#1801739 - 08/28/07 01:34 PM
Arranger review letdown (again)
|
The Pro
Platinum Member
Registered: 07/08/03
Posts: 1172
Loc: Hilton Head Island, SC
|
Offline
|
|
I really thought that you guys were going to start taking arrangers more seriously when Stephen Fortner did a marvelous job of actually taking the Yamaha Tyros 2 out on a solo/duo gig and wrote a review based on what it's like to use the features of an arranger from his personal experiences. Though it's a perfectly obvious way to conduct such a review, it was a first for Keyboard and it was a long time coming. This sterling review followed on the heels of many poor arranger reviews by your magazine which barely touched on the accompaniment features of the arranger at all (frequently using them as mere romplers in band or studio settings - I can cite specific examples if you like).
Well my joy was short lived with this month's review of the Ketron MidJay, one of the few stand-alone arranger modules on the market and a heck of a soloist's sidekick device especially for it's price. While you did give the MidJay some of the praise it deserves for multifunctionality, your reviewer Ed Coury gave the arranger features one sentence: "using the arranger features is as easy as it gets". Wow... are you sure you had enough room for that much copy? How did you come to that conclusion - a solo gig? By comparison to the other leading arrangers on the market? How do those styles stack up against arrangers like the Tyros for realism anyway? Of the 206 styles that come with it, which ones did not live up to the MidJay's potential? After all, this device is sold as an arranger - just tell me why didn't you review it as one?
Maybe there's something more at work here - perhaps Ketron doesn't spend as many advertising dollars on Keyboard so the space they got was curtailed... nah, that can't be it because you frequently spend very little space on arranger functions.
Then I found the answer in Craig Anderton's review of the CME VX8 in the same issue. You see, the VX8 has something called a "Style Sequence". The word "style" is a clue that maybe, if we're talking about a function that triggers an accompaniment pattern which follows chord input, this could be an arranger function. Craig doesn't know what this feature does and the manual apparently is vague. So do we contact CME and get the details? No. And the reason why is summed up perfectly in the last sentence of the pertaining paragraph: "... what matters to ME about a controller is control, not song playback or manipulation."
Gentlemen, we have a problem. Just because you don't care about arranger functions, or worse don't know how to use them, doesn't mean we all share your lack of concern. It is irresponsible to dismiss arranger functionality when you know as a fact that your readership most certainly does care. We know this because arranger instruments represent a significant portion of the professional keyboard market and an even larger share of the home keyboard market. In my humble travels I frequently see arrangers in use and I expect that you do too unless you are purposely ignoring them.
What will it take for Keyboard magazine to give arrangers fair and complete gig-based reviews?
_________________________
"A wise man knows the difference between opera and barbeque..."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1801813 - 08/28/07 04:13 PM
Re: Arranger review letdown (again)
[Re: The Pro]
|
Ed Coury
Platinum Member
Registered: 11/28/03
Posts: 1022
Loc: Detroit area
|
|
Offline
|
|
Hey there Pro!
Actually, I became intimately familiar with the use of arranger keyboards earlier this year, when I was asked to play several gigs with a singer/guitarist (who supplied the arranger I used).
I based my opinions on that experience, and on the thoughts of a full-time solo performer who works throughout the Midwest.
As for the amount of ink that was dedicated to the arranger functions, I feel (as do the folks who actually make and sell the unit) that it is much more than an arranger. Given a limited amount of space to describe all of the many functions of a unit like this, it's tough to go into a lot of detail about the myriad features it offers. But there was more than once sentence about the arranger functions:
"It offers all of the features of a top-notch arranger keyboard, with a wide variety of intros, fills, breaks, and endings, which can be controlled by an optional foot pedal...connecting a MIDI keyboard controller to the Midjay results in a setup that rivals the best arranger keyboards available today. The sound set is more than adequate. 280 voices are stored on the Midjay’s chipset, and another 20 are included on its hard drive. Woodwind and organ tones are standouts. Using the arranger features (intros, fills, endings, selecting song styles) is as easy as it gets. The Midjay’s groove feature allows you to swap the rhythm selected for a particular song with another – perhaps something with a Latin groove, or a hip-hop beat. A tap tempo feature adds to the versatility of the unit."
