Answering:

No combination-press or anything that would bring up the GM Set?

You cannot filter by GM only or exclude GM in the list on Montage. Since the GM list are all "PARTs" and not Performances - you do not see the GM selections when doing a [CATEGORY SEARCH] -- ... which is searching for _Performances_ (not PARTs). When you do a _Performance_ Merge - this category search screen is also not looking for PARTs - it's looking for _Performances_. So the GM PARTs are, rightfully, not included when dealing with Performances. When you do a SHIFT+[CATEGORY SEARCH] - this is to replace only a PART and therefore does its searching on things which are PARTs -- which is why the GM entries show up here. Since this can lead to confusion, I threw out the recommendation to show the bank (GM, or Usr, or Lib, or Pre) on the screen and identified where it may land. Even for the Performance Merge and Performance Category Search - there's a good reason to show the source bank for the Performance (in the case of these search screens - they're all Performances) as there are other ways that users could end up with duplicates and knowing the area in the search screen would help the workflow.

There's a bit of hand waving in dismissing a suggestion that has application to reduce ambiguity, improve efficiency (reduce "clicks" ), and improve the ease of documentation/communication. I understand there is a place to formally introduce product improvements - but when they organically "pop up" here - as will happen from time to time - it would be nice to have a less defensive strategy for status quo.

... if choosing the GM PARTs over the Preset bank equivalents makes no difference - then why list the GM PARTs at all? This leads to confusion that can be avoided if the extra PART names in the search serve no functional purpose. There may be, when using "All" duplicates for other reasons outside of the GM set. So, in the general case, there is merit to being able to sort out what the difference is between repeated names and having a way to identify the source bank would help. It would help both "issues". I understand one choice is a non-issue, but the presentation of two names is, even if under-the-hood there is no consequence, unnecessarily confusing to the end-user and without a way to internalize the difference without picking one, looking at the properties, going back into the search, picking the other and looking at the properties. It's a big burden to place on a user to memorize which PARTs are GM (so they can recognize this duplicate is probably due to that). Then you have cases where users may happen to use a name that's a GM one and end up with 3 duplicates. The overall messaging is that there is room for some improvement and I'm sure Yamaha can come up with a great way to solve this given the information provided about the different potholes that exist.

Much more to it than meets the eye ... I concur with why and how GM is included in the Montage sound set. Way back (not being a proper musician) I figured on using MIDI files to provide the frame and then chop and change to suit what I felt it should be. Never got round to that with Montage! Far too much other stuff to do, though it's still at the back of my mind. One of these days I'll get round to it ... thanks guys.

I have sold my dear old Korg M3 for peanuts, but to someone who is a proper musician and is making proper use of it. A wrench, but I finally admitted to myself that Yamaha have perfected the art of editing and blending seamlessly while making it simple to do as well. Korg could do it, but a much clumsier process and not particularly intuitive - and I never liked the Korg buttons! Nor their odd, lop-sided illumination. I think I've tried every make of synth/arranger on the planet. Montage beats the lot. It's nearest competitor from my own use point of view, was the magnificently daunting Alesis Quadrasynth.