I won't stop engaging in conversations simply because I don't use a feature. I am able to state a bias transparently and add value in a constructive way because I don't allow my bias to trample over someone else who uses the equipment in a different way.

I see people who owned a "lesser" product offering such as the MOXF and purchase a Montage only to find that even the latest/improved pattern sequencer provides less capabilities than their lower-cost previous generation product. Then complain wishing they, at least, had the sequencing capabilities of their former gear. And, although I realize this cannot appease all requests - I still hold that "fully baking" the sequencer that's inside MODX/Montage is a step forward for many. And the complaint (not from me, but other users) informs me that the sequencer capabilities previously provided have value to users who actually use the feature more than I do.

For your (c's) particular request - I didn't say don't do it. I didn't step on your wish. Nor did I dictate anything in particular to do.

[quotePost id=115420]I won't stop engaging in conversations simply because I don't use a feature. I am able to state a bias transparently and add value in a constructive way because I don't allow my bias to trample over someone else who uses the equipment in a different way.

I see people who owned a "lesser" product offering such as the MOXF and purchase a Montage only to find that even the latest/improved pattern sequencer provides less capabilities than their lower-cost previous generation product. Then complain wishing they, at least, had the sequencing capabilities of their former gear. And, although I realize this cannot appease all requests - I still hold that "fully baking" the sequencer that's inside MODX/Montage is a step forward for many. And the complaint (not from me, but other users) informs me that the sequencer capabilities previously provided have value to users who actually use the feature more than I do.

For your (c's) particular request - I didn't say don't do it. I didn't step on your wish. Nor did I dictate anything in particular to do.[/quotePost]

c's desire for a clean and clear narrative around what might be ideal for composition and creation has been expressed brashly, but it's not nearly as odd as the responses to it, that further demonstrate insufficient empathy, insight, sympathy and understanding to grok what's being asked of onboard capacities to create and compose.

Yes, it's just the way it is, at the moment.

And we all know the mantras of "just get on with it in the world we live in", but we're talking about potential, which may well be a waste of time, but it also might be the only way to begin to resolve what it is that's missing between the potential of onboard composition & creation and the current reality.

Those that don't seek to use an onboard sequencer simply do not, and might never be able to, understand what's being asked of onboard composition and creative capacities.

The use of a low resolution resistive touchscreen without brightness controls and insufficient processing capacity for dynamic visualisations tells us that Yamaha NEVER intended for the Montage to have scrolling piano timelines, let alone make interactive note editing on a piano roll that would, by necessity, involve long sessions of looking at that overly bright screen whilst trying to select and move things against that resistance. They knew this from the get go. And really banked on Cubase to let them save millions on coding time, and put out a much cheaper to manufacture product, with the gimmick of Motion Control via the SuperKnob, and AWM2 (which is 20+ years old!) and FM-X based on even older tech, and ride the retrowave to some easy money and kudos.

It's bold.

Sadly, there is enormous unrealised potential, if we could just edit controller and note arps, onboard, in a meaningful and full manner, as per the underlying arp player's capabilities, to enjoin the powers of Motion Sequences, the SuperKnob, Arps and Patterns.

Huge potential, so much so that it'd be a new thing, and it's just a TR and Step Sequencer away...

On the bigger idea of a truly profound level of all-in-one workstation...
Even if Yamaha had included a snappy processor and capacitive, high resolution touchscreen, I don't think Yamaha's ever going to get anywhere near making a great composition and music creation tool. They simply don't have the ingenuity for that, and are immune to this kind of level of consideration of non-technical playing. A company entirely rooted in live performance progeny celebration, and the fail rate of those that aspire to it, is struggling to come to terms with the changes of the internet, and has no ideas for a world with less live music.

No offense to anyone. Maybe it was too early when I posted today. Actually appreciate Jasons insight to many things. Andrew is spot on. We are hoping for features that just wont work on the Montage. I guess its time to just use the Montage line as a synth which is what it has always been marketed as. Yamaha repeatedly said its not a workstation.

