You can't easily edit stuff (aka notes or other events) in the Montage/MODX sequencer. If there's a mistake, you need to re-record that performance. It's made for people who know how to play, so it frustrates people who can't play and are looking for step-sequencer functionality or a piano-roll.
I checked the Motif manuals some time ago (never owned one) and there was an event list that would let you edit stuff quite easily (even though it didn't seem a fast workflow, to me).

One thing people forget to mention about the Montage/MODX one is how nicely it integrates with a DAW using Montage Connect. You can simply drag'n drop the patterns from Montage/MODX Connect from the board onto MIDI tracks in a DAW, which makes for a very elegant workflow of starting something on the board and continue it in the DAW.

might someone be able to briefly explain to me just how the MOXF/MotifXF sequencer is functionally/operationally different from the Montage/MODX sequencer when creating a song that is no longer than 256 measures?

The short answer is - it isn't different ASSUMING that you are always willing to work with the entire song.

But, as I'm sure you realize, the way music is created is fundamentally different now than when the Motif/Mox and other older instruments were first introduced.

The old method was based on SESSIONS - getting everyone in the studio together at the same time, often using session musicians rather than band members, and repeating the production of the whole song until the producer was satisfied with it.

That old method wasn't really 'pattern' based or even 'instrument' based - it was 'whole song' based.

Nowadays creating music is often done remotely with each musician doing their piece while they 'play along' with a section (pattern) that has already been created.

Then all of those pieces are gathered and mixed together to complete a song.

The new method is almost entirely 'pattern' based because, until the end of the process, there is never a whole song to send to a musician for them to do their thing on the 2nd chorus or only on the bridge.

What is it about the older board's approach that some people still prefer?

The two main issues my clients mention most often are:

1. The pattern method is more difficult to use for more complex arrangements that don't easily break into a series of 'patterns' like AABA.

2. The workflow differences for the (recently introduced) pattern sequencer take a long time to learn and there is little documentation about them.

Many people, if not most, are resistant to change. If they already have a tool (Motif, MOX) that can do the job they are reluctant to spend much time learning a new, seemingly complex, tool.

But since a single pattern can be as long as 256 measures, which is plenty long enough for most typical songs,

You've put your finger on a key fact. The pattern sequencer isn't really focused on working with whole songs. It is focused on being able to work with small sections of songs which can then be easily combined to create a whole song.

People that know how to do linear sequencing really don't need a pattern sequencer if they are going to work with the whole song since their linear sequencer can do the job.

I agree with @Dragos.

Because the Edit functions are so clumsy and time-consuming, it's easier to just re-record from scratch.

So it favours users who can consistently "play it right" first time.

In addition, in my opinion, it is bugged.

The recording will fail (to be blunt) if you don't stop playing immediately on the last beat of the recording window. It has been discussed endlessly and suggested this "failure" is due to incorrect useage i.e. User Error.

All I can say is that no other recording facility I have used overwrites the first beat of the recording if you overshoot the end of the recording window.

[quotePost id=120643]

The recording will fail (to be blunt) if you don't stop playing immediately on the last beat of the recording window. It has been discussed endlessly and suggested this "failure" is due to incorrect useage i.e. User Error.

All I can say is that no other recording facility I have used overwrites the first beat of the recording if you overshoot the end of the recording window.

[/quotePost]

Isn't that because "Loop" is toggled ON?
I never experienced what you describe, if "Loop" was OFF.

[quotePost id=120649][quotePost id=120643]

The recording will fail (to be blunt) if you don't stop playing immediately on the last beat of the recording window. It has been discussed endlessly and suggested this "failure" is due to incorrect useage i.e. User Error.

All I can say is that no other recording facility I have used overwrites the first beat of the recording if you overshoot the end of the recording window.

[/quotePost]

Isn't that because "Loop" is toggled ON?
I never experienced what you describe, if "Loop" was OFF.[/quotePost]

Loop OFF.

With a Count In.

The provided workaround is to have no Count In. Start record on Key On.

or

Don't play past the end of the last beat. (This is the one I use).

I tried it so many times, even with slow BPM to not make mistakes.

The reason “Key On Start” = On and “Loop” = Off are provided is specifically for the transfer of Arpeggio Phrase data to the Pattern Scene as event data. They appear when you press [RECORD].

If you don’t use them, or understand why they exist, then you join the minions of folks who have trouble working with the feature! These two features guarantee success, every time. They take the burden of landing on measure 001, beat 1, clock 000 because it does not depend on your human ability to start properly after the count-in… and it relieves your inability, as a human, to press STOP before the sequencer cycles back to the top.

It’s auto In and auto Out… Essential to use when Arpeggio Phrases are apart of what you are recording. Try it…

If you are struggling with this because you are unaware, that’s one thing, but if you are struggling with this after knowing about these features, then that’s on you.

