Motif XF Arps vs Tyros 4 Accompaniment Styles

So how do they both compare as far as groove rhythm and harmony for songwriting production .

What exactly are the Tyros 4 Accompaniment Styles made of ?

Aren’t they really just arps like on the Motif , whats the difference ?

Would it make sense to have a Motif XF and a Tyros 4 for songwriting music production ?

Are arranger keyboards serious studio production tools or a joke when it comes to pro use ?

How come no pro producer uses arranger keyboards or maybe they do ?

How come all demos of arranger keyboards sound so dam cheesy ?

Thanks

Are arranger keyboards serious studio production tools or a joke when it comes to pro use ?

When a “pro” uses any musical instrument it is serious… your question seems to be driven by a concern about will you be viewed as a pro if you choose to an arranger versus something else.

The questions are driven from a need to know? Or are they driven by something like you are trying to decide which is right for you - from a standpoint of what to purchase?

Mr. Spock - 25 March 2013 10:23 AM

Motif XF Arps vs Tyros 4 Accompaniment Styles

So how do they both compare as far as groove rhythm and harmony for songwriting production....

At the risk of over-simplifying, an arranger keyboard like the Tyros is configured in such a way as to excel as a “one man band” type of machine, especially playing alone and live.

The XF is a “music production workstation” in every sense of those words.

This isn’t ALL either one can be used for...just where the focus is, IMO.

I have a Tyros 3 and a Motif XF6.

They both can be used for songwriting which is how I use them. However after having the Motif now for a couple of years I prefer it over the Tyros for creating an “Arrangement”. I find styles too restrictive and many are in genres I do not use. It’s also very difficult to make your own. I’ve even tried combining the styles with Motif Performances by turning off the Drums and Bass in the Style using the Motif’s instead. However the Arps on the Motif offer endless possibilities and the “intelligence” of the Arps give you even more variability.  Plus IMO I find the overall sound quality of the Motif superior to the Tyros. Maybe this is not as noticeable with Tyros 4. I would sell the Tyros if it wasn’t for the quality of certain acoustic voices.

The Super Articulated Breathy and Jazz Tenor Sax, Classical Guitar, Jazz Trumpet and the Classical Flute are the best on any keyboard; Arranger or Workstation. If those voices are not important to you I would augment the Motif with a Kronos, Krome, Jupiter 50/80, or Integra-7 rather than an Arranger. Also Roland is releasing a new top end Arranger next month. Check it out if an Arranger really appeals to you. Roland has pretty good Acoustic voices, second to Tyros though, but IMO Roland usually sounds better than Tyros (more live).

Joe

cmayhle - 25 March 2013 12:33 PM

Mr. Spock - 25 March 2013 10:23 AM

Motif XF Arps vs Tyros 4 Accompaniment Styles

So how do they both compare as far as groove rhythm and harmony for songwriting production....

At the risk of over-simplifying, an arranger keyboard like the Tyros is configured in such a way as to excel as a “one man band” type of machine, especially playing alone and live.

The XF is a “music production workstation” in every sense of those words.

This isn’t ALL either one can be used for...just where the focus is, IMO.

The Tyros may be positioned as a “one man band” but I use my XF7 as a “one man band” machine too.  Difference is I don’t use any ARPs or prerecorded grooves.  I just record all the “bands” parts in real time pattern mode, setup a pattern chain, then play along live.  Works great for me.

Motif XF arps vs Tyros/Clavinova style accompaniment ?

What are the differences or are they essentially the same thing ?

Does one have more groove that the other ?

Pros and Cons of both ?

Thanks

Arranger Keyboards have a variety of accompaniment and rhythmic backing patterns (called “Styles”) in a variety of different musical genres including pop, jazz, and many others. The Style features Auto Accompaniment, letting you produce automatic accompaniment playback simply by playing “chords” with your left hand. This lets you automatically recreate the sound of a full band or orchestra—even if you’re playing by yourself.

Upper end Arranger Keyboards also have Multi Pads. The Multi Pads can be used to play a number of short pre-recorded rhythmic and melodic sequences that can be used to add impact and variety to your keyboard performances. Multi Pads are grouped in Banks of four each. The Tyros4, for example, features a variety of Multi Pad Banks in a variety of different musical genres.

Arpeggio: This function lets you automatically trigger musical and rhythmic phrases using the current Voice by simply pressing a key or keys on the keyboard.
The Arpeggio sequence changes in response to the actual notes or chords you play, giving you a wide variety of inspiring musical phrases and ideas, both in composing and performing.

