Mr. Spock - 01 April 2013 08:10 AM

They even make a grand piano version but I can’t imagine why someone would pay the extra cash because You don’t get anything extra .

Well...you get the “grand piano version”...which some people (the target demographic?) may prefer to install in the living room of their home, over a slab machine on an X-stand!

cmayhle - 01 April 2013 08:35 AM

Mr. Spock - 01 April 2013 08:10 AM

They even make a grand piano version but I can’t imagine why someone would pay the extra cash because You don’t get anything extra .

Well...you get the “grand piano version”...which some people (the target demographic?) may prefer to install in the living room of their home, over a slab machine on an X-stand!

Yea , It is a timeless classic look I guess but for 2 grand extra , wow !
It did sound and look great .

Mr. Spock - 01 April 2013 09:44 AM

Yea , It is a timeless classic look I guess but for 2 grand extra , wow !
It did sound and look great .

BTW, Elton John has been performing on stage for years with a digital piano stuffed into a grand piano case just to get the “look”!  Im sure that is not cheap to haul around.

cmayhle - 01 April 2013 09:51 AM

Mr. Spock - 01 April 2013 09:44 AM

Yea , It is a timeless classic look I guess but for 2 grand extra , wow !
It did sound and look great .

BTW, Elton John has been performing on stage for years with a digital piano stuffed into a grand piano case just to get the “look”!  Im sure that is not cheap to haul around.

Interesting , I wonder why he uses a digital piano over a real acoustic ?

Mr. Spock - 01 April 2013 10:03 AM

Interesting , I wonder why he uses a digital piano over a real acoustic ?

Well, he started many years ago with a MIDI controller installed under the keybed of a Yamaha grand piano and run to a Roland rack module.  He has gone through a lot of changes since then, but the acoustic portion of the sound has steadily diminished.  I wonder whether there are still any acoustic guts left any more in his stage piano...the tuning and wear/tear would be huge for a minimal contribution to the sound.

Control over the sound and upkeep are the best reasons to use digital technology to create the sound.  Can you imagine the difficulty of trying to mic a grand piano live onstage in a rock band setting?  I know...it’s been done a thousand times before.  And that is why they go digital now!

Are there any Pro producers that use arrangers (styles etc.. ) for songwriting music production ?

I am not a composer or music production person.  But I would imagine that composers and production people make use of the styles, rhythms and accompaniments (arrangers) or patterns/arpgs (workstations) to get started.  They probably dream up a melody line and find a matching style of music and put in the other instruments and drum groove.  That would give the user plenty of inspiration to further improve and refine the music.  Along the way, the melody gets tweaked until satisfaction.

Further on, when the composer or producer wants to record or produce music or ready to finalise the song, he probably would do some more customisation, so that the accompaniment or arpgs would not sound “off the shelf” and sound similar to another song already available.  That is to add on creativitiy and orginality in a composition.

I have used my Tyros 3 in just the way mentioned above. Arrangers can be very useful when composing. The many Styles can be customized to fit the composition much the same way that you can modify Motif Performances, ARPs, etc. Although as I have mentioned before I have come to prefer the Motif approach and sound to the Tyros (Arranger Method) finding significantly more flexibility with the Motif. Now if you just want to play (cover) songs from many genres that cover every style of music over the last 60 - 70 years and don’t want to do a lot of programming, then an Arranger is probably the better choice.

Joe

joesax - 02 April 2013 05:31 AM

Now if you just want to play (cover) songs from many genres that cover every style of music over the last 60 - 70 years and don’t want to do a lot of programming, then an Arranger is probably the better choice.

Joe

See this is exactly the point I was making about how people view arrangers
as chessy cover song keyboards .
I think this is wrong and like Bad Mister said ,its about who’s using the instrument .

Well it sounds like you really didn’t want an arranger from the start , from what I understand
An arranger can control multiple sounds at a touch of a button while motif aps control one sound at a time.
So that’s a big difference right there. The Motif may give you slightly more control over an arranger
But can it give you pro quality arrangements by using it’s arp’s , probably yes but you would spend a long time trying to program the arps into pro arrangements and forget about drum fills .

I guess the truth is they’re 2 different animals .

Mr. Spock - 02 April 2013 07:36 AM

...I guess the truth is they’re 2 different animals .

True.

I don’t want to step on anyone’s toes, but I’ll say what you seem to be looking for someone to say...most creative music composers are not going to be using an arranger keyboard.  Why?  Because the way it is designed to be used it “leads” you by the hand, almost literally.  It gives you “styles” and backing tracks, and it does it in a very predictive way.  Predictive is the opposite of creative.

Can a talented composer create music with an arranger.  Sure.  But a talented composer will probably not be creating music on an arranger.  Most likely another type of tool(s) would be chosen.

To use an analogy that might be useful:

You can buy a pre-made set of plans and build a house on the lot of your choice...perhaps with a lot of variables and options that may be done at your discretion and choosing.  But when you are finished, your house is basically what the pre-set plans provided you...and anyone else who purchased them.  Nothing wrong with that, it’s probably a fine house.

Or...you can design a house from the ground up, an original and one-of-a kind custom creation.  You’ll end up with something very different...and you’ll have really created something unique.

But the bottom line is:  Don’t choose any keyboard because of what other people use, or think is cool or cheesy.  Get whatever provides the best tools for what you are trying to accomplish.

Mr. Spock:

You are misunderstanding me. I never said that Arrangers are cheesy. Those are your words. An Arranger can be whatever you want it to be. It can play all types of music. My point was if you just want to play or cover songs over a wide range of styles and years then Arrangers are the quickest way to that end. You can and I have also used it for composing and creating arrangements although I find it less flexible in that regard when compared to a workstation such as the Motif. And frankly it is much easier to create unique performances with the Motif than it is to create or modify Styles on an Arranger.

So decide what you want to do and then choose the appropriate instrument. They are both excellent but very different. And yes I agree also that it would be rare to find an Arranger in the studio of most pros.

Joe

Both serve different purposes.  Arrangers are quick and easy in creating and doing cover songs.  No need to do any sort of programming or pushing buttons after buttons. But this means more standardized form of accompaniment

Arpeggios are good in that they provide extra flexibility and potential for you to create your own stuff.

But how the music turns out depends largely on the musician.

For example, I won’t sound as good as Bert even if I used the Motif XF and Bert used an entry level PSR arranger.

joesax - 02 April 2013 02:44 PM

Mr. Spock:

You are misunderstanding me. I never said that Arrangers are cheesy. Those are your words. An Arranger can be whatever you want it to be. It can play all types of music.
My point was if you just want to play or cover songs over a wide range of styles and years then Arrangers are the quickest way to that end. You can and I have also used it for composing and creating arrangements although I find it less flexible in that regard when compared to a workstation such as the Motif. And frankly it is much easier to create unique performances with the Motif than it is to create or modify Styles on an Arranger.

So decide what you want to do and then choose the appropriate instrument. They are both excellent but very different. And yes I agree also that it would be rare to find an Arranger in the studio of most pros.

Joe

Point well taken , but agin with the cover songs , you could play cover songs on a Motif to couldn’t you ?
I don’t think it would be that hard to do cover songs with the Motif performances .
I just think that you limit the arrangers when you highlight there main feature is to create cover songs easily .

It’s just that my recent encounter with yamaha new Clavinova has changed the way I perceived
arrangers in the past to be far more than just for cover songs . On the surface it seems to be what you describe but as I soon realized they can be very deep to the point where I said may be Pro producers are using them and if so how could you tell ?
How do you know that some of todays music isn’t coming strait out of an arranger .

Remember , you could midi out to external modules .
And I believe Yamaha has made it much easier to create your own styles to the point that they even have a special data base called music finder for downloading more styles I believe .

I own a XF8 and think it’s wonderful but I also think that the new Clavinovas can go places the Motif could never go even in producing original work but of course this goes both ways
.
With an arranger you still have to enter your own cord progressions so each different chord progression will give you a different feel , you can also switch sounds from style to style .
So how is it “much easier to create unique performances with the Motif than it is to create or modify Styles on an Arranger “ ?

All I’m saying is I believe with the new Clavinova the line between workstion and arranger is getting more and more blurry .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4GThX8u9ZI

I haven’t explored the Clavinova but from my perspective the Motif offers more variety when creating new musical compositions. When I create a new song or melody and then work on the backing/arrangement I have two choices:

#1
Search through the hundreds of Tyros styles to find something appropriate. Then I might change the instruments assigned to the different channels. Or I might turn off certain channels. What I can’t do easily is change what those instruments are actually playing. I could create a new style that is a composite of channels from different styles or record my own style parts although this takes time and effort.

#2
Search through the Motif Performances for something appropriate. Then easily change ARPS as well as Voices (and this is the important difference). By changing ARPS I am very easily changing what the voices are playing. Not only that but I can customize the ARP characteristics and how the ARP responds to my playing. Or I can initialize a new performance and build it up one part at a time changing both voice and ARP as I progress. This is what is more efficient about the Motif when compared to the Tyros.

As to your other comment about covering songs. Yes you can do that with the Motif as well. Which is easier in this regard would depend upon what type of music you are covering.

I guess for me the bottom line is the Motif is a much better tool for composition and for creating unique music than the Tyros. I have both and use them together. I use the Tyros for certain Acoustic instruments that are superior to those on the Motif (Jazz Trumpet, Flute, Tenor Sax, Harmonica and Guitar). I very rarely use Styles any more in my compositions since I purchased the Motif.

Joe

Sounds like a great combination ,
I still feel that theres more to arrangers than that but the end results are all that matters .

Enjoy your XF .