If you respect something as being new, you are more likely willing to adjust your workflow, but if you insist you “already know” how to work something (because you always previously worked a certain way) and you clearly don’t seek to use the new provided features, that’s how you can fail to grasp an important component of how to succeed.

Difference
The major difference between the older MOXF/Motif XF and the MONTAGE/MODX is the former transmits on a single channel at a time when recording to a Song or Pattern, while the latter can transmit on multiple channels. If you always worked sequencers by recording one Part, on one Track, on one MIDI Channel… (and you can still work this way if you so desire), then attempting to record multiple Parts, each to its own dedicated Track, each on its own MIDI Channel, will be unfamiliar to you.

In the MOXF/Motif XF you selected the (one) Record Track. That is not available in the new synths.
In the MONTAGE/MODX all Tracks go into Record together… each Part has a dedicated Track.

__ Layering multiple Parts (4 maximum) in the MOXF/Motif XF) creates a “simple layer”… you do so by placing all the Parts you wish to control on the same MIDI Channel (sort of a dumb layer) all Parts must either follow, or ignore, your controller movements, all together/or not at all. (You can still work this way on the newer synths).
__ Layering multiple Parts (8 maximum) in the MONTAGE/MODX creates a “complex layer”… where you can, via the massive Control Assign matrix, address individual oscillators (Elements/Operators) within any of the instruments sounds in your layer. Each Part has its own dedicated Track and records all pertinent data for its Part (whether it is ‘you’ playing or an ARP Phrase “playing” it). Multiple streams of MIDI data are generated by your keys and controllers.

MONTAGE/MODX opens a couple of new doors… those willing to adjust to/learn its new rules will find that they wind up editing less in their DAW, because they can actually perform some changes (as a musician) while they play/perform, instead of in the DAW with a mouse (like an engineer).

Simply morphing Acoustic Piano to Electric Piano via Super Knob movement, for example, is accomplished by a performed musical gesture not by mouse-drawn controller data in your DAW.

Having multiple direct and multiple Arpeggio controlled Parts that can all be addressed and recorded simultaneously to the MIDI sequencers allows the composer/player an opportunity to construct their music utilizing these tools. You can work linearly or in musical sections — or a combination of both (as data can be moved between these two functions, as necessary). The tons of Arp Phrases can be used as inspiration.

I use the drum Arps (one that inspires) and a bass Arp, typically, a simple one that just thumps out the root, while I construct the framework of my composition (chord progression and general structure). I may completely replace the drums, and write my own bass line later… I use the Arp function simply to build the basic structure. Certainly I add fill-ins and other stuff later…

What if you only use software DAW… is there an advantage to learning to use the internal Seq?
Recording multiple streams of data from a MONTAGE/MODX to a DAW (can be challenging) the new system’s Performance Recorder (both the linear Song and the looping Pattern) can easily record what you create (It’s been designed to do so!)… and you can simply drag n drop your data into your DAW using the CONNECT utility. Easy-peasy! After all, the Performance Recorder is designed to record you performing! Moving it from the “Data Utility” Song or Pattern Folder to your DAW is a good job for your mouse.

Btw- each Pattern Scene can be a maximum of 256 measures, there are 8 Scenes in each Pattern. There are 128 Patterns.

Dear BM,

I fully respect your wisdom and knowledge on all things musical and Yamaha related. I look forward to your insight in any Query posted on this forum.

I also accept that I am not fully intimate with the inner workings of Yamaha's design criteria or limitations (I am a career Engineer, there are always limitations... this I fully understand and it is not a criticism).

What I do not understand is why the Pattern Sequencer will "fold back" anything that is recorded past the last beat of the "recording window" and overwrite it onto the first beat of the recording window.

From my perspective, this seems like an automatic "punch in" on the first beat, that cannot be changed, and I do not understand why.

My previous experience with Reaper and of late, a Boss RC300, which I put to good use Live, is that the Recorder only records where I set "the window", and does not overwrite, or overdub any of that recorded window, unless I instruct it to.

What I am used to, is just playing the song (or part) continuously and the Recorder "punches in" at the preset beat, and punches out" at a subsequent preset beat, as defined by me.

I could play so well that the recording could be looped without any noticeable "glitch" or "step" at the loop point.

Probably worth noting, even though Keyboards are relatively new to me, having played guitar for getting on thirty years, I do know how to play in time, and I also know when I'm not, i.e. I when I have "stuffed it up". It happens, I'm not perfect.

I would add, that even after all my experience, I am not able to "predict" a Tempo... I need a count in (from a drummer or click) or I set the Tempo and the band follows me.

I'm sure there are people who have "perfect tempo", akin to "perfect pitch". I do not.

