Scott, I was thinking...why would it be ,that you think SMF's[especially Tune1000] sound inferior to arranger playing and other sources...

I think part of the problem may be your inexperience using instruments that sound good[especially SMF playback]...Yamaha is poor in sequence playback of SMF's[XG...forget it]...And your other favorite choice of keyboard..Technics, also lacks in this department...

If you allowed yourself[with open mind] to listen ..playback with a quality GS instrument...you may develop a different opinion...

Also, give a listen to a quality sequence played by a Ketron product..

I have sequences that I use with GS instruments...you almost can't tell from the original recording...There are some great sequence program people that are detailed oriented, and deserve to be played on a Roland GS..

No flaming here...just another observation..

Fran is So correct for sure......there is no comparison...Yamaha stinks at SMF playback to my ears.........Roland & Ketron will make you hear songs the way they are supposed to be heard & played too.

Especially Ketron. The SD1 has a unique feature that allows you to utilize their "live drums" on any SMF playback... very cool.

Glenn

Ya know, Fran, I don't think Scott's preference for arranger vs. SMF's has anything to do with the "quality" of the sound, but rather with the more "dynamic", "interactive" nature of using styles vs. the "hard-wired" programming of an SMF. With the arranger you can make adjustments to the tune on-the-fly according to the mood of the audience, adding an extra verse or two if the song is going well and you wanna keep 'em dancing, or shortening it cleanly if the mood says it's time to move on.

Granted, with a SMF you can make it sound more like the original CD (which may be important in certain contexts), but you loose the ability to "adapt" the song to your own creative ideas and the give-and-take between the artist and audience in real-time.



[This message has been edited by BillErickson (edited 11-18-2005).]

Bill that is true...but I am referring more of the "canned" notion..

BTW, with today's top arrangers,,you can place markers in SMF's allowing flexibility to go back to the bridge, or even close out a tune...You are not locked in...It's just like working with a band, but you have all the control and no mistakes..

Interesting topic, but don’t forget that the reason Roland introduced the GS sound set was because they wanted to get out of the limitation of 128 voices that General Midi allowed, Yamaha also did the same with there XG sound set.
Creative Labs with their earlier sound cards also supplied the GS sound set that could be loaded and played by the Sound Blaster cards, thus giving a vaster wealth of sounds compared to the Onboard FM synthesis.
The GS sounds also come as standard with Windows Media Player, and you can select them from the Sounds and Audio Devices in Control Panel. (If your computer uses an Onboard Sound Chip then the GS voices are set up by default)
Interestingly the GS sounds are not that well known compared to XG which became the most used standard after GM.

Bill

Bill I am not sure I agree totally with you..
You are correct that GS incorporated variation sounds and not just the GM standard of 128 patches.
But from day one the Sequence programmers go to standard has been GS [actually a true GS as in Roland GS instruments]..even today it is the standard..

Although the new PC's have the licensed standard GS wavetable..it does not behave as a Roland GS product..
They use the standard GS potential differences from GM , but do not utilize the variation sounds[tones] and drum kits accurately as a Roland Hardware piece, or Roland's GS software..

I don't believe Yamaha's XG has the same broad appeal[except Yammie people]...

For those who prefer SMF above arranger-playing :
In my (limited?) view, using SMF is the same as using karaoke-tracks. When you use karaoke songs they can sound like the original songs, but hey ..... I'm a musician, NOT a discjockey !!

Within a few seconds it's clear to me wether the playing is 'live' or fully sequenced (SMF)..... 'the easy way'. Please have a listen at the 'demo/songs' homepages of various members and many things become clear!

Bill is very right!

I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in. I'm a rookie here, I don't make my living in the music business and most likely will not. For me it's a part time have some fun gig. I understand there's lots of discussion here and it's very stimulating conversation sometimes very amusing as well. The one question I ask if Scott prefers performing with certain equipment and parameters and Fran doing them his way and both their audiences happy with what they hear. Why then is one performer trying to sell the other on why his method is better? Or why his gear is better than the others?

