Topic: It's time to have more than 4 style variations

[BogdanH]

I can't say in which direction keyboards will go in future, but Korg Pa5X already gave a hint: 16 multipads! I mean.. seriously? I know I shouldn't look only from my perspective, but I think that having 16 of them is more a gimmick than actually usable feature -simply because we only have a pair of hands. And because of that reason, I hardly even use multipads.

In my opinion, the biggest limitation of ALL arranger keyboards is the number of style components. For decades we have 4 variations and I think it's time to make a step forward. Having only 4 variations is maybe enough for simple pop songs, but not for even moderate arrangements (not to mention more complex music).

What I have in mind would be something like this:

1-2 intros is enough (I don't mind if there's a 3rd one),
8 variations,
1-2 endings is enough (I don't mind if there's a 3rd one),
fill-in not limited to one bar,
fill-out (yes, you read correctly) also not limited to one bar,
variations sequence definition (as can be done with registrations).

All above would require only minimal change of style (file) structure. Obviously we would need eight variation buttons (Main A...Main H) and eight OTS buttons. But that's only eight more buttons in total. If we compare that to 16 multipad buttons, then I think I don't ask for too much.
As for Style Creator, practically no change would be necessary -it should only allow to define more than four variations and fills.

I was seriously thinking about that and if things don't change in this regard, I really see no reason to get better keyboard anytime soon.

Just sharing my thoughts,
Bogdan

P.S. Please don't start involving registrations into this. Thank you 

[Danny1972]

Hey Bogdan,

The Ketron already sort of has 8 variations in a lot of the styles but the differences are quite subtle I feel. Not sure how long Ketron have been incorporating this in their styles but they are certainly in the previous SD range & now the Event.

Personally I think 8 may be too much, but maybe 6 might be a good compromise. There are styles in all arrangers that are already too busy especially in variation 4, some perhaps even unusable are more like demos within themselves. I think it could work but you may have something like the first 3 variations very similar, or maybe what could work would be to have 4 variations then switch to something completely different for the next 4. 

[ton37]

If there are more variation buttons than 4 on a keyboard, that's a bonus. But 4 variations are enough as far as I'm concerned. These are easy to expand using the Pads or the Registrations. The most beautiful songs sometimes have a simple accompaniment, under the concept: more is less. There is also no clear understanding of what is meant by 'variation': is that, for example, percussion or accompaniment instruments? My personal taste is that in many instrumental songs there are far too many variations in solo instruments and/or in the accompaniment. Why? Probably because it is possible in the keyboard, but that is a big pitfall. This sometimes makes the composition much too busy and the accompaniment dominates the lead. In summary: technically one can make it as varied as one wants, but is that also harmoniously balanced? Playing the keyboard and composing are two separate skills, where a good balance will or will not 'grab' the listener.. 

[BogdanH]

hi Danny,
...and thank you for commenting.
I have seen that Ketron has more flexibility in this regard, but I don't know the details -Ketron is simply out of my reach and so I didn't dig deeper into that 
You say some styles are already too busy in 4th variation and I agree -but that's only usually true for generic styles built into keyboard. But when we talk about custom (song specific) styles, that's not the case. I mean, if it would be the case, then that would mean that some real music is too busy (toward the end) as well -but we never say that.

The reason for need of more variations is, so we can have more.. well, variations.. in our style -which doesn't necessary mean each variation get bussyer one after another. Maybe only rhythm pattern changes or one instrument (voice) in particular variation becomes more dominant or in variation padding voice is needed to be replaced with another.. or.. or.. And these things occur quite often in real music.
For example: David Bowie - The man who sold the world
-even if it sounds simple, I think it's impossible to put this song into four variations only.

Sure, I would be happy (for now) if there would be at least 6 variations -I just thought that 8 is probably better long term solution.

@ton37
Just saw your post while I was typing. I hope above explains what I have in mind 
Thank you for commenting!