That's why I find it almost impossible to play "Key On Start"... there's no preceeding "Groove" to slot into. I find that I am only estimating or guessing where the beat "will be", and although I could be only a few tens of Milliseconds off, I can hear it, and I know I'm off. Also once I have started off tempo, I can't pull it back... so I erase, rewind, start again.

From your post, you have made me aware there is some pre-requisite in the design of the Pattern Sequencer that anticipates the recorded "Sequence" may be used to create an arpeggio, and this is the reason for the "1st Beat Fold Back" (words escape me, I don't know how else to describe it). I don't understand why it needs to be done this way, if I can play a consistent "loop" to begin with.

My perspective is that if I can play 2, 4 or 8 bars consistently, then like my DAW, and like my RC300, the loop transition point becomes invisible. This is easier to do when you are "in a groove" or "in the pocket". Trying to gather it all together "Start - Play - Stop" to "fit in" the window is like trying to hit a fast moving target.

I feel like I don't need Yamaha to "assist" me in this respect. In fact, as I have hopefully described, and because I am not immensely talented on keys, I find Yamaha's existing methodology harder, a lot harder.

I imagine for a seasoned pianist/keyboardist this method presents no great difficulty, but that makes the Pattern Sequencer only accessible to very fluent players... IMO.

This is exactly the shortfall that was pointed out by @Dragos in an earlier post, without any dramatisation. It was simply stated as part of a factual comparison versus the Motif Sequencer. Perhaps the Motif employed the same methods, but it was apparently easier to go back and "put things right".

My experience with the MODX is I have to keep repeating the recording until I get it, or time it, right. It's pretty painful.

I hope I have explained my viewpoints. I accept there may be reasons behind the current implementation I do not understand. I hope Yamaha understand our reasoning too.

Peace.

[quotePost id=120651]The reason “Key On Start” = On and “Loop” = Off are provided is specifically for the transfer of Arpeggio Phrase data to the Pattern Scene as event data. They appear when you press [RECORD].

If you don’t use them, or understand why they exist, then you join the minions of folks who have trouble working with the feature! These two features guarantee success, every time. They take the burden of landing on measure 001, beat 1, clock 000 because it does not depend on your human ability to start properly after the count-in… and it relieves your inability, as a human, to press STOP before the sequencer cycles back to the top.

It’s auto In and auto Out… Essential to use when Arpeggio Phrases are apart of what you are recording. Try it…

If you are struggling with this because you are unaware, that’s one thing, but if you are struggling with this after knowing about these features, then that’s on you.

If you respect something as being new, you are more likely willing to adjust your workflow, but if you insist you “already know” how to work something (because you always previously worked a certain way) and you clearly don’t seek to use the new provided features, that’s how you can fail to grasp an important component of how to succeed.
[/quotePost]

Aside from being bordering on outright rude, this is somewhat wrongheaded, too.

There's no significant materials telling the users that the reasons for the "Key On Start" and Loop Off is for arp recording. Besides which, both should work, reliably. Neither do. Trailing notes sometimes get wrapped around, starting notes sometimes get missed. There's more than a few of the "minions have experienced and commented on this, after experiencing it. Even if you haven't.

Further, if a lot of people (minions?) are having trouble with the feature, that's on Yamaha's design, execution, promotion and explanations. Preponderance of evidence, etc.

These two features do not guarantee success, even for your stated use case, every time. I've done a LOT of arp recording with the MODX and can assure you it's nowhere near every time. I wish it was.

As Antony correctly points out, for musicians that can actually play the keyboard, the count in is required, to both cue themselves to, and get their mind in sync with the rate they're about to play at. Even someone like me (that can barely play) fully understands the need for both of these, for recording actual play.

Yet Yamaha offers no "Start Quantize" that could be set independent of the whole recording quantization, so that the first keys hit get stuck on that first recorded beat.

In general, the Pattern Sequencer is a disappointment as a mere Pattern Sequencer, more so as a Pattern Recorder and almost a complete fail for Editing content of Patterns.

Perhaps there's reasons for its antiquated and limited operability. But having a touchscreen should have removed most of them from the design phase, at the very least.

it's worth watching this, as his experience mirrors what I've seen many others say in other ways, by other means:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trxEO7a5fj0

I'm new to Yamaha electronic products, and have harsher thoughts on the lack of design and poor design of the system and interface as I wasn't conditioned to "the Yamaha Way".

This doesn't solve all problems but as a workaround to the lead in problem you could turn on the click as always on.

@Antony
The “Key On Start” On/“Loop” Off should principally be used when transferring the Note data from an Arpeggio to the Pattern Sequencer… particularly when Arp Hold is activated. The Length of your Pattern Scene, might be longer than your Arp Phrase; and depending on what else you are combining in this Performance, you may not want to hold down the Keys for the entire duration of the Scene (particularly with drum Arps). In order to automatically “punch out” when the Scene “Length” is reached, set LOOP = Off.