My 2 cents about this issue:

AS smf player(arranger or others), any enterteiner can make a good work,as well as a DJ.
The musical knowledge is not the more important factor.
When playing sequences in kbds,to pretend play keys that fingers cannot do is sad...
To make LIVE music, without the help of sequences, the true musician appears .
Chico

Roel ... I'm not saying you're not a musician (and this argument has reared its head before on these pages), but let's face the fact that as long as we are using arranger kbs the performance is not soley our own...
While the use of on board styles generally allows for more flexibility, for some of us there are times when the use of an SMF is appropriate ... and with my technics kn6000 I can make lots of changes on the fly to meet my needs at the time ... AND... I always play live with the SMF ...
To paraphrase Dnj, it's all tools of the trade ... use what you need, add your heart and soul, and satisfy the audience AND yourself !!! ...
t.

Roel you use short sequenced loops[don't be mistaken, that is exactly how styles are consisted]...and I use fully arranged sequences..You are no more a musician playing left hand chords to trigger these short sequences than I or any one else playing over a SMF..

It takes a musician for both arranger and SMF performances to do it right.

I don't need the smilies to make my point!!

"Roel you use short sequenced loops[don't be mistaken, that is exactly how styles are consisted]...and I use fully arranged sequences.."

Fran
I think that you made a mistake.
To play Smfs you must press a button.
To play an arranger you must KNOW chords
Just a little difference.
Chico

[This message has been edited by ChicoBrasil (edited 11-18-2005).]

You could be right in the States, however I have found that in the UK if you mention GS, you usually get a blank look, but mention XG and they know what you mean straight away.

Bill

This live verses recordings has been going on since the first rhythm unit was added to an organ, in I think the sixties possibly seventies, (Yes in those days even a rhythm unit was considered cheating) so I doubt if we will ever get everybody in full agreement.
The way I look at it however is that, most keyboard musicians (OMB) what to create a sound that is similar to a live band, group or orchestra etc, unfortunately we do not have enough limbs to play all the individual parts, so I see no problem using Midi, Wav, Styles etc, to get this effect, providing as much as possible is played live.
These are my thoughts yours may be different.

Bill

Chico you put it VERY right, but for some this is hard to understand..... probably.

Tony:
I didn't write I'm not a musician, in fact I try to be one by NOT using SMF's

Using SMF would never 'satisfy' me. Sure you can play live together with a midifile, but the SMF is leading, where it comes to intro, variations, breaks, fill-ins, endings, chords, arrangements and styles.

While using an arranger the musician is free to choose hundreds of styles, eg. we have several songs that can be played with more than 5 different styles. We just pick the right one for the situation.

Fran:
You seem to be telling an SMF user, like you is a musician and has at least the same musical skills as an arranger keyboardist ??..... well I'm truly shocked!
(No smiley)

Pardon Me Gentlemen....this is all new to me
all of this sequencing and XG and Labtech and Soundblaster and buttons and GS instruments is wayyyy beyond me, however it appears that you need to be an engineer to play music today which is why I have always respected the people that could play an instrument and why I am trying to teach myself to play keyboard...my respect goes to all of the musicians out there that can play with out the gadgets as well as to all of the musicians out there that know how to play with all of the gadgets..MAN, it's all MUSIC and the thing is to enjoy the end results...SOMEBODY teach me the difference of all of this new wave stuff so I know what direction to take and where the HELL I'm going.....thank you....
Tony Rome

Playing SMFs is not just button pressing.
In order to make it look sound and feel right, you must be able to play very well.
You have to know chords, know how to play left hand bass and know how to use lead voices.
All that while watching people to see if you need to play over any part of the song.

As for arranger playing, I am sure that every one knows the skill it takes to use an arranger effectively.


I find it funny that some persons think that using SMF makes the gig sound too "programmed" and too too much like the originals when those same people would buy arranger keyboards primarily for the onboard styles that sound like some original songs.


I think which ever way one takes (SMFs or full arranger) you just have to do it to the best of your ability and make it sound, look and feel good and real to the people.

After all, arranger playing and playing over a SMF is really just a step up from the K word.

