Perhaps it is the name of the feature that confuses many people into thinking it is something different to what it is...?

'Sequencing' always seems to imply doing something in advance. You 'sequence' a song, you 'sequence' your set list in advance, etc., etc..

Perhaps people would understand the feature better if it was called a 'chord looper'?

Loop pedals are all the rage with the solo guitar set. Most people know what a looper pedal does... you play into it, hit play and it spits back out what you just played in, looped up so it repeats perfectly (if you played it right to start with). You then play over the top of what you played, maybe even add to the loop, whatever.

This is what I think people would expect from a feature called the 'Chord Looper'

But I think that altogether too many that see a 'Chord Sequencer' on an arranger think to themselves 'Chord TRACK', which several arrangers have had, or still do. You program, IN ADVANCE, the chords to a tune, and then use this 'chord track' to play the song for you. No interactivity, no improvisation, barely better than playing over an SMF, if the truth be told.

Nothing could be further away from a REAL 'Chord looper'. This inputs the chords AS YOU PLAY THEM and will spit them out 'in sync' with what you are doing. Add to that that ONLY the chords get recorded (if you set it up this way), so repeated iterations of the loop don't have to be in the same variation, or even the same style! Try THAT with an audio looper! You don't have to kick fills in the same place, only the chords get repeated. Then, with a single button press, it gets out of your way, and you are back seamlessly playing new chords (a bridge, a vamp, a lead-in to the next song) and perhaps even starting to record the NEXT set of changes for you to play over.

There's NOTHING 'sequenced' about it! It is all done on the fly, with only one more button push than you are currently using.

I say we should start to use Chord Looper until people begin to understand what it can do for you.

The jury is still out as far as I am concerned on the Chord Sequencer/Looper on the PA3x. And in fact it is still out on the entire keyboard, until I can see a manual.

I want to know if the CS is only a one shot live thing, or if you can save the created chord sequence somewhere for later use? I want to know that if whilst recording the chord sequence any variation or fill changes also get stored?

Unfortunately the rather lacking demo by the Korg guys at NAMM did not go anywhere near a full explanation of this super new upgrade (one of the very few REAL ones) on the PA3.

I also want to know exactly what IS Guitar Mode II? Can we now use it live? Can we now use it in recording MIDIS? Or is it STILL stuck permanently in style creation only, and maybe Korg added a few more guitar strums thereby qualifying it as "Guitar Mode II"

I want to know if the user ram has REALLY been increased.

I want to know if the style management has been taken from the dark ages and brought up to date. IE - are we STILL stuck with the very cumbersome, time-consuming and mostly useless "SET" way of importing styles?

Is there a better way for users to preview a style BEFORE loading it up into user slots?

Do Korg have plans to provide PC Software to fully link us with the PA3x? Or at the very least provide access to data that will allow 3rd party programmers to develop PC assist programs like the EXCELLENT Roland Session Manager available for the Roland arrangers.

Can the new 8 available insert effects be truly freely applied across the keyboard, or will they be split as the current 4 insert effects are. IE 2 inserts for the styles/songs and 2 inserts for the upper 1,2,3 and lower?

For example can a user be allowed to use say 6 different effects for the upper 1,2,3 and then only have 1 or 2 left for the style or song?

Can the insert effects including the MAXX (GREAT!!!!! inclusion by the way) be accessed via MIDI, indeed can ALL the insert effects be now accessed via MIDI (without some special setup).

Will Korg now FINALLY allow access to Sysex codes?

You see there is a lot more REAL info required, and not just hoopla about the colour (who gives a fig!!!) or perceived sound from a crappy live video demo....Or how many buttons on the front or, or whatever!!!!


That is why the jury is still out for me.. Way too little info.

And I read on the other forums that people have ALREADY sold, or are selling their PA2X's.............Sheesh!!!!

Dennis

The CS is the thing I missed most after dumping my old G800. It would be SO easy for Roland to put it back into the current models. I don't believe they read or care what the Users want.
DonM

Hi Diki
Yes I would definitely go with Chord Looper, as it is a more logical name for the feature.


Hi Dennis
The PA3x is not estimated to be out till April, so I am sure all your questions (And some proper demos) will be answered in the not too distant future.

