Just asking.
It seems as if when Yamaha releases a new arranger, some persons swear that it is perfect and Yamaha does not and can not do anything to improve it. They would say that the styles and sounds are perfect and nothing needs to be done to improve on the keyboard.

Are they lying? Are they brainwashed? Are they biased?
Just asking.

When the T2 came out, it was the best and no improvements needed to be made. But then the T3 comes out then they say it sounds better than the T2. How can that be.

When the new arranger comes out, not only do they say it sounds good but they actually dump the old one and spend money to get the new one.


Same thing with the S900.
Now the S 910 is out they say it is better than the S 900. But sound and style wise, when the S 900 came out no improvements needed to be made.
How can that be.

Just asking.



[This message has been edited by to the genesys (edited 10-06-2009).]

Hey, your wife thought you were perfect too, when you first got married. How about now?

chas

Pretty much applies to about any product... or people (as Chas implied).

I never understand why people buy new cars when theirs is barely three years old. Or why people buy cars in the first place.

Regards

Taike

------------------
Bo pen nyang.

I think it's simply a result of the progress of technology that improves with the release of each new model - technology that gives a bit more edge and appeal - along with slick marketing strategy.

And then there's the fact that we tire of our equipment and as typical consumers, we anticipate the next great improvement the manufacturers have conditioned us to expect.

Tim

Well take for example other brands of arrangers and persons who use those other brands.
The Roland G70. People who own that keyboard say it fits their needs but admit it could do with some improvements. Same thing with the Korg PA2x pro and Ketron. But not Yamaha users. The sounds and styles on the Yamaha arranger are the best and there is nothing that Yamaha could do to make it better. That is of course until the newest yamaha arranger hits the market.
If the S 900 was that perfect when it first came out, what did Yamaha do to the S 910 that makes it that compelling to get it to replace the S 900? And, doesn�t that mean that the statement at first that the S 900 was perfect and could not be improved incorrect?

[This message has been edited by to the genesys (edited 10-06-2009).]

Ok, I'll tell you what I REALLY think. It's because arranger keyboards (and to a lesser degree, synths in general) are tech gadgets, not musical instruments (in the traditional sense). Nobody trades in their 25 yr. old Steinway or their 50 yr. old Stradivarius. They actually INCREASE in value and desirability with age. Hey even a cherry '59 'B3' (without even a transpose button) might fetch up to 10 or 15 times that of it's (BEST ) technologically advanced 'clone' (Nord C1/C2).

People have no desire to replace good quality REAL instruments. However, they can't wait to upgrade their computers. Once we stop deluding ourselves into thinking that holding a chord while a computer plays the song is a legitimate art form, then the answer to To The Genesis' question is obvious. JMO.

chas

Ehh,, but you must find the chords :-)
And why is a DJ a artist ?
Aint we all operators in a large PC world.
Push the right button and have fun with our toys.

Have Fun
Impuls

True. They are the "best" at that present time.

Things get better...just like phones, televisions, DVD players...they all improve; but at the time they were the "best" that technology allowed.

I don't recall anyone saying that Yamaha arrangers couldn't be improved...I do recall several people, including me, saying that they were "the best arranger for our needs."

If you think everyone who owns a Tyros2/3 or PSR thinks it's perfect, then you haven't visited any of the Yamaha forums.

When the Hammond B-3 came out, playing it was not considered a "legitimate art form", and, in fact, some organists still argue that only a pipe organ (non-electric) is the real deal.

Is a Nord C1, a Wersi, or a Roland VK-8 the real deal? Not according to the B-3 purists.

Some (not all) jazz musicians mistakenly put themselves in an elite category, sadly mistaking a niche market for elitism.

Is a DJ a legitimate art form? Is rap music actually music? Will Mac marry Rachel?

Bottom line for me...I use an arranger for most of my gigs, a sin to the purist, but it is me I am trying to please, not them. I make no apologies. Period.

Yes, the Yamaha arranger is perfect for my needs.

Can it be improved? Of course.

Technology moves on and things get better...hopefully.

Ian

[This message has been edited by ianmcnll (edited 10-06-2009).]

It depends how you interpret �Can�t be improved�

Most manufacture have to release updates to their newly released arrangers as there are either bugs, or sounds and styles are just not up to scratch.

Yamaha very seldom have to bring out anything other then minor updates, (And those are rare) as they get it right first time.

Large or major updates will necessitate a new board, (That�s just progress) but until this is released the owners just enjoy what they have got, as it suits their current needs and does what it says on the tin.

Just check the various arranger forums, and you will find that Yamaha owners are the most satisfied out there.

How do they do this?
They do their research, and provide what the vast majority of people want. (That�s why amongst other things you will not find a Yamaha 76 note arranger or one with a heavy weight)

Glad you said "hopefully". Technology certainly doesn't guarantee "better". Wasn't it technology that gave us the atomic bomb, styrofoam cups, Eggbeaters, and menu driven phone answering systems (for 911 calls).

chas