Roel, I probably have more playing skill then you, but that is not the point..
Playing over a sequence requires as much and maybe more skills than playing in arranger mode..You have to know chord structure of the SMF and be able to make it fit in with the Sequence..I use two hands with sequences[and probably play more detail over a sequence than you do chording a lefthand to the arranger]..
Sometimes I will double up the bass line with the left hand..Always play piano and organ over a sequence and use a color sound[brass etc] with a expression pedal....

Now what part of playing do you not understand?

Chico, I made no mistake....It is not just pushing a button to play a sequence[especially if it's a Yamaha..it takes a couple of button pushes..].

I have the experience in all the methods..be it Piano, organ, accordion, Arranger, SMF , or my favorite way,,Bass, piano, drums and a color sound as I mentioned above..

You guys are all hung up on this SMF thing way too much...I don't want to convince you or anyone else that this is a great tool...I already know, ....Play in your own limited venue , and I'll play them all...

[This message has been edited by Fran Carango (edited 11-18-2005).]

BTW, for people not interested in Commercial sequences...the title of this topic seems to interest you enough!!

The real distinction for me is not SMF or Arranger (style) playing but rather MUSICIAN or ENTERTAINER. Of course it is possible to be both as many on this board are. For ME, if you can step away from the Arranger keyboard and move over to the Steinway in the corner and do a complete set (including accompaning any drunk that walks up to the mike.....in any key), then you're a MUSICIAN, otherwise you're an entertainer. Hey, all entertainers, even the good ones, aren't musicians, just as all musicians aren't entertainers. It is possible, of course, to be both. Depends on your personal goals. Like Roel, I too would find it very 'unsatisfying' (as a musician) playing over a SMF. I will concede that for OMB's, arrangers serve a good function though I would never personally PAY to see anything other than live music (I'm not a big fan of singers).
JMTCW.


chas

Hello,
First I'd like to mention that I don't make a living out of music. I have been playing piano on and off for a long time. I don't claim to be a good pianist but all of you guys who play arrangers seem to me like "one-handed pianists". You have developed extremely good technique with the right hand and poor with the left.

Personally, I play the piano (or organ) part with sequenced playback. This way my hands are free to play. I like the possibility to adjust the playback tracks. I achieve very melodic fill-in harmony parts.

What's more, I strongly dislike these repetitive style patterns. They make music sound even. Certainly this is not so important if you have to entertain people.

Have you tried to compose music like Mozart did? He never used arrangers, all music was in his head.

Nowadays we have powerful arrangers and workstations and music composing, recording and performing is far more easy.

Best regards,
George

[This message has been edited by George V (edited 11-18-2005).]

George I'd bet Mozart would have loved a top of the line arranger.....he probably would have cringed when he tried the hip hop style..

Fran,... Truer words were never spoken

Folks, the possibilities in our world run
from purely acoustic instruments with no amplification to amplified instruments, to complicated effects, to arrangers, to complete sequences, harmonizers and other enhancements.

Each of us has to find a place where we're comfortable and make it work, both in terms of taking care of the business thing (getting paid, if that's the objective) and
satisfy ourselves at the same time.

I suspect that musicians and entertainers differ in their choices and outcomes.

I do everything from all instrumentals on a piano or classical guitar to a B-3 and a drummer to a traditional piano upright and drums trio...an arranger...no sequences, but that's my choice and I'm not in a position to tell anyone else what to do.

The point is, DO IT the best you can, and continue to learn, entertain and enjoy the process.

After all, that's what it's all about.

Keep on "pickin and grinnin".


Russ

I am absolutely sure he wouldn't. What is certain is that he would have laughed at Michel Voncken's interpretation of baroque music (saw the demo at yamaha-europe) - that performance is a real tragedy!!!
Mozart's arrangements are much simpler than those offered by modern arranger-keyboards and his music has survived for over 300 years.
What I've learned from Mozaart is when composing keep arrangement as simple as it can be.
Best regards,
George V

Whenever I encounter someone who is convinced that only his answer or response is the correct one, especially in situations that offer many possible responses, I tend to discount anything this person has to say (even when there is some value there). There IS no correct answer for everyone, there is only an answer that is valid for YOU. And the other guy's answer is equally valid for HIM. This post should only offend those for whom the shoe fits.

chas

[This message has been edited by cgiles (edited 11-18-2005).]

