But crucially, the Yamaha Modular System also enables the creation of smaller, more affordable systems.

Typically the capacity for expansion is costly so buying a reduced module system does not necessarily save you. Taking a modular system that supports more than you buy will add a substantial tax due to additional routing channels and switching/glue logic to support this. The "brain" would need to have more "stuff" than a more fixed-routing system such as MODX/Montage. Interconnect, switching logic, and perhaps higher layer count due to need for more routing channels can all drive up cost quickly.

I'm not shooting down the idea entirely - just challenging the notion that this is a viable path to reducing customer cost.

Outside of the raw hardware cost - you have the programming issue of supporting what seems to be a lofty kitchen-sink solution. With all of these possible permutations. And after software is developed, the test matrix becomes fairly large. Not the fastest path to a product which includes the entire eco-system of what's been proposed.

A more conventional the-brain-is-a-rack version of the Montage/MODX generation does provide some cost savings to the end user in terms of hardware and the test matrix. It doesn't realize everything - but allows for MIDI connecting controllers with different features that may have parts of what you listed. Not as ambitious, maybe a "yawn" - but it is something that's been receiving requests and votes on ideascale already. With the next generation of MIDI - there may be some interesting "modular"-ness to pairing devices which support the new MIDI features. So I would think a rack + MIDI 2.0 would be interesting even though the market hasn't really introduced MIDI 2.0 yet.

After recently reading some discussion on the merits of Arranger keyboards and workstations, it occurred to me that this entire wing of Yamaha's business could be largely integrated with the synth department via this modular concept. Essentially all that is needed to distinguish a modular arranger from a modular synth workstation is the Brain Module and a Control Module or two for the added control in live-sequencing arpeggios/styles.

Thus, just as much as this could allow Yamaha to offer a modular Montage hosted inside of an Avant Grand, it could do the same for a "Grand Modular Genos". Modular Montage owners interested in the Arranger side of things need only spend a fraction of the cost of a Genos to convert their existing modular setup into an Arranger, and vice versa.

The Arranger customer knows 10,000 Songs
The Modular customer asks, “What’s a Song?”
The Music Synthesizer customer is somewhere in between.

A Modular system would not be a Successor to the Montage, but rather an additional product line.
The Montage is not near ready to be EOL. Yamaha are actively working on the next big update...

The Arranger customer knows 10,000 Songs
The Modular customer asks, “What’s a Song?”
The Music Synthesizer customer is somewhere in between.

This is clever, but also rooted in the engineering and marketing decisions of the past. I think that Richard Devine, Tori Letzler, and Jade Wii would laugh at the joke, but to keep this grounded in reality I do think it's worth saying that I think they know what a song is.

My point I'm trying to make is that there has never been a modular workstation (Motif, Montage, Fantom, Kronos, or Kurzweil), there has also never been a modular arranger, nor has there ever been a Clavinova which could play host to such modular systems. The modular customer you speak of hasn't been afforded the opportunity to assemble a system such as this.

The business side of Yamaha has drawn lines in the sand to create artificially discrete market segments, and has divvied up their own engineering resources accordingly, when musicians in reality exist all over a spectrum. The relegation of modular instruments to laboratory (non-musical) settings is dated to a time when computers were for nerds and a musician was expected not to understand the first thing about electronics.

The opportunity here lies in creating a new sort of product: one which isn't covered by your adage. The opportunity is for Yamaha to carry their legacy into the future, and continue building real substantial musical instruments but for a new generation of musicians.

Perhaps it might be enlightening for me to talk more about what has got me to this idea. I am equal parts pianist, synthesist, sound designer, and software engineer. As it stands, there does not exist a single Yamaha product (nor any product from any other company) for me to invest in that would not be a significant compromise in regards to my actual desires.

If I spend $4000 on a Montage 8, I am not getting the best Yamaha digital keybed that money can buy, nor even the highest quality in that price range.
If I prioritize the keybed and go for a CP88, I am sacrificing a titanic degree of flexibility in sound design and synthesis.
If I properly prioritize the piano experience with an Avant Grand N3X, making a staggering investment as far as my finances are concerned, I will lament the lack of even the CP88's EP section as well as the ability to use it as a master controller on the level of the Montage.

