Quantcast
How likely is it for Roland to do a "Korg ms20" with Juno 106? - Page 7 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
How likely is it for Roland to do a "Korg ms20" with Juno 106?
Old 29th January 2013
  #181
Lives for gear
 
PeteJames's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I'd love them to but add an Extra Oscillator, Envelope and LFO. Then it would be amazing! I'd pay £2G for that. If they did re-release it as it is i'd still but one though preferably with full midi, CCs etc.
Old 30th January 2013
  #182
Lives for gear
 
CatManDeux's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by xanax ➡️
...or this infamous one:


Ok, I know the early eighties were a bit weird. But...
Why the hell is he playing the electric piano on its side?!?
Shouldn't he be playing an upright bass patch?
And where can I get a red chair with a back taller than the keyboard??
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #183
Lives for gear
 
DesolationBlvd's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksandvik ➡️
Roland had to follow Yamaha and its best selling DX7 and design D50... Not exactly a follow-up to Jupiters and Junos.
If anything, the ring mod in JX-8P/10 was Roland's answer to DX7.

The D-50 seems to be an indirect follow-up to JX-8P/10. Similar sound character (if D-50 only uses the synth engine and no PCM), and some presets were nods to JX: Soundtrack (in name only), Stereo Polysynth, and JX Horns-Strings.

If anything, Yamaha SY77 was the answer to Roland D-50 - adding FM to sample + synthesis.
Old 30th January 2013
  #184
227861
Guest
I don't get this argument for using Roland's current synths like the Jup80 for things it wasn't mean for. Like what? They are trying to make it have so many sounds it is literally a Swiss army knife of a synth, so it's meant for everything. The only thing is can't do is real analog.


But so what. People often use musical instruments that have limitations to make music it "wasn't meant for". Still feel weird about that term anyway.


What "new" and "awesome" thing have people done with the Jup80? If so too why is Roland throwing on the "old" patches from the classic analogs. They are all over the place with their marketing. Either making it so amazingly futuristic of a instrument or go vintage. If they want to think for the future then they should really commit to that. The Jup80 doesn't do that and is even dressed up like a Frankenstein Jupiter 8. What a mess that company is.





The main problem is Roland had a strong following and it betrayed that with a totally different kind of instrument to appeal to the complete opposite side of the market. (non analog)

That's like when apple canned Final Cut Pro to make Final Cut X to make it appeal to a wider consumer market. Same situation. All that loyalty and love for the product made people angry. They liked what they had before because it was really great and were angry it was taken away from the to gain a wider market.
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #185
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by draven5 ➡️
What "new" and "awesome" thing have people done with the Jup80? If so too why is Roland throwing on the "old" patches from the classic analogs. They are all over the place with their marketing. Either making it so amazingly futuristic of a instrument or go vintage. If they want to think for the future then they should really commit to that. The Jup80 doesn't do that and is even dressed up like a Frankenstein Jupiter 8. What a mess that company is.

the ju 80 is one of the best and most versatile and playable keyboard synth on the market.. nothing exciting but the most developed virtual jupiter..

not exactly cheap but defently not the synth to give roland a bad name
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #186
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by draven5 ➡️
The main problem is Roland had a strong following and it betrayed that with a totally different kind of instrument to appeal to the complete opposite side of the market. (non analog)
Roland never made money off of this "strong following" though. These instruments only reached cult status years after they were off the market and people bought them used (and a big part of *why* they were used is that, for a few years at the end of the 80s, they could be had for nearly nothing).

Roland doesn't make anything off of the second-hand market. They have never and still do not "get" underground (or even mainstream) electronic music. Their primary market has always been and remains the middle-of-the-road musician who needs products with the right features and value: more sounds, more polyphony, more presets, and at the right price. That simply doesn't happen with analog anymore.

