Quote Bob Moose:

---

I will answer only because I find your attitude a bit dangerous.

---

This is truly ridiculous now.

Quote hollowsun:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

Remember these are the guys who invented the 808, the 909, the 303...

---

In all fairness, Johnny, they flat on their arses when they were released.

The 808 was moderately successful for a period (it being the only true programmable drum machine at the time) and they were innovative - TR808 was just a logical progression from earlier (preset) drum machines of theirs with very similar sounds and their CR78 (with the optional and limited) programmer.

But it was eclipsed by the Linn very soon after and then by a lot of sample-based (digital) drum machines. And the 808 died.

The 303 was a commercial failure.

It was only when people started picking these failures up in pawn shops and second-hand stores for $20 bucks that they began to gain any credibility in underground music ... and then there was a hit record and they became 'de riguer' for the next 30 years.

With the popularity of digital drum machines, Roland released the 909 but that was a flop too and couldn't compete with the Drumulators, etc., of the time. So they became available cheaply too in said second-hand junk shops and classified ads.

Roland didn't define or create the genres - the (ab)users who picked 'em up cheap did.

Much the same can be said of the JP8 - wasn't a MASSIVE success (came a bit late to the Prophet and Oberheim OB party)...

It was only in the wake of 'the great analogue selloff' when the DX7 (and derivatives) and sampling and (ironically) Roland's own D50 ... and then the Korg M1 ... that people could pick them up for a few $hundred and people appreciated what they could do and they became revered. Before that, they were a.n.other £3,000 polysynth only affordable by serious pros up there with other unaffordable polysynths!

The Junos... well ... maybe ... but the wind was taken out of their sales by the MIDI equipped new flavour of the time, the DX7 which changed the whole synth landscape at the time. Even the analogue synths made by Sequential who invented MIDI (like the Prophet 600 - the first synth to feature MIDI) took a tumble.

I was there back then and you couldn't GIVE away analogue stuff as everyone frothed over FM and then sampling - you'd be lucky to get £200 for a MiniMoog or ARP2600! I bought a MemoryMoog back then for £300. JP8s were similarly priced or less. They weren't prized (or priced) as they are now.

But they became 'fashionable' and the price tag went through the roof accordingly - £1,000+ for a £150 303 (*)?! Because someone had a hit with one. 808s that were $50 now fetching £2,000 ... because someone had a hit with one?

Let's not delude ourselves!

(*) I had a 303. Bought it new for £150 from Turnkey along with a 'Drumatix' 606 (another £150). Hated it. Sounded dreadful but a bloody great sequencer which I used (courtesy of its CV/gate outs) with my ARP2600. I then had the chance of a Roland MC4B Microcomposer for an insane price of £100 (what a fantastic sequencer). I couldn't give the 303 away so I threw it in the bin! Seriously. But this was before the sound of neurotic wasps in a jam jar became 'fashionable'!

---

The point wasn't really about whether they were successful - some were and some weren't, but nothing bankrupted the company. The juno series sold very well and were reasonably affordable. Its about innovation and pushing things forward. This just no longer happens.

The TR909 is an amazing machine even to this day, regardless of whether the sounds are to your taste. It has midi sync which can be relied on, is extremely intuitive to program and works very well. It wasn't a huge success and sold a lot less than the 808 - perhaps it was too ahead of its time, but the innovation and skill involved in creating it was very impressive.

Of course things move on, and that innovative era of Roland is long dead. I just find it extremely grating that Roland have tried to hype up their latest bland rehash by using the Jupiter name and spreading false promises all over youtube.

Lets face it, the Jupiter 80 will absolutely never, under any circumstances, be responsible for a whole new music genre. No sound will ever be produced from it which will sound radically new and exciting. And this is because its all been done a million times before. I would absolutely love some progress - I am not big on nostalgia. But in Roland it is over, and I wish they would just stick to the home organ / wedding band market and stop pretending they have anything else to offer.

Quote TheChorltonWheelie:

---

You are repeating yourself, and it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

---

Maybe, but at least I try to explain why I say this, whereas you act a bit like an "ayatollah" who only gives strong statements without even explaining why, as if it was The Truth, and I hate this

or I completely misunderstood the whole thread (which is possible)

Quote:

---

This entire post is about personal opinion, in that respect, and speaking literally, they cannot therefore be wrong.