Bill

Well, they seem to care what accordion players want!

My hope is that, now someone ELSE has brought out a Chord Sequencer/Looper, they might view not having the feature a 'point' against them, and reintroduce it. While no-one else HAD, it never really counted against them, and it seemed that only a tiny fraction of users ever 'got' the feature and used it much. I certainly don't remember a collective howl of disapproval when it got dropped on the first V-series. Mind you, that's about the time that Roland started to lose their market share to Yamaha, too, so there was MUCH else on their minds at the time, I imagine!

But if the feature finds favor amongst Korg users, maybe Roland will reconsider. Only issue is, it needs dedicated buttons. I doubt we'll see one as a software update to an existing product. Next year at the earliest, I would imagine...

And Dennis... we all know now that the Korg appearance at NAMM was just a 'sneak peek' at an unfinished, unfinalized product. Don't get too worked up about specs. Musikmesse will probably fill in all the blanks for you. One thing I GUARANTEE. It will not satisfy you! Nothing ever will...

It will address SOME of your problems, and not others. It will have SOME sounds you like and some you don't. It will have some features you always wanted, and many will be missing...

So.... what else is new?!

Yeah Bill, that is what I am hoping. I keep checking the korgpa.com website looking for manual info but none yet

Dennis

"Chord Looper" sounds like a better name to me too.

A looper is a caddy in golfspeak. Of course that's totally irrelevant.
DonM

the only 'truth to be told' is that a 'chord sequencer' and a CHORD TRACK are two DIFFERENT tools for DIFFERENT purposes. I have tried to explain what a chord track is, several times, but it seems you just don't grasp it's usefulness. As a composer I think the Chord Track is essential. Yeah, it writes the whole backing track harmony in step time. So what? You make it sound as if it's a useless chore. Band in a box does exactly that: you enter the chord progression, the fills, the intros, in fact the whole song structure, and the whole band plays back the style according to the progression, without mess or mistakes.

The 'chord looper' (and I agree with you on that one, it should be called that, not 'chord sequencer') is a useful tool for performers. Fair enough. Composer vs performer: two different worlds, with different preferences.

And, as I have said it many times, ONLY Yamaha keyboards have a 'chord track'. Korg and Roland don't. Neither does Ketron, the last time I looked.

Technics used a chord track too. I have read in detail all the manuals of all the major arrangers that have been built in the last 10 years.

Yes, and another great feature, the option to dedicate composertrack to use as control track. I sure miss that a lot.
The Control Track could record all buttonpressing and changing of panelmemories, fillins etc, so if save and load that "messages" along with the style, you have both hands free to do the playing.

Korg's have a chord track, too. (EDIT... It seems they may have dropped it on newer Korgs, anyone confirm? They USED to have it, I remember that)

Thing is, they are all 'step input' systems. Very slow, compared to just playing the chords in. All Chord Looper/Sequencer systems (OK, just Roland and Korg, so far!) allowed you to STORE a chord 'loop' once you played it in. Admittedly, it would be nice to have some editing capability, too, but if you goof, it's not much hassle to replay it. If you are doing it for composing purposes, you can slow down the tempo radically to give even the most clumsy of players enough time to think what's next, I would have thought.

I still don't know the details about Korg's system, but on the Roland's at least, you always had the option to record the chords alone, or WITH their fill and variation changes. Best of BOTH worlds.

I would doubt that Korg have DROPPED their chord track and simply replaced it with the Looper. Bet you BOTH methods still exist...

Dennis,
I have the same questions an MANY more as well....I guess we need some patience...
BUT I want to know now!!..
There....I feel a little better.
Lee S.

Diki,
On the current PA2XPRO...they have backing sequence (quick record) in sequencer mode. It allows you to recode your performance using styles.(unlike full PRO level 16 track sequence mode)
It records everything you do on the arranger section and realtime tracks live. Quick & easy to do. 2 grouped tracks are recorded....Kbd/PAD and Chord/ACC (Chord accomanyment)....that grouped track records style commands and chords.

The neat thing is after 'SAVING' they are recorded in tracks 9-16 so then you can edit itif necessary and get to each track.
Until you do a save you can selectively re-reocrd using play, mute, record parms for the Chord/ACC track and fix any problems real easy. The same is true of the KBD/Pad track.