I believe the only Yamaha boards currently available that qualify as "workstations" are MOXF6 and Genos.

[quotePost id=115426]I believe the only Yamaha boards currently available that qualify as "workstations" are MOXF6 and Genos.[/quotePost]

This seems to be almost exactly like what @c is complaining about, and a disingenuous effort to head into semantics as obfuscation.

It could be that you're making the point that Yamaha might think their arranger and an antiquated old board might fill a modern need for musical composition and creativity. But that'd paint Yamaha as a staid market presence, at best.

[quotePost id=115441][quotePost id=115426]I believe the only Yamaha boards currently available that qualify as "workstations" are MOXF6 and Genos.[/quotePost]

This seems to be almost exactly like what @c is complaining about[/quotePost]
I was agreeing with him, where he said, "Yamaha repeatedly said its not a workstation." But for me, it's not a complaint, merely an observation.

I will clarify. Im not a supporter of linear sequencing but I am a fan of clip sequencing to build songs. So this is why I like what Roland did. And the step sequencer is a must for drums. Playing in step notes is to me something that should be easy to do but is missing on the Montage. And having a visual representation of notes even if it was only 32 steps in length would have been great. Having a touch screen would also allow clip launching capabilities. Again missing although we can at least press the 8 scene buttons do something similar.

I use the live 16 track performance recorder and it is great by itself. Being I have no need for a sequencer to make a recording I don't even use the pattern sequencer. I like recording old school and putting down a whole track live so the performance recorder is great for me. The MODX is a much more powerful workstation than anything I have had previously and have had no issues recording whole finished pieces. Currently just six parts has been enough sound to do what I need, but I am working up a nine part session and I am sure it will come out perfect. For me Roland's current line up isn't even competition at all. I much prefer the perks of the FM sound and motion synthesis options that are not available in any other current workstation. So literally nothing is competition for the Yamaha synths currently, but that is just my take on it. LOL I am just an observer more than a partaker, but as someone who makes music strictly off the PC and straight on board the MODX is my dream machine and I am very satisfied. I will never use DAWs as I just don't need or want them. I would like to buy a spare MODX to replace mine once I wear it out because it is a remarkable machine with creative tools I have been waiting for years to have. Montage is actually overkill for my needs, but so is the MODX. So I guess it depends on the persons needs. However, I realize I am mostly alone in not making music on the PC as most artists do these days, but I like to keep that human nuance of imperfection in my music.

[quotePost id=115452]I use the live 16 track performance recorder and it is great by itself. Being I have no need for a sequencer to make a recording I don't even use the pattern sequencer. I like recording old school and putting down a whole track live so the performance recorder is great for me. The MODX is a much more powerful workstation than anything I have had previously and have had no issues recording whole finished pieces. Currently just six parts has been enough sound to do what I need, but I am working up a nine part session and I am sure it will come out perfect. For me Roland's current line up isn't even competition at all. I much prefer the perks of the FM sound and motion synthesis options that are not available in any other current workstation. So literally nothing is competition for the Yamaha synths currently, but that is just my take on it. LOL I am just an observer more than a partaker, but as someone who makes music strictly off the PC and straight on board the MODX is my dream machine and I am very satisfied. I will never use DAWs as I just don't need or want them. I would like to buy a spare MODX to replace mine once I wear it out because it is a remarkable machine with creative tools I have been waiting for years to have. Montage is actually overkill for my needs, but so is the MODX. So I guess it depends on the persons needs. However, I realize I am mostly alone in not making music on the PC as most artists do these days, but I like to keep that human nuance of imperfection in my music.
[/quotePost]

One take performers, and their addiction to quality of play are as rare as well thought out and formatted forum posts.