I agree that one could fill a page with a description of arranger functions of the MidJay. But to do the many other functions it offers justice, the entire review would have been 8 pages long! 
As always, thanks for the feedback -- it is most appreciated!
Ed C.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1801879 - 08/28/07 07:15 PM
Re: Arranger review letdown (again)
[Re: Ed Coury]
|
The Pro
Platinum Member
Registered: 07/08/03
Posts: 1172
Loc: Hilton Head Island, SC
|
|
Offline
|
|
Hi Ed.
Certainly I agree that the vast number of functions of the Ketron MidJay merits more space than the article allowed... that's always true with Keyboard reviews. Perhaps we should be debating why the space that was spent on one of the most sophisticated and useful performance functions of the MidJay was relegated to one short general statement sentence. Or why we never seem to get any comparitive arranger reviews (you used other arrangers earlier this year and couldn't say how the Ketron fared against them?).
I didn't ask for a full page on the arranger features... a solid paragraph would've done, especially when it pertains to a specific feature that directly relates to how an instrument responds interactively with the performer in a live setting or would be a major deciding factor in purchasing.
But maybe you have a point... perhaps file storage nuances merit equal or more space than performance features. Just because a device has an entire array of dedicated buttons for a specific function doesn't necessarily mean that function should stand out in any way in the review. In fact, I'm going to stop being critical right now before I ruin the chances of the next arranger you guys review getting a full two sentences about the auto-accompaniment features.
_________________________
"A wise man knows the difference between opera and barbeque..."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1806192 - 09/06/07 03:27 PM
Re: Arranger review letdown (again)
[Re: The Pro]
|
Stephen Fortner
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 01/18/01
Posts: 2383
Loc: Bump City, CA, UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Hi Jim,
Your concern has been on my radar for some time now, and I've been following the thread on the main forum. Haven't been meaning to ignore you, just slammed.
I'd be curious to know what you thought of the huge Arranger roundup back in the April issue, as it represented a concerted effort on our part to give more ink to arrangers and what they're for. I tried to get as much comparative content in there as I could about one brand's styles vs the other, etc.
As for the CME VX8, shucks, I don't think Craig meant to imply any disdain for the community of arranger users. In fact, knowing Craig as I do, I'm certain he didn't. What I think happened was that the style sequence pads were both under-documented and under-implemented. They're supposed to be for triggering MIDI files you've downloaded from the net, which of course you'd need to "play out" into some kind of sound module (can't imagine that any under-the-gun solo entertainer would want to work that way in this day and age, can you?), but even the manufacturer didn't fuss about our downplaying them, and didn't have much to say about how they actually work. Bottom line: the VX8 does not have sufficient arranger functionality to be of much interest to arranger-based performers, so we spent the ink talking about the stuff it DOES have.
No "diss" intended. We swear.
_________________________
"I'm just a confused musician who got sidetracked into this damned word business..." -Hunter S. Thompson
Stephen Fortner
Technical Editor, Keyboard Magazine
NewBay Media LLC
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1806341 - 09/06/07 11:48 PM
Re: Arranger review letdown (again)
[Re: Stephen Fortner]
|
miden
Member
Registered: 01/30/06
Posts: 1
Loc: Australia
|
|
Offline
|
|
fwiw, i thought the arranger roundup in the april issue was excellent.
dennis
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1806535 - 09/07/07 10:10 AM
Re: Arranger review letdown (again)
[Re: miden]
|
The Pro
Platinum Member
Registered: 07/08/03
Posts: 1172
Loc: Hilton Head Island, SC
|
|
Offline
|
|
Stephen:
Thank you for posting. I thought the April "arranger" issue was a nice idea and a long overdue acknowledgement of the breed. To my count arrangers took about 13 pages of that 96 page issue, and as far back as I can remember arrangers had never been covered like that by Keyboard before.