Greetings,
Bogdan

[Amwilburn]

I'd be happy with 6, but yes, 4 is limiting. I've created 2 double styles (ie 2 sets of styles for the same song) because there are so many variations, including one that changes from 3/4 to 12/8(4/4) and at one point several 3/4 bars followed by a 4/4 bar! (Star Trek VI)

And yes there are pop songs that definitely use more than 4 variations

Mark

[Joe H]

BogdanH,

That would be create a lack of backward compatibility with all the keyboards all the way back to PSR 740. You can accomplish what you want with registrations.  I've used two registration banks (16 registrations) to create very complex arrangements with 2 or more styles/variations and many Multi Pads to go along with the styles.  If you haven't read my article on Multi Pads.  Click the link in my profile below to download my article with the files and demos.  Even if you are not into dance music, the principles still apply to any style of music.

PS: Be sure to follow the installation instructions EXACTLY or you will not be able to listen to the demos.

Joe H

[Patt22]

Hello Bogdan,

To answer your question,

What you mention already exists for Yamaha keyboards, I have the Platinum version of Groovyband.live XG on my Genos :

8 Variations from A~H with the option, for example, to swap the guitar arrangement Variation A~D on any Variations from A~H or all identical this for the 8 instrument tracks ...

8 Ots with a second option to switch to mutated voices or a new mix of voices in the Ots... total 16 Ots

Etc... Etc ... etc ...

https://www.groovyband.live/xg/manual/section-ots-customisation/

Or, better still, download the free XG version without connecting it and try it out - it costs nothing to connect it, follow the MIDI instructions and save them to come back to!

https://www.groovyband.live/xg/manual/midi-ports-setup/

Personally, I like this software, it's well thought-out and works on a 15" touchscreen; I've tried it on a very comfortable 24". On the other hand, GB doesn't support After Touch, so it's well suited to AT-less keyboards like psrX900 and below. It can handle a 2nd keyboard, a bass pedalboard and a physical controller + the tablet!

I would have liked Yamaha to integrate this structure of styles and Ots ... one can dream ... GB did it ... on their hardware !!!

Patrick

Ps : Henny had well analyzed it on the forum "software" but it is a cost and I do not speak about the version Montage with 906 styles ... and their site and software Modx/Montage and XG did not have an update since 1 years !

[CamiloCross]

It's time to have more than 16 channels 

[overover]

It's time to have more than 16 channels 

Yes, with the new standard "MIDI 2.0" up to 256 channels would be possible (and of course many other improvements to the current MIDI 1.0 standard). But unfortunately the various manufacturers do not yet agree on the implementation. To my knowledge, only a few controller keyboards support MIDI 2.0 (e.g. Korg Keystage or Roland A-88MKII).

Genos2 probably won't support MIDI 2.0 yet. This would support completely new possibilities, because as is well known, there are currently only two internal MIDI ports, i.e. 2 * 16 Receive channels plus 2 * 16 Transmit channels, which must be sufficient for all parts played at the same time.


Best regards,
Chris

[rattley]

Hello

I wouldn't really need 4 more variations.  I too believe that sometimes less is more. I turn style parts on and off during a performance. I already get extra mileage out of 4 variations this way. It also lessens repetition.  I'd rather have a new style maker!  -charley

[J. Larry]

Interestingly, some postings on a Band In A Box forum are calling for simpler, uncluttered, real styles that are not so busy.

[motekmusic]

Hello

Don't know if this request fits into the more than 4 style variation request, but would rather have more styles that have time
signature or tempo variations within,   For example some of the country styles, R&B etc. have a 4th variation in double time.
Have come across many pieces that have both a 4/4 and a 3/4 time signature.   In those cases have to make a special registration
to accomodate those change.   I thinkthe Czardas style exemplifies variation style, tempo changes.   Another song that uses those
tempo and style type changes is  Suspicious aka Elvis tune.   Maybe there are other forum members who can come up with a lot
more tunes or have a similiar wish list.

cheers
elaine
Tsafat,, upper Galilee,, Israel

[Oldden]

Four variations I can happily live with but variation four is often two much. Four editable variations would be nice but I’m afraid no chance.