So, very flexible as you can re-record only the Chod/ACC track or the KBD/Pad track to fix any performance errors...OR go to full sequencer mode and micro edit everthing..including re-recording any single track.

That's what we currwntly have...Quick Record is super and I guess the Chord/Acc track is basically the same as a chord track??

From the demo I saw...looks like the Chord Looper is a way of just do the chords and play over them using both hands after the chords are there. Could be pretty useful.

Lee S.

Well that sounds pretty much like a Chord Track, then. If you can edit it, then get it to generate a new accompaniment sequence after editing, I think that's what arranger-yes-pc-no wants.

Mind you, I think his insistence on staying away from the computer radically restricts what he can do if he is into song creation. Programs like Ableton Live take the looper/synth/DAW into areas that even the Korg Chord Looper can't even come close to touching. I am just not sure why some are so technophobic about computers on the one hand, yet determined to do basically the same thing on a hardware keyboard that makes the exact same task 100 times harder...

Diki,
I have explained it on here before....
I do think the new so called chord sequencer (looper) is nice as it provides a quick way to just do the chords. Then when you play..on top of the chord sequence you add your own fills, breaks, RH ect using BOTH hands. I think it is more of an important feature than some folks might realise.
Playes that have used a chord sequncer will understand it's value.

It is a great feature...I had a Roland E-70 that had it, and it was pretty useful.

Would be nice if Yamaha added it to it's next TOTL/MOTL arrangers....maybe with the pressure from Korg having it, will give them the incentive.

Ian

I have over a hundred songs sequenced on my keyboard. I perform on the street, coffee shops, retirement centers etc. It does sequence the fills and variations. As the song is playing back I can also use the fill button, do variation changes, use fade and most other features (changes) that I want to do at a particular time on the fly while performing. However, it does not change the original sequence. I don't understand the term "looper."

A friend who told me about the sequencer on this arranger before I purchased it, later told me that the sequencer on the newer model Korg's weren't as flexible or as easy as my i30. So that is why I still use the i30. The sequencer is a necessity to me. I can't spend hours sequencing a tune.

I can change a bar in the middle of a song by just holding the chord and hitting the record button and turning it off immediately. At that bar, I can also go back again hit record and add a fill variation change etc.

Any way I'm elated with my sequencer. I also perform with BIAB tunes. The people are listening to my sax playing and don't care what is in the background. The same with vocals. I get complements but not for my keyboard playing. I don't claim to be a keyboard player. I'm still striving to be Dexter Gordon.

Well, the way I read it - a chord sequencer is something that plays a sequence of chords. Easy to understand for me!

perhaps 'chord loop sequencer' would be most accurately descriptive.

Aw... what's in a name, anyway? It's a useful feature and we all know what it does!

A rose by any other name...

I find them glitchy in real time at least.... but if it works for some so be it.

Donny, it's like a woman - you have to know how to handle her. Ooops - what the heck do "I" know about that! lol

Dave just keep at it....it's like fallin' off a horse.....
just dust off and hop back in the saddle

breakfast soon?

I read post after post where many do NOT understand the feature, and confuse it with a chord 'TRACK', so no, I don't think a rose by any other name applies. Many are confusing this rose with a tulip!

There's a radical difference between a chord track recorded in advance, and a 'looper' that grabs what you just played. Every time you do it, you can change chords, substitute, anything you can think of. A chord track restores the same limitations that SMF's have.

A cool trick you can do, for instance, is play the chords in in first or second inversion (or whatever would make for an interesting progression), but with ON BASS off... then, on some of the iterations, switch it on... different bassline! One button...

To be honest, a chord track recorded in advance is comparable in some ways to an SMF with markers in it and a Cover Tools facility. You can vary radically how the SMF sounds and plays, but in the end, it is still prepared in advance. Arranger playing is all about what do we want to do NOW, tonight, this song, this time round. This is where grabbing the chords you JUST played, rather than setting them up in advance gives the edge to the Chord Looper, IMO.

Chord sequencer...chord looper...means the same to me.

I liked it on the E-70...easy to use, and hamn dandy for freeing a hand to work the pitch bender, variations etc.