But if you want critical feedback: I think your writing (Stephen Fortner's) in that issue came the closest to actually discussing what it's like to use an arranger live. With your comments about how the Korg PA series responded to advanced chord changes we have a breakthrough in arranger reviews... that's the heart and soul of what arranger users need to know. And yes, comparitive analysis between brands is essential because arrangers don't all interact with the player exactly the same, or equally as well. Arne Wendt's review of the Casios scored well too, actually discussing what it's like to put the styles through their paces. Geoff Grace made some nice and useful comments in comparing the piano and organ sounds/functions of arrangers favorably to romplers but his comments on interactive functionality were not as detailed as the previously mentioned reviews. However, with only a few exceptions the majority of the information presented in the "arranger issue" was not that much more than what you can read from the manufacturer. That's what has prompted me to wonder what is the use in buying Keyboard when the percentage of "new" information is so small?
Jonathan Feist and Craig Anderton's How-To articles in the April issue better illustrate what I consider to be a missed opportunity. This is space that could have gone into some juicy stage tips where arrangers are used the most (as you know, playing an arranger live is a unique experience). Craig's how-to was less about arrangers and more about audio production with just a few polite overtures to arranger's usefullness. Jonathan's article was about songwriting and was fairly detailed about arranger usage in that respect, however he completely missed a key point: he praised arrangers as songwriting tools but then he complained about being locked into factory styles rather than showing what it's like to create your own. In fact, noone in that April issue tried making their own styles on their respective arrangers. That's like reviewing a synth only by trying the factory sounds. I got the feeling that every one of the arrangers was tested in an office (and still are mostly).
And BTW: even though the CME VX8 does not function quite like an arranger (yet?), there was no way you could conclude that from Craig Anderton's review in this month's issue. In the space he used to dismiss the "style" function he could have explained it's intent better. And yes, if something DOESN'T do what it's meant to do I think that's as important as what it DOES do... see comments about repeating manufacturer info.
If the editors of Keyboard hire someone for a review and they come back with "it works great", do they cut the check? For years the majority of Keyboard's arranger reviews have boiled down to little more than that. Or worse: "I don't use it so I don't care". After some promises and brief moments of hope I think we still have a ways to go before we can say that Keyboard's arranger reviews are comprehensive, especially from the viewpoint of an experienced arranger user. Yet it feels like deja vu all over again with this month's Ketron MidJay review. If space does not allow for critical and fresh information in a magazine where ads take more room than content then Keyboard's priorities are wrong, IMHO of course.
_________________________
"A wise man knows the difference between opera and barbeque..."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1816188 - 09/26/07 05:17 PM
Re: Arranger review letdown (again)
[Re: The Pro]
|
Jonathan Feist
Member
Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 2
Loc: MA
|
|
Offline
|
|
Hey Pro,
Glad you found my article detailed, at least, and I agree that it would be nice to have had the opportunity to address some other points. But a book would be the appropriate format for that, not an article.
In the magazine, I was trying to give the perspective of how powerful these tools are from a songwriting perspective, which isn't talked about so much. The article was getting a bit long with just that as the focus, and I was grateful that the editors didn't cut me off as it was!
I didn't mean to rail against factory presets, I just meant that songwriters should see focusing learning how to tweak those as a separate set of skills than learning to use arranger keyboards as songwriting tools. And for songwriters, the ability to enhance performances is not the top priority set of functions to master.
From a pedagogical viewpoint, I think it's important to keep discussions/articles focused, and to really, thoroughly, deeply look at a subject, if the reader is to come away with a meaningful practical skillset. The power of using arranger keyboards as a songwriting tool lies in their ability to quickly, nimbly create grooves that support harmonic progressions. That's the essential skill I was trying to articulate in my article. It's a big topic.