[Oldden]

I know it will never happen, but imagine that there was a program that used something like Acidised loops or the ones in Magix music maker that you could design your own styles to load into your keyboard as part of the system. Yes you can connect computers to keyboards and use midi but it’s not the same. Band in a box styles , great but not live, so that’s  again something else .

[groovyband.live]

As said by Patt22, if you want RIGHT NOW 8 variations styles (and a ton of other advanced features, more on this later) you have a choice: https://www.groovyband.live/xg/. It works on ALL Yamaha arrangers and digital pianos (based on XG standard), no matter how old they are. A reasonable level could be Tyros3/PSR770 or newer. It is available since 2018. There is a demo with 906 styles you can download and use for free, forever.

Let us see some advanced features it offers, you can only dream off on Yamaha HW:

1 ) Styles with 8 variations/fills (including half bar fills), 2 breaks, 3 intros/endings. A variation can be easily customised in real time with the style playing at the push of a button. For each of the 8 parts just select one pattern (there are 4 to choose from) or mute it. You have therefore 4^8 > 65k combinations possible. When you find a combination that you like store it in one of the 8 slots available. Se also point 7).
2 ) 8x2 OTSes (each of the 8 OTS has 2 programmable variations). You decide the association between OTS and variation, possibly with the same OTS linked to many variations. You can rearrange the order of variations/OTSes as you like, maintaining the correct links between them.
3 ) Full and free use of all available DSPs (you decide on what of the 16 parts to use them), including stacking 2 of them for each part. For example with a Genos you can use 16 DSPs, in 16x1 or 8x2 configurations. You can easily edit them (tweak all parameters) and save presets.
4 ) Four lead parts, that can be partitioned between right/left hand as you like, for every OTS. For example you can have an OTS with 1L/3R, another with 4R, another with 2L/2R, and so on.
5 ) Programmable harmonization function for EACH lead part (you have 4 independent harmonizers).
6 ) You can manage up to 4 midi devices, including 3 keyboards/pedalboards. You have 8 tracks for style parts, 4 tracks for lead parts (L/R hands, under OTS control), and for 4 "aux" parts to assign to the additional keyboard(s)/pedalboard. You can create split/layers at will with the aux parts. The aux parts configuration is programmable for each style.
7) You can customise any voice, effect or other parameter for any style variation. For example let us say you have a track with a guitar riff. You could set for variation A a clean solid guitar. On variation B you add more chorus. On variation C you tweak the sustain. On variation D you change the voice to a rock guitar with distortion. On variation E you tweak the distortion effect, ......
8 ) The program uses vector graphics and scales with razor sharp images to any resolution/screen size. Touch screens are supported. You can also assign every command to physical controls (buttons/knobs/keys/wheels, ...) of attached midi devices.
9 ) A lot more, .... check the online manual (https://www.groovyband.live/xg/manual/)
10 ) By the way, you can control slow/fast rotary effect with a button/wheel and pedal wah with a pedal/wheel.

We also have a version that works on Yamaha MODX/Montage synths, transforming them in state of the art arrangers: https://www.groovyband.live/modx/.

[BogdanH]

Thank you all for your opinions.
I think that some of you didn't read all posts before replying and so I will summarize again.

Having more that 4 variations available doesn't mean to make each variation more busy. That is practiced only in generic (built-in) styles, because they actually serve as styles demonstration. In real music such "busy rule" doesn't exist and there's also no rule saying of how many variations music consist. And finally, this has nothing to do with "sometimes less is better" -which I agree on.

If no other features are added into style, then increased the number of variations doesn't necessary break the backward compatibility. Older (current) keyboards simply wouldn't recognize last four variations and that's it. Worse happened when Yamaha switched from SFF1 to SFF2 styles and earth didn't stop revolving.

I assumed that registrations will be mentioned sooner or later (see PS in 1st post)... Registrations and tools like Groovyband Live only prove what I'm saying: that there is a need for more than four variations. Of course, how many variations will actually be used, depends on music for which we create the style and how precise we wish to replicate the original song.

motekmusic (elain) touched another interesting style related topic: additional style features. The reason why I didn't mention this is because, as I can realize, not many are excited about major changes... which quite surprises me.
Yes, I agree with elain: it should be possible to define time signature for each variation separately ...and much more than that.
Because real music has no rules.

