Submitted by DavePolich on Tue, 2007-01-30 17:08.

Why doesn't someone come out with a keyboard that has a 200GB hard drive, the ability to run AU/VST software synths and samplers, onboard 16-track audio recording, VST/AU effects, waveform editing, and an onboard DVD-RW drive?

Can't be too hard in this day and age, right? We already have this on our computers, right?

Well, that's the point. We can already do these things with a computer. So, if you're sitting there reading this on your PC, why aren't you just using your PC to do your music?

Frankly, I gotta rant a bit here. I'm baffled why anyone with a reasonably powerful computer wouldn't use it for music production. Yes, I've heard the comments like "I spend all day in front of a computer, the last thing I want to do is come home and make music with one".

I'm not buying that. Saying you prefer a workstation instead of a computer for music production is like saying you prefer rotary phones and dial up to high-speed broadband and cellphones.

What I hear when someone says they don't like to use a computer for music is - they don't understand how to set it up. They're confused. That's a legitimate objection. But to say a computer is less convenient or not as capable as a standalone workstation - even the XS - that's just plain wrong.

A computer may be less than ideal for gigging - perhaps. Although, a small laptop, a MIDI/audio interface, and a keyboard, and you're good to go. And if computers were so inconvenient, you wouldn't see major touring acts using them. But most do. They're not luxuries, they're essential. Most major acts couldn't go on tour without computers. There isn't an album anywhere that doesn't at some point require a computer for production.

A standalone workstation (like the Motif) and a compuer are two different products. They're intended to be. Computers are more easily upgraded than closed-system standalone workstations. Proprietary LSI's are better for standalone workstations, but don't work so well for computers.

If you want the 200GB hard drive, AU/VST implementation, waveform editing, audio recording - you already have that now. If you're afraid of computers but want multi-track audio recording, you can buy a standalone multi-track audio recorder like one of Yamaha's MW series.

Sorry, no more excuses. If you have a computer and you want the advantges for music production that a computer provides, then use your computer. If you can figure out a video game, a camcorder, a cellphone,TiVo, directTV or your taxes, then you can figure out how to use your computer for music production. Or just go ask someone who does know. Enough already.

» DavePolich's blog | add new comment

"I'm not buying that. Saying

Submitted by Tfis on Fri, 2007-03-02 14:46.

"I'm not buying that. Saying you prefer a workstation instead of a computer for music production is like saying you prefer rotary phones and dial up to high-speed broadband and cellphones"

You are right.

Just cancelled my preorder of the rotary-dialed-Motif-XS.
Almost spend a lot of money and now i´ve been told by the biggest
synthesizer manufacturer that for producing music a computer is better
than their product is.

Thanks for securing me of wasting money.

Just kidding..

I didn´t preorder... :)

» reply

?????

Submitted by midiotlv on Wed, 2007-02-14 01:40.

What the hell do you have against rotary phones?

:) Sorry for the 'hell' -- but it just wasn't as funny without it. I friend of mine had an antique rotary pay phone hanging on the wall. One of the kids there (a teenager) went to use it...picked-up the handset...and studied the phone for a while. After thinking, she stuck her finger in one of the dial holes and pushed! It was the first time I felt 'old'.

Anyway, I agree that computers are better for recording and MIDI editing....but it feels too much like work. I end-up spending more time on trying to get a patch library to load or figure out why Windows doesn't recognize my ES over USB anymore. When I use the pattern sequencer on the ES, I just play..and it is fun. I'm sure if I had to produce a complex MIDI sequence (or ANY audio recording), I'd employ the PC again (especially for sequence editing). The other issue for me (and maybe others) is that although my keyboards and my PC are in the same room, I don't have a workspace setup JUST for making music (i.e. my keys are at a right angle to my PC setup, and I need the desk-space for work and other things (can't just plop my ES or other controller down in front of the monitors).

Maybe someday I'll have a dedicated workspace just for music making.

Anyway, interesting post.

» reply

Disclaimer: I have been an

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2007-02-02 16:06.

Disclaimer: I have been an electrical engineer involved in computer and microchip design for 26 years.

I hate using computers for music despite their power for ONE reason: obsolescence.

I used an Atari ST for many years, but the software I ran on it was not portable to other machines and the newer machines had no equivalent software.

