You wrote "but". Remember that "buts" always smell! 😀

That's called musician computer/mouse block. Like writers block except for a musician having to boot-up a computer to create music. Yes, it sucks! There's something lifeless and unnatural about it. A computer will always be uninspiring. Yamaha would tell you to keep your Motif XF and enjoy it because they're not going back to it again. However, the Montage ES might have new such capabilities. You never know.

Having a well-implemented sequencer on board can never be a bad idea. It can only increase the functionality and usefulness in both live performance, as well, any other situation. Since Yamaha already has established a working Seq. routine, then it is not like asking for some costly esoteric addition. BTW, it would not detract or hinder computer integration, rather it would enhance it.

david wrote:
A computer will always be uninspiring.

Music is impartial to specifics like computers or flutes or rocks. It resides in your own imagination.

Music doesn't care what works for you or what doesn't work for you (to anthropomorphise this non-thing that is music).

Workflows enable and disable certain physical and mental actions and procedures that give rise to music in the mind of the person/s involved.

Side note: Inside your Montage is a computer running software. I know this is a different thing to what you're talking about, but it's definitely a spectrum and you are drawing the lines in the sand. 🙂

This is one of those rabbit holes - but I'll jump in.

I'm fairly on-board with the concept that computers provide a better mousetrap for composing (sequencing) music for Montage's consumption. When I had a more full-blown sequencer built-in to a Yamaha keyboard - I didn't use it to compose songs. That wasn't my "thing" (performance was/is my "thing"). However, I did use the the sequencer to create arpeggios and appreciated I could do this without a PC. My first "draft" of the arpeggio - I would use something like the recorder to create a first-pass MIDI sequence with some human error. Then I would use the "job" functions to normalize the volume, even out the gate times, quantize, etc. For me it wasn't necessarily about where I source my inspiration from. It was about having a few tools to "clean up" my recording in very unfancy and rudimentary ways. I didn't use all the sequencing features - but a subset of all of them were used fairly routinely for quick custom ARP building.

At the moment - there's no engine in the sequencing car. Therefore, one has to "get with the program" and utilize a DAW because the recorder is not built for this purpose. I can hope/wish for a sequencer - but I have no real expectation of crossing the finish line with one. It's difficult to turn a car into an airplane.

My present and previous comments about wishes is simply trying to influence future features on follow-on products more than I'm trying to get Montage to change its design. I'd love for the additional features - but am also OK with using software. The hiccup for me is that my keyboard is, on balance, mostly on the road and hardly in the studio. The studio is where my computer is connected to the keyboard and on the road - no computer (player's/owner's choice). So certainly it would be welcome to expand the environments I can be more effective in creating user ARPs.

All that said - the amount of time I spend creating ARPs as a percentage of total time on the keyboard is a very low ratio. Certainly in the single-digit (1-9% of the time). This includes the past. Even though important to me - sequencer use accounted for a very small slice of the time pie.