Bogdan

[andyg]

This makes me smile!

I can remember when you had just ONE pattern per style. We coped because we learnt how to do so, switching rhythms and sounds manually - no memories back then. What we played on top of that pattern made the song work. We have it much easier these days!

A couple of posts have hit the nail on the head, using the variations of multiple styles, taking time to match the sounds being used, volume levels, DSP effects etc. And using one or more registration banks to work through the song.

Whilst of course it would be nice to have 6, 8 or more variations per style, perhaps we should remember that a lot of home players will play a song with just one sound and one style variation!

[Graham UK]

Maybe my age, but I use the Word KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid).
A lot 0f my playing I would normally mute some style parts.
Many styles are overactive so leave little space for the melody to break through.

[mikf]

If Yamaha increased the number of variations, the cost/ time to make a style goes way up. And they would probably have to retro provide all on board styles with those variations, because otherwise there would be many complaints about half complete styles. A massive effort. I think the cost / benefit would be poor. And there are already easy ways around it for those few that feel they really need it from time to time - registrations, multi pads, use more than one style for a custom song.
Mike

[soundphase]

I agree with Mickf. I would prefer effort is associated with AI (for example adding or substracting automatically some tracks, change volume velocity….) more than changing the format and increasing confusion.

I program styles and registrations. Less than ten times, I had to use 2 different styles for the 10 registrations.

[Joe H]

Maybe my age, but I use the Word KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid).
A lot 0f my playing I would normally mute some style parts.
Many styles are overactive so leave little space for the melody to break through.

I agree... sometimes; "Less is More"

Joe H

[BogdanH]

I have an impression that some of you don't read posts (or don't understand them) before replying, because I see "Less is more" mantra repeated again and again. And now let me repeat for the 3rd time:
Number of variations has nothing to do with how busy certain variation is!
-if some variation is too busy (overactive), then that's usually because too many channels are used inside variation, or wrong (or too loud) voices are used in particular channel inside variation.
In short: if a variation is too busy, then that's the fault of style creator and not because of too many available variations.

Bogdan

[ton37]

@BogdanH., apparently everyone has a different perception of the concept of 'variation'. Maybe it's better to define that: what do you mean by 'variation': is that a different beat, a different rhythm, a different instrument or a combination of all of these? Do you want to imitate/cover the London Symphony Orchestra, or a simple 4-man band, or a pop artist who can only perform with a few band members and a complex track played at the background, or an internet hit made with the help of a DAW? And do you mean that with a simple adding of 8-knobs it could be done or use the other features on the KB, like registrations or pads or .. ?? In other words, there are many interpretations of 'variation' in a piece of music. And covering all those needs/wishes is not something a manufacturer wants to do. Then he will no longer sell all his other models or types of keyboard. Jm2c. 

[mikf]

Well Bogdan if we have 4 variations, 8 is definitely more and 2 is definitely less regardless of what you do with them.

Joking aside, I get it that you are not saying that the additional variations have to be busier. But they are still ‘additional’ and would have to be be there on every single style when nearly all the time four are more than enough to get the job done. And on the few occasions they are not, there are other relatively easy ways. So adding more variations, with all the other massive cost implications, seems like buying a bulldozer to dig a hole to plant a daffodil.
And don’t say they wouldn’t have to be used… it just wouldn’t pass muster for Yamaha to make 6 or 8 variations available on every style then only supply 3 or 4 for their on board styles, of which there are hundreds to be re-done. Although you said don’t bring up registrations, the fact is that one of their functions is to fit this occasional need….without the huge cost implication that 8 variations implies. That’s one reason why Yamaha gives us 8 of them, but only 4 variations.
As regards the idea from one poster of mixing time signatures within a variation, I can see many more downsides than upside. Apart from the probable technical problems of syncing, imagine playing a live gig and hitting variation 5 only for it to go unexpectedly from 4/4 to 3/4. With hundreds of styles available how could you possibly know what was coming.
Let’s remember than no single musical instrument in the world does absolutely everything that might ever crop up. They all have limitations that you have to work within. Ever tried bagpipes which have only one chord, a limited scale and hardly any range! But they still have their place.
The arranger gets miles closer to doing everything than any other instrument.
Mike

[pjd]

As to concept of "variation," it would be nice to have more distinctive, contrasting A and B sections, i.e., verse and chorus sections. Gets around the problem of same-iness (arranging techniques 101).