This is happening today with the editors for the PLG cards not being supported for OS X or Vista. At some point in the future it is very likely my PLG boards will still be going strong but I will be unable to edit them any more because I can no longer obtain a computer that will run the software (or I will need to carefully maintain a separate computer just for that one task).

To keep a computer environment running over a long period of time you must constantly upgrade the OS and your applications. At some point the new sofware requires you to buy new hardware. Like it or not, a computer based environment is a constantly moving target. In 15 years I have gone though 5 computers and 5 operating systems, each time losing some applications even as I gained new ones.

THAT is what I don't like.

» reply

Well it depends

Submitted by DavePolich on Sun, 2007-02-04 21:16.

I see and understand that point about obsolescense.

But obsolescense depends on several things.

One, if you are happy with a computer and everything works on it, as long as it continues to function, it's useful even if it can't be upgraded further. For example, my Sony Vaio desktop is now 4 years old, it's too old to run Vista. It contains all my virtual instruments. I'd consider it a closed system now, but it runs great, and does everything I need it to do, so as long as I can turn it on, it's a valuable part of my studio and will continue to be. I don't need Vista to keep it working.

Second, if you buy software instruments and register them, you usually have upgrade options, many of which are free or at a small cost. So even if your computer becomes outdated and no longer functions, you can still get the updates for the virtual instruments and applications you purchased.

Computers becoming outdated is just part of the vibe. In 2009 everyone will have to buy digital television sets because analog tv's won't be able to receive anything anymore. Fair? Of course not. But that's the nature of technology - it has to keep moving forward, and at certain points it makes no sense to continue backwards compatability. In fact backwards compatability often drags down the performance of an app.

At any rate, constant upgrades are here to stay.

» reply

Just waiting for the dust to settle

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2007-02-05 14:38.

Maybe my background in computer design makes me too much of a Luddite...I have yet to get an ATM card or a cellphone! Somehow I manage to survive without them (ha ha).

The way I see it is that when my ES and digital MTR are ready to be retired (10 years out maybe) the computer music scene will have matured and I'll be ready to embrace it. We're still at the dawn of this technology after all...just 10 years ago the idea of a laptop containing a full pro-quality recording studio as well as all your instruments was science fiction.

» reply

you're right, but Microsoft would disagree in the long-term...

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2007-01-30 23:17.

I'm an exec in the technology industry, so my thoughts...

In the now, and the short-term future, Dave is right. Computers are the way go to. They're the only platform that provides the power we're talking about.

But the execs and the folks doing skunk works projects in Redmond for Microsoft think the computer is a fundamentally flawed/limited interface. It takes people away from their everyday life and sits them in front of a screen with a typewriter and mouse...a weird UI that's designed by the IT world for IT people and other technicians. Currently, it is the only platform where computing is powerful enough to do the things we're talking about, BUT Microsoft and other futurists see the real power of computing not being unleashed until the odd blocky thing called a computer is obsoleted. Eventually humans will be able to interact with their world with computing power embedded in that world rather than being stuck on a thing called a "computer" that's separated from the rest of the world.

1. Palm Pilot as Opal mentions. Normal people won't boot computers to store contact data. Rather they want something that sort of resembles a wallet where business cards are stores...Pilot.

2. Cars. Normal people want to drive a car, not play with a keyboard to program their cars. That's why drivers access the computers that run their cars via the normal car UI...manufacturers don't require them to carry a laptop that plugs into the car to change their alarm settings, stability control, etc.

3. Home security. The most complex systems on houses owned by IT people are run by computers. But the average person won't do that...they buy security systems with computers built into them.

4. Home entertainment. Same thing as #3.

5. Home appliances. Same thing. The kitchen, lights, bathrooms of the future will be run by computers, but the computers will be embedded within the devices...they won't require a laptop to be connected to their network to control them.

6. Tools for business people. People based in offices will need computers as long as they're doing Word, Excel, database type stuff (though even the UI for that will eventually change...it will be voice driven). But field professionals like sales people, product specialists, etc. are already using blackberries and other devices more than computers. Soon EVERY field professional will be on these devices...not only are they more efficient for the person, but they're less costly for the corporation they work for.

