karmathanever wrote:Hi Dikikeys
Firstly, these are just my personal reactions to your interesting thread having owned, performed and played arrangers for many years (Yamahas, Rolands, Casios and Korgs)
The way I see 'density' working is to create a reasonably busy drum part, lots of hi-hats, ghost snares, subsidiary beats and accents. Then lay a 'mask' over the simplest element of the beat (just the main beats to do a simple groove) so they play ALL the time. Then, as the arranger detects you playing faster (more notes per beat, for example) it adds back in the other notes (more masks, more gradation of the effect) to reflect YOUR playing more.
Same thing with rhythm guitar, percussion, even string lines, anything you feel works well.
As mentioned before, I would find this frustrating - I need to be in control of that, so the option to control that would be nice (which we sort-of have already).
This would frustrate me a bit like the SA sounds on the Tyros - they have a mind of their own and do things (although pleasant) that I want control over.
This is essentially what great real players will do. If someone starts to go off, and get busier, they will respond to a certain degree. I think that COULD be done on an arranger. In fact, I think I remember that one of the now defunct arranger makers (Technics, possibly, I can't remember for sure) used to have a sort of version of this.
Again - could be nice but as an option! Diving into a wild fast flute solo doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of the "band" goes wild - sometimes quite the opposite. If this was a built-in feature I think it would make me nervous - even from the point of view that the developers may have a totally different concept to mine in this regard.
I see this feature as having a 'strength' parameter. Obviously, the more 'masks', the more gradation of the effect
BTW, I don't think that the old Chord 'Track' feature on Korg's used to use the knowledge of the next chord coming to create voice leading and walking transitions. It simply acted as a trigger for the arranger's 'normal' structure.
Correct - there would be thousands of permutations to consider here to even remotely satisfy all the keyboard owners. Can't imagine how the developers could even plan for this.
Only things like BIAB actually do this (to a certain degree). But if BIAB can do it offline, well, once a Chord Sequence is laid down, no reason why an arranger can't analyze it and create the same kind of voice leading...
So we are talking here about "playing back" a previously recorded "sequence"
In a way, yes. But the 'previously recorded sequence' is simply style play, with some modifications to lines now the arranger knows the NEXT chord. BIAB can process (in a fraction of a second) the chord structure you have told it, and substitute leading lines for lines that go nowhere (the usual arranger form). I see no reason why the processor in an arranger can't do the same, once it knows what the next chord IS
In the meantime, the FIRST thing the Korg Chord Sequencer needs is a way to SAVE CS's once you create them, and load them linked to a Performance or Songbook entry. Then, you could create the Chord Track in advance. Even if you don't have step editing, you can always create them slowed WAY the heck down, to the point that you CAN play them accurately with no errors. Then speed them back up again! That gives you much of the old Chord Track functionality back...
Interesting concept but this seems just like playing along to a MIDI file (unless I have totally misunderstood).
Yes, you have. A sequence will have the style, the fills and the variations set in stone. The ONLY thing that is set in stone with a chord sequence is the CHORDS. You can build it, lower it, even change rhythm, make it sound utterly different. Only the CHORDS remain the same.
Oh, and BTW... maybe it's a bit early to start complaining, but although Korg have JUST doubled the Fills to four from the PA2X's two, it is still short of Roland's six, and even THAT is woefully short of the 16 needed to have a dedicated transition for each Variation to Variation transition. Simply upping the number of fills means a more logical, less 'jumpy' transition across Variations. Something that has been a Korg weakness for a long time...
I wouldn't ever want 16 FILLs - I find having PA3X's 5 FILLs plus the ability to use INTROs 2&3 and even ENDINGS 2&3 for additional FILLs is more than I'll ever need. Plus the ability to use FILLs, INTROs and ENDINGs as additional VARs for a style. But as I said these are my personal views.
Thing is, you still get some quite jumpy transitions with just four fills. Six is better, but there are still times the transition doesn't flow. Don't worry about the complexity... It is being done in the background, because Auto-Fill is on. The only thing you need to do is be amazed at how perfect each fill is for what you asked it to do!
Yes, things are better. But there is room for MUCH improvement.
I guess "improvement" is in the eyes and ears of the beholder - adding all the wishlists, building in KARMA etc..etc.. will still never turn it into a keyboard that suit everyone and possibly push into a high price bracket. Korg have to sell these things and make money to survive.
I am only trying to suggest ways that the arranger could be more responsive to OUR playing that could be added by software updates ONLY. Unlike your next suggestion (SSD streaming) which will up the cost, none of this makes the instrument one red cent costlier.
I think the next move may be SSD and improved hardware (CPU etc..). Arrangers seem to sit behind the "workstation" technology and then gradually catch up.
A little more expansion flexibility would be welcomed - e.g. RAM!! (why do we have to buy the most expensive RAM (256MB - TINY!!!) and then have to drop the existing 128MB chip in the garbage???
PA4X (if that is what it is called) will be interesting.....
Cheers
Pete