I'm surprised Roland ditched it...perhaps their brilliant market research indicated that not many actually used it.

Doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea.

Hopefully Korg's Chord Sequencer/Chord Looper/Tulip/Rose/Petunia works as seamlessly as did the Roland version.

Ian

I think Roland's market research actually DID find out the truth! Few really DID 'get it', few considered it a 'must have' feature, and I definitely remember very few letting out a howl of protest when it was axed!

Essential to play songs like Sleepwalk or Steel Guitar Rag in real time.
DonM

my friend, I have used computers to record music with, for about 10 years. Ableton, Cubase, Band in a Box...etc....been there, done that.

Many people say that 'things on a DAW are easier'. I don't agree.

First off, Ableton is not an arranger. It's more or less like an hi-tech synth workstation. I want an arranger, because it's the best instrument to try, with immediate response, song structures, new progressions, etc etc.

There is no comparison.....

There are so many other reasons....would take me hours to list them all.
I am not against computers, but let me say it, they are far from inspiring.
All the zillions options that there are in all these software programs, are not necessary, in many cases they are in fact useless, and distract from the main goal, to write music.

Also, keyboard arrangers are very educative. Just the other day I was studying one of the styles in my keyboard, 'sci-fi march' which is clearly inspired by the Star Wars soundtracks.
It was a blast just to try stuff with it and analyze the orchestration. I have got a music lesson out of it, and it didn't feel like a chore.

Maybe I have associated to the computer a feeling of dread, I don't know. I know that if I only have my computer, and I want to practice or write music, I tend to procrastinate. With my keyboard, I just switch it on and within seconds I am lost in another world.

The thing about these instruments is that they are built by people who understand what making music is all about.
You record something. With my keyboard, if I want to replace a set of badly played notes, I just set it to 'punch in' as soon as I play the first note, and punch out with the pedal. It's so simple and direct.

With Cubase, you have to drag lines and click on so much crap, that by the time you do it, it just makes me feel like making music is a chore.

Also, all the distractions. It's hard to make music on the computer and still not checking your email every 15 minutes. This sort of thing.

I use the computer only after I finished to write the music on my keyboard, by importing it as a midi file in Cubase and substituting all the sounds with the ones from my sample libraries (and if it were not for the sample libraries, I would not use a computer for music, at all).

But I don't write the music directly on the computer. Anyways, that's just me.

What has been said here about the 'chord track' on the Korg, is interesting. I am pretty sure I checked out the manuals for most recend Korg arrangers, and didn't find anything about the 'chord track' but I will have a better look. If that's the case, I might prefer the Korg , as the sequencer in the Tyros is a bit too underspecced for me, although I am learning to work around it's limitations.

The item in discussion is not a "Chord track" ... it is a chord sequencer(like Roland has had in the past), and if you are so tied to your email that you can't work for 15 minutes without checking in .... you just MAY belong in my school!
(Love my kids, but they are SO computer addicted .... very bad thing for today's youth)
Why all the fuss about the name - it's such a cool feature!

you know, you said something very relevant to me. I have read the manual again and in fact, the 'chord track' in the Korg is called 'Step Backing Sequence'. Holy cow. I seemed to not notice it at all when I have read the manual last time.

I will buy an used Korg and try it intensively for a few days. The Korg really could be for me because although the Tyros I find is a great sounding instrument, that freaking sequencer is a bit too basic for my taste.

Korg, here I come

PS. I think that I was a bit too harsh on the Korg in a previous post. If I think that a PA800 costs about half as much as a new Tyros, and still be a pro arranger, then I am starting to see Korg very differently.

And the freaking 'Step Backing Sequence' function totally escaped my attention. Truth is, Korg explains that function very differently from Yamaha or Technics, which I am more familiar with.

I am really starting to change my mind about Korg.

Thanks for the heads-up. I won't sell my Tyros for now but will definitely buy a used PA2x and see for myself.

There are a couple for sale on Korg Forum.
http://www.korgforums.com/forum/phpBB2/
DonM

arranger_yes_pc_no,
Download the PA2XPRO manual and look at pages 187 onward for the sequencer mode...PRO features all the way..then onpage 194-196 is the backing sequence record (Quick Record) where it explains the chord/acc track and the kbd/pad grouped tracks.....
Hope this helps to see if it fits what you want.

arranger_yes_pc_no,

If you want to do it all on the arranger, the Korg has the most flexible and elaborate sequencer.