[quotePost id=115445]I will clarify. Im not a supporter of linear sequencing but I am a fan of clip sequencing to build songs. [/quotePost]
Ah! This just again shows how people's needs are different. The vast majority of (remaining) Montage/MODX and Fantom sequencer complaints revolve around linear sequencing. (Yamaha recommends you use Cubase for that; Roland chose to build in integration for Logic and Ableton... but some people still wish for those facilities in the board.) So when you said, "Roland did it right, Yamaha did not. simple" -- that's specific to your own needs. Fantom has a whole lot of nice things that MODX doesn't. But MODX has capabilities that go beyond the Fantom's, too. You just have to find what combination of sounds and features works best for you. Or buy both. 😉 Meanwhile, getting back to the OP, hopefully further updates are coming to the MODX. It's been a while, and lots of worthwhile ideas are still in the "assessment" category on ideascale. But I always suggest buying strictly for what a board does today. Whatever else it may do in the future is a bonus.

[quotePost id=115520][quotePost id=115445]I will clarify. Im not a supporter of linear sequencing but I am a fan of clip sequencing to build songs. [/quotePost]
Ah! This just again shows how people's needs are different. The vast majority of (remaining) Montage/MODX and Fantom sequencer complaints revolve around linear sequencing. (Yamaha recommends you use Cubase for that; Roland chose to build in integration for Logic and Ableton... but some people still wish for those facilities in the board.) So when you said, "Roland did it right, Yamaha did not. simple" -- that's specific to your own needs. Fantom has a whole lot of nice things that MODX doesn't. But MODX has capabilities that go beyond the Fantom's, too. You just have to find what combination of sounds and features works best for you. Or buy both. 😉 Meanwhile, getting back to the OP, hopefully further updates are coming to the MODX. It's been a while, and lots of worthwhile ideas are still in the "assessment" category on ideascale. But I always suggest buying strictly for what a board does today. Whatever else it may do in the future is a bonus.[/quotePost]

Other than FM-X, what does the MODX do better?

Well, for a full on board sequencer, it looks like there's always the Korg Kronos.

For new customers, those considering a first multi-timbral, all-in-one, and particularly those considering these two instruments, I think the Roland might be winning in 20:1 ratios, at the current state of things.

To my eyes, the Roland is vastly better value, and suffers no significant shortfalls to the MODX. Other than FM-X, I can't see a reason why anyone would buy the MODX, at this point.

The MODX arp engine is vastly superior.
The Roland doesn't allow multiple arps, the engine itself is basic. Also, no user arps on the Roland.
The effects engine in the MODX is better, has better effects and has sidechaining, which the Roland lacks.
There are available software tools for the MODX such as a librarian and computer editor, which the Roland lacks.
The MODX is a much better put together musical instrument, the Roland seems to me a patchwork of disparate Roland tech, some of it very unfinished, put together in a nice package.

[quotePost id=115540]The MODX arp engine is vastly superior.
The Roland doesn't allow multiple arps, the engine itself is basic. Also, no user arps on the Roland.
The effects engine in the MODX is better, has better effects and has sidechaining, which the Roland lacks.
There are available software tools for the MODX such as a librarian and computer editor, which the Roland lacks.
The MODX is a much better put together musical instrument, the Roland seems to me a patchwork of disparate Roland tech, some of it very unfinished, put together in a nice package.[/quotePost]

The stuff about arps is the result of a misnomer. the Yamaha's arp engine is a kind of phrase sequencer, not a traditional arp engine, which the Roland has, the Yamaha does not.

Further, Roland does have a phrase making system, via the step LFO, permitting the equivalent to (and better than) the combination of the Yamaha "arpeggios" and Motion Sequencing, and is all polyrhythmic, too. And much easier and more accurate to edit/build with than either the Motion Sequencer or the contrived and limited ways to create custom Yamaha "arps".

The librarian and computer editor aren't good, but are essential for heavy users (and a premium extra cost) because the Yamaha file system is horrendously "designed", such that many things aren't possible or practical without the Melas tools.