BernMeister

I'm hearing Ab11 (i.e. add the Db - natural 11 or, likely in this case, add4) and you've got it. I'd play it as a cluster with the Gb on the bottom and f up on top.

Remove it? Of course not; it was offered to all here at the time. I'm flattered that it's resurfaced

I remember this. Gosh, that was eons ago!

Thanks, Steve, This is interesting. A couple of questions, if I may: What is the significance of the supposed asterisk (*) symbol? At the Tags (and other areas), you've got what looks like 6b9 ? Is this shorthand for 67(b9), or a b6(9) chord? If so, I'm seeing a recurring theme where the accidental is following (instead of preceding) the number, as in the 4# in the verse (unless I'm not reading it correctly). Is this reversal common practice or just a way to save on horizontal spacing? Regarding slash chords, do you ever find yourself needing to write in specific modifiers? In this chart, I see that most of the slash chords are quite simple. Finally, knowing full well that it's so much faster to write NNS out by hand, do any of you use an app or scoring application to create your NNS charts?

I doubt that a player of your talent needs help with transcribing this arrangement, even with the many helpful transcriptions out there anyway. Otherwise, I sure some of us would be willing to offer our take on it

The arpeggio strings are not octave doubled (nor are the counter lines). If in doubt, you can give them a better listen here. Sure, you can certainly try to octave double these, but you may end up overloading the arrangement. Assuming the rest of the band plays their parts accordingly (and yes, I mean the guitarist too), then these string parts (played as originally intended) will fit in the mix well. After all, it was arranged by the late master, Michael Kamem.

There were a couple of threads on this a few years ago. I had posted a transcription back in 2011 but the attachment source is no longer functioning. For those who still need it, here it is. If you must read it, go ahead. However, this isn't too hard to learn...so I would strongly encourage you to listen as best you can and then compare what you hear to what's in the transcription.2592.pdf

I did, and was expecting the thread to be all about how to play the piano part lol

Yes, that"s what I do when I have to play in mono⦠especially the Korg Kronos does not sum to mono well. I don"t see the need for the dummy plug in the L, but maybe there"s a reason I don"t know about⦠The only reason I assume here is that some older models (maybe present) allowed mono sum from either the left or right output. Thus, if you wanted to force a right out only, you needed to plug in a dummy on the left.

This, is probably the only reason to chart it in cut time. Otherwise, if you are a singer who's reading through a song of this relative complexity...with all the interval jumps and stuff, then one must assume they can read any or most rhythms comfortably. Regardless, I would never chart this in cut time; it is clearly a standard 4/4 ballad feel (for the entire band, including vocals). Were I to provide this in cut time for my clientele, I'd surely hear it from them...and not in the positive sense!

I did this to mine, but not with the Roland weights...as someone already mentioned here, the JV-90 keybed is not the same as the XP series. So, simply retrofitting with the XP's weights won't do, and certainly not for the black keys as these are shaped differently. I ended up adding weights the old fashioned way: I glued together some square nuts that were thick enough and had just the right weight, balance and feel. The black keys received some rounded weights that fit into their cavity nicely. Apply epoxy as usual and have lots of patience on hand. If you want to go this route, you might actually like the end result better than an XP80 feel (I love mine so much so). Note to the wise: Don't add the same weights ounce per ounce as that of an XP80 spec; the spring load between these keybeds are not identical. So, unless you're willing to change the springs as well, do yourself a favour and "tape" your weights to a set of keys and work out the best weight balance you feel comfortable with.

I think everyone's got the right idea...and indeed, it does become a personal choice. I believe the Gbsus2/Bb or a Bbm7+ (#5...pick your nomenclature) works. The Gbsus2/Bb, particularly, always leads me to feel like it's a passing chord, from say Gb to Gb/Bb...in this case with an added sus2 for colour. The latter doesn't necessarily put you in the key of Bbm. With the above in mind, here's another take....and this obviously depends on context and the way you approach your modes. If you're trying to think in terms of 4ths, you might think of the chord in question as Ab7/4 (I'm told this is quite common in Brazilian contexts as well). Yes, you need to get a slash Bb in there somehow. So, if you're writing the chord symbol, stack the 74 and then slash the Bb. You might find that reading the chord symbol in this way influences your improvisational approach differently (perhaps easier...YMMV).