---

100% agreed, but then why are you claiming (without never explaining) that Roland is way better every time someone else mentions a Korg or something else?

Just a few examples:

Quote TheChorltonWheelie:

---

"The Kronos sound-set isn't a patch on the Roland G-series, it doesn't even come close."

"if anyone attempts to say that it's better sounding than a Fantom G8 then I'd have to question their sanity/ears."

"It's called the RD700-NX, which has the best piano sounds of any keyboard, save for the V-Piano, and it has the best action of any keyboard."

"Any of the last 3 RD generation piano's sound better than the Nord, and almost every RD from the last 10 years has a better action. Nord haven't done anything on the stage piano front for almost 8 years, (...)"

"the general concencus is that Roland have the best action"

"there are some acceptances within music, one of which is that Roland have the best actions."

"I'd already said that the Supernatural piano's on the Roland range are far better than the Kronos, it just so happens that the action's are better on the Roland range too."

"nobody wants synthesis like that any more, it died a death"

"in reality, Yamaha were already making the best grand's [in the 70s]"

"their workstations are considerably behind what Roland are producing. On that basis, you must also think that Nord are a joke too"

---

Sorry but I just find this attitude too aggressive. You perfectly know that all these statements are completely subjective (if not completely wrong or insulting) but you insist on them as if you were an average salesman who only repeats what the advertising or the web site says.
And above all I cannot accept that horrible statement: "there are some acceptances within music". Probably you do not realize that this kind of sentence can kill someone's dream. Reminds me of that famous one: "you are not allowed to play the electric guitar with teeth".

Quote:

---

They're boutique products, for a very small audience, unless you call spending £3k on a the poly-4 Oberheim the "general audience".

---

You can find many small analogue synths in the 200-500 euro range. Of course the big ones cost a lot more but isn't it the same for stage pianos, drums, computers and digital cameras?

Quote:

---

All of these manufacturers are making re-iterations of old products, again, something that the general audience isn't interested in.

---

This is not true. Most new and old manufacturers continue to invent new synthesis modules and algorithms. On the contrary, many mainstream ones do not bring so a lot more than usual FM or subtractive synthesis, usually as ready-to-play presets.

Quote:

---

if people were asking for an analogue oscillator synth then the marketplace would fill that gap, but they're not.

---

This gap is not void. A variety of analogue music devices can be purchased here for example:
http://www.analoguehaven.com/
http://postmodular.co.uk/
http://www.schneidersladen.de/en/
http://www.thomann.de/

Of course it is not a big market, but it does exist.

Quote:

---

This is truly ridiculous now.

---

Maybe, I have no idea honestly. Did I really misunderstood all that you said?

Quote johnny h:

---

I just find it extremely grating that Roland have tried to hype up their latest bland rehash by using the Jupiter name

---

That much we can agree on.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote TheChorltonWheelie:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

The simple market analysis is that its a lot cheaper to stick a dirt cheap dsp chip and a bit of ram in a box, slap on a keyboard and sell it for £2500+ than go to the trouble of engineering a good musical instrument.

---

In which case you must truly, truly despise Yamaha and Korg, given that their workstations are considerably behind what Roland are producing. On that basis, you must also think that Nord are a joke too, their stage piano is still several years behind even the Yamaha and Korg.

---

Not true, I dont give a flying one about Yamaha or Korg's workstations.

Yamaha have been quiet, but they did a lot of innovative products in the 1990s. Korg put a huge amount into r&d and, although the Oasys was a bit disappointing in the end, you have to admire their efforts. And of course they are back to making true analogue machines again, which is great news.

Roland make great dad rock keyboards. Good for them. But they have no place in a discussion about synthesis. Keep the Jupiter tag off them.

johnny h Quote:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

So go out and play Roland's flagship mega expensive synth. The look on this guys face at the end says it all.

---

I'd be quicker to question the person who buys a product on the strength of a YouTube clip, rather than trying it for themselves. On the plus side, the Jupiter 80 is almost £1000 less expensive than Korg's mega expensive synth.

---

I could buy a real analogue synth for that price. One that isn't easily replicated on a bog standard laptop.

Quote TheChorltonWheelie:

---

Quote Chevytraveller:

---

the rise of Moog, Analogue solutions, Dave Smith, Tom Oberheim and countless other modular producers would seem to discount that

---

They're boutique products, for a very small audience, unless you call spending £3k on a the poly-4 Oberheim the "general audience". All of these manufacturers are making re-iterations of old products, again, something that the general audience isn't interested in.

