New stuff from Roland!

[ninja6485]

But this constant blathering about the importance of the analog history by Roland while they're making a non-analog device is the source of this discontent.

Don't forget, as a Japanese company; Roland is steeped in a climate of Japanese values - and the Japanese HIGHLY value lineage and ancestry. So you have to take the analog history part with a grain of salt. This is not to downplay them cashing in on the classics, which I think they are doing as well.

If the tb-3 has a touch screen, and can sequence 303 style via midi, it almost doesn't have to make sounds for me to be interested... and if it can do some new funky acid sounds that can pair nicely with a 303, all the better, especially if it's cheap.

[commodorejohn]

I think you're proving my point, those were popular in1992, not 1982.

The '80s started rumbling in in 1978 and didn't leave until 1992 (Nirvana did it.) Just like how the '60s didn't actually end until late 1974. We hardly actually had a '70s at all.

(Of course, even the '60s don't compare to the '20s, which started in the late 1910s and continued until 1941, because in the '30s the nation was too poor to afford a new decade. We only got the '40s as part of the war effort.)

[silikon]

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you.

Don't apologize if you don't mean it.

To disregard a particular division of instrumentation as valid makes no sense at all.

I'm confused, because this sounds like you actually do agree with what I was droning on about.

To suggest that people who subscribe to the aspects that define analog sound are "concerned with the wrong things" is pretty outrageous.

I think there's nuance here that was missed. I think that people who get totally wrapped around the wheels about what particular implementation is used (and I'm not only referencing this thread, but so many others like it of late) and essentially dismiss them based on some preconceived notion that 'if it's not analogue, it's s**t' is missing the whole point of making music. There's normal and then theres over the bloody top ("oh my god, if they didn't make this machine with all analogue guts, I'm not even looking at it.").

Does anyone think digital is inferior anymore? That would be an equally outrageous claim.

Agreed.

But this constant blathering about the importance of the analog history by Roland while they're making a non-analog device is the source of this discontent. It has nothing to do with antiquated favoritism, it has to do with the fact that the marketing of this device inspires analog enthusiasts and vintage equipment enthusiasts to think they're getting something they're not.

I do agree with you... but I guess I don't respond much to any manufacturer's hype; They're obviously going to hype it as much as possible. Why wouldn't they? We should all be keen to the tricks by now, and savvy enough to see through the marketing bullshit -- and ESPECIALLY in this instance because they've not given a toss about it 'till apparently now.

What he said.

I'm still waiting for you to become a contributing member to this site.

[Ashe37]

I think you're proving my point, those were popular in1992, not 1982.

The '80s started rumbling in in 1978 and didn't leave until 1992 (Nirvana did it.) Just like how the '60s didn't actually end until late 1974. We hardly actually had a '70s at all.

(Of course, even the '60s don't compare to the '20s, which started in the late 1910s and continued until 1941, because in the '30s the nation was too poor to afford a new decade. We only got the '40s as part of the war effort.)

You really are trying to suppress your memories of disco and the Carter administration, aren't you?

[commodorejohn]

I'm still waiting for you to become a contributing member to this site.

Do I get a badge when that happens?

You really are trying to suppress your memories of disco and the Carter administration, aren't you?

Luckily, I don't have any direct memories, on account of missing the '70s altogether. As for indirect...no, that stain can never be removed from our cultural history. But it fits in with what I'm saying: disco came in in 1974, just as the part of the calendar 1970s that was an extended instrumental coda to the '60s was noodling to its final conclusion, and by 1978-1979 the backlash against it had already begun, ushering in the '80s. So the '70s proper were only four or five years long. They just made up for brevity in flamboyance.

[Alex E]

Am I the only one who doesn't want to talk about this much until we actually see what they are?

[tim gueguen]

It might be a good idea. I suspect the current thread over at Gearslutz will crash their server sooner or later. Should be at least a 300 page thread before the actual debut date, and another 200 pages should be added in the hour or two immediately after they come out next week.

[adekoyote]

I think its a good idea to give them the benefit of the doubt. All of this cantankerous conversation about the if thens and whats about everything that we can speculate on. Got a vintage roland? Fantastic ...please run circles around us with your music...not your speculation. Mad cuz its not analog? Fine be mad.