From time to time this discussion (midi files versus style playing) arises and I really don't understand the slight & permanent animosity that surrounds conversation about the subject.

My favourite way of making music is playing with others. I sometimes just comp with a piano, other times use other sounds, sometimes my left hand is the bassist... I have no doubts: this is the best way of learning and of having deep satisfaction from music. But we do know it's not always easy to practice with other musicians, to match schedules and personalities, etc...

In entertaining a crowd alone, I have absolutely no problem in using all tools available. In my modest level of playing, I know how to play in a band, I know the chords (and not only three major chords ), but if I judge adequate, I use SMFs as well, singing and playing along. I never pretend I am playing and never had problems in explaining to my audiences how I'm working. In certain situations I even spend 5/10 minutes in a little demonstration/explanation of the kind of things we can do with an arranger keyboard. Simple piano playing, left hand bass, styles, SMFs and the role fo each track. I guess this is my teacher side I've done gigs with styles only, mixed midi/styles, accompaning the crowds with just chords, and I've had fun in every imaginable way one can use an arranger keyboard. I really can't see the reason to tend to devalue a certain way of entertaining, except perhaps in the extreme case of a professional musician losing his jobs to a low quality entertainer pretending playing his keyboard...

-- José.


[This message has been edited by Route 66 (edited 11-18-2005).]

Hey Guys,
can't we play nice.
I assume everybody has their own favourite type of backing be it a midifile , arranger keyboard, band or solo instrumentalist.
Main thing is to enjoy ourselves & make music , be it as a professional performer or just as a hobbyist.

Actually it's got me intrigued. What did a omb performer do for backing pre midifile & arranger keyboard days? or don't any of you go back that far?

best wishes
Rikki

Rikki we used at least two keyboards, sometimes three..and a drum machine.

It was common for us to use an electric piano[rhodes], and have a synth for left hand bass[Roland SH101], and another synth for added color sounds like strings and organ[Roland Juno]..
This working together with a programmable drum machine[Roland TR 707]..

Actually it was an enjoyable time performing in the "Good Old Days"..

Here Here! Let's listen to the Lady!


ROFL .... I think they were called minstrels and wandered from village to village playing flutes and harps and things Then one day a rather enterprising minstrel taught his monkey to play the flute leaving himself free to play his harp and sing.

This caused much contoversy in the minstrel world. All the other minstrels were livid and said he was cheating by using his mini (or midi) monkey. (Hence the term ...'A trained monkey could do that' )

Still he made lot's of money and eneded up marrying the Kings daughter (after slaying loads of dragons and stuff) so he did not really care. The argument has raged ever since!

....... At least I think thats how it all happened!

Best wishes
Tony

PS... Disclaimer (sad but seemingly necessary). This post was ME having a titter and nothing more. No hidden messages or agenda. After all it is better to smile than to frown!! I love you all....even those who don't want me to so there!

Hey guys,

If you get a chance and you feel like talking about it, I'd like to hear more on why you say this. And don't be afraid to get technical, I love technical details. What is it that's so bad or wrong? If it's just the sounds, well, that's subjective and you're entitled to your opinions. But if Yamaha is doing something wrong like maybe not adhering to the General Midi standards or something, I'd like to hear about it. It would be great if you had proof. I'd like to see if there's a fix.

You see, I'm thinkin' hard and heavy about getting a T2 and I'm proud to say that I'll use it 50% of the time for midi playback (home use). And I'll take it one step further, I plan on studying the way Yamaha implements Megavoices and I'll duplicate that on my existing collection, one song at a time (if that's even possible).

-mike

Mike the Yamaha's I have owned and heard have a problem reading the correct drums in SMF's.

It is definitely a Yamaha error[not conforming to the GM standard or GM2 standard in this area..

The other problem I noticed is in consistent volume levels of the GM sounds used for SMF playback..

As for sounds , you are right, it is a matter of taste..

All of the other manufacturers do not share the same problems associated with the Yamaha playback tables..

You asked for my opinion...Here's hoping no one blames me for bashing Yamaha..

As in all things..if it works for you, what do you care what others think.