---

I never claimed they were mass market products.. I was just taking issue with your "silly billy" statement that "nobody wants synthesis like that any more"

they don't need to be mass market products for that statement to be flawed.. if "nobody" wanted them, then they wouldn't sell any at all

--------------------
MBP 17", PC 100(Nubus Protools) Motu 896, X-Station, Logic9, Reason6, Korg legacy, ACE, Alchemy, Emax II, E-Synth, Evolver MEK, Waldorf Pulse and Blofeld, AS Telemark, AS Leipzig-S

Quote Bob Moose:

---

Of course it is not a big market, but it does exist.

---

Which was exactly my original point: Roland made a product that the majority of the market wanted, they're not in the business, and never have been, of making niche products. The Jupiter was designed for a market Roland new existed, which is why they've sold their UK allocation, and they did that by developing a product that the features their users wanted.

Quote johnny h:

---

I could buy a real analogue synth for that price. One that isn't easily replicated on a bog standard laptop.

---

I couldn't care less about monophonic synths as they don't earn me my living, and that could easily by said by 99% of other session/touring keyboard players that rely on the Fantom, Motif or Kronos type keyboards. I'll take your advice and get straight on to Mike Stevens, tell him to pack away all those dad-rock keyboards that he's made a living from, and all the West End MD's that use workstations too, etc, etc.

Some people revel in the past, despite it not being that impressive when you look back.

Quote Chevytraveller:

---

I never claimed they were mass market products.. I was just taking issue with your "silly billy" statement that "nobody wants synthesis like that any more"

they don't need to be mass market products for that statement to be flawed.. if "nobody" wanted them, then they wouldn't sell any at all

---

That statement isn't accurate: I responded by saying why main-stream manufacturers like Roland don't make these products any more, and the simple reason for that is that their customers don't want them. If Roland/Yamaha/Korg saw a market for these synths they've have SNAPPED it up before the likes of Oberheim would have added another note to his polyphony.

Quote johnny h:

---

perhaps it was too ahead of its time, but the innovation and skill involved in creating it was very impressive.

---

Not at the time. The reason we rejected the TR-909 to the discount stores was because it was *behind* the times! Nobody was impressed with a drum machine that still used analogue technology for its kick and snare sounds. We wanted samples like the mighty Linn we all dreamed of owning, but couldn't afford.

They were very different times back then - digital good, analogue bad. It might be hard to comprehend now, but those of us that lived through understand.

--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

Quote TheChorltonWheelie:

---

main-stream manufacturers like Roland don't make these products any more, and the simple reason for that is that their customers don't want them.

---

Quite right. Because the vast majority of the market wants good pianos, strings, brass, organs, electric pianos, some synth basses and lead lines and drums, etc., and because the vast majority of musos, like mainstream manufacturers, are making mainstream music. Which is fine. The number of cover bands gigging regularly (and earning money) doing weddings and corporate events and cruises and cabaret, etc., far outnumber those doing 'original' material and that's before you factor in the 'one-man-band/vocalists' who play the hotel bars and wine bars, etc., into the wee hours with Billy Joel covers, etc.. And bloody good on them - they are usually fantastic players and earning an ok (if not, in some cases, excellent) living from music. What's not to like?

And sure, others in more 'original' areas of music can utilise these tools as a sound source as well. Because they are very good ... in their way ... and they are very versatile.

But for me, at least, there is barely a cigarette paper between them - each have different strengths and weaknesses but they are all, essentially, much of a muchness doing much the same thing but in their own way. I'm not sure that Roland are alone in, as some have said, "losing the plot" because they all have. The more constructive thing to say is that the mass manufacturers have learnt that ploughing $squillions into new and innovative synthesis techniques usually fall flat on their arses because of my Paragraph #1 above - the mass market doesn't want "Liquid Granular Digalogue Metasynthesis" ... they want good strings and pianos and brass, etc.. So many innovative products from 'The Big Three' have died out there that the company accountants just will not sanction such innovation - they'll sign cheques on R+D for what sells in quantity.

Look - I am sure the Jupiter 80 is a bloody fine keyboard and can make some great sounds and I hope it does well. There are two problems in this thread as I see it though...