These machines have vast capabilities, to the point where most users only utilize a small percentage of their potential functions because they get fed up with reading, as opposed to actually making music. I believe that lies in the standard format of manuals that give to much of a "this button does this function" approach, rather than a "let's make music" approach. For someone who wants to get the most out of arrangers as songwriting tools, messing around with customized grooves is a distraction, until some basic functionality is mastered (e.g., step recording chord progressions).
Then, sure, tweak your groove. But that's a different topic.
Look at the articles as a collection of perspectives. Otherwise, it would be just one BIG article, which in fact would be so complicated that nobody would read it. Or a bunch of little redundant articles, that similarly wouldn't collectively address anything much.
Best,
Jonathan Feist
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1819192 - 10/03/07 12:27 PM
Re: Arranger review letdown (again)
[Re: Jonathan Feist]
|
The Pro
Platinum Member
Registered: 07/08/03
Posts: 1172
Loc: Hilton Head Island, SC
|
|
Offline
|
|
Jonathan:
I agree with all your points but as I pointed out in my criticism of Craig Anderton's CME VX8 article, the same amount of space you used to express your frustration with being limited to factory presets in your songwriting article could have gone into a little discussion on the art of developing your own rhythms/accompaniment. That would have rounded out your article nicely and eliminated a gap... noone in the "arranger issue" touched the topic of accompaniment creation at all (or ever).
While songwriting-with-an-arranger is an interesting and useful topic, there's little doubt what arrangers are designed for: live interactive performance. There should have been a stand-alone article on that topic alone in an "arranger issue", or any issue actually. To my knowledge, and I've been reading Keyboard for decades, I've never seen such an article. That's what I mean by missed opportunity or possibly just a complete disconnect between the musicians buying/using arrangers and the writers and editors of Keyboard. I believe that good arranger usage requires technique as does any keyboard and it's more complicated than the button-to-button operations covered in an owner's manual. That's one article. Once you get into the process of making an arranger work for your stage needs, you instantly grasp that different arrangers each have features and responses which make one better than the other in specific areas. And that's where we need to go with arranger reviews.
The "arranger issue" could be thought of as "an introduction to arrangers" or maybe Arrangers 101... I sincerely hope the concept doesn't end there. Now that we are past the "tools or toys?" thing it would be nice to see a serious discussion about how to make money with an arranger, how to design and implement accompaniment patterns, what kinds of different AI technology are used in arrangers today, and what is the most powerful/most realistic-sounding/most ergonomic/most bang-for-the-buck arranger on the planet? Or am I all alone on this?
_________________________
"A wise man knows the difference between opera and barbeque..."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1820407 - 10/06/07 04:51 AM
Re: Arranger review letdown (again)
[Re: The Pro]
|
Jonathan Feist
Member
Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 2
Loc: MA
|
|
Offline
|
|
I agree that an in-depth article about how to get performance quality grooves out of arranger keyboards would be worth reading.
--Jonathan
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1827602 - 10/20/07 10:26 AM
Re: Arranger review letdown (again)
[Re: Jonathan Feist]
|
Dan O'
Platinum Member
Registered: 06/03/01
Posts: 1385
Loc: not in ham md
|
|
Offline
|
|
Hey Pro ...
Thanks for having as much enthusiasm for arrangers that I have...
I am happy just to see arrangers mentioned at all in keyboard
mag !
I'm posting these tunes in case someone wants to really get an idea for how arrangers can be used to produce songs. I am not a great song writer or recording engineer, but the tunes are what they are.
http://www.esnips.com/web/SongsfromDanO
Dan O'
Edited by Dan O' (10/21/07 09:31 AM)
_________________________
independant rep for kurzweil-general music-cme
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Ernie Rideout, Stephen Fortner, Michael Gallant
|
|
|
