's why I have both, and USE both. Trust me, if I felt one of them could cover BOTH bases equally well, I would sell the other in a flash.

+1.......I bought the Tyros first and felt very handicapped trying to use it as an ORIGINAL song creating machine. Great for Ideas and using some parts and setting song structure for simple AABAAB songs. But trying to do things along the lines of Gist of the Gemini By Gino Vanelli and projects similar in scope the Tyros is woefully inadequate. But it's voices are not.

You would not believe the young WS users that I meet day after day that are blown away by the S910! But they soon realize the limitations if they don't go outside their box and absolutely need Pattern mode. For those who do traditional music writing it is very much accepted as well as those who don't do computer recording and want to do vocals over already produced and arranged tracks.

Watch this clip. You might not care for the styles in the demo but concentrate on :

1. The drum fills
2. The trigger to style variations of increasing complexity
3. The endings

all triggred live and in real time on the XF .The demo is not great as the demonstrator is obviously not used to playing arranger style but this shows you despite all the nonesense that has been said here, exactly how the XF could be used as an arranger. Perhaps not to the nth degree that some here want to strecth the point but never the less the XF/XS clearly has arranger features and according to your tastes and skill as an arranger.

Go straight to 3mins 10 seconds and watch the demonstrator in performance mode record straight into the sequencer and demonstrate all of the above.

Only a blind person could not see this.

http://www.youtube.com/user/yamahacorporation#p/u/30/Q3hgCN46Tps



[This message has been edited by spalding1968 (edited 09-10-2010).]