7. I could go on and on, but I'll stop with music devices. I think the devices of the future, due to expanded more powerful computing that fits cheaply inside a little box, will be designed so the artist doesn't have to use something weird with a typewriter called a computer. The ideal UI for the artist is the instrument. (I don't think laptops are required for the Disklavier pianos for example...that would be clunky). Now, the studios and professional technicians might always use computers because computers are ideal for technicians...an alternative platform limits what technicians can do and they can't be limited to do their jobs. But as far as artists are concerned, eliminating the need for a computer is necessary. The Motif is both an artist's tool and a technician's tool so it's sort of a hybrid that might always require a computer to meet the need of a professional sound designer, studio manager, etc but those are really functions that are served by a host of computing devices...the workstation plays 1 small part in it.

» reply

I completely agree, great

Submitted by Jim Martin on Sun, 2007-07-22 02:17.

I completely agree, great points. I use both the computer and the XS and I long for the day that my XS has the power to do it all without the awkward use of a computer.

» reply

I understand the trade-offs...

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2007-01-30 20:58.

I was a hard core computer guy way back when... programming in machine language, hacking feeds to the internet through back doors of university mainframes before the world wide web even existed, building up software layer by layer and then tweaking to get a machine just the way I wanted.

Computers require so much "overhead." I mean, you have to have huge backup systems, and piles of manuals, and tech support for when ONE piece of software gets updated, etc. This overhead takes precious time away from other things in life... things that are enjoyable, productive, creative, relational, etc.

I made a decision a while back to buy just what I would need. For me, buying a computer would be a bad idea because it would be obselete and unsupported too quickly. I used to carry around a laptop for scheduling and contact information. In 1995 I bought a Pilot which does exactly the things I need it to do. It is specialized and has a terrific interface for doing these type of things. I use this same Pilot today -- 12 years later. People today would know the device as a PalmPilot. Palm bought the device from US Robotics.

Music hardware is similar. Stand-alone gear allows me to do most of what I want without having to worry about some general purpose computer crapping out on me and forcing me to totally change the way I create and work. This is why I would like to see Yamaha keep people like me in mind when designing new gear.

Thanks Yamaha!

Opal

» reply

Opal, I see your point -

Submitted by DavePolich on Tue, 2007-01-30 22:04.

Opal, I see your point - however, it's a long way from 1995 to here. In computer years 12 years is like a century.

I'd have to disagree, I think computers allow much more creativity than one hardware unit. Actually, computers are hardware too, when you think about it.

Do your creative possibilities expand with a computer? Oh, absolutely they do at least in my experience. No question about it. I couldn't do any CD production without a computer. The music industry would come to a grinding halt without computer production. It's the norm, not the exception.

To each their own - I do think that in the year 2007, with all this fantastic software and high-speed computing about, you're simply missing out on a lot of the fun, if nothing else.

» reply

I agree Dave. Almost any

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2007-01-30 18:07.

I agree Dave. Almost any live concert I've been to has many computers involved. Laptops everywhere. Laptops mounted to the keyboard rack. Laptops at the sound and lighting board. Without computers, most shows would grind to a halt.

Editing anything is easier on a computer. Period. I'd rather edit a sample on my 20" widescreen than a small lcd (color or not) anyday. I'd rather edit my MIDI data on a widescreen anyday and so on.

I think an important feature to look for in any workstation/keyboard is its ability to interface with a computer. Being able to drag and drop files between them for example. Sounds like the XS is a big step forward in computer connectivity.

» reply

I disagree. You are in love

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2008-03-08 23:23.

I disagree. You are in love with the screen. Technically speaking, hardware workstations and computers are both CPU based machines, that can both run software... PERIOD... it's obvious from all these posts, that the ideal solution is simply a keyboard workstation that can run software like Cubase AI internally, but posseses a video output (or place to plug in a digital monitor for large screen editing.

I feel the same way about large video displays in automobiles... the ideal solution is for me to cradle my Blackberry, which would then display the PDA screen on the larger screen automatically.

There are a lot of reasons why we may not have this type of integration today, but as far as I can tell, none of them technical.

» reply

Separation and Coordination

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2007-02-03 23:19.

My own computer experiences date back to the development of the IBM System/360 (on a "Usability Team", what today is called the UI) and I've (painfully) kept up with the technology.