So assuming none of the terminology is a problem, STYLES include Auto Accompaniment, typically controlling 8 musical/percussion parts. Styles and Multi Pads are found on the Tyros… Multi Pads have more in common with the Arpeggiators you find in the Motif XF except that Multi Pads can be triggered by pads.

The rules of how you control the STYLE differs from how you control an ARPEGGIO. And while it is understandable that you might confuse them until you appreciate what each is doing. It is fairly obvious to those who have played both. If you have not, a discussion of the differences seems a waste of time.

When you recall a Style, you are recalling a preconfigurated collection of musical content that all works to recreate an entire accompaniment (musical backing)

When you recall an Arpeggio, you are recalling an individual phrase of music related content, that can be notes and/or controller data, that can be used recreate a musical gesture.

And while an arp can be made to repeat over and over, like a Style does, it does not have to… And arp can play once and stop or can be made to loop, more like a Multi Pad. But online the Style or Multi Pad, Arpeggios can be made to respond differently based on input velocity, performance control for arpeggios includes velocity- that’s one huge difference.

A Style has several different parts. Two are drum/percussion that play “fixed” note phrases, the bass part has a specific set of rules that allow it to be responsible for the musical root, two chordal parts adjust to chord recognition rules, one follows a slightly more relaxed harmonic movement to chordal/rhythmic control (Pad), and the final two have even more melodic freedom to the transposition rules and are riffs or phrases.

The rules that control the accompaniment engine are numerous and quite rigid in their implementation so that a consistent approach is rewarded with consistent results. The important thing is the musical and rhythmic content assembled in a STYLE is not only a huge amount of data but it has been preselected to work in its current designation.

To ask what the difference between a Style (8 parts each with a specific role) and an Arpeggio (1 phrase) is almost as easy to answer as that. They cannot be confused when you view them this way.

Are you confused because if you assemble several Arps in a PERFORMANCE you can almost do what a STYLE does? Is that the question?

I find that that focus of the Arranger is different from the focus of the Synth Workstation. One is designed to work as a real time one man band. The other not so much, the content in the other is to be used creatively to fill a role in composing. Can they both be used for composing. Yes. Can they both be used for live play? Yes.

No doubt.

It is a matter of focus. I need to press a button to trigger a fill-in before moving to the bridge. The STYLE engine excels in this as fill-ins actually have a predetermined destination.  A lot is assumed on the arranger based on current trends in popular music genres.

You can combine and make up some of your own rules with arpeggios, because they are individual phrases that can be used in unique situations. Whether an arp phrase is going to behave a particular way is not known, you have to call it up and play it to know. And while that can be true in the Arranger some times, mostly the focus is on consistency of approach STYLE to STYLE.

The pro and con portion of your question (and the crux of the whole thread) comes down to what you as an individual need from a product. The Tyros 4 and the Motif XF are two top-of-their-line instruments. They are clearly targeting two different customers. This is what I mean when I mention the focus thing.

While it is possible to enjoy features of both, they each have a specific focus, a set of features designed for a specific workflow. Only you can decide your own personal set of pros and cons, and it comes down to what you need from an instrument. Even if my attempts to explain the difference fall short, you can think about this… Yamaha thinks that the difference is clear enough to have made two top of their line instruments.

The data whether arpeggio or style, is MIDI data (although new so-called “audio styles” are now being introduced in the arranger world), so we can say, the data is primarily just MIDI data manipulated in different ways. The content is MIDI data - and the same phrase could be used in a Style and be selected as an individual Arp in the synth workstation. While that phrase is a part of an ensemble of phrases, in the synth arp it is an isolated musical entity… I now decide where I need to paste this content

If you only think of arpeggios as cycling looping phrases, then maybe it is not a big deal, and maybe it is why you might limit your thinking about how they can be put to use in the synth workstation.

The Phrase Factory was a term that Athan came up with to describe all of the MIDI content provided in the Motif-series and how you can use the features and functions to generate completely new and musically relevant phrases. Some people just flip though the arp phrases without a vision of how it can be used. But say you are building a particular instrument part.. A particular arp has some something that you like… Build on it.

First you use the PLAY FX to adjust how it is interacting with your control notes; next you print it to a track of the sequencer, then apply the Real Time Loop Remix to a couple of measures… Now you’ve got the phrase doing something complete fresh… It is only when you really begin to combine arps with Remix and the Arp PLAY FX, that you realize you don’t need new arpeggios, you need just to start to experiment with the tools on board and apply them to the data that already exist… There is no end to exciting inspiring things to discover.

Arps and style accompaniment may look very similar at first glance.  But you probably need to spend abit of time to play on both to know the intricate differences.

For convenience and easy playing, auto accompaniment styles offer the option to quickly put together a song or an arrangement for a song. Quick, easy and convenient.

Synths running on arppegios are slightly different.  These are musical phrases triggered by notes you play.  Pluses and minuses.  It has added flexibility in choosing the number of arppegios (up to 4) you want to run and the ability to programme you own arpeggios if you are not happy with the stock arppegios found in the machine.  The musical phrases can be as simple and as complex as you want them to be.  However, all these tweaking and programming take time and effort.

So in short, the styles offer simple and convenient way to perform or arrange or compose a song.

Arppegiators offer more flexiblity and power, but they come with a price of needing more time and effort to program, even if you take the existing performance and make some alterations.

As a Motif and Tyros3 owner I can tell it is,

Quite simple actually. The Motif XF is a great machine for skilled musicians, able to play this keyboard and the TYROS 4 is more for those musicians like me who wants to make or create music without all the technical knowhow you need for a MOTIF WORKSTATION.

Jan

Thanks for all your reply guys I’m press for time right now but will get back up here later today .

I just wanted to say what really triggered this question for me was the New Yamaha Clavinova 609 .
I was reading the manuel and it looks amazing to me .

I have a Motif XF that I love but was wondering would adding a Clavinova 609 be awesome for me or a wast ,
being I have a XF already .

The New Clavinova 609 I believe has the same working as a Tyros 4 with a beautiful large color touch screen and maybe more sounds and styles . I believe yamaha has made it easier to create your own styles but I’m still learning about that .

Usually theses arrangers sound like cheesy “you light up my life “ karaoke machines but I have heard some demos lately that blew me away so I’m on my way as we speak to test drive a 609 .

So what do you think about this Clavinova 609 paired with a XF ?

Really enjoying reading all of your post as I’m on my way to demo .

What any instrument “sounds like” depends on the driver in the driver’s seat - it is really all about the musician playing the instrument. Even with all the top shelf content found in a Tyros 4 or Clavinova 609, or a Motif XF for that matter, it still comes down to the musician in front of the instrument… and what you do with that content.

Absolutely.  Ultimately it is the musician behind the machines that matters most.  Tyro, clavinova, motif are all just machines.

But getting the right machine for the right job is important too.

Bad_Mister - 29 March 2013 01:07 PM

What any instrument “sounds like” depends on the driver in the driver’s seat - it is really all about the musician playing the instrument. Even with all the top shelf content found in a Tyros 4 or Clavinova 609, or a Motif XF for that matter, it still comes down to the musician in front of the instrument… and what you do with that content.

Well said , thank you .

Just demoed the Clavinova and I see what you guys mean .

I must say , I was blown away by the Clavinova .
It went against all the pre conception I had about arranger keyboards .

Let me tell you these arrangers are no joke !

I mean they have editable synths and all , with filter cutoff resonance ADSR etc ....
I was actually controlling the filter cut off with the foot peddle .

The shop I went to specialized in yamaha pianos from real acoustic grands to Clavinova .
I could see from this store that Yamaha must be pushing these pianos toward a certain group of consumers . Maybe older traditional people who really appreciate pianos not just as instruments but as fine quality furniture . Thats why I was so surprised to see so much technology in the Clavinova .

Still doing more research on it but I think it would be a great tool for songwriting and music production in it’s own way .
One thing I don’t think the Clavinova has are the multi-pads you where talking about .

O theres one more problem the Clavinova is expensive as hell , I don’t understan why ?
It’s a great piano from what I could see in a short demo
but some of them where 5 digits and up Ouch !

Yes, the Clavinovas are very expensive, especially the flagship models.  But do remember they are also very powerful machines.  Looking at the flagships, you get almost the best of everything.  Sounds, keybed, speakers, functions, accompaniment, super articulation voices, controls and a beautiful cabinet.  All present in top quality and corespondingly a matching price tag.

As you go down the line, you would need to sacrifice some of those top quality components.  Reduced functions, lesser controls and sounds, simplified cabinets and so on.

If you just want powerful control, top quality sounds and good keybed feel, then MOTIF XF offers the most value.  The MOTIF XF flagship is a lot cheaper than the Clavinova flagship.  You save some costs by not having the cabinet, speakers, bench, music rest, dust cover.

mm6 - 30 March 2013 06:25 AM

Yes, the Clavinovas are very expensive, especially the flagship models.  But do remember they are also very powerful machines.  Looking at the flagships, you get almost the best of everything.  Sounds, keybed, speakers, functions, accompaniment, super articulation voices, controls and a beautiful cabinet.  All present in top quality and corespondingly a matching price tag.

Good point .

They even make a grand piano version but I can’t imagine why someone would pay the extra cash because You don’t get anything extra .