I don't know where people get the idea that Roland planned their gear to be used for edgy electronic music, or that it was immediately popular for that purpose. The TR-909 certainly would not have been such a flop if that had been the case. But consider this: if it hadn't been a flop, it would never have been so cheap and unwanted that poor musicians could pick them up for almost nothing, and perhaps something like the HR-16 would be the ultra-desired, used-on-ever-single-record, ultra coveted "because it's got SOUL!" drum machine.

Seems some people have it backwards: These instruments didn't become coveted because millions rushed out to buy them when they came out. They became popular because there was a point when nobody wanted them, and poor -- but adventurous -- musicians picked them up and made great records with them. Those same musicians could've made great records with other gear too. The old Roland stuff just happened to be unfashionable at the time. If you think the secret to making great music is all about having the right gear, you need to give up on music.
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #187
Lives for gear
 
volumetrik's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno Republic ➡️
Seems some people have it backwards: These instruments didn't become coveted because millions rushed out to buy them when they came out. They became popular because there was a point when nobody wanted them, and poor -- but adventurous -- musicians picked them up and made great records with them. Those same musicians could've made great records with other gear too. The old Roland stuff just happened to be unfashionable at the time. If you think the secret to making great music is all about having the right gear, you need to give up on music.
What other gear had the same 909 kick?

What other gear had the 808 kick?

What other gear had the 303 acid bassline squelch?
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #188
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by volumetrik ➡️
What other gear had the same 909 kick?

What other gear had the 808 kick?

What other gear had the 303 acid bassline squelch?

None, but ultimately why does any of that matter?

If it hadn't have been those instruments, it would've been some others. It would be some other devices used in seminal tracks which would've seemed so magical. It's the music that made the sounds great, not the other way around.

Unless you really do listen just for the sounds, in which case the greatest recordings would be a 909 kick, dry, repeated for hours on end. Or the same note on a 303 with the filter tweaked. Or did I really just gave away the formula for the greatest musical opus ever?
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #189
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
^^^^ absolutely. Not all early records used 909 kicks and 303's etc, lots of 707's, 101's,202's, Linns, Oberheims, Sequentials etc etc - anything that was tossed away.

The sound of the 909 is largely old hat now anyway and people are going back to other sounds. Again, because some things have reached iconic holy status now does not mean that they were necessary back then.
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #190
Lives for gear
 
volumetrik's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by groundbass ➡️
^^^^ absolutely. Not all early records used 909 kicks and 303's etc, lots of 707's, 101's,202's, Linns, Oberheims, Sequentials etc etc - anything that was tossed away.
I wasn't excluding those. I'm well aware how legendary 101,202 is.
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #191
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by volumetrik ➡️
You are the same guy who thought KORG did the MS-20 because of MiniBrute, nuff said.
No.
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #192
227861
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno Republic ➡️
Roland never made money off of this "strong following" though. These instruments only reached cult status years after they were off the market and people bought them used (and a big part of *why* they were used is that, for a few years at the end of the 80s, they could be had for nearly nothing).

Seems some people have it backwards: These instruments didn't become coveted because millions rushed out to buy them when they came out. They became popular because there was a point when nobody wanted them, and poor -- but adventurous -- musicians picked them up and made great records with them. Those same musicians could've made great records with other gear too. The old Roland stuff just happened to be unfashionable at the time. If you think the secret to making great music is all about having the right gear, you need to give up on music.

Forgive me but I was pretty young growing up in the 80's but remember it pretty well. (as a kid) But was I misinformed, you're saying that the Juno 60, 106, JX3P, JX8P, 808, 909 were not really popular and used in music until after they were out of fashion and electronic musicians picked them up when no one wanted them? I was under the impression those great Roland synths were used in their present day, by some of the most famous bands of all time during that time. You're saying they became great when they hit cult status afterward? I was under the impression they were great when they came out since they were on so many records..of that day. Isn't that love for Roland when the new products were out in the 80's? Or am I wrong? (serious question)

I don't understand why you are measuring them to cult status? That does not make a difference. It appeared that people liked Roland back in the 80's and used the gear for many records. I can't say the same about Roland's gear today. Am I right or wrong? Did people in that day feel the way about the Juno 60 as they did today about the Jup80?

So you're saying the Juno 60 or the 808 is the equivalent product more or less as the Jup 80 today? In terms of they are made for that reason.
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #193
Lives for gear
 
volumetrik's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno Republic ➡️
None, but ultimately why does any of that matter?
Because the sound characteristics of the instruments helped pave the way for a new frontier, something that no other instruments had.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno Republic ➡️
If it hadn't have been those instruments, it would've been some others. It would be some other devices used in seminal tracks which would've seemed so magical. It's the music that made the sounds great, not the other way around.
Then why hasn't it happened? Why weren't the same kind of music being made before those instruments?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno Republic ➡️
Unless you really do listen just for the sounds, in which case the greatest recordings would be a 909 kick, dry, repeated for hours on end. Or the same note on a 303 with the filter tweaked. Or did I really just gave away the formula for the greatest musical opus ever?
Look you don't care about the 909? it does nothing for you? Then stop talking **** about it.
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #194
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by draven5 ➡️
But was I misinformed, you're saying that the Juno 60, 106, JX3P, JX8P, 808, 909 were not really popular and used in music until after they were out of fashion and electronic musicians picked them up when no one wanted them?
This mostly goes for the 808 and the 909. While those were indeed professional machines (the 606 and 303 weren't so much), the push was for realism - hence the preset names of several acoustic instruments in the Jupiters and Junos. Since the Linns were sample-based, they were closer to "real" drums than the x0x machines.

When the DX7 was released, you could buy Jupiter 8s for crazy low prices; musicians in bands wanted the DX because those were new sounds, and they didn't weigh a ton, and they stayed in tune; but the D50 and M1 trumped the DX again (which is why Yamaha had to come up with something good; the SY series are both backwards compatible but also offer sample-based synthesis).

Read http://www.mentby.com/Group/synth-di...internals.html

Quote:
On the last day of the show I finally got some time to go over to floor and at the Moog booth and I saw an ashen faced Herb Deutsch say to me "Craig, go over to the Yamaha booth". I went over and saw a sleek keyboard with velocity/pressure sensing and put on the headphones.....to my great surprise the six operator DX-7 synthesizer with the new algorithms and feedback added to the older GS-1/TRX FM was astounding. I asked how much...and the $1995 answer explained Herb's crestfallen demeanor. How would Moog compete with this?
And they weren't the only ones asking this question.

For the longest time people preferred the MKS80 or Jupiter 6 over a Jupiter 8 and a Juno-106 over a 60 because they had MIDI. 90s prices reflect this.

Quote:
I was under the impression those great Roland synths were used in their present day, by some of the most famous bands of all time during that time. You're saying they became great when they hit cult status afterward?
Yes they were; but you can discern several periods in the 80s. After the JP, FM synthesis; after that, the samplers (Fairlights, Emulator).

"Cult status" is not any good for a company unless they're releasing something new and want to cash in on image. The Jupiter 8s are relatively rare (3000 or so made) and they were quite pricey. You could pick 'm up for a ridiculous low price after the DX hit the scene, and they remained quite affordable (for what they are) during the 90s. Thing is, the price increase right now is not doing Roland any good; they sold 303s for $395 in 1980s money, but the fact that you have to pay $1500 for a good one in today's money doesn't give 'm a cent.
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #195
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Wow

Possibly the best post ever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno Republic ➡️
Roland never made money off of this "strong following" though. These instruments only reached cult status years after they were off the market and people bought them used (and a big part of *why* they were used is that, for a few years at the end of the 80s, they could be had for nearly nothing).

Roland doesn't make anything off of the second-hand market. They have never and still do not "get" underground (or even mainstream) electronic music. Their primary market has always been and remains the middle-of-the-road musician who needs products with the right features and value: more sounds, more polyphony, more presets, and at the right price. That simply doesn't happen with analog anymore.

I don't know where people get the idea that Roland planned their gear to be used for edgy electronic music, or that it was immediately popular for that purpose. The TR-909 certainly would not have been such a flop if that had been the case. But consider this: if it hadn't been a flop, it would never have been so cheap and unwanted that poor musicians could pick them up for almost nothing, and perhaps something like the HR-16 would be the ultra-desired, used-on-ever-single-record, ultra coveted "because it's got SOUL!" drum machine.

Seems some people have it backwards: These instruments didn't become coveted because millions rushed out to buy them when they came out. They became popular because there was a point when nobody wanted them, and poor -- but adventurous -- musicians picked them up and made great records with them. Those same musicians could've made great records with other gear too. The old Roland stuff just happened to be unfashionable at the time. If you think the secret to making great music is all about having the right gear, you need to give up on music.
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #196
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaveItAll ➡️
Wow

Possibly the best post ever.
must be a world of wonders down there when sad internet clichees repeated on and on just because on bad artical in a magazin, give the best post ever


Just to explain why your wow artoicle is plain bull from somebody that cant possible be arround back than..


Roland hasnt produced jst the 303 and the 909.. to reduce the company to this to machines in the cause of the entire 80´s is entirely stupid..

its true that theese 2 big later cults was flops on release..

but..

allö the others wasnt flops and cults ffrom the start..

the juno 60 was a big success from the startz.. the jupiter8 was a status symbol from the start.. as the big selling 808 was too.

Roland Samplers and FX units was hot.. evrybody had an octapad.. The R8 was hot..aso aso..

Its also not true that Roland/Boss didnt had benefits from the second spring of their earlier machines.. But the phenomen of this second spring needs explanation..

IMO its utterly stupid and ignorant to call this acidental.. they key design concepts was responsible for that.. not that the gear was cheap..
A minimoog was cheap too at this time.. SCI Samplers and synths was cheap too..akai synths and samplers too.. except the top of the line units.… in the early 90´s a 909 was not cheaper than a s-900.. just way cheaper as new..

Anyway.. believe in accidents if you want.. roland the lucky accident company
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #197
Lives for gear
 
volumetrik's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaveItAll ➡️
Wow

Possibly the best post ever.
Why? Most of it is off the mark

And btw what can you say on the topic anyway?
Old 30th January 2013
  #198
Lives for gear
 
dlmorley's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Another thing to give Roland credit for is their Guitar Synthesizer work. Very forward thinking there and they stuck with it. The GR500 was pretty tricky to play but the GR300/G-808 etc and the G-88 bass version are still great and very playable instruments.
Old 30th January 2013
  #199
Lives for gear
 
spaceman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Bruno Republic sums it up perfectly.

No one is saying Roland wasn't succesfull , they were. But so were Korg, and Yamaha, and Akai, and Ensoniq, Emu ( people forget how ubiquitous their samplers were, especially the Emax ), and others to a lesser extent.

Their S-700 line of samplers were famous, and pretty much the standard for many film composers at that time. Eric Persing's ( now behind Spectrasonics) orchestral library for the S700's were amazing. I've translated mine in Exs24 format, and still use them sometimes, despite having new libraries like VSL etc..

It's just that some of that stuff ( the xOx , Tb's, MC's etc..) were not necessarely vastly more succesful than Yamaha's drum machines, or LinnDrums, and others.

They only later achieved this "mythological" status they have today because of their misuse by the early acid house movements.
Old 30th January 2013
  #200
Lives for gear
 