When I look at the vast array of Yamaha's piano-like objects, there is not one that I can point to and say "this speaks to me." This is not because I am asking for the impossible. It is because the calculated marketing decisions which guide Yamaha's engineering teams has more-or-less said to me "You, as a customer, do not exist." I am asked to reevaluate myself within the terms of musicians past.

I desire a fully integrated modular system with the physical presence, feeling, and sound of an Avant Grand N3X, the brains and master control capability of the Montage, and the flexibility of Eurorack. I desire the ability to disconnect my modules from that N3X and plug them into a CP73-style host for travel purposes. If I already had this system, for me it would be a no-brainer to pick up a Genos brain module in order to play with its unique feature set from time to time.

Yes, as long as you get it’s a joke... it’s all good!

Although I like the benefits of modularity, my last post here was rooted in the notion that I'd rather not pay the premium for that feature. Also, for all the painting into corners that happens at the architecture level, I do not trust that having a product serve even more masters than would translate into a better situation. I can see limitations cross-imposed more than freedoms shared. There's also the extra dev and support time for the infrastructure piece that is not currently a layer in dedicated hardware.

It's a lot of work to get a "meh" from the mainstream because you deliver late with an expensive solution to a problem that a majority does not have.

Just biased opinion - but that's all we have in this discussion.

Yes, as long as you get it’s a joke... it’s all good!

It can be hard to take a joke that speaks directly to one's frustrations with the product decisions of the company in question, but yes I understand. It's all good.

The Montage is not near ready to be EOL. Yamaha are actively working on the next big update...

I think that this statement points to another strong reason to shift to a modular framework. The retiring of Yamaha's flagship workstations poses a real issue for the customers. There's a real (understandable) anxiety when anything that even hints at EOL for the Montage is discussed. It can also serve to freeze the wallets of potential customers at a certain point, as they may rightfully choose to wait for the next generation.

I can very much relate, as an owner of the Motif XS8 which was deemed EOL after only 3 years, even though many software features of the XF could have been backported to the XS's nearly identical Linux system. (I am confident that if Yamaha would release the full source code for the Motif XS and XF, 3rd-party developers would breathe new life into them. But I doubt that Yamaha's bean counters would like it if used Motifs gained additional value.)

If these devices were modular, it would not be such a kick in the teeth to learn that Yamaha's software development resources will be shifted away from your still-capable instrument. A brain module reaching EOL is far-less troubling than the entire system being treated in that way. Purchasing a new brain module for under $1000 is not so bad in relative terms.

Although I like the benefits of modularity, my last post here was rooted in the notion that I'd rather not pay the premium for that feature. Also, for all the painting into corners that happens at the architecture level, I do not trust that having a product serve even more masters than would translate into a better situation. I can see limitations cross-imposed more than freedoms shared. There's also the extra dev and support time for the infrastructure piece that is not currently a layer in dedicated hardware.

I think that some of this added cost and complexity could be mitigated through the use of older, established technology. The Montage is still an extremely powerful system. Even Roland's 2019 Fantom can't stand toe to toe in every arena. In fact I'd argue that a used Motif XS or XF is a worthwhile consideration for any customer in the market for the new Fantom. Those Motifs certainly have better samples onboard than the Fantom's PCM soundset, and unlike the Fantom their sample set is user-expandable.

There's no real need to retire the current CPU or DSP chips. One would expect that the Montage's guts will be somewhat cheaper to manufacture in 2021 than they were in 2016. I'm reminded of the Nintendo Wii, wherein Nintendo for the first time abandoned investment in pure muscle in order to focus on added value in every other way. They repackaged the Gamecube to create the Wii. I suppose that in a sense Yamaha has already been thinking in these terms, as the Montage is in many ways a Motif XS at its core with a few significant bits added on top, chiefly a new software interface, smarter circuit layout (the Pure Analog Circuit), the FM-X engine, and a 9th knob. It seems to me that the architecture of the Motif XS is on track to outlive the manufacturing of any other synth architecture in Yamaha's history. Yamaha really seems to prefer that we not think of the Montage as a Motif, though.