The ability to mix time signatures is important. "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds", "Rain", "She Said, She Said", "Two Of Us" and other songs by those unknown song writers. 

All the best -- pj

[BogdanH]

@ton37
Because I was talking about styles, I thought it's obvious what I mean by variations: now we can have max four variations in style: Main A...Main D. I have impression that Yamaha convinced many here, that each successive variation is supposed to be busier than previous one (because that's how built-in styles are made). However, built-in styles don't represent real life music: they are only style examples (meant for practicing and learning). In music it can happen quite often that there are quieter, less busy passages in the middle of the song (maybe only guitar strumming or snare giving rhythm, etc.). And in that case, such passage requires separate variation in style.

@Mike
I'm only saying what I miss sometimes and what I wish it would be there, but it's up to Yamaha how to solve that (if ever) -they earn money to figure out such things. AndyG mentioned that way back, there was only one variation possible... then came two.. and four.. and I'm only saying that this is still not enough.
Of course we can make almost every song to fit into four style variations... but the result is usually mediocre.

Greetings to all,
Bogdan

[mikf]

I would imagine the styles are made by designing the most basic first then adding to or altering it, so of course they generally get busier and busier. Doesn't mean they have to be used in that order. And when they design generic on board styles, they have no idea what song a player is going to use them for. So how could they guess a “better’ order than sequentially busier.? That is up to the individual. Custom styles are a different kettle of fish, but those are not part of the Yamaha instrument. Individuals make those by designing/altering/creating the style or using registrations.
pj - surely it is obvious that designing time signature changes into some on board styles would be very confusing to the average player. You could argue that tempo changes would also be useful, but that would be equally confusing. Those kind of changes have to be an individual thing that people  do for themselves - and they can. Not part of the standard on board offering.
We seem to be arguing on this thread for a high degree of 'customization' of on board styles that are intended to be generic. Imagine for example that this had been done, and I wanted to use it for a song where there was a time signature change. The chances that they guess correctly the correct tempo for that change are slim and nil. So it would need customizing anyway.
 All makes little sense to me.
Mike

[rattley]

Hello,

Reading these posts I am now more open to having more than 4 variations. More is not always better but having 8 variations doesn't mean you have to use them all. Depending how Yamaha would accomplish this you could skip a few variations going up and use different variations going down. It could add a lot more variety. But I think I already accomplish this turning parts on and off going thru all the variations.  As far as backwards compatibility goes I occasionally play old 2 variation styles. The highlighted variation buttons tell me how many variations, intros, and endings are available. New style offerings don't have to always have 4 variations. Another feature to consider!  -charley 

[BogdanH]

..The chances that they guess correctly the correct tempo for that change are slim and nil. So it would need customizing anyway.

Nobody says that onboard styles must have tempo (or time signature) change implemented and nobody says that all eight (or even four) variations must be populated. All I say is, that this features should be available -because these things do happen in real music.
Actually this isn't about how onboard styles should be made. As you say, being generic (not song specific), we need to customize them anyway -the only question is, how far we can go with customization. And as rattley said: if someone doesn't need to change neither of that, then just don't change. I mean, we already have features that 90% of owners don't use -however, the remaining 10% sure appreciate that they are available.

I'm aware, that for majority here, these exotic features have no importance. Some say "I don't need that", others "I can live without that" and some maybe even "no idea what's all about". For those, let me just say that nothing would change if we would have these features -but remaining 10% would appreciate having them.