volumetrik's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
How do people know that it wasn't a hit at the time? For all we know all 10,000 909s were sold
... Does that mean it wasn't selling? haha
Old 30th January 2013
  #201
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Roland Juno range back in the day was a real breakthrough (like korgs polysix and poly 61) These were very popular because they were considered budget synths and affordable to none professional musicians.... I know first hand because i was there and bought a none midi poly 61 over a juno 6 because it offered me memories. To put things into context. Juno 6 cost about £700,60 about £1000, Polysix £1200, 61 about £900...... Jupiter 8 at that time 82/83 was £4000, OBX-A £4000, Prophet 5 £3500... Big difference. I read somewhere that when roland produced jupiter 8 it was to compete with Oberheim and Prophet 5 and aimed directly at professional name bands. SCI later released prophet 600 to compete with roland and korg,oberheim did the same with matrix 6 and roland even released there budget version of a jupiter called the 6 at half the price of the 8. DX-7 did massive damage as mentioned. In the period of Dx-7, D-50 and M-1 onwards analogue was finished and could be picked up very cheap.
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #202
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by volumetrik ➡️
Then why hasn't it happened? Why weren't the same kind of music being made before those instruments?
.
It was just a combination of things that made that music appear at that time - the choice of instrument was incidental. You could ask the same about any form of art - a bunch of things happen, a group of people get together and suddenly there's a new artform.
The guys making it didn't have much money so they bought the cheap stuff they could find in pawn shops. Read interviews with them, they all say pretty much the same thing - those 'legendary' instruments were all they could afford. You didn't see bands on TV with 909s, 808s you saw them with Linndrums.
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #203
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by volumetrik ➡️
How do people know that it wasn't a hit at the time? For all we know all 10,000 909s were sold
... Does that mean it wasn't selling? haha
909's were a flop.....they cost nearly £1000 on release.... I bought one new for £360 less than a year after it's release because they were not selling and i believe shortly after that roland stopped them to move over to 100% sample based machines.
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #204
Lives for gear
 
volumetrik's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveman ➡️
Read interviews with them, they all say pretty much the same thing - those 'legendary' instruments were all they could afford. You didn't see bands on TV with 909s, 808s you saw them with Linndrums.
fair enough, but its more likely because of the way these instruments sounded the kind of music was created, you couldn't do it with a Roland CR-78...don't try to deny that the sound of it all didn't play a part in it
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #205
Lives for gear
 
xanax's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by volumetrik ➡️
Yeah but are saying these things are failures in 2013? You sound like because these instruments were not popular at the time and now the most sought after and have a whole community behind them Roland still shouldn't make them just because they were never intended for edm.
why do people keep jumping to the wrong conclusions..
i've spent many thousands on vintage roland gear in the last few years. as a matter of fact i just dropped couple more bills last week. like 80% of my gear is vintage roland so how on earth could you perceive my comments as me saying those units are failures in 2013? i was of course speaking of back then. of course it would make sense to me for roland to re-issue those classics but my whole point is that Roland have a different vision. they are always looking ahead, you know like they use to say "we want you to understand the future" but the only problem is roland are perhaps not very good at understanding..the present! but the fact that so many current producers are still using and coveting classic roland units is definitely an assessment that roland did indeed see the future some 30 years ago.. yet part me believes they didn't actually understand the present back then either, hence my lucky accident theory.. and by lucky i do not mean they were putting random stuff or that they didn't know what they were doing.. i mean that on a business perspective their choices didn't make a lot of sense which explains the commercial failures but which indirectly turned out to be a blessing in disguise..

it's no secret that the japanese synthesizers were budget versions of expensive modulars, moogs & sequential circuits which were ruling the top end pro market. roland who had experience in drum machines or rhythm machines as they use to call them were experimenting with early use of micro-processor technology and ram inside the CR-78 and MC-8.. which led to the ground breaking TR-808 and roll of x0x units with the band in a box concept. Problem was a guy called Roger Linn came along and pretty much made the x0x machines obsolete with his LM-1 with features like real-time recording, quantize settings, swing percent and last but not least digital samples. the guy was so good, Japanese competitor Akai bought him up and they made history together with the MPC line. Rolands step sequencers of the old became obsolete overnight. again similar happened when Yamaha pulled out the cheap yet realistic sounding DX7 and nearly put out of business the whole industry including the Americans.. Roland could have abandoned it's then obsolete step sequencing method and analog synthesis, but thankfully they decided to pursue it which enables the now ubiquitous 303/606/909 where they put all of their finest ideas and engineering in a uphand battle for synth/drum machine market.. and where Akai&Linn indirectly gave hip-hop their instrument, Roland some years later gave techno and house a voice of expression. there is no doubt in my mind that without those boxes from Akai & Roland, the music scene would have evolved a radically different way. so in a sense they are responsible for the future of music evolution but it wasn't necessarily planned that way... you could even see it as stubbornness or refusal to adapt.. either way i think it explains why to this day they are not moving in the way general consensus expects them to, only problem is i highly doubt jupiter-80, juno-G or even Gaia will be future classics in some 10,20,30 years..