Firstly, that Roland have hijacked the 'Jupiter' moniker for another 'me-too' S+S ROMpler descended from their 1980s D50 (albeit, in all fairness, what seems to be some pretty clever technology in there) and secondly, your somewhat evangelistic proclamations about it at every turn - it's a bit like having the Jehovah's Witnesses around!

And sorry, there's more than a hint of the 'shill' in your posts that suggests that you ARE a Roland employee

Not that I am in the market for a £3,000 keyboard 'workstation' but sorry, the Korg Kronos seems by far the most interesting and appealing to me, not just from what I've read about it but from professional friends and associates of mine in the biz who have tried both (had both at their places for a long term evaluation) ... and prefer the Kronos.

This is not a question of what's 'better' but what's 'preferred' ... like the tiresome Mac vs PC argument.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote TheChorltonWheelie:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

I could buy a real analogue synth for that price. One that isn't easily replicated on a bog standard laptop.

---

I couldn't care less about monophonic synths as they don't earn me my living, and that could easily by said by 99% of other session/touring keyboard players that rely on the Fantom, Motif or Kronos type keyboards. I'll take your advice and get straight on to Mike Stevens, tell him to pack away all those dad-rock keyboards that he's made a living from, and all the West End MD's that use workstations too, etc, etc.

Some people revel in the past, despite it not being that impressive when you look back.

---

And why did you think I was referring to a monophonic synth ? The Roland Jupiter 8 was polyphonic, as was all the Jupiter and Juno series. It is truly tragic that current Roland employees, such as yourself, are so ignorant of its rich history.

Its absolutely fine that Roland now concentrate on rehashing the same d50 technology with extra bells and whistles and there certainly is a market for it. People are entitled to buy what they like. But to use the Jupiter name is disrespectful to the whole history of synthesis. Yes, we get it, you don't care, and people who buy them don't care, but some people do, and Roland's cringeworthy attempt to pass this latest reboxed s+s/modelling yawn-fest off as a serious competitor to the great Jupiter 8 is an insult to those of us that care about synthesis.

This thread seems to have come full circle without achieving anything other than getting a few people rather hot under the collar.

I think everyone here shares the opinion that calling their new keyboard a 'Jupiter' (and using it's bright legend colouring style) is a cynical marketing ploy on Roland's part.

But so what? It's their trademark, and they can do what they like with it.

No one is fooled that the Jupiter 80 is in any way related technologically to the classic and much adored Jupiter 8... or even the slightly less adored but still similar Jupiter 6. And why would it be? The world has moved on in the intervening thirty years.

Whichever way you look at it, the Jupiter 80 is a powerful keyboard with its own strengths and weaknesses, designed to appeal to a particular sector of the market, and it would appear that the sales are good. End of story.

Now shall we move on rather than go around the same loop for a third time?

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

I think everyone here shares the opinion that calling their new keyboard a 'Jupiter' (and using it's bright legend colouring style) is a cynical marketing ploy on Roland's part.

---

I don't think it's necessarily cynical on Roland's part, it's purely an identifying moniker that relates to the original Jupiter brand. I don't remember people kicking up a fuss about the Korg M3, which even at the time of its launch was considerably behind it's already existing competitors and in no way a ground-breaking workstation like its older brother.

The original "fuss" was the dismissive attitude people had to a product they hadn't even heard.

Edited by TheChorltonWheelie (26/09/11 09:54 AM)

Quote TheChorltonWheelie:

---

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

I think everyone here shares the opinion that calling their new keyboard a 'Jupiter' (and using it's bright legend colouring style) is a cynical marketing ploy on Roland's part.

---

I don't think it's necessarily cynical on Roland's part, it's purely an identifying moniker that relates to the original Jupiter brand. I don't remember people kicking up a fuss about the Korg M3, which even at the time of its launch was considerably behind it's already existing competitors and in no way a ground-breaking workstation like its older brother.

---

The difference is that the M1 was a digital sample+synthesis keyboard with effects and a sequencer. The M3 does all these things considerably better than the M1 and adds some powerful Oasys sound engine components and a much better user interface. In no way is it inferior to the M1. And its reasonably priced. Also, there is not a huge second hand market for the M1 where prices can reach up to £4000, as there is with the fully analogue Jupiter 8.

Clearly you will fail to accept these very valid points and go round in circles again, so I will leave it there. Your evangelicalism suggests you have very close ties to Roland. If so, please inform the decision makers that their cynicism has not gone unnoticed.

Quote johnny h:

---

Clearly you will fail to accept these very valid points and go round in circles again, so I will leave it there. Your evangelicalism suggests you have very close ties to Roland. If so, please inform the decision makers that their cynicism has not gone unnoticed.

---

Spot on.

Quote johnny h:

---

Clearly you will fail to accept these very valid points and go round in circles again

---

Which part of the comment below, which you've asserted several times, is a 'valid point':

Quote johnny h:

---

Roland lost the plot a long time ago. They pretty much make dad-rock keyboards now.

---

I'm not quite sure why you'd assume I work for Roland, or indeed have any ties with them, as in reality if anyone made an incorrect statement about any product I'd probably try my best to correct them.

Quote TheChorltonWheelie:

---

I'm not quite sure why you'd assume I work for Roland

---

Dunno, maybe it's every single comment you've posted in this entire thread? Absolutes like:

"the general concencus (sic) is that Roland have the best action"

"there are some acceptances within music, one of which is that Roland have the best actions."

What utter rot. Many people rate Yamaha or Kurzweil actions as the best. There is no 'general consensus' about anything in music, it's all personal.

I am a complete Roland fanboy (not for the last 15 years or so though) but I wouldn't post the way you do, so maybe that's why you come across as a shill with no real objectivity.

Edited by Mr Arkadin (26/09/11 12:53 PM)

Quote Mr Arkadin:

---

That's why you come across as a shill with no real objectivity.

---

And posting "Roland make only dad-rock keyboards" is objective?

Quote TheChorltonWheelie:

---

And posting "Roland make only dad-rock keyboards" is objective?

---

Well there are two things in favour of that comment:
1. It's humorous.
2. Like all good put downs and generalisations there's an element of truth in there.

As already mentioned by hollowsun a lot of keyboards sell for the pianos, strings etc. - cover bands, cruise ship players, wedding bands and as you yourself said, West End MDs (which means mainly Musicals natch), so the phrase is not a million miles from who this synth will sell to.

And get this: there's nothing wrong with that. But to pretend this is some part of Roland's "We Design The Future" tag-line is utter nonsense. It is what it is. Synthesists, experimenters and underground artists will by and large pass this by. They are not the target audience. The wedding/cover/tribute/Musical scenes are not what I involve myself in as participater or audience. There are plenty like me who seek out original bands, sounds etc. and would probably run a mile when confronted by a Queen musical or ABBA tribute.

Roland want to sell units, not instruments. There's a difference. Moog, Tom Oberheim, Dave Smith, Macbeth and more esoteric companies are happily catering to this market and selling. Odd how they manage to sell instruments and stay in business when apparently there's no interest in this sort of stuff. Apart from the V-Synth I don't see anything in Roland's current (read: last 15 years) line-up that is innovative - the Fantoms and current Junos are all based on S&S that started way back.

I guess for some of use that grew up with Roland it just feels like they have sullied each name one by one (SH, Juno) and now Jupiter has finally been dumped on from a great height. If they had real confidence in this unit they could have called it something else, given it a different paint job and then seen how many they sold. The name and colour scheme seems a totally cynical marketing device to sell more units.

It is nothing about respect for their 'Legacy'.

>saying "in reality, Yamaha were already making the best grand's" is both a dangerous and unfounded statement. Dangerous, because some people could read this and think it is an absolute truth

Yeah, let's string the fascist up from the nearest lampost.

Did you make a purchase Scramble?

--------------------
Current live keyboards - Kurzweil PC3x - Korg Triton Extreme + Moss - Roland V-Synth V2. www.xyzband.info

It wasn't me that was considering a purchase.

(Just to make it clear, I wasn't joining the Chorlton lynch mob, I was just poking fun at the rather over-the-top attacks on him.)

Quote hollowsun:

---

Quote TheChorltonWheelie:

---

main-stream manufacturers like Roland don't make these products any more, and the simple reason for that is that their customers don't want them.

---

Quite right. Because the vast majority of the market wants good pianos, strings, brass, organs, electric pianos, some synth basses and lead lines and drums, etc., and because the vast majority of musos, like mainstream manufacturers, are making mainstream music. Which is fine. The number of cover bands gigging regularly (and earning money) doing weddings and corporate events and cruises and cabaret, etc., far outnumber those doing 'original' material and that's before you factor in the 'one-man-band/vocalists' who play the hotel bars and wine bars, etc., into the wee hours with Billy Joel covers, etc.. And bloody good on them - they are usually fantastic players and earning an ok (if not, in some cases, excellent) living from music. What's not to like?