Professional all the way.

I have to give credit where credit is due.

Ian

yes, I did examine the manuals of the PA2X and the PA800 again last night, and indeed it seems that the 'chord track' is there!

I won't be able to afford an used PA2X for now, so will buy the PA800 and see how the puppy behaves

The only reasons why I chose Yamaha were purely the 'chord track' as main reason ,and the sounds, but now things are starting to change as a Korg arranger might be what I really want.

Korg explains this 'chord track' concept in totally different terms, also on their website they specify the sequencer as 'Quick record' , 'Multitrack' and 'step sequence'.

The first two are present in most arrangers, so nothing new about them, but by 'step Record' I thought it was simply a step sequencer where you enter one note at a time for everything.

That spec fooled me, because the fact that the Korg allows this 'chord track' thing, changes all my perspective about the Korg.

Thanks for mentioning this important feature. Got to get a Korg ASAP as I am very curious about it

But yeah the 'chord sequencer' being called a 'chord looper' would definitely represent more what it really does, I agree with the OP.
It sort of neatly describes it's true function.

arranger_yes_pc_no... (any chance of a shorter name we can use with you?!)

I wasn't really referring to actually MAKING the initial arranger backing using a computer, I myself still use the handy Recorder in the G70 for getting the initial capture of any arranger performance.

But once captured, and you want to start to do detail edits - for instance, on full production pieces, I like to go into the capture and slightly alter all the fills, so no two are ever identical (a hallmark of arranger produced music), and I often like to substitute a new bassline that walks TOWARDS the next chord (arrangers never know what the next chord is until you play it, unlike real players), and basically fudge around with the backing sequence until it is no longer recognizably machine derived - There are a LOT of little detail edits you can do with a computer that are not available on even the most sophisticated arranger sequencer...

Let's say your backbeats are spot on on the snare, but you'd like to bring up the ghosting and subsidiary beats - it's a snap in Cubase to select ALL the snare drum notes EXCEPT those on or VERY near to the backbeats. Ten seconds of editing versus five minutes or more.

I guess, having used Cubase since the Atari days, I am just SO familiar with it, nothing else approaches the speed and power, especially any on-board sequencer. They have their uses, and if pushed I could do an entire production on one, but I would feel stifled. The trick is not to let the computer be a distraction, but make it merely a TOOL.

I am afraid I seldom find the unedited output of an arranger adequate for professional clients. Extensive editing is ALWAYS needed, at least for me to be happy with the final product. And whatever gets that done the quickest without compromising what I can do is what I strive for. Particularly as how you have to learn a NEW sequencer every time you change keyboard brands, I am a LOT happier doing most of my detail edits on something I have got nearly 20 years of experience on!

I respect your decision to go the way you do, but somehow feel you are missing out on some of the better sequencing features by remaining with hardware. For me, it's more important to have the keyboards that SOUND the way I want them to, than have to move to another brand because the onboard sequencer is not up to snuff.

Got to say that I agree with you all the way. Now the one in the Tyros suddenly appears very basic compared to it.

It really seems to be what I needed.

One thing is certain: arrangers kick ass.

Diki, I am very impressed with your reply. You have definitely more experience than I have, I definitely never used an Atari although it has always intrigued me. All you said about your techniques , i.e. editing the fills and bassline, are real pro ideas, and I will do that too. To be truthful, I am only now starting to compose full pieces. For years I have been very dissatisfied with my music because I had no knowledge of harmony, etc etc, but since then I have learned a lot and I now feel I have learned enough to be able to write good some good music.

I totally respect what you said, however for me the final sound would definitely come from the sample libraries I have bought. I certainly want the best sounds possible in my arranger, but to me the arranger is more like my musical notepad. That's how I have used it until now, lots of ideas but not yet full songs written (which I can now easily compose out of these ideas).

So, basically, I have recorded very few complete tracks, and I did it with Cubase. Basically, all my talk about the arranger as a composing device, is almost theoretical, therefore you may well be right about all the editing, and personalizing the basslines,etc.
Frankly, it's a great idea and definitely something that I too will do.