Once you have recorded the events of your assigned Arps, you can turn the Arp On/Off to Off.
You can now overdub (real-time data) your own (direct) playing using the standard count-in and Loop Rec (On or Off), your choice.

Using the Click to count-in
If you prefer using a count-in at all times, you can simply transfer your Arp Phrases to your Pattern with “Key On Start” = Off, and “Loop” = Off. You can use “Rec Quantize” to ensure your timing. The reason you still want to have Loop Off when recording Arps is because the Arp Phrase typically are set to cycle and you need to make sure it plays for the proper number of measures to match your Scene’s “Length”; and you don’t always want to have hold down the keys that trigger the Arp…it must be set so that you can accomplish your requirements…

__ If Arp Phrase is set to “Hold”, the Arp will continue to cycle without you having to continuously hold down the keys (that is the nature of Arp Hold). You also have an option to set your selected Arp Phrases to play once, or to can set the Arpeggiator to stop when you raise your hand from the keys. All of those options are available.

One thing that is different from an experience recording with DAW software is the Arpeggiator. When playing a Multi Part Performance with Parts that are played direct, while others have Arp Hold and still others have just Arp On… you should use the “Key On Start” and “Loop” record functions as best suits your situation. They are there to assist you.
Did you know: The Super Knob can flash the tempo… if “Key On Start” = On is a challenge to use.

The original question
My point is, expect new tools and new rules when you have something that is obviously different from what you used to do. The original question was why some people still prefer the previous sequencer (MOXF/Motif XF) — in my opinion it was many people’s missed how the multiple track record feature works — the way it deals with being able to simultaneously record real-time play and Arp data, is new — and “new” can confuse people; (that and some folks desperately miss the event edit/step record functions).

@Bad Mister.

Thanks for the reply and the explanation.

For what it's worth... I love my MODX. It is still my go to synth for "curating" sounds and learning sound design.

Despite the amount of hammer it has taken from the general public (sometimes here, but mainly on other forums) I kept the faith, because while others see complexity, I saw power and capability.

Complexity doesn't frighten me. On the contrary, I would find a "simple" Synth very quickly limiting my inquisitive nature.

I understand the brief history of the Montage/MODX Pattern Sequencer, and appreciate it was a best effort, post design, to provide at least some standalone method of recording and a more capable method of "rolling your own" Arpeggios.

For the most part, I just got on with it for my purposes, although I did "wonder" about the 1st Beat "roll back" as a method.

Personally, it's a moot point for me now, because I have decided to take the plunge... and educate myself with MIDI and DAW integration, which had been Yamaha's intent all along.

Some of my sound explorations and "projects" have outgrown anything I could do with an onboard Sequencer, no matter how powerful or intuitive it was.

@Dragos, in another forum, helped me see the light in this respect. It's about time I bit the MIDI bullet.

🙂

[quotePost id=120737]
@Dragos, in another forum, helped me see the light in this respect. It's about time I bit the MIDI bullet.

🙂

[/quotePost]
No harm was intended. ?

[quotePost id=120632]You can't easily edit stuff (aka notes or other events) in the Montage/MODX sequencer. If there's a mistake, you need to re-record that performance. It's made for people who know how to play, so it frustrates people who can't play and are looking for step-sequencer functionality or a piano-roll.
I checked the Motif manuals some time ago (never owned one) and there was an event list that would let you edit stuff quite easily (even though it didn't seem a fast workflow, to me).

One thing people forget to mention about the Montage/MODX one is how nicely it integrates with a DAW using Montage Connect. You can simply drag'n drop the patterns from Montage/MODX Connect from the board onto MIDI tracks in a DAW, which makes for a very elegant workflow of starting something on the board and continue it in the DAW.[/quotePost]
Ah. So there is no MIDI event editing to fix a track... if there's an error, you either re-do the track from scratch, or bring it into a DAW and do your corrective work there, yes? What about punch-in-punch-out to fix a track, can it do that? Or isn't that available on-board either?

[quotePost id=120678]
The original question
...
“new” can confuse people; (that and some folks desperately miss the event edit/step record functions).
[/quotePost]
That's consistent with Drago's point as well. So if your song fits within 256 measures, even though the mechanics are different, it seems like you could create that song about as well on the new system as the old except for the editing functions, which now require export to a DAW. And that seems reasonable to me. Computers do a better job at certain things, and it's not like you're going to do editing live during a gig, so by all means, let the computer do what it's best at and let the Montage/MODX do what it can do in a different way that better plays to the strengths of that environment. Certainly event editing seems like something that would seem to be much more efficient with a keyboard and mouse. And if you're going to add any live acoustic tracks (like vocals), you're going to want to move into the DAW anyway.