Rikki, I first used an organ. They started putting primitive drum machines on them back in the 70's. They kept getting a little better, adding auto bass and chords, but the main drawback was the heavy weight. When Yamaha brought out some of the first arrangers (I think Casios were first, but they were terrible), I started using them, but had to have an external drum machine, DX7 for leads, a piano module, and an external processor for early vocal harmony. In other words the arranger mostly controller bass and tempo. This was in the mid to late 80s.
The first arranger I used without any extras was Technics KN2000, which was way ahead of its time.
DonM

If I may, I'm a rookie to this forum. I've been playing out since the 1950's. I do this for a living. Like most of you, I started out acoustic. About 7 years ago, I discovered midi. I now get more work, I can work as a single and because of the sound quality, I can compete with DJ's. I use SMF's about 40%+ of the time on a gig. The patrons of the venues I play want to be entertained. Most could care less about the level of my musicianship. If I were to pursue a concert career where musical ability is showcased, I would probably take a different approach. At this point, I do whatever fills the tip jar and keeps the venue owner having me back. It’s not that I am not concerned about my ability, I am still studying music. For me, practically speaking, SMF’s are tools that I keep in my toolbox and use to make the job more effortless and fun, just like a carpenter may use a fancy power saw rather than a hand saw at times. Sometimes musicians get hung up trying to impress each other. We must take our beautiful music to the masses, make them happy and make our mortgage payments.
Ciao,
Jerry

Hi,
I haven't read such opinions you talk about in this thread so far. Why do you say this?
People have the right to have and express opinions especially in situations that offer many possible responses.
As a listener I can judge the result one achieve using either metod. Voncken's interpretation of baroque music may appeal to the home users who can't play well but you might agree that it sounds very primitive when such music is played like this.
In other cases doing a sequence makes is useless because a style perfectly fits the music.
And nowadays there are arrangers with recording capabilities, so one can combine the both methods.
Best regards,
George V

I have NOTHING against using midi sequences (commercial or otherwise), and as I've already acknowledged many times, I will utilize them myself, if the situation bears: solo singing, or specific audience requested tunes which demand it. My only beef is when guys (and/or gals) use them and then pretend to be playing on the keyboard, the parts played back.

I also acknowledge that Yamaha isn't the best sounding in the GM/GS sound dept, and that Ketron and/or Roland is perhaps the better choice if SMF playback is your highest priority in an arranger kb. On the other hand, Yamaha's claim to fame is XG format midi files, and of which supports a larger (and perhaps even more impressive sounding) sound set. When it comes to midi files, I prefer XG to GM, but since I don't use midi backing tracks very often anyway, what Yamaha delivers in this dept, is more than suitable for me, especially considering that (imho), Yamaha excels in arranger specific sounds, styles, and user friendly navigation.

That said, my number one preference when performing is 'auto -accomp' mode because it provides the most live performance flexibility, including the ability to utilize various different chord substitions (on the fly) to invigorate the song with my own unique creative twists (on the fly), ability to trigger spontaneous fills (= LIVE), modulating the key of the tune at will, or conveninetly repeating a section(s) of a song, all on the fly, to respond to the mood of the audience as needed. SMF's not only lock me into what is played on the MIDI sequence, but, except for those few songs that include hook lines which can't be easily duplicated in live playing, I have no interest in imitating the COVER version when I perform, but opt to use (often very differnt) styles than expected. I suppose it has a lot to do with the venue and specific audience you play for which determines what's expected and what's acceptable. - Scott

Well I don't think anyone on this thread has advocated that. Fran is using SMFs as a backing to play his parts over the top.

Arranger keyboard players are not different other than they need to keep one hand busy triggering MIDI loops while the other hand plays over the top. Gee it is hard to really see much difference between the 2 approaches. Sure arrangers are more flexible but then using SMF allows both hand free to perform with. It's simply a matter of choice. Nothing to argue about here. I think both approaches are valid and if I was playing a OMB gig like Scott says I'd use both where they are appropriate.

Hmmm call me arrogant if you want but I think we are all done here .... That's All Folks


[This message has been edited by Nigel (edited 11-19-2005).]