The very first figure should have the triplet start on A (instead of 8th rest and then the G). It's a three-note phrase there. I also thought there was an "A" that starts the motif...but, in reality, it's not there (at least not in the synth line). The A note is carried in by two instruments; piano and polysynth, which are both comping the same pattern at this point in the song. Greg Phillinganes and and others have indeed started the motif with an "A" live, but it's not really there in the recording. If it was played, it was likely mixed or gated out. Jerry's transcription above is condensed, of course. There's a lot more going on that certainly can't be performed with just two hands (or feet!). Off hand, I will say that beat 2 of measure 2 would be best written out as a 4 note tuplet of 16ths; that would make the line more accurate and easier to read. As for the flute/bell line, it's just 4 upper thirds that cycle in delay. The counter line is a challenge, even with the isolated recording that's out there. However, to my ears, it counters on beat 3. The horn line measure 8 should start in measure 6, where the synth appropriately counters, and then countered again by the horns in m8 (as wriitten). There's more to this magic; the bulk of which happens from 6-8. The polysynth bends in m11...start sort of as you have it, but are then doubled in lower inversions to build before the organ gliss climax. Even if, as Steve Porcaro explained, the organ gliss on the end was a happy accident, these guys knew what they were doing! I sequenced this back in the day and came away very proud of the synth solo rendition. Playing this live...almost impossible as a single keyboardist without triggering loops and sequences (as they have live). Love this song forever! Edit: Jerry, I just read your previous post after having posting the above.

That was pretty good The brass was well played...although: Many people (including myself back in the day) miss out on a very important note in the figure entering the chorus. Following the first "F" there's a "D" that precedes the Ab. i.e. The lick doesn't stop halfway on "F". It's not easily heard in the recording, but it's there and makes a world of a difference.

That transcription is not very good, though. I'd have to agree...

If you qualify for an educational discount, upgrading would surely be worth your while. Regardless, especially given the number of existing files you have, I'd say upgrade and stay the course. There's a lot that's been added to Sibelius since v6. Some info can be read here: https://www.avidblogs.com/whats-new-in-sibelius/ http://resources.avid.com/SupportFiles/Sibelius/2020.6/Whats_New_in_Sibelius.pdf

For me, it was the Korg MS-10 (my first synth), followed by the Mono/Poly. Sadly, I no longer own either today. More for their bare bones access to sound shaping, the knowledge I've acquired from these two synths alone allowed me to teach all my fellow keyboardists how to program their own machines at the time (Prophet 5, OB-xa, Jupiter 8...). Sort of O.T. I do still own a Ensoniq VFX. Although it doesn't have a resonant filter, I can still program just about any "synth" type sound, even today's "modern" sounds. i.e. If your synth has the basics and you know your way around it, you can sculpt just about any sound.

At 11sec, just change the last descending arpeggio note from Eb to F (effectively creating an Fm and not Fm7), and you've got the passage exactly right. Good job at breaking the arpeggio pattern on the two select chords (at 7 sec); most folks think it's always running in the same direction.

I missed the Grammy's last, but I understand music and performances like this were all over it...wasn't it??? My point, of course, is that you can't substitute lights, dance, video trickery, and money, with music like this. THIS, is what the definition of priceless music is all about! Thanks for sharing, and apologies for derailing this thread.

I'm sure this will be a great synth. But the name... May as well be like, oops!

This. I've played to sequences on a few of occasions over the years and absolutely hate it. Where possible, on a gig where I've learned my parts and programmed my sounds accordingly (usually much to the band's surprise), if the keyboard "sequence" tracks are mutable, I'd insist they mute them.

Cheers Tim, Regarding your current setup and Kronos: If you don't mind the longer size, there's always the Kronos 88LS (it'll save you 7 pounds...woohoo!). Otherwise, wait and hope for a 73LS version?

A local and fellow musician, he's one of the best midi programmers you'll find anywhere. Contact him, he'll be happy to answer your questions. https://www.midimadness.com/

Great stuff. Thanks DB and Ian

7, with 5 a close second...and yes, day-and-night better with a Vent than without. Both leap frog over the rest easily (at least in the context of this song). For the record, I believe that, had you included the HX3 with a Vent, it would have blown the entire field out of the water.