Serenarules
In other words, why do we have to do the horns, strings, and sound effects all the time.

Simple answer..  Because you CAN.


Up until the late '70s if you wanted a convincing horn section on your track you had to hire a horn section.  Guitars always sounded like guitars, pianos like pianos, but suddenly in the '80s with half decent samplers it was possible to get half decent emulations of all sorts of sounds from a keyboard (but ironically, not piano...)
 

Thanks for all the responses. There are some interesting comments here. Let me ask you this then...

How many easily identifiable musicians (guitar, bass, drums only) do you know that have drastically different sounds from song to song?

Keith Richards sound was pretty consistent from song to song, wouldn't you think, with only minor effect changes?
 
Another point; synth sound selection.


Like so many other great musicians, Van Halen, Phil Collins, and so forth, all have a very unique, unchanging sound. You knew who you were listening too, even if the new song you are just hearing was played unannounced. My approach to playing synths is similar to that. I wanted a small cache of sounds (with minor variants only) to serve as a way of making me more identifiable as a synth player.
 
My chosen sounds are somewhat dated. I love the sounds of the older analog keyboards. These can only make use of saw, square, and pulse waves (some could do more). One can only add a high pass, or a low pass filter to them, adjust cutoff frequency and resonance, add low frequency oscillation and a volume envelope to them.
 
Newer synths are more like emulators. They use actual samples or physical modelling to approximate the sounds of things like horns, pianos and flutes, as well as other-worldly sounds.
 
I've always thought that if you want horns in a song, hire a horn player. I'm not into the replication of other real instruments, but rather the old, fat and warm, analog pads. I even turn off velocity sensitivity and after-touch on my JP-50 because most of my older analogs don't have either one.
 
So basically, I use my core sounds on purpose for reason of musical identity and consistency across songs, just as a guitarist or bassist would.

I guess that's the real point of this; why do most bands just expect us to run the gamut, instead of allowing us our own identity, even if we aren't front and center?

drewfx1
I disagree with your premise.
 
You cite extraordinary guitarists, bassists, drummers with distinctive styles and then reject keyboard players with the same qualities as exceptions.
 
I've heard lots of guitarists, bassists and drummers in my day that weren't particularly distinctive and I can name any number of distinctive keyboard players - including a number of band mates of other musicians you mentioned.
 
And if you're a bass player in a "conventional" band, trust me on this, no one wants you to play like Jaco or Geddy.

To be fair, I haven't excluded anybody. There are a lot of great pianist-style players who really stand out due to their style. In fact, these instances are more of a nod towards their greatness than away. These "tickle the ivories" players are not the ones I'm focusing on. But rather, your average keyboard players. We may not have the experience or ability to just let out fingers run amok. We need another way to stand out. But if we are constantly changing patches, there is no consistency from song to song. That's all I'm saying. Shouldn't we, unilaterally, be expected to have a small set of core sounds, despite other fluff sounds we may use from time to time?

drewfx1
 
And if you're a bass player in a "conventional" band, trust me on this, no one wants you to play like Jaco or Geddy.

The bane of my band experiences.

bapu

drewfx1
 
And if you're a bass player in a "conventional" band, trust me on this, no one wants you to play like Jaco or Geddy.

The bane of my band experiences.

bapu

drewfx1
 
And if you're a bass player in a "conventional" band, trust me on this, no one wants you to play like Jaco or Geddy.

The bane of my band experiences.

Yep!

Serenarules
That's kind of what I'm thinking of doing. The problem seems to be in that most other musicians (guitar, bass, drum) just seem to expect us to be that knife. How do we go about changing the overall expectations of keyboard players (non-piano)?

I am a keyboardist (and not a pianist) and a vocalist.  I am, by definition a swiss knife kind of player and I play almost every week in a church band.
 
the problem I see with the situation of a keyboardist being top dawg is that in Western music it's a guitarist's world.  guitar is dominant in our music and has been since the 50's (or arguably earlier).  
 
