Re: [MoAccess] Motif vs Tyros - A Practical Example
- From: Steve Matzura <number6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: MoAccess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 23:13:32 -0400
A fantastic and accurate explanation, Bryan. Let me take that
explanation and overlay it onto another non-music-related thing which
many can relate to--namely, cooking. Simply put, an arranger is like
having a pantry full of prepared sauces, soups, potions, spice mixes,
etc., which you can use individually or together to prepare a dish.
Those are analogous to an arranger's styles, breaks, fills, etc. A
workstation is like having this big huge garden with all kinds of
vegetables, fruits, herbs, you name it, plus all the tools to slice
and dice them into submission so you can make literally anything as
long as you know how to combine the small parts into larger, more
complete modules, if you will. The arranger results are a lot more
predictable and standardized, just like the stuff you cook up with
prepared components, whereas the workstation is like the kitchen
garden, totally free-form and almost always requiring more work on the
part of the creator of the dish, either culinary or musical, and
unless you're super duper fastidious about what you're doing, the
results of two consecutive takes will almost never be the same, either
culinarily or musically.
.
On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 20:31:17 -0400, you wrote:
>OK. This can get complicated, but here is the nut shell.
>
>An arranger keyboard solves a problem for a few types of musicians.
>
>If you gig by yourself, you have a virtual backup band that can play along
>with you. You select a musical style on the arranger, play the main keyboard
>part, and the band follows along. The instrument sounds on a good arranger
>keyboard are going to sound way better than some cheap general MIDI module or
>canned backing tracks. The keyboard also reacts to you, so if you stretch out
>with additional choruses, or if you want to throw in a break or solo, you can
>do that in the moment.
>
>The other big problem arrangers solve is they help someone that doesn't know
>how to play keyboard sound like a full band. I don't mean that the musician
>can't play keys, but playing keyboard is different from playing piano.
>Keyboard players learn how to spread out with wide two-handed chords to play
>more realistic guitar parts, how to play the correct intervals for instruments
>like harmonica, etc. If you play piano well, but don't know how to change your
>technique for those other instruments, then an arranger helps you. You
>basically play in the piano part, or else record in a few tracks that serve as
>guides, pick a style, and the arranger plays all of the other instruments for
>you. You can write this way, but you focus on the chords and melody, rather
>than playing each part. The styles are also useful for letting you hear how
>your chord progression and melody will sound when performed different ways.
>You focus on the big picture, and let the arranger worry about the details.
>
>A workstation keyboard is meant to be a self-contained instrument for
>composition/production of an entire song. It is supposed to be something like
>a scaled down studio or DAW. Motif has lots of ready-to-go instrument sounds,
>both a 16 track linear (tape recorder style), and a 16 track pattern (drum
>machine style) sequencer, a sampler that can be used to import loops, make new
>instruments, record vocals, etc, and, finally, Motif has a mixing/mastering
>system for getting the sound right. You might have a megabucks computer with a
>mountain of softsynths, but a workstation is a boiled down version of that for
>getting the tech out of your way so you can write. You turn on the Motif, and
>it is all there: no updates, drivers, viruses, etc. You perform your parts in
>to the sequencer on the Motif, mix it on the Motif, and can record your file
>directly to a USB flash drive. The idea is that you sit down, turn on the
>Motif, quickly play in your idea, quickly mix it, and get up with a recorded
>song. The computer has more synths, more and better effects, etc etc. If you
>want to demo a song idea, though, you can throw something together in a short
>time on the Motif that sounds good, rather than spend hours working through
>the infinite possibilities on the computer. If you end up loving your demo,
>you can jump on the computer with a better idea of where you're going.
>
>A workstation is also different from an arranger in that it lets you control
>just about everything. You can record and edit on all 16 tracks, instead of a
>few on an arranger. You have more performance controls that affect the tone of
>the instrument voice, where an arranger has mostly performance controls that
>affect the virtual band. You can also tweak the sound of any of your
>instruments: change the effects, edit the filters, envelopes, LFOs and other
>mod sources, all the way down to the individual samples, where an arranger
>doesn't go as deep with control of the instrument sounds.
>
>Arps or arpeggios get their name from history. On an instrument, you play an
>arpeggio by playing the notes of a chord individually in a pattern. In the
>ancient days, synthesizers had devices called arpeggiators that did this for
>you. You'd hold down a C major chord, and they'd play c, e, g, e, c, e, g,
>etc. You could change the pattern, so they'd play c, e, g, c, e, g, or g, e,
>c, g, e, c, but that was about it. On the Motif, an arpeggio is a bit like
>that in the sense that you can play a chord, but what comes out is a realistic
>sounding riff. For example, say you don't know how to play good guitar parts.
>You can pick a guitar sound for a track, select one of the guitar arpeggios,
>and just play the chords. The Motif will generate notes that sound like you're
>strumming, muting, tapping the guitar body for rhythm, etc. The arps on the
>Motif aren't as smart as the styles on the Tyros, but they try to help in the
>same way. You can also play them in to the sequencer one at a time, which
>gives you more control than you get on a Tyros. The Motif has a performance
>mode, where you can use up to 4 parts at once under arpeggiator control.
>People commonly make performances that include drums, bass, guitar, and keys.
>The result is something that sounds similar to a Tyros style, but with fewer
>parts.
>
>You can always hammer in a nail with a screw driver, but it isn't necessarily
>easy. That's why it's better to get the keyboard that is laid out to best
>handle the problems that you encounter the most in your work.
>
>Bryan
>
>On Jul 3, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Ben Humphreys wrote:
>
>Thanks Bryan, I liked your summary: "The Tyros is a great arranger
>with some workstation features. The Motif is a great workstation with
>some arranger features."