And sure, others in more 'original' areas of music can utilise these tools as a sound source as well. Because they are very good ... in their way ... and they are very versatile.

But for me, at least, there is barely a cigarette paper between them - each have different strengths and weaknesses but they are all, essentially, much of a muchness doing much the same thing but in their own way. I'm not sure that Roland are alone in, as some have said, "losing the plot" because they all have. The more constructive thing to say is that the mass manufacturers have learnt that ploughing $squillions into new and innovative synthesis techniques usually fall flat on their arses because of my Paragraph #1 above - the mass market doesn't want "Liquid Granular Digalogue Metasynthesis" ... they want good strings and pianos and brass, etc.. So many innovative products from 'The Big Three' have died out there that the company accountants just will not sanction such innovation - they'll sign cheques on R+D for what sells in quantity.

Look - I am sure the Jupiter 80 is a bloody fine keyboard and can make some great sounds and I hope it does well. There are two problems in this thread as I see it though...

Firstly, that Roland have hijacked the 'Jupiter' moniker for another 'me-too' S+S ROMpler descended from their 1980s D50 (albeit, in all fairness, what seems to be some pretty clever technology in there) and secondly, your somewhat evangelistic proclamations about it at every turn - it's a bit like having the Jehovah's Witnesses around!

And sorry, there's more than a hint of the 'shill' in your posts that suggests that you ARE a Roland employee

Not that I am in the market for a £3,000 keyboard 'workstation' but sorry, the Korg Kronos seems by far the most interesting and appealing to me, not just from what I've read about it but from professional friends and associates of mine in the biz who have tried both (had both at their places for a long term evaluation) ... and prefer the Kronos.

This is not a question of what's 'better' but what's 'preferred' ... like the tiresome Mac vs PC argument.

---

Yes but the important thing to note is the wedding bands and 'musos' are doing music created by 'original artists' - so these should be Rolands fundamental target, as everything else is an off shoot.
The wedding bands have had good piano's, strings, brass, bass & drums since the end of the 90's, giving them to us again and again is pointless, regardless of what colour they paint the case or what they call the keyboard.

Is the Jupiter 80 really any better than an XP80?
And that's the problem. I guarantee the 'wedding band' you refer to could play exactly the same songs with an XP80 as they do with a Jupiter 80 and here's the really important bit...THE AUDIENCE WOULDN'T KNOW OR CARE!

I'd also argue the point about more musicians covering rather than writing original material - I disagree and think just the opposite. The problem is most 'creators' write music at home. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.
I bet there's far more 'bedroom musicians' than there are people playing at the Dog & Thistle on a Friday night.

Sadly though they won't be using (or aspiring to use) a jupiter 80. There's nothing that would make them want it. Its plagiaristic rather than innovative and it won't interface with their Daw like their soft synths do or give new exciting sounds that their soft synths do.

I'm a Roland customer (Juno 60, Juno 106, D50, D10, U220, JV90, Xp50, XP80, XV3080, Fantom G7 have all been owned by me) and I DO want new innovative synths from them. I DO want Liquid Granular Digalogue Metasynthesis or anything else that will 'wow' and inspire me, the way the Juno's and even the D series did. I also want my Roland keyboard to work as a soft synth when used with a DAW (like my Access Virus does). Rolands attempts at this so far (G7 especially) have been terrible and if a litte company like Access can do it so well, than surely a behemoth like Roland can manage it too!
They should concentrate on DAW integration instead of giving us yet another 'performance' synth (yawn), we've had 20 years of them and frankly, they all sound the same.

If the no.1 song by Lady Gaga used sounds made by 'Liquid Granular Digalogue Metasynthesis' then you can bet the 'bedroom musicians' would be aspiring to own those synths and the 'wedding bands' would have to buy them to cover the songs at parties.

By offering the same 'performance synth' again and again, Roland are just stagnating.

I'm glad they sold their UK allocation and I wish them continued success, but if this is their chosen path for product development, then I think it unlikely it'll last much longer.

WOW ME ROLAND!

--------------------
www.myspace.com/jazzygb1
www.myspace.com/revox1