Keyboardists are support simply because guitarists dominate the culture.  this is not a complaint - it's just a fact.
 
are there keyboard and/or piano icons who are easily recognizable in a blind test?  absolutely (Jon Lord, Elton John - others who have been named).  but they're the exception and not the rule simply because our culture demands guitar as the dominant instrument.
 
who knows - maybe in 50 years that will change.  

Serenarules
To be fair, I haven't excluded anybody. There are a lot of great pianist-style players who really stand out due to their style. In fact, these instances are more of a nod towards their greatness than away. These "tickle the ivories" players are not the ones I'm focusing on. But rather, your average keyboard players.

 
My point was that you were comparing "average" keyboard players with distinctive players of other instruments.
 

We may not have the experience or ability to just let out fingers run amok. We need another way to stand out. But if we are constantly changing patches, there is no consistency from song to song. That's all I'm saying. Shouldn't we, unilaterally, be expected to have a small set of core sounds, despite other fluff sounds we may use from time to time?

It's an embarrassment of riches - back in the day keyboardists only had access to a few sounds at a time and different organs and EPs sounded different, and Moogs sounded different from ARPs. And most people were not Rick Wakeman and didn't take a whole bunch of different keyboards on tour. 
 
But over the last few decades technology has evolved to allow for a much wider variety of sounds and if you're playing covers in a band you are going to be expected to mimic different classic sounds, as are guitar players. And modern keyboards mostly have tons of presets that are either (deliberately) generic or else kind of out there. Other people expect what they are familiar with. And IME, most band members only really care about instruments other than their own when you are either getting in the way or need to replicate a distinctive part.
 
I would say you should program some sounds yourself that express your individualities and allow for some changes and expression using a few controllers and become intimate with them.
 
Note that guitar players often go to extremes obsessing over every single little component in their instruments and rigs and yet all make different sets of choices of components. IOW, it's not about quality or picking the best components in general, it's about picking the components that give them the specific sounds they individually respond to.

One of the greatest what the ... moments of my life was when I learned that the keyboard was considered part of the rhythm section of a modern small pop or jazz ensemble, along with the bass and drums. And this was at a time when the only keyboard around was a piano. The pre-eminent solo and vocal accompaniment instrument since its invention three hundred years ago had somehow fallen so low in pop music practice that it sat with the skin thumpers? Sure it had been invitation only to the full orchestra on concerto night, but really...
 
I blame the trumpet. In a loud sweaty dance hall someone had to carry the melody over the noise of stomping feet and smashing beer steins, and unamplified strings lacked the definition to direct the riot on the floor. And then they invented the infinitely amplifiable electric guitar and the rest is history. Bye, bye Mr. Armstrong. The power chords and fuzz boxes can drown out even the war horn in battle. 
 
For a while the electric organ got to grab the melody for brief solos rising above the din when the guitarists were busy smashing their instruments, but even a standing keyboardist couldn't look like he was having coitus with his tool and still play, and thrusting his gyrating genitals was a waste when it was hidden behind the Hammond. 
 
And now, as you note, the synth technician is not really a keyboardist at all. Often as not he is triggering loops and lighting effects, and playing not just chords but fancy riffs with a single key strike on a MIDI controller where the only skill is knowing how to make the noise at the right time. Hey. Sounds a lot like he belongs in the rhythm section. 
 
But your point about style is wrong. There are many consummate keyboard players in bands, and they can develop whatever distinctive style they want...or not. What you are really saying is that the fashion in pop music arrangement is still designed around an accompaniment for the visual SEXY of a dancing front man and his sexy string bashing wing men. Find a band that plays the kind of music you want to play, and does not depend on stroking the cliche between the audience's ears. Remain seated and concentrate on the music. And learn to do arrangements that your fellow musicians will respect. Or just do what the front man tells you and stay out of the way and on the beat. 
 
 

Beagle
in Western music it's a guitarist's world. 

Noisy prima donna buggers!!!!!!