Sean M. H.

Agree...the business side ruins the spirit of...well, just about all the major sports. .... but I still think the quantity of threes attempted is largely just a math problem...or maybe more accurately: a simple risk vs. reward proposition. If I can get 50% more points for something that is no longer 50% more difficult*, it's a no-brainer...not to mention it's a lot easier on the body to jack up 3s than to drive to the basket or post up (to your point, it's a "business decision") * League shooting averages this year were 36.6% for 3-pointers vs 54.5% for 2-pointers ...contrast that with 30 years ago. For the '83-84 season (an era some would say was the golden era of the sport)...it was 25% for 3-pointers, vs 49.9% for 2-pointers. Mathematically, this was essentially a perfect scoring system-relative to the shooting efficiency! Improved shooting has just made it outdated/obsolete. And the only way to fix it is to somehow make the 3-pointer harder than it is (I don't think moving the line back even further makes much sense)...or, more radically, change the scoring system--say 3s & 5s instead of 2s & 3s (never gonna happen!...plus it ruins all historical reference for stats). As you can tell...I spend way more time thinking about this stuff than I probably should lol

Well...as far as we know--the referee scandal was one bad apple...same with Jontay if that goes the way it looks like it might. Now I'm not naive enough to think the problem is not more widespread than that... BUT I'm also not cynical enough to just assume the games are "fixed" based on a couple bad actors caught over the course of a couple decades. I will agree that the game has become too far skewed towards the 3-point shot though. It's simple math really! The idea of one shot being worth 50% more than another shot, implies the former shot is 50% more difficult than the latter. Now that players have evolved to the point that math no longer holds up, it makes the 3-pointer disproportionately more valuable. The only way to fix it is to make the shot more difficult--by moving it back or some other