.

Nigel, did you see what the guitar player was using on that Roundabout piece?

It's a Gibson Switchmaster...the size of an L-5, with three pick-ups and a 5 way switch. Works much like a Strat.

Interesting choice for that kind of music...had a real feedback problem at high volumes.

Ultra valuable now!


R.

Er, workstations/arrangers, Bimmers/Land Cruisers, cheddar/gorgonzola. I'be gotta go lie down, I'm getting a stomach ache.

You probably ate the wrong cheese

Bill

Er 124,

SZ as nothing to do with arrangers anymore, had you not noticed, BTW Billy 124 is not complaining about stomach ache something he ate, it's the laughing that did it, SZ is working for him...

Just for Scott with his poorly thumb, its Hands Knee and Doompsy a Daisy

Spot on diagnosis, Dr. Hughes.

Enjoy

Bill

For the type of music that the vast majority do here at SZ, the arranger is probably the better tool (and probably why we choose it).

The problem starts when you try to do anything from the last 20 years or so... The nature of loop based music doesn't translate as well to arrangers as you might think. Arpeggiators are NOT merely dumbed down styles. They do things that the note lookup tables of arrangers don't do. They also don't revoice as you transpose, or move to another chord. Plus, much of the loop production DOESN'T transpose at all, while other elements do.

In truth, if you aren't involved in contemporary music production, you really have no idea of the issues that make the arranger an unsatisfactory tool for the job.

Now, that's not to say for LIVE performing, the arranger can't outshine the WS. As many of you know, I have preferred live band gigging with my G70 over my Kurzweil and Triton for years. The WS is of course FAR more flexible in sound creation, but all of them are utter pigs to quickly create setups on the fly, to create splits and layers, to route effects and controls, and do it fast enough to not interfere with the song. In this area, WS could learn a LOT from arrangers.

But bring them into the studio for modern music production (much of which is done inside the computer these days anyway), take the pressure of instant gratification away, and the arranger struggles to compete. If you are doing mockups for dated types of music, then yes, they can get the job done quickly, more quickly perhaps than a WS, but if you are producing hiphop, dubstep, or any of the bewildering explosion of types of music I am sure virtually none of you listen to, the arranger is a buggy whip in a smartphone world.

But, bottom line is, they are all simply TOOLS. Arguing ad nauseam whether your spade is the best, or the merits of Phillips vs. straight head screwdrivers somehow seems absurd. Don't we have more creative things to do?

Right Diki, like practice, practice, practice and learn to play that thang eh?

I think some us are just banging our heads against a wall. A big BRICK wall.

this is highly amusing.

Bill used a graet analogy about the BMW x5 and a land cruiser in terms of their ability to go off road to demonstrate the difference between a workstation and an arranger keyboard in terms of sound creation, or editing or whatever the point he was making.

If you were to ask a BMW X5 owner why they bought this type of car they would most liklely say because of its looks styling and association with the way they feel about being able to own a vehicle of its type (their own personal image ) and of course its potential off road capability. But what percentage would you guess actually took their vehicle off road routinely for 99% of their daliy use of the car ? I bet it will b a very low percentage . I will bet that if you asked a land crusier owner the very same questions you would get very similar answers including the low percentage that actually took their land cruiser off road ! There would be an even lower percentage of land crusiers owners that would take their vehicle off road over terrain that a BMWX5 could not reasonably cover admirally .

And so it is with keyboards and making music . The vast majority of keyboard owners dont test the instrument to the limits of its capabilities. They scratch the surface.They only use if for 99% of the daily practical musical applications they come accross which surprisingly is not sound creation or editing but they like to know the tools are their if they need them!! How many of us have bought a new keyboard just because it was the latests one out ? Guess what....workstation owners do that too !!! How many of you pushed your current keyboard what ever it is to its limits in sound creation, sequencer, effects editing and routing ? i know it will be a very low number and thats representtive of most keyboard users including workstation users.

If i want to make a sound like a barking dog with a bone stuck up its ass from the planet zargon , then i guess a work station might get closer to that theoretical concept but .....really how many musicians actually have the skils or desire to make that kind of out there sound on thier instruments ?? really ??? If i need to make dub step music , i can buy drum and bass samples just like all the other workstation users do but for my arranger. The same size ram that the Korg M3 Workstation takes can be bought for the PA3X and fits perfectly the same, . I can buy the same sample loops commercially available just like most other workstation users and create away to on my pc/laptop to my hearts content just like most other workstation usrs!

All i am saying is that if yamaha or korg were to spend some time demoing the traditionally believed 'workstation functions ' of its arranger keyboards , more workstation owners would consider an arranger just as Ian who is actually selling and demoing yamaha arrangers has experienced.