Sequencing Methods On The PSR's

How is the sequencing and how many *different* ways can you sequence on the PSR keyboards?

I've consulted the manual but I can't find the answers I want.

To give you an idea of what I'm looking for,I used to sequence on an Alesis MMT-8 Sequencer,back in the day and it was a joy.You could build patterns(not to be confused with "styles")out of a certain number of measures and work on songs/compositions in small chunks at a time and then go to song mode and string those chunks together to make a complete composition.You could copy and delete measures and even give your "chunks" names so you always knew where you were at.

I'm not expecting the PSR-S900 to follow the same MO as the MMT-8-I just need to know what to expect and see if I could adapt to Yamahas way of working,so to speak.

For the most part,I would build my sequences up without the use of styles and auto accompaniment,like for orchestral/soundtrack work.If I was working on a song,I'd want to be able to use the onboard rhythms(again,without the styles and AA) to cut a rough track and then go back and insert fills and breaks.

I need to find out about this because I don't want to put the 900 on order and then get disappointed with it.This whole bunch of questions would be totally unnecessary if Alesis still made hardware sequencers-I always thought they should revive the MMT-8 as the MMT-16,but I don't think that is ever going to happen.

All answers greatly appreciated!

I used to have an ensoniq vfx sd1 and the sequencing was very similar to what you describe. You could break up a song into verse bridge etc, then on the fly in real time put it together any way you want.
I never saw anything like that on the psr 3000 or tyros but there are alot of guys here with a lot more experience than me.
Have you tried a computer sequencer? powertracks pro ( pgmusic.com) is what I use.
In power tracks you can make what they call "scraps" and then string them together. You can name and save the scraps and then load them back up with the save scrap and load scrap commands. Thats the closest I've found to what I think you are talking about. A few years ago I decided I was going to stop spending all my time learning new software so I stuck with what I already knew about, there is alot of new fancy stuff out there but powertracks serves my needs and wants.




[This message has been edited by mikeathome1 (edited 09-02-2007).]

I also used an old mmt8 back in the day. The psr works nothing like the old alesis. But then it doesn't have to. The alesis had such a low ammount of memory to work with that linking/repeating patterns (reccorded passages) was needed in order to conserve memory. It did have other advantages as well, but if you get into computer sequencing you will be much happier than you would be with another alesis. There are many good programs out there both expensive and more reasonable and even free. The free ones will do most of what you would want, and you can always upgrade as you learn more.
Good luck,
Jim
ps I do own the s900 and am very happy with it. Whatever you record midi files on you'ld still want to play them with a dec ent sound source. A module or a great board like the S900 will have fabulous sounds compared to all but the most expensive computer soundcards.

[This message has been edited by OldNewb (edited 09-02-2007).]

The sequencer software on the PSR and Tyros series of keyboards is a piece of cake. Very easy to use, and produces excellent results. The user manual, however, is just awful. Best bet is to visit www.psrtutorial.com then register and click on the lessons tab. You'll find easy to follow instructions, and if you get into trouble, there are lots of helpful and very knowledgeable folks that are happy to provide any assistance you may require.

Cheers,

Gary

------------------
Travlin' Easy

I'm afraid I can't use ANY arranger sequencer for much other than a little corrective stuff. Once you get used to the whole screen displays, simple selection and vastly better editing tools that a computer gives you, it's hard to go back to a tiny window and no mouse...

I tend to do all my sequencing (except for basic arranger capture) on my trusty Cubase VST5, and can work faster and better with that than ANY keyboard sequencer I've ever used.

For those of you on a budget, you don't need to go to the full Cubase SX3 (or the new C4), the old VST5 can be got for a song, and IMO still beats the new Cubase for MIDI stuff. And USB in and out of the computer means fast and easy sequence transfer. When it's THAT easy to run a sequencer alongside your arranger, why struggle with a tiny screen, no mouse, and 20th century sequencing workflow?

But why carry 2 items around, when it can all be done in 1, with all the same capabilities?

Bill

That's assuming anything has to be carried of course. If you can use a computer when you are composing your music, then a software sequencer just might be the way to go. Much better workflow for most than any internal sequencer. Cubase and Sonar are both very good at the mid to high end of the scale, while Power Tracks and Cakewalk Music Creator are good values at the lower end, and Jazzware is a freebie that works well enough.

If, however, your primary focus is building and stringing patterns together, than I would recommend a look at FL studio or Orion Pro / Platinum. Both have pattern sequencers that allow you to quickly make and string together patterns and make music. I have both. If I had to choose one, I'd say I prefer FL ( slightly), but both are rather good at what they do. I prefer the midi editing capabilities in their sequencers vs Cubase and Sonar because I can erase unwanted notes quickly simply with a right click, as opposed to having to change "tools" in Sonar and Cubase. I would say Orion's piano roll more closely resembles the ones in Sonar etc, but I prefer FL's because I can change the pattern length at will as I am working, ( just by introducing a note or controller into the next measure, while in Orion I have to preset the pattern lengths and change them manually via a menu.

The added fringe benefit of course, is the ability to add DXi and VST sounds and effects. If you haven't tried them already, you might be surprised at how many good freeware VST's there are out there, and how many more inexpensive ones as well.

Regards,

AJ

[This message has been edited by Bluezplayer (edited 09-04-2007).]

Casiobot in short none of the psr range have anything onboard that can be truly called a sequencer. Yes you can get software to use with a computer but i doubt you would have posted this post if that were the route you wanted to go down.

However i owned the yamaha psr 8000 for about 4-5 years and have squeezed what value i could through its limited sequencer function . Here are some work arounds

1. The composer function ( editing styles ) has far more editing functions similar to normal sequencer functions than the song recorder 16 track sequencer. I believe the styles can record up to 32 bars of music before repeating. So i would programme chunks of songs whether 4-8 bars of music at a time and allocate them to my own user styles. Doing it this way i had much more controll over things like quantising for parts of a track, copying and pasting parts of a track, changing instruments, velocities etc. (none of these functions are available on the song recorder or the so called sequencer). Once you had built up the entire song and stored each element into the user spaces. You would then record the song in style mode and simply hold down the chord you wanted the song to commence in and press record. Then in real time change tyhe user styles as and when you needed to. When you had finished press stop. Then in the multi record function you could re-edit the song you just recorded and play live parts over the top if you wish. You can edit the song further by punching in over ANY track whther it is ACC Comp or Seq track and record live in real time. I would do this often with the drum and bass track to make it sound more live and less repetative.

I managed to get some very good results but it was a cumbersome way to work and you had to think through how you wanted the song to sound much more deeply before actually recording a note. This method might not be so easily adapted to orchestral type pieces as its not so easy to piece continuous sounds like stringed instruments together without hearing very obvious breaks when a pattern/syle has been changed.

If you want an all in one performance and recording hardware instrument i am afraid you cant look to the psr range. Thats simply and very sadly the truth.

As mentioned in my previous post, why use 2 separate systems, when it can be done on 1. (No substitute to putting the song together on the board your going to play it on, whether using VSTs, 3rd party samples or the boards own voices)
Regards

Bill

Jim, I’m happy to see you have your S900, I hope you are enjoying it.

John C.

So Yamaha pretty much assumes that PSR users are going to record mostly with styles and/or go through a computer?
They seemed to have gotten the pattern/song thing together on the MO6 and I would've been totally for it except that the MO has only 64 poly and with 4 element voices,that just isn't going to fly,at least,not too far.

Meanwhile with the PSRs,they've got 128 poly but a sequencer that's "without",so to speak.

THAT is just short of insane!

I'm still going to get a PSR of one stripe or another-I'm done worrying about the "sequencer".I'm going to dig my MMT-8 out of mothballs and pay the $80+ to get it up and running again.

Oh,btw,I picked up on this recording by Chris Bell at PSR Tutorial:
http://psrtutorial.com/mp3/AA/Artists.html

Scroll down to "America"-I am stunned and amazed that quality of this caliber came out on a KB that was released in 2000. I mean,how did Yamaha make 17 MB of ROM sound so fantastic?
Another item: What are aftermarket PSR 2k's going for?

casiobot,

You can use any compatable style to create your song on the PSR and Tyros series of keyboards, and editing is a snap as well. Some folks need a computer to edit their songs, but I'm not among them. Additionally, most of the songs on the PSR-tutorial site were not created using PC software, and there have been some fantastic songs posted on that site.

The price of a used PSR-2000 in good to excellent condition is currently about $500. However, finding one can be a difficult task. There are a lot of performers still using the 2000 and wouldn't part with them at any price.

Good Luck,

Gary

------------------
Travlin' Easy

There are a lot of good songs that can be made with little or no editing, but... good luck if you wanted, for example to change meters a few times, and deep edit patterns in a hardware keyboard's sequencer.

Think of it in terms of tools.. A hammer is a great tool, but not every situation calls for a hammer. There are tools made in recent times that make it a lot easier on the body, but hey, if ya wanna wear out your arm and joints, you can still frame an entire house with a 22 oz Estwing.

I can do a lot in real time on my Tyros 2 sequencer, but there are a lot of things, especially when they start getting very complex, that I can do a lot easier in software. Yes, you can work in the arranger sequencers, but I often prefer to use a similar workflow to what you described initially, and based on my experiences with arranger sequencers, I have my doubts that you'll like the workflow aspect. It can be done, but....

This is a great forum bot, but there isn't a whole lot said here about a lot of the modern genres, and to be quite frank, not many arrangers come with an abundance of styles that lend themselves well to it. To put it another way, I have the Motif ES, which has a much deeper and more detailed sequencing package vs the Yamaha arrangers, and yet it still lags in a lot of areas to even the most inexpensive dedicated software sequencers, and although I'm not all that familiar with it, I bet your MMT-8 would be a step up from it too.

AJ

It's just one of those 'if you haven't tried it, you'll never know,' things...

Maybe this would help... Do you prefer surfing the web on your computer, or on a cellphone? THAT'S about how much better a computer sequencer is. You can't take it with you (although there's always your laptop), but the alternative is barely usable, in comparison.