But I will use the arranger at least as my tool to write the complete song, then make all the final touches on a computer, probably. I don't know yet. I have tried to learn to like Cubase, etc, for years, but never succeeded. The manuals are crap. Many times I wanted to know how to do a certain thing, and I could never find it on the manual, even basic ,common things like punching-in or out. I feel that many VST's really sound boring, except the best sample libraries, etc.

Well, I am talking about what was available a few years ago....I have not kept in touch with the latest VST stuff, beside buying my sample libraries.

I just feel that all the zillions options in a DAW are not really necessary. For example, yes you can drag lines and velocities for the snare, etc, but you can also record it on a track on your arranger keyboard at a slower tempo, in real time. It's more difficult, but more natural than drawing lines and all that crap. I really can't get to like this stuff anymore. If I am not able to play a part well, I want to practice it more and then directly , and simply,recording again.

All this drawing velocities curves with a virtual pencil, feels alien to me.

I am at least going to give the arranger a good try at how well it works to compose and write everything. So far, I must say I am impressed, although it's true about what you said about having to personalize certain things more, like basslines etc (especially when you use bass inversions and thus the arranger only plays the bass note that you specify while you play the chord, without passing notes, as it instead might happen when you set the arranger for 'root chords only' ).


I am definitely not abandoning the computer (impossible, even if I'd like to), but I guess I want to learn to be more of a 'better player who can play and record things played well straight off the bat',rather than doing a lot of editing.

Doing a lot of editing is definitely what I want to avoid doing, but yes, if one has to, then it's much faster with a computer.

As for distractions, well that's another problem. In the past I used to have an internet partition and a partition only for my music programs, without internet. But now it's been about a year than I have not succeeded to make the music partition, to work. So I have ended up using Cubase on the internet partition, and I get distracted much more easily with email etc, also considering that I am a trader and sell on ebay.

All these things.....the difficult learning curve (I have found it impossible, even by reading the stupid Cubase manuals), the feeling of doing all these edits unnaturally by drawing lines, the constant problems (something always fails to work), the email, and all that crap, only got in the way of music, really.

That's why it feels great to turn everything off, switch the keyboard on and just even forget that I have a computer.

As for the Korg, well it's not that I am buying it for the sequencer alone, the sounds to me seems pretty good. As it happens with these instruments, some will seem to be a pleasure to use and are very inspiring, some others don't, even if on paper the specs looks great.

I remember when I did buy a Korg Trinity years ago. After 2 days, I could not stand it anymore. I hated the sounds even though I found the interface and the keybed, really great.

I resold it to buy an used Kurzweil K2000, the K2000 had a stupidly small and dim screen, compared to the Trinity's,as well as a more difficult to use sequencer, and the keys felt cheaper, but I have been in love with the instrument. I guess you are right, if you don't like the sounds, then it really doesn't matter how great is the sequencer....

I am very impressed with your experience, though....I have always wanted to try an Atari, eh eh

PS. you can call me AYPN....or Arr....that's pretty short as a name

Wow! My very first music-gaming PC was the Atari 1040ST running 'Notator' ! Awesome Rock Steady midi timing. It was subsequently replaced by Logic with groundbreaking GUI interface. It was a very sad day when Atari went out of business, but I guess they had no one to blame but themselves because they ignored their loyal musician following. I subsequently purchased a Mac & Logic on the Mac was fine, but nothing compared to on the midi rock steady Atari platform. I had to migrate to PC when I got into arrangers (for Yamaha & 3rd party utility software), so was happy to see Logic then available for PC, but with Apple taking it over, that went bye bye too. That said, Logic on the Mac remains (imho) the best Audio-Midi Sequencing Program available out there, and causing me to have a 2nd look at coming back to the Mac platform.

Yep, my first was also the Atari STe but I used Pro16 from Steinberg.

For me the best now is Sonar X1 running on my Windows 7 PC...

BUT...as soon as all the audio (in particular firewire) issues are sorted in Linux, I will go fully over to Linux.