Btw. I'm not arguing... as usually, I'm only...
...sharing my thoughts 
Bogdan

[ton37]

Yes @BogdanH, I guess everybody is sharing their ideas. Thank you for bringing up your idea, nice to change minds about that  with respect to everyones thoughts 

[Gunnar Jonny]

I mean, we already have features that 90% of owners don't use -however, the remaining 10% sure appreciate that they are available.

I'm aware, that for majority here, these exotic features have no importance. Some say "I don't need that", others "I can live without that" and some maybe even "no idea what's all about". For those, let me just say that nothing would change if we would have these features -but remaining 10% would appreciate having them.

+1

To me it's simple. Those who are more than satisfied with the things as they are, don't have to buy any more complex and expensive keyboard, because what they have is already more than enough. For those of us that like to see progression and new features, keep 'em coming!! 

[DerekA]

It's all about what is a reasonable compromise that suits the majority of users. That is always going to be the case for anything that is hardware-based.

The end result can be achieved using multiple style files and registrations, so I can't see it happening anytime soon.

[pieterpan]

I'm satisfied with my T4, the only thing I whised to be changed is the fact that all breaks and fill-ins are just 1 measure more measures is a big wish.

[mikf]

Not just a compromise on usability, but on cost and development time. Bogdan says that the additional style ‘slots’ could be unpopulated, and left for customization. But Yamaha would be scratching their heads and thinking isn’t that exactly what the combination of custom user styles and registrations do, and registrations are way more powerful? They would see a possible mega cost hike here because they would know that adding extra style variations but leaving them empty would not look sensible. It would get heavily criticized. And the retro cost of changing/extending every style would be huge, maybe push the cost of a Genos 3 close to 5 figures. Would anyone pay $9000 for a Genos just to get extra style variations.
It’s a fun discussion, - especially when there is not a lot more to talk about for another week or two - but I just don’t see it even being considered by Yamaha for the reasons above.
Mike

[BogdanH]

Mike, I think you worry too much about how Yamaha could do this or that and keep costs reasonable -it's Yamaha's job to figure that out! On the other side, we users, are legit to express our wishes and needs. When you say $9000 for Genos, it's like you try to justify (for Yamaha) why we can't get certain features.
If we keep thinking that way, then that means, that we can't expect for next Genos to have any important new feature, because the price is expected to be similar as for current Genos when it came to market. But speaking for me, I do hope and expect, that this will not be the case. Progress makes that possible: getting something better at the same price.

Bogdan

[mikf]

Bogdan, I don't worry about this stuff at all. Nor do I care abut Yamaha. I am not a Yamaha enthusiast or supporter. I have owned many musical instruments in my lifetime and the arranger was a Yamaha first for me. I am not even an arranger enthusiast, I am a lifetime musician who found some years ago that the arranger was a new and fun instrument for me to play. As a member of the forum I am just expressing my opinion of what seems most likely to happen, and my reasons for thinking that, just like everyone else.
I appreciate that a lot of people may want ( or think they want) these additional features. But the trouble  is that they can drive the cost and complication of operation in a direction that doesn't always benefit everyone and can be counterproductive. The original success of the arranger is that it is a simple instrument to learn to play, that appeals to a certain market.   
Mike

[Patt22]

I'm satisfied with my T4, the only thing I whised to be changed is the fact that all breaks and fill-ins are just 1 measure more measures is a big wish.

Hello,

You can do this by using Ending 1,2 or 3 depending on your song, and interrupting it before the end of the 1st or 2nd bar with the Fill ( or not ) of the next desired Variation ...

This use of short endings can also be applied to registrations.
For example, in an extreme case, you'd like to program 4 totally different pads on each 1~10 registration!

At the end of your current registration, you launch your adapted Ending before moving on to the next registration and you interrupt it before the end of the desired bar with the next registration and its 4 other pads ... provided that the Stop Pads Ending in Setting is set to "On" and you have your Stop Pads using the Ending while keeping the 4 Pads playable!