Perhaps a modular Montage built on the same core technologies in 2022 might not cost all that much more than the Montage did in 2016? I think that leveraging existing R&D to the fullest extent seems viable enough to bring such a system to market without becoming much more expensive than a Genos, and as an investment in at least 10 years of ownership and usage it would be smarter for the dollar. I'd like to see Yamaha regard their workstations more like they regard their grand pianos: as objects of pride with constant support and service for many, many years, rather than a vehicle for planned obsolescence. This would require a radical restructuring of how they invest in software development, for one thing, and it seems like they are on their way there with the Montage. But separating the hardware components with shorter lifespans from those with greater ones would go a long way toward achieving this level of support.

These seems awfully convoluted for a flagship product, and even more so for a botique/niche product.

There are just too many modules listed for this to be, IMO, a financially viable option from a production standpoint, particularly for a flagship product.

If I want to buy a synthesizer (which I have), I want an all-in-one self contained synth. I personally would not want a modular type approach. I like that Yamaha are sticking with a hardware synth and using software updates to provide additional functionality...we may be getting a VA engine or something big in the next OS update, along with a bunch of new effects, functionality and sounds, etc.

If I were to go down that road and wanted something like a modular synth, I would just get the best MIDI keybed and go completely software based VSTs on a laptop. Then my modules would be software based...just IMHO.

With what the Montage can do, there's nothing more I really need anyway.

If I were to go down that road and wanted something like a modular synth, I would just get the best MIDI keybed and go completely software based VSTs on a laptop. Then my modules would be software based...just IMHO.

I have thought about this option very much, to be sure.

But the difference between a controller + laptop versus a modular Montage is that the latter would fit together into a Montage-like shape and would not involve a general-purpose device (laptop & its OS) being repurposed for a highly specialized task. For all the time I've spent in the last 12 years wondering if I should have skipped the Motif and gone that way from the start, I've also fallen more in love with the Motif.

There is a real, tangible, and valuable difference in using a self-contained and purpose-built music computer. I don't think that wanting to be able to swap out my current Motif's brain and slider/knob section for a new set, or being able to take out all its current guts and controls and fit them into something like a Kawai VPC1 (Yamaha does not have a comparable controller-Clavinova), is so radical as to entirely negate the existing benefits of the workstation: being "all-in-one self contained" in structure when compared to a controller/laptop pairing.

As much as I would love that kind of flexibility, it would end up indeed being far more expensive but also, quite literally, a very tough sell. And by that I mean it would be difficult to even start to explain what this product line is to the majority of the market - it was quite a bit of a read for me too :). In my experience Yamaha designers usually put more accent on a product experience that feels consistent, predictable and reliable - with a very high quality sound and carefully selected/programmed voice sets.

That said, I would love some sort of a handshake between their own products. I own a few Yamaha synths and arrangers, and I know it wouldn't be impossible to have their higher end products store other data lists internally. Imagine firing up Montage, connecting to Genos or Reface, etc. and now have their voice lists or control changes updated to include the other's. Obviously the sound would be generated by their respective hosts, but now I have all that power and maybe more importantly, one song file I can save or recall with a press of a button.

Imagine firing up Montage, connecting to Genos or Reface, etc. and now have their voice lists or control changes updated to include the other's

This is already industry standard with MIDI 2.0 (MIDI-CI, property exchange). Once the industry starts adopting MIDI 2.0 features, you will see this sort capability as "standard" across the board. Yamaha already has piloted firmware in Montage which demonstrates MIDI 2.0 during the events held some time ago. Therefore, the skeleton of MIDI 2.0 is already part of the Montage code (maybe a different fork, maybe #ifdef'd). Not likely inside any public release. It is not unreasonable to expect that the next generation of keyboards will have some form of MIDI 2.0 support. And I would be (pleasantly) surprised if it ever made it into public code of Montage/MODX. I'm not holding my breath. I think, in some respects, each manufacturer has to wait for the other to bring something to a "plugfest" and ensure all the keyboards communicate without snags so the consumers do not write it off as a mess that doesn't work.