Dennis

I can beat that slightly, having started on a Commodore SX (one of the first affordable portable computers) running Dr. T's..! But after ditching the Commodore, and struggling with built-ins for a year or two (and yes, AYPN, you can do some decent work all in the box if you choose), I got an Atari Mega4, and Cubase. Been with Cubase ever since. It might miss a couple of things from Logic (and Logic misses a couple of things from it!) but familiarity with the tool trumps outright capability when you are trying to sequence fast...

I see where you are coming from now, AYPN. Yes, while you are in the infancy of doing this stuff, it is often easier to stick to a more limited tool, and just concentrate on the music and not the technology. But as you grow, eventually you bring yourself up against those walls that the hardware sequencer puts up. I too have a Kurzweil, and often find myself routing arranger parts into that for sample replacement (or going to some VSTi's). It's at this point I REALLY find the power of the software DAW/sequencer to be of use, because it is rare to find a part that works OOTB on a substitute sample.

For me, a combination of arranger sequencer then computer for polishing gets the job done quickly. Just find a good sequencer and stick to it. Eventually, it gets like playing an instrument. You don't have to think, the tools and techniques just come naturally. Practice, practice, practice!

Actually Diki, wasn't it called Steinberg Cubit back then? Cubase actually is the development of Steinbergs Pro12-Pro16 and Pro32...Then it went to Cubit, then to Cubasis, and then Cubase....(although Cubasis may have been the "lite" version of Cubase) all so long ago...

It was much easier back then, the limitations of the gear actually made it simpler in my view. Now, there is so many choices in how to do one thing. What VST effect or what plugin...

Back then there was usually only ONE choice to get something done. Made it much simpler!!

I didn't realise the Cubase incarnation was actually around at the time Atari released the Mega4??

Dennis

Actually, Cubase was around during the ST days, too. Pretty early version, but all the same basics we have now.

To be honest, the new Cubase isn't quite the sequencer that the older Cubase VST5 was. In many ways, MIDI has taken a back seat to the audio section, and bugs lingered for a LOT longer than they did in the older days. I know I should be ashamed, but I still do the majority of my sequencing on an older Mac, that can run OS9, and run VST5, as I think it was the best incarnation of the MIDI section. Then over to Nuendo for the audio stuff.

VST5 was bombproof, and with a MIDEX MIDI interface, nearly as tight as the old Atari's. Too much slop in the new MIDI interfaces, I fear. Steinberg dropped the pre-buffering of MIDI a while back. You start running three different outs at the same time, well, I can notice it if others can't! Mind you, nothing beats that old expander dongle from Steinberg for the Atari. Tight doesn't even START to describe how good that was!

actually you don't see where I come from, at all

What I meant by you 'having more experience' was that you started earlier than I had,on this computer technology stuff....

I am a pro, I have played rock guitar for 16 years, and studied classical harmony and piano for about 8 years now. I now am studying composition.

I have used computers for about 9 years. It's just that I don't like them much....that's all really. But I know my way around them. One thing for certain, is that being good on computers has nothing to do with growing or being good as a musician....I think you'll agree with me on that one

Actually my growth has nothing to do with computers. I was extremely dissatisfied with my music as a guitarist, although I was (and am) a good guitarist. So I started learning things on keyboard.

Here's my ideal setup: an arranger workstation , a digital audio multitracker, a good guitar and a good tube amp.

I use a computer only because nowadays if you want to be a pro, you have to be good with computers too. But they are by far my last choice as for ideal setup. The only reason why I use them, as I said, is because a computer is the only way that allows me to use sample libraries like these from Eastwest.

I just don't want to use computers to write music with....all my demos will be done on the arranger.

To me, there's nothing better than switching my Tyros on and get right down to business. No waiting for crap to boot up or down, or selecting things into a maze of folders and options.

How many wheels are needed to get to destination? Seems a good question to me. I only need two, or four...but hey, we are all different.

Why I am intrigued by the Atari, is precisely because compared to a PC it's a lot more stripped down, but as for stability,etc, that's entirely my own speculation....based on no proof.

Yamaha should make a modern version of their QY-700 sequencer...reminds me of a self-contained Atari, a complete music studio for composition.

actually, now that I mention the QY-700, I am going to hook it up to the Tyros and see how it would fill in all the editing gaps that the Tyros doesn't have.

It's been an interesting conversation, though, Diki. I liked what you say about customizing the basslines etc...