Nice stuff for sure thanx .....I noticed on the list there was an old song I posted there also on my T2 long ago.
http://psrtutorial.com/mp3/AA/AA_files/DP%20Hurt.mp3



[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 09-05-2007).]

It’s much easier doing it on your keyboard, and if you want a mouse or bigger screen just plug one in, or if you want to use other software sequencers just load them in the board. (Although for most editing they are way overkill)
Have Fun, Make Music

Bill

As long as you have an $8k Wersi, maybe...

But back in the real world, it makes more sense (if not easier) to use a $500 computer and save yourself a few thousand dollars.

Its all been said before but if you prefer composing and editing a song using a computer and the inspiration to write and compose hits you when you can get near a computer or you have a room dedicated for studio work then fine . There is no need to have a musical instrument that has sequencer abilities. But if you are a musician that likes to write and compose on the instrument that they actually play 95% of the time as and when the inspiration hits you with no interference between the music that flows from mind to fingers to instrument and recorded data, then an inbuilt hard ware sequencer is essential. It does not mean that the finished article will be completed in its entirety onboard the instrument but it means that the majority of what the musician hears in their head can be captured , edited and for the most part formed onboard the instrument that they play immediately. Both software and hardware sequencers have their place and Yamaha Acknowledge this hence the Motif range still have comprehensive onboard sequencers . They simply have decided to omit this from the arranger product range which to me is just a very poor marketing decision.

[This message has been edited by Spalding 4 (edited 09-07-2007).]

I sequenced many songs using the on-board sequencer in Yamaha boards - it really is a snap, especially if you just use a style template, or just the stlye drum part.

I found the Roland very confusing, but that's just me.

I agree with Diki though. If you are computer savvy, the software systems and large screen seem to be the way to go. I just never had the time to learn that process.

zuki

I only use the PSR on-board sequencer...works for me.

I do agree that software sequencing gives you more control with editing, but I've only needed to do a small bit of editing...perhaps an effect amount or maybe a transposition...this is easily done on the PSR.

Ian

yes Ian agreed but you would struggle to make a composition without using a style. Maybe using odd time signatures or intersting intros /endings. Recording in styles is fine if you want to follow a basic song format but if you want to work from scratch most people will struggle with a PSR. I am a fan of the yamaha range but its sequencer limitation disuaded me from getting any of the Tyros products despite their undeniable sound quality

Spalding,

I'm a big fan of using styles...making a recording from scratch doesn't interest me much anymore after years and years of studio work...perhaps it's just my natural laziness, but at this point in my life I want things to be fun and easy.

I have a very recent Cakewalk program...didn't even bother installing it...I like the immediacy and the fun of using the style...if I do any sort of editing, it is with the style...I like making my own so that my recording is different.

Also, recording a whole song without the thought of editing forces me to play an entire piece of music accurately...it may even involve a bit of practice, but in the long run, I benefit from this in my "live" performances.

I don't think of either way as being "better"...just what suits me more at the time.

If I do decide to go back to recording from scratch, I'd probably use a software sequencer.

To each his own...

Ian

My workflow usually involves laying down a guide track using the arranger, for which I am VERY grateful there is a built-in sequencer in the G70 (I never said they had NO use!). I then transfer the SMF by USB back to the computer and open it in Cubase.

I then start muting each arranger track, and replacing it wholesale with my playing, which gets rid of the 2-4 bar 'snippet' sound of arrangers, and perform a REAL bass line, with voice leading and walks that go where the chord structure goes (probably the biggest weakness of arrangers is the bassline never knows what the NEXT chord is until you get to it, so leading and walking are close to impossible).

A bit of editing to the drum track (I'll often leave that intact if the feel is right, but I'll change the fills up so none completely repeat, and add in any stops or breaks that the arranger couldn't manage), and it's mostly done.

If it's intended for performance solely on the G70, I'll then transfer back to the arranger, and do some fine-tuning to the drumkit (changing snare and toms pitch, panning), and some some basic voice editing in the Makeup Tools (easier there than dealing with the sys-ex from the computer!) and a final Save.

If you are content with the song as performed by the arranger alone, then the computer is not a necessity, and for the 'I got to have a sequencer for when the moment strikes', I say that I never HAVE said I don't want or need a sequencer onboard AS WELL as a computer at home, they are very handy for capturing inspiration (or the lack thereof!) wherever you are.

But unless you do the bare minimum of editing, rearranging, deconstruction or wholesale reconstruction, a computer makes a FAR better tool than even the best onboard sequencers. As I said earlier, you CAN surf the internet on a cell phone... but if you had a computer, you would probable prefer to do it that way...

I totally agree with both Ian and diki. How you use the sequencer is not of any consequence so long as you get the musical output that you intended even if you start it on board and finish it on a computer . But...... Yamaha is definately losing the potential extra sales because they have omitted an onboard sequencer with the detail that is available on competion keyboards. I have never decided to NOT buy an instruiment becuase it had a feature on it that i rarely use. But i have chosen not to buy an instrument because it did not have a functions that i wanted.I wont hijack the thread any further although i guess these posts are actually relevant.