anyways for more insight on Rolands history and philosophy..this book should probably be read:
Old 30th January 2013
  #206
Lives for gear
 
volumetrik's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
nice post xanax, my bad for the misinterpretation
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #207
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryankraft ➡️
Roland Juno range back in the day was a real breakthrough (like korgs polysix and poly 61) These were very popular because they were considered budget synths and affordable to none professional musicians.... I know first hand because i was there and bought a none midi poly 61 over a juno 6 because it offered me memories. To put things into context. Juno 6 cost about £700,60 about £1000, Polysix £1200, 61 about £900...... Jupiter 8 at that time 82/83 was £4000, OBX-A £4000, Prophet 5 £3500... Big difference. I read somewhere that when roland produced jupiter 8 it was to compete with Oberheim and Prophet 5 and aimed directly at professional name bands. SCI later released prophet 600 to compete with roland and korg,oberheim did the same with matrix 6 and roland even released there budget version of a jupiter called the 6 at half the price of the 8. DX-7 did massive damage as mentioned. In the period of Dx-7, D-50 and M-1 onwards analogue was finished and could be picked up very cheap.
now thats some acurate info and no dull "missusefd equipment" tales from the to late born ones....

Beside that nobody has told you about the inter dimensonal Roland contractor theory yet ..we better safe that for a later time
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #208
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by xanax ➡️
i'm pretty sure all the manuals were the same poorly translated mess.. they are amusing none the less and my point was simply that the examples they gave were indeed to emulate real life instruments:
The manual for the korg mono/poly has patch examples for 'real instruments' like flutes etc, however, it is absolutely not a machine designed for synthesizing "real instruments."

Manufacturers just didn't proved example patches for "cosmic woosh" of bleep bloop so much (
maybe 'sync lead').
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #209
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Who was the biggest band in Japan around the time of Roland's golden era circa the release of the 808, 909, 303 etc?

It was Yello Magic Orchestra.

So who do you think roland synth engineers were listening to? YMO and likely much weirder electronic stuff. The idea that the people designing the instruments were somehow removed from the contemporary electronic music culture in Japan and instead were trying to make "real instrument sound emulators" when designing the x0x series gear is a bit absurd. Psychedelic blip boom tschick weeblely stuff was the order of the day.

Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #210
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegreengold ➡️
Who was the biggest band in Japan around the time of Roland's golden era circa the release of the 808, 909, 303 etc?

It was Yello Magic Orchestra.
YMO were certainly popular, but I'm not sure they were "the biggest band in Japan" during that era. I have to wonder if their popularity in their own country is overestimated by outsiders, much like Kraftwerk.

Anyway. Yes, YMO bought tons of gear -- basically, anything they could get their hands on -- but they were still only one customer. Roland aimed most of their products at the general music market.

Oh, and I certainly don't hear 909 or 303 on *any* YMO records, not counting remixes done years after the original recordings.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 70 views: 34350
Avatar for Deleted 859c1b8
Deleted 859c1b8 24th June 2016
replies: 64 views: 14606
Avatar for Don Solaris
Don Solaris 25th September 2015
replies: 6761 views: 806020
Avatar for Sextuor
Sextuor 24th November 2020
replies: 9460 views: 856755
Avatar for Percivale
Percivale 4 weeks ago
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump