I think style creation and editing is rather like, to use car metaphors, like detailed tuning of a car's engine, mapping the ECM, changing gear ratios, mapping the brake and accelerator curves, fine tuning the spring rates and damper settings...

Most people want to get into a car and just DRIVE.

Here in the west, our music is pretty well represented by the ROM style selection, with very little need to tweak. However, Yamaha and especially Korg went after the middle and far east market, always had some kind of sampler, and those types of music are far more detailed in how the style plays back, and Y&K always had pretty detailed style engines.

But, in truth, when it came to western music, the need just isn't there, and to be quite honest, despite a massively more detailed style editing engine, I have rarely if EVER heard much in the way of user styles that can hold a candle to the ROM styles that come with an arranger. It sure seems an awful waste of resources with next to no upside (at least for western music).

I think Roland kind of figured this out pretty early. Sure, they must have some custom software they gave the ROM dev team, because there's a fair bit of control over note ranges and alteration modes on the styles themselves, but they never saw fit to release it to the users.

Maybe, just like allowing a regular driver to screw with the spring rates, steering rack or ECM, they figured the users would do more harm than good! And spending a chunk of money developing software for at best 1% of their base wasn't a winning proposition?

It's the same thing with one of my pet peeves... why can't modern arrangers allow you to remap every last button knob and slider for external gear control? None of them do. Pretty much all of them got a ton of buttons that can't send MIDI at all, and the few that do rarely allow you to remap what they send to better suit a receiving device.

But, in the end, I realize that arrangers have ALWAYS been designed to be basically standalone, single keyboards designed to do everything in the one keyboard. And those that want them to double as the master keyboard in a larger rig are the 1%. Thus, not significantly worthy of the considerable effort designing that would take.

So, we use them the way they come. For better AND worse. There's something missing from EVERY arranger model, and there's something it does the others can't. The trick is discovering what you REALLY need, then picking the model that does it, and putting up with what it don't!

Lol, when I had my Mustang GT, I did have software for tuning it ;-)

Sometimes it's good to be able to change things, even though it takes a bit of trial and error. I modified a factory style and got it 90% to where I wanted. But the bass would still shift to a higher octave between Ab and G. So when I played a descending bassline for a song written in G major, the bass would go UP when i reached the I chord. It took a lot of experimenting, but I was eventually able to change the wrap point.

It would have been easier to use the master transpose, and send the notes through MIDI Out to an external sequencer, where they could be transposed back to the original key! Crazy!

As far as I'm concerned, it's important for users to be able to make changes such as this. Other brands include the ability to create and edit styles so there IS a demand for doing so. Roland should have made it easier and more flexible.

Thanks guys . Lots of thoughtful input in your posts.Yes when i used Styles more as when I was doing gigs I did edit them. Replace instruments, mute parts, adjust volume and EFX. Mostly to get more punch and simplicity so they wouldn't sound so "canned" Your right about the 1% of users delving deeply into their boards.
I have a friend here who spends countless hours revamping and creating styles on his Yamaha. His band ( wife singer with a Keytar and a killer sax player ) have a regular gig at a club " Ruby Lee's on Hilton Head SC "which caterers mostly to an older Black audience. So he's going from Chuck Brown go go to Frankie Beverly to Neyo and they love it.
But for most of us Roland did give us a decent group of Styles to sork with. After looking at the E50 Style list and listening to a few I think I could find whatever I need but again thats down the road, I'm staying put for now. ! Thanks

Quite honestly, if I'm THAT hung up on having the right bassline, I'll use a sequence. Throw in four Mark/Jump points, I can still jack around with it live.

The whole songstyle thing always left me puzzled. Damn sight easier to use an SMF!

The audience don't give a rats HOW we create our backing. 🤣

Except they can tell when you are using canned (Song) styles and so just think you are just pressing buttons with the keyboard doing everything for you (You are effectivly playing along to a style), whereas those that turn the styles down to minimum and play the keys get tagged as "wow" they know what they are doing and how to play.

Canned styles are ideal for the home hobby player as they can sound great without the wait (They don't need to put days and days of practice in to get something that sounds good to their friends and family) which is what the arranger keyboard has always been designed for, (The arranger keyboard came from the easy play features of the popular home organs of the time and then developed into there own) however a pro musician can also make them sing without needing all the fancy backing as they are prepared to put the time in to practice, and thus show their talent, not the keyboards talent.

Bill

Maybe where you come from, Bill. Over here, we got acts that use audio, acts that use SMF's, acts that use styles, and there's ZERO difference in audience recognition. You know what the audience DOES listen to (and it’s going to hurt!)..?

The singer.

You can spend days customizing a style. You can spend days customizing a sequence. You can spend days customizing a multitrack backing track. The ONLY thing the audience listens to at all is the singer and the solos.

We have a generation raised on karaoke nowadays. They actually WANT the backing as close to the record, it helps them sing along..!

Maybe Europe has a totally different scene, organ culture still exists as a niche entertainment for a dwindling generation that remembers the 40's and 50's, and holidays by the seaside and concerts by the organist at the local Palais maybe are part of some cultural memory. But that doesn't really exist in America. There's little nostalgia for a Butlin's holiday camp era.

When it comes to solo acts, it's all about the singer. You could put a gun to their heads and they couldn't tell you if we're using audio, styles or sequences. They CAN tell if you're playing solo piano, no accompaniment, but past that, it's 'who cares?'.

It's the singer, and the solos. And, to be quite frank, unless you're playing an organ solo, you need TWO HANDS to solo as effectively as the people you're imitating. And that alone, for me, rules out styles. You might WANT to bend that sax part, or that guitar solo, or do a flowery two handed piano arpeggio... but the song dictates a chord change exactly when you want to do that bend.

So the bend doesn't happen. And you end up with stiff, inexpressive solos and all that work on the style's bassline is wasted. Anyone who's ever played in a band knows what I'm talking about. To solo WELL takes two hands. And the arranger (in style mode) gives you ONE.

Now, don't get me wrong. I spend a LOT of time remixing audio tracks, editing sequences and working on my keyboard sounds. It's going to help me play better to them if they rock! And, even if you rarely use styles, arrangers make the BEST keyboard type for working, gigging soloists compared to workstations or stage pianos with a laptop. They're designed for what we do live, not meant to be studio tools with little ability to do the whole show!

But I fear the days of the audience (that shows up in bars and restaurants) knowing whether you're using styles, sequences or audio, and especially if you are using them as created or whether you edited the living poo out of them have pretty much disappeared.

Virtually all the shortcomings of sequencing that made us prefer styles in say the early 90's are gone. Nowadays it's a piece of cake to lengthen or shorten an SMF. Piece of cake to do extra solos. Piece of cake to medley to another sequence or audio tracks. Piece of cake to mute and unmute Parts on the fly to create a work of music that can vary nightly.

In the meantime, arrangers didn't give us back our left hand. Not unless you're doing rote repetition of a chord sequence, and somebody tell me what's the difference between playing over a CS playing the preset chords into an arranger, and playing over a sequence recorded by playing chords into an arranger or an audio recording of that sequence?

Here in America, Bill, 30 years ago I might have agreed with you. But technology and audience tastes and economic reality have long moved on over here. It's close to impossible for a non-musician to tell the difference HOW we create our backing. 90% of what we do about them is recognized by ONE person. Us..!

That's not to say I don't look back fondly on my Butlin's years (loved Clacton-on Sea!) and playing the organ. But I'd starve over here sticking to those guns... 🤩