But i will say this...roland made a desktop looper rc505 and people love it.

I am happy to see some effort in this direction. I adore the idea of certain synths maintaining the form factor of a turntable. I hope its fun and useful and accessible.

And if you dont like it...dont get ur panties in a bunch....there are now many many more alternatives.

[Stab Frenzy]

I think you're proving my point, those were popular in1992, not 1982.

The '80s started rumbling in in 1978 and didn't leave until 1992 (Nirvana did it.) Just like how the '60s didn't actually end until late 1974. We hardly actually had a '70s at all.

(Of course, even the '60s don't compare to the '20s, which started in the late 1910s and continued until 1941, because in the '30s the nation was too poor to afford a new decade. We only got the '40s as part of the war effort.)

So you say something was popular in 1982 which didn't even exist until years later and then you try to cover it by saying that the 80s went for 14 years? How is that even relevant? I think if you have no idea what you're talking about then you should maybe just refrain from attempting to throw your half a cent in.

When it all comes down to it, you're making music.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you.

Well that just about sums it up doesn't it.

[Hybrid88]

Am I the only one who doesn't want to talk about this much until we actually see what they are?

No. You're not. Shut up guys

[commodorejohn]

So you say something was popular in 1982 which didn't even exist until years later and then you try to cover it by saying that the 80s went for 14 years? How is that even relevant? I think if you have no idea what you're talking about then you should maybe just refrain from attempting to throw your half a cent in.

It was a joke, man.

[griffin avid]

This is all about timing.
Not only did KORG 'borrow' ideas from Roland's legacy, they also ruined their product line with their own offerings.
And I think CommodoreJohn is trapped in a time warp.

He was one of the few guys railing that ANALOG STUFFS IN 20XX was possible and this ENTIRE forum shouted him down and explained in exhaustive ways why it was NOT POSSIBLE. HE was ostracized and ridiculed for being clueless...
for not knowing how things work in the real world. [If it's the same guy I'm thinking of].

Then POW- analogs return and companies are releasing CLASSIC ANALOG SYNTHS is 2014.
KORG...hello....I see you. Now you drop analog stuffs to MAKE MONEY.

If this product arrived much earlier, it would two posts about 'shame this aint analog' and that's it. Those guys would get shouted down or drowned out by those 'that get it.'


In this current climate, there really is no excuse for delivering less.
Make analog stuffs with digital bits for control that you can control.
In other words, remove it, tame it, correct it etc.......

You'd get to decide how analog it is.
That's what Elektron have done by pairing samples with circuits.

That's why there seems to be no point in emulations and virtual and sortas anymore.

The only thing I say is, I don't want the same 'limited box' that a dozen artists have already exploited.
Make that and more for the future...
This is what these videos are claiming.

The sound (design) will tell.
Either way though, if it's a worthy product, I'll still get it.
My favorite synthesizer is not VA, it's Digital Subtractive. Although it does have analog filters.
Oh wait, and it's a groovebox.

Does that make me a bad person?

[elsongs]

But this constant blathering about the importance of the analog history by Roland while they're making a non-analog device is the source of this discontent.

Don't forget, as a Japanese company; Roland is steeped in a climate of Japanese values - and the Japanese HIGHLY value lineage and ancestry. So you have to take the analog history part with a grain of salt. This is not to downplay them cashing in on the classics, which I think they are doing as well.

On the other hand, Korg is also a Japanese company, but they view their analog lineage with a strong sense of pride these days.

[elsongs]

I really don't think its a 'new technology', I think its just circuit modelling, which several top-line VSTs do (Diva and D-Cam stuff comes to mind)

Their words not mine...

newest clip

Hey, at least they can put on a pretty light show

[Walter Ego]

Let me clear up some confusion--there was really just a clerical error that sent Roland to NAMM this year. They were SUPPOSED to go the USITT, the lighting design industry trade show this year to premier

AIRA--the new line of DJ lighting gear.

The keyboards are really just props. They are demonstrating with the music that the lights actually blink IN TIME with music when it's played NEAR them. You can look really cool in the dark with your glowing keys and boxes while you hit play in Traktor...