He can play anything he wants...Gut Bucket...Kazoo...washboard...any of the GOOD STUFF!

R.

Why is it you continually miss the point Bill.

First of all Niether Petter Baartmans or anyone else 30 years ago could have done this demo on a workstation because he would have had to programme the drums , horns etc in a sequencer and would not have been able change , styles,go back to the original pattern , play variation 1-4 ,drop in and out sounds at wil as intuitively as an arranger. The workstations of the day were not set up like that and in the main are still not like that .
What exactly are you disagreeing with in terms of my statement ?

If people percieve that Arrangers cannot deeply edit sounds or import and alter sounds/samples , what makes you think that peole interested in sound and sample manipulation might not start to get intersted once they realise exactly how deeply sounds and samples can be altered on modern arrangers ?

What makes you think that the average workstation users has any appreciatio of sound manipulation and sampling generally nevermind what the differences are between a workstation and an arranger ?????

Go on any workstatio forum and see the discussions that are taking place currently whether hats the roland clan forum , korg forum, neko forum etc. See what sorts of comments and quetions come up time and time again. Yu will find that the level of knowledge generally amongst workstation owners is very basic just like that of arranger owners generally. They buy the product based upon perception not actual knowledge for the most part. Even the pros for the most part only dig into the bits of the keyboard they are interested in and leave 80-90% of the instruments capabilities untouched.

Tell you what


Post up some demos of peter baartmans on the Kurzweil for us and then we can debate whether anything done in the demo could not be reproduced function for function on todays arramngers.

Spalding, I just returned from a week on the roads doing Yamaha clinics...just to support your statements, we sold two Tyros4 arrangers to two different professional studios.

Information gathered from the owners was that they could do a totally professional sounding demo (including vocals) on a Tyros4 in far less time than on a Workstation...in fact, they were totally shocked at how advanced arrangers had become, especially in the past two or three years.

Over the past year or so, we also sold several S910 arrangers to studios as well, but some of these were more amateur type users...in fact, my boss, who is mainly a guitar player, has an S910 in his studio, which is quite a professional setup, with 100's of thousands of dollars invested in gear. He says the S910 is indispensable.

Arranger instruments are far easier to use than workstations....plus, with Tyros4, there is an included PC based editor for those wanting far more capabilities than the basic one on-board...it is every bit as flexible and powerful as the one in the Motif and MOX series.

Ian

Hi Spalding

You obviously haven’t looked into workstations, as I can assure you that the best arranger editing features pale into absolute insignificant compared to workstations.

Regarding the PC editor for the Tyros that Ian mentioned, I have seen it, and can assure you it also is very basic and simple, and certainly nowhere close to the advanced editing facilities on a workstation.

Bands are not interested in styles, for the simple reason that they are too limited for live band use. Studios have arrangers as scratch pads but that’s all, after that it’s onto workstations and computer based systems to make the professional productions.

I would love to post some samples of Peter on the Kurzweil, but all my recordings of him are copyright, so it’s illegal to post them. (I’ll keep looking though)

BTW: even if the modern arranger was as good as the Kurzweils that Peter uses, it is still not a very good advertisement for them. (Hey my brand new TOTL arranger is as good as a 30 year old workstation)

Bill

Sorry Bill...I do not agree, but, again it is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it.

In my opinion, the Tyros4's PC editor is almost as sophisticated and powerful as those for Motif/MOX, and is actually a little easier to use...it is the T4's on-board editing that is basic (but very handy)...I work with both divisions and products.

The guys that bought the Tyros4 were also very impressed with incredible flexibility (and of course, the sound) of the styles, which now utilize SA/SA2 voices.

These are people who are working in studios and making their living at it (as Donny says, "In the trenches")...it is their opinions that matter to me....you need to get more, perhaps?

Ian

PS...By the way, I meet up with Peter next month...I am really looking forward to meeting such a talented man, and a super duper Yamaha demonstrator.

I often use an arranger for score roughs...that's what brought me to Synthzone.

Sometimes, I use the arranger for complete scores for really low budget or charity projects.

R.

That's great news, Russell...I've seen them used for charity projects as well...usually for out of work studio players.

Low budget and/or rough scores don't have to actually sound "rough"...they can sound quite deluxe and polished when done with any of the newer arrangers by Korg or Yamaha.

Ian

Bill , and in fact anyone that actually has an interest in sound creation , watch these 3 videos which consist of some very good tutorials on the tools used on all workstations for making sounds , any sound you care to imagine. This will be intersting even to those that have never made a sound on their keyboard before.

After watching the videos, i want you to ask yourself Bill if these same components and functions and much more are not available on pretty much every arranger made since 2000.

http://www.korgforums.com/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=73730&start=0

Your arguments about how much more contemporary workstations can do are straw man arguments because the vast majoriy of ALL keyboard players (both arrranger and workstation ) will not ever go beyond the basic principles of sound creation. At best they wil tweak some sounds to make the sounds darker or lighter , thicker or more thin, with slower attack or more aggressive attack, decays etc. There are very few workstation users that create their own sounds which is why third party commercial sounds are so readily available for workstations such as korg, yamaha, kurweil, roland etc. Does this lack of knowledge generally prevent most workstation customers from purchasing workstations ????? The answer is no. But this same lack of knowledge will and has prevented keyboard palyers from purchasing arranger keyboards. they make the same error you have made . They compare specs and because one might have a more detailed spec than the other they make their purchase based upon technicality , not on quality or best fit for their needs. The Korg kronos for example boasts 9 synth engines. How much do you believe the average purchaser of the Korg Kronos understands about the differences in the synth engines or the sounds that could be made from each ????? Go ion the Korg forum and read for yourself if you suspect i am just speculating to win an argument.

Korg have sold a boatload of Konos's based upon the boast of having 9 synth engines where as to my ears the Yamaha XS/XF sounds better than the Korg Kronos in almost every category from only one synth engine that is more than 15 years old . Are folks still buying the XS/XF even though on paper it potentially is 8 times less able to reach the same sonic capabilities of the Kronos ??? Yes they are.

The point i am making is that its not about the spec of the keyboard. It about what you undertand and percieve those specs might mean in translation to helping you make music.

Ther is an inaccurate perception of arranger keyboards and your blind assertions about perceived differene in capabilities demonstrates that every time.

have a listen to this demonstartiion from the same guy that did the PA3X demo .

Answer this, could he programme the pa3X to do a similar demonstration ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGKiVHVCHVc&feature=plcp

last post

Here is a clip of the same Korg demonstator Marco Parisi playing the yamaha tyros 4 (i think) in a live band situation playing strings and electric piano live. Maybe he doesnt realise he should be using a workstation ha ha !!

Or maybe he realises that the instrument has more to it than just preprogrammed styles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKDJOkftl6I

and this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRTimNhXfEY&feature=plcp

and have a look at this last one where Marco uses the Korg PA3X in arranger mode along with a live guitarist and a couple of workstations to boot.

Take the blinkers off folks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVFCc3CoXoU

HI Spalding

Videos:
Hardware arrangers cannot, as all hardware arrangers have sampling engines, (Exception is the Pegasus Wing or OAS 7 instruments which have genuine software synthesis on-board) which is totally different to synthesis engines. (Dort be fooled by the terms manufactures use to describe their instruments, as they are purely marketing terms)

Regarding the rest, I am familiar with or have used all that you have mentioned, I have NEVER made a decision on anything using tech specs or demos, and I have always WITHOUT exception tried them first.

In addition I am regularly out listening to live music played by real players, playing real instruments; NOT relying on what I think is real because of some impressive demo.

From my PRATICAL experience of using and having access to these types of instruments, (From the late 80s my main systems have always been computer based software equivalents) you are totally missing the point, an arranger is like a BMW X5, a jack of all trades, however when you want to really go off road (In depth with your instrument) then it is lacking, and you need to go onto something like a land cruiser (Workstation) to get the job done.

Like I have said many times, if you want to know how good your instrument sounds, get changed and go out into the real world, to hear what real instruments with real players sound like. (Be warned, you will find all these impressive arranger demos you have heard, will become totally lack lustre when you do)

If you want to know what a workstation can do, (Or software based system (VSTi etc.) then spend plenty of time with them experimenting, and I can guarantee without exception you will come to the same conclusion as I have.

Ian

The PC editing software you mention is not even close. (Unless you’re comparing it with something I was using 10 years ago)

Bill