>
>Unfortunately, I don't yet have a grasp for what "arranger" and
>"workstation" mean specifically. However, an example might help
>clarify the situation for me.
>
>Let's say I have a 4-handed piano piece, such as "Heart and Soul."
>
>I want to make a first pass with the left handed part, a repeating pattern.
>
>Then a second pass with the right handed part.
>
>I understand how I might do this with Sonar, recording the left hands
>part on a track, and then looping it over and over. Then putting the
>right hands part on its own track.
>
>How might I accomplish this with Motif and/or Tyros?
>
>Is this where arpeggios on Motif come in? Is this where styles on
>Tyros come in?
>
> Without regard to using Sonar, how would this be accomplished on a
>Motif vs. Tyros?
>
>Obviously, I'm confused about a lot of terms: workstation, arranger,
>arpeggios, styles and how they might apply to various situations, and
>in particular the one I have described.
>
>I'd be grateful to anyone who can set me straight :)
>
>Thanks
>
>Ben
>
>At 04:07 PM 7/1/2012, you wrote:
>There are a good many blind Tyros users out there. Most of these
>people are using the Tyros for doing one-man shows: weddings, small
>parties, etc. It is incredibly realistic at being a backing band
>while you play. The styles, harmonizer, and so forth aren't really
>useful if you're playing with a full band. Ensemble keyboard players
>would do better with a workstation, where they can split/layer
>voices as much as they want, as well as build their own from
>scratch. I know a few blind people that have the Tyros as a studio
>sound module, but is very expensive for that approach.
>
>The Tyros is a great arranger with some workstation features. The
>Motif is a great workstation with some arranger features. My
>personal opinion is that the Tyros is the superior live keyboard,
>and the Motif is the superior studio piece, but they both can do
>either things to some degree.
>
>Anyway, there isn't a blind Tyros users list, as far as I know, but
>lots of them are on MIDI-Mag. At one point, there were panel
>descriptions, menu descriptions, and so on floating around for at
>least the Tyros 3.
>
>I suggest to ask on MIDI-Mag. Go to <http://www.midimag.org>www.midimag.org.
>
>Bryan
>
>On Jun 29, 2012, at 4:51 PM, D!J!X! wrote:
>
>The motif is different in the layout and navigation than the tyros and the
>top line psr. The tyros and psr are aranger keyboards, with the styles and
>are geared more toward quick composition and perfomance like that. You can
>use it with a sequencer with no problem, and for quick recordings. Not sure
>what it has in terms of sampling capabilities, but the motif is more of a
>workstation, you can make more customized full songs on there, they have
>pattern mode for quick loop based music creation, and it's more of an
>overall perfoming workstation, with separate channels and assignable parts
>and such for performing, the tyros and psr just have the main voice, 1 or 2
>layers that you can add, and a left hand split along with the styles.
>The motif for example can have 4 separate keyboard zones or 4 layers
>(probably more in the xf and xs), you can use arps with the voices (short
>musical loops), and you can even use the pattern mode to create a 16 track
>part or such to use in performances. It also has many more effects than the
>tyros and more advanced routing, as it's meant for the studio musician and
>the live gigging musician as well.
>But if you're using the tyros in studio or for small performances, the tyros
>should be fine, though because of it's different layout and such it'll be
>harder to get help, since most people on this list at least use the motif
>line. The good thing about the tyros and psr navigation system is that it
>stays constant and once you learn it you can get around most of those
>keyboards.
>
>HTH, D!J!X!
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:
><mailto:moaccess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>moaccess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:moaccess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>[mailto:moaccess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>On Behalf Of Ben Humphreys
>Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 9:52 PM
>To:
><mailto:MoAccess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>MoAccess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:MoAccess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [MoAccess] Motif vs Tyros
>
>Hi folks,
>
>I have a question relating to accessability of the Motif vs the Tyros.
>
>I've heard it consistently stated that Motif is one of the best workstations
>for a blind musician, presumably because so many functions are accessible
>from dedicated buttons and the screen interface is button-based, not
>touch-based.
>
>However, when I went to purchase a Motif, I was so enamored with the even
>more beautiful sounds of the Tyros that I ended up getting a Tyros 4
>instead.
>
>I figured the Yamaha Tyros interface was similar enough to Motif that I
>wouldn't be at any disadvantage to a Motif user. Tyros has lots of buttons
>I can label in Braille, and screen has 10 buttons, A through J, tab keys,
>and 1 through 8 up / down buttons. I'm assuming Motif is very similar.
>
>Of course, there is no ty-access mailing list, and certain apps, such as
>those from John Melas, won't work with Tyros.
>
>But I'm using Sonar with Cake Talking, same as I would with Motif. And I've
>found a Tyros 4 Instrument Definition File so presumably can select
>instruments easily using Sonar.
>
>Which leads to my question:
>
>Is the Motif preferred among the blind community over the Tyros primarily
>because the Motif is somehow more accessable? Or is it perhaps that the
>Tyros is a bit on the expensive side?
>
>Is there some compelling reason I'd want to sell my Tyros and get a Motif
>instead?
>
>Thanks for your help,
>
>Ben
>
>--
>You received this message because you're subscribed to the MoAccess e-mail
>list.
>To unsubscribe, change your list options, or view archives for the MoAccess
>list, please use the FreeLists page.
><//www.freelists.org/list/moaccess>//www.freelists.org/list/moaccess
>
>--
>You received this message because you're subscribed to the MoAccess
>e-mail list.
>To unsubscribe, change your list options, or view archives for the
>MoAccess list, please use the FreeLists page.
>//www.freelists.org/list/moaccess
--
You received this message because you're subscribed to the MoAccess e-mail list.
To unsubscribe, change your list options, or view archives for the MoAccess
list, please use the FreeLists page.
//www.freelists.org/list/moaccess
Other related posts:
