 |
Korg Forums
A forum for Korg product users and musicians around the world.
Moderated Independently.
Owned by Irish Acts Recording Studio & hosted by KORG USA
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Korghelper
Platinum Member
Joined: 26 Jul 2017
Posts: 584
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 5:19 am Post subject: Content or features? |
 |
|
Just a thought... But with modern arrangers becoming so powerful, so capable, so flexible, is our choice of brand nowadays much more to do with the content they contain than the actual sounds or features?
With the Genos, Yamaha seem to have shed the insipid drums they used to have, and can reasonably be compared to Korg and Roland's best offerings, so at this point, what makes our decision as to brand any more?
For me, I have to confess, it is the styles themselves. I no longer care about the sounds. If you can't find a great piano, a great guitar, a great sax, whatever, you just ain't looking! Usually, there is so much choice, it isn't hard to find something you like. Or several!
But the styles... I really think that's what is making the difference now. How well they evolve through the variations, how well the fills connect them, how much room do they leave for YOU, how well they are mixed, effected, how understated or over the top the Intros and Endings are.
I think we have got to the point that the people that create the styles, and the people who select them have more to do with the success and failure of an arranger than the guys designing the hardware.
What do you think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BillTracy
Joined: 18 Oct 2017
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 3:33 pm Post subject: Re: Content or features? |
|
|
| Korghelper wrote: | Just a thought... But with modern arrangers becoming so powerful, so capable, so flexible, is our choice of brand nowadays much more to do with the content they contain than the actual sounds or features?
With the Genos, Yamaha seem to have shed the insipid drums they used to have, and can reasonably be compared to Korg and Roland's best offerings, so at this point, what makes our decision as to brand any more?
For me, I have to confess, it is the styles themselves. I no longer care about the sounds. If you can't find a great piano, a great guitar, a great sax, whatever, you just ain't looking! Usually, there is so much choice, it isn't hard to find something you like. Or several!
But the styles... I really think that's what is making the difference now. How well they evolve through the variations, how well the fills connect them, how much room do they leave for YOU, how well they are mixed, effected, how understated or over the top the Intros and Endings are.
I think we have got to the point that the people that create the styles, and the people who select them have more to do with the success and failure of an arranger than the guys designing the hardware.
What do you think? |
I think you are correct. The sounds in the "big three" arrangers (I have had all three) are all excellent and probably not the biggest purchase consideration for me anyway. I would say that along with the styles, the operating system and ease of use is a big factor. But all features are a consideration-do you need a harmonizer for example. If so, you probably want Korg unless you plan to use an external unit. Styles-Yamaha probably has the edge depending on what type of music you play. Ease of use I give to Roland. But I went with Korg for the best compromise.
_________________
PA900 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
siebenhirter
Platinum Member
Joined: 13 Oct 2011
Posts: 1843
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 10:09 pm Post subject: Re: Content or features? |
|
|
| Korghelper wrote: | | .. I no longer care about the sounds. .. |
It do not care about anything of an arranger keyboard, but that it meets my needs. For me features and how to personalize them are important, so as to make music not only according to pre-programmed song settings, but intuitively and spontaneously.
The sounds and styles of recent generations of arranger keyboards are good. Also most of the freedom in the personal design and adaptation of an instrument I find at Korg, it is annoying its restrictive product developments in functions. Instead of further developing features, functions are reduced or omitted. No thought seems to be given about how to design functions to be able to use them in a practical way. Functions are practical if you can trigger them intuitively and in direct access as you wish.
The personalization of an instrument - that is, the possibility of adapting to the wishes of a user - cannot be achieved by having to pre-program the presentation of a song down to the last detail. Ok, this maybe necessary in order to fulfill the wishes of stage musicians who work with defined stage programs.
Unfortunately, for those who intuitively and spontaneously need access to different sound and style elements, the product development of the last Pa series has declined. One should already consider how this personalization of an instrument can achieve - in parallel with the automatically increasing number and quality of sounds, styles and effects due to advancing technical development.
Examples of how to use a styleplayer intuitively and creatively than with prefabricated songbook settings show digital organs twenty years before, with their properties to assign or mute different sounds/drum sets/volumes to style-elements and tracks in convenient direct access.
With each new Pa-series, however, you can see featurs disappear - Fill buttons, Fill mode with a transfer to the next variation, style preferences per STS, StyleChange, etc., are some of them. Autoselect KbdSets, for example, would be able to expand with little effort in order to equip autoselect-banks for more varied applications, etc.
Another example: Set-List functions maybe good to be used with direct access to kbdset-bank-buttons, but much more could be used with an additional parameter lock-style, so that you do not automatically make a style change when changing setlist (sb-entry), but could switch with a soft transition, not interrupted automatically by style-changing, but only when required.
It would be the task of the product developers to find and realize how to develop keyboards so that they are well usable - just sold well will be task of public realtion (not the other way around).
_________________
kind regards
- siebenhirter, austria -
Interesting facts about styles and stylePlayer functions can be found at http: www.elmarherz.de |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mitzie
Full Member
Joined: 02 Oct 2018
Posts: 109
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2018 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Keyboard content and function theses days must satisfy their use as 'studio machines' and/or for live gigging. The latter necessitates ease of use for live gigging where simplicity of changing things 'on the fly' needs to be an essential requisite. I'm impressed by the new EK-50 in this respect ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Korghelper
Platinum Member
Joined: 26 Jul 2017
Posts: 584
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd rather deal with a less than perfect OS than styles that simply don't get my juices flowing, though...
The more features they cram unto these new wunderkind machines, the harder it is to leverage it all without some degree of planning and setting up the Songbook, Registrations, etc.. I don't think it is really feasible to go old school any more.
And, let's face it.. I've heard the vast majority of user posted arranger demos and I don't really think I've heard any cutting edge sound design yet..! It might seem on paper that deep sound design possibilities ought to be a priority, but if so few use them, what's the point?! The vast majority of arranger demos feature a traditional rhythm section and standard acoustic instruments as solo sounds. Or a few vintage synths, the odd lead guitar. Hardly needing WS level editing capabilities!
But styles... I think that's where the magic is. No amount of sound design is going to get you that Genos 'sound' if the styles in your arranger don't have that particular musical bent (only using that as an example, not a high bar to compare to!). Korg styles, for the most part, sound Korg-ish. Yamaha styles sound Yamaha-ish, Roland, Ketron, rinse and repeat. Features can't get it. It is down to the guys that make the styles, and those who select and polish them.
And once you find that 'sound', at least for me, it doesn't really matter what editing possibilities or features get put in another brand's arrangers. It will never get you that sound, that type of style approach you prefer... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