Patrick

[J. Larry]

I’ve enjoyed reading all the griping, wishful thinking, complaints, and ballyhoo about Genos 1 versus what may appear on November 15.  None of that may matter, unless Yamaha has been listening over the past few years.  After the smoke clears, the dust settles, any the many demos appear on youtube, it’ll be interesting to see if any of that verbiage has any affect on a new arranger, should it appear.  Surely, somebody keeps notice on requests that make it to a final product.

[Enildo]

Mike, I think you worry too much about how Yamaha could do this or that and keep costs reasonable -it's Yamaha's job to figure that out! On the other side, we users, are legit to express our wishes and needs. When you say $9000 for Genos, it's like you try to justify (for Yamaha) why we can't get certain features.
If we keep thinking that way, then that means, that we can't expect for next Genos to have any important new feature, because the price is expected to be similar as for current Genos when it came to market. But speaking for me, I do hope and expect, that this will not be the case. Progress makes that possible: getting something better at the same price.

Bogdan

Hello guys!

On this point I agree with you.
Whenever we suggest something new, someone will appear saying:
* Everything is already good.
* Why change?
* I'm already satisfied... etc
I always say, if I were to listen to these people, we would still be playing on a PSR 510. For those of you who don't want changes, that's great, continue with your old models, but the industry needs to innovate to stay in the market.
Everything we think is unnecessary today will be used by someone in the future. Some things will happen in the next model, others will happen in 10 or 20 years and others will never get off the ground.
But as Yamaha consumers, it doesn't hurt to ask and put our interests on the table about the product we want to consume.
I believe that Yamaha really likes these suggestions. We are helping them think and make money!

Enildo

[pjd]

You can do this by using Ending 1,2 or 3 depending on your song, and interrupting it before the end of the 1st or 2nd bar with the Fill ( or not ) of the next desired Variation ...

Patrick

Hi Patrick --

I've used INTRO 2 and 3 in this way by replacing the long, mostly unusable (to me), song-specific, orchestrated introductions. If one misses the switch at the end of the INTRO, then, at least, the INTRO kicks into a regular MAIN section.

All the best -- pj

[pedro_pedroc]

Well. I create professional styles. People order styles from me to be built. I have been doing this for the last two years.

Instead of more variations (4), I prefer to have more style channels/tracks, which is actually 8 to 12 or more. Sometimes, I need to ignore voices, because all the 8 tracks are full.


That’s what I need (just my opinion)

Best wishes.
Pedro

[pjd]

As to innovation, Yamaha haven't made significant improvements in the auto-accompaniment in a long time (over two decades). They are recycling the same old features, the same 34 chord types, the same chord detection, etc.

It's like they are afraid to crack into the auto-accompaniment and sequencing code. Maybe Ichiro -- who understood musical time signatures and the auto-accompaniment code -- retired in 2005 and was never replaced.

I don't think it's unreasonable for customers to expect more from a vendor. I can't imagine forums for other computer-based products are docile and quiet. 

As long as we treat each other with respect, we're good -- pj

[BogdanH]

hello Pedro,

...
Instead of more variations (4), I prefer to have more style channels/tracks, which is actually 8 to 12 or more. Sometimes, I need to ignore voices, because all the 8 tracks are full.

I must say that so far it never happened to me, that I would need more than 8 tracks. I think it depends on music for which style is created and personal taste on how the style should sound. But 12+ voices simultaneously can sound quite "busy" .
But I understand your wish and at the end, if someone doesn't need that many tracks, they can be left empty.

The main difference between your wish (more tracks) and my wish is, that more variations (and other stuff that I mentioned in my 1st post) don't really require any hardware change. On the other hand, if number of tracks is increased, that automatically involves the need for more polyphony (I imagine at least 320 voice polyphony). Means, the need for more advanced & faster chipset. Is it possible? It always is. But usually it's polyphony that separates expensive keyboards from cheaper ones. And so I can't imagine seeing midrange (PSR-SX) keyboards with 320 polyphony anytime soon.

Greetings,
Bogdan

[DerekA]

Whenever we suggest something new, someone will appear saying:
* Everything is already good.
* Why change?
* I'm already satisfied... etc

I think there is a difference between wanting to see genuinely new innovation, and making it easier to do something that you can already do. From Yamaha's point of view, if there is a way to do it - even if it is a little clumsy - well, then that's enough to satisfy the small number of people who want to do it.