Each of us have our own needs. I'm not a master of my ES. I need to coordinate interfaces, experiment with different samples, play with different effects to see just what they are/do, Sometimes I need to do them at the same time (hence Windows). (I can recite the 6800 instruction set in my sleep, so this isn't a "Smack Mac" comment. My needs include more open architecture than Mac offers, that's all.)

I'm primarily a woodwind player, so the MO keyboard is already a compromise. I don't like the fixed vibrato in the woodwinds, and need to modify it. As the above comment points out, that 20" screen is a lot easier to use to edit such parameters than an LCD. The computer allows me to feed through my MIDI mixer/merger; the computer allows me to see a wave form in a sample, cut and fine-tune loops, EQ points, etc.; it allows me to see and edit MIDI events; and, when I'm all done, the computer also lets me mix and feed through my DSPs to hear, and eventually master, a major mix.

Expandability of the MotifES was one of it's selling points. My mLan is, as Yamaha advertized, the "missing link," at least for me.

The other side of this equation is the fallacy of an "All-in-One" solution: often this means a device does everything so poorly that it's a waste of time and money. I don't want to play riffs on my computer keyboard, and I don't want to edit waveforms on an LCD screen. I do want to integrate sound modules and sample memory into my instrument, and I do want to enhance the ability of my devices to communicate with each other.

In sum, I think that the choice comes down to the needs of the user: if what you need is portability/mobility for performances, put it all into one package and take it away. If you need to bring multiple components together, and/or to edit elements, you need some device that allows such flexibility--and, as of this writing, that means the computer.

» reply

Why not computer?

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2007-01-30 17:58.

Dave, when Yamaha bought Steinberg I predicted the very integration we've just seen at Yamaha NAMM with the XS and Cubase AI. It appears to me that Yamaha is leading the pack by realizing exactly the point you make. The XS kind of integration will appeal to a lot of users right off the bat, whereas others will approach it with fear and trepidation. But I think in the long run we'll see more software used this way with workstation equipment.

Dan

» reply

What a rich subject! I was

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2007-02-05 05:19.

What a rich subject!

I was mired with computers and music back in the late 80's, early 90's, and got so frustrated and side-tracked from actually making music that i haven't used computers for music since. I know though that using sequencers, samplers, voice editors, librarians, computer technologies that augment what a hardware keyboard can do, makes it so much more powerful and capable.

But Dave, you're in the business- so many people that have a lot of great programs running on desktop and laptop computers have spent the time 'cause they have to, but for a lot of us, even those of us with some degree of techinical inclination, we don't always have a ton of time, money, etc. for getting proficient with a computer; music is something we're doing with the precious spare time we have. Getting up to speed with a computer set-up, or even a keyboard, is a major investment of time.

I do agree with the person in an earlier post who was talking about how computers need to be seemlessly integrated so that you can be an artist, not a technician or an engineer. The days when i was doing a lot of computer recording using a desktop, i began to resent the engineers mindset i needed in order to have those incredibly powerful tools for my music.

I guess my larger point is that in these various user interfaces, whether for a computer or a workstationk there need s to be a built-in system for the work/play flow. For example, the new XS is touted for being able to just hit Record, and you've captured your moment- invaluable advances like that where the engineer/musicians have come up with fast, intuitive, spontaneous, fun, rewarding ways of working, and building it into the interface.

I WANT to like using computers for music making/recording/shaping, and am eagerly anticipating how well the XS is integrated with the computer for a satisfying, not-overly-technical music making experience.

And WHEN!? are manufacturers of such incredibly powerful and technical capabilities going to start including built-in tutorials? Serious, I-can-do-specific-tasks, step-by-step tutorials?????????????? To me that seems like such a no-brainer: if you desire the maximum number of people that want to buy your product and get excited by it 'cause they can do cool shit with it, they need training for gods sake!

Whether a DVD, internet video/flash or whatever, there needs to be tutorials addressed to specific groups (Jazz players, techno, one-man-bands, church groups, etc.). In video form that wouldn't be that hard / expensive to produce (like a more comprehensive job than Roland does for its Fantoms). That would give that manufacturer a significant boost- far too many players never use even the cool,fairly easy capabilities of a synth, there's just so much to learn-

» reply

Very well said, I agree

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2007-12-17 23:46.

Very well said, I agree 100%, It's like you read my thoughts.

» reply