[pontuseuxinus]

I had this thought for a good while now, maybe someone already knows how to implement it.

In the context of what I am describing, variations are not necessarily new song sections, but variations that could be triggered independently on select instruments, at any moment during the performance. This helps breaking the repetitive nature of the style, and would provide complex, always unique departures for any instrument (melodic or rhythmic), while the rest continue as before. This would be far more valuable than additional sections, because it's more natural and closer to how a real band performs.

The multi-pads could be ideal for this, as it already has everything needed. But instead of layering new sounds on top of the orchestration, it would affect an existing instrument/style track. It's not a build-up, it's instrumental variation. The implementation should be relatively simple as it only requires one parameter: specifying to which track the Pad should send the midi notes to.

To me this would be a game changer, as it would produce much more natural performances and provide unlimited ways to bring new, interesting variations throughout the composition. As the song progresses, I can have one or multiple instruments perform subtle changes or even progress independently from the rest, all within the same song section. And if the pad phrases are loop-ed, you effectively created a new section.

If there is a way to do this currently, I would love to hear it. Been thinking about this as a project, such as using external midi automation (muting tracks when certain pads are triggered), but it's quite involved and would be very song specific.

[Graham UK]

Remember, Yamaha added some Adaptive Styles on the DGX670.
Variations auto change depending on your playing pressure and style of playing.
This works well and should be developed further.

[Joe H]

Everything mentioned can be accomplished with registrations.  Registration banks is where we can "arrange" complex compositions.  Registrations are the centerpiece of arranger keyboards.  Some people want to change the way arrangers work. Yamaha has made a big investment over decades of time.  Arrangers have come a long way.  Until MIDI 2.0 is implemented (with backward compatibility), I don't see any major changes in the architecture of the SFF GE style file. It's easy to say Yamaha could do this... or that... but it's not that simple.

Our keyboards can accomplish a lot... if we know how to use them.  There is no creativity by just pushing a button. The more "Smart" devices get... the dumber WE get. 

IMHO

 

Joe H

[pontuseuxinus]

Everything mentioned can be accomplished with registrations.

I am not sure if you were replying to my post, I would certainly be interested to learn how registrations can be used to create momentary variations to a select midi track in a style.

It's no secret that the main shortcoming of arrangers are their repetitive aspect, regardless how many section variations are available in a style. It's the same pattern, over and over again until the next section. While this works fine with certain genres, a bit of creative liberty would go a long way to allow for more personal and natural sounding performances.

I can currently make pad libraries and record dozens of different drum fills, bass variations, etc. and trigger them as needed. The issue is of course that they would go on top of the drums / bass performances played by the style. While I could try to manually mute and unmute these parts while pads are performing, a more simple and elegant way would be to direct the pads notes directly to those channels instead. I can then use these fills and variations on any style, regardless of the voices used.

From an implementation standpoint, it's a low hanging fruit - send the notes to track x instead of whatever track the M.Pad is using. It doesn't require modifying the architecture of the style, since it's an external function.

[soundphase]

You choose a style,

you choose a variation, you change an instrument in the style, you mute some tracks, you change effects, EQ,…. you store the configuration in registration 1.
You choose another variation, you change instruments, mute/unmute, effects, …you store in registration 2



…. Until registration 10

You have 10 variations for the same style for your song.

[ton37]

A question for clarification: is a 'style track' a track that runs in the 'background'. Something like a midi track? Or keyboard in combination with a DAW, which runs a track on the computer in the background? So in fact a kind of 'karaoke effect'. If I'm wrong, please give me a link based on an example on the internet. So if that is the case, then you are 'obligated' to continue following that track, right? So if you join in too late with your solo instrument (or vocals) you have a 'problem'. Am I seeing that correctly? In other words: when you play live it can cause problems if you want to 'correct'/improvise something. It can be an advantage for a (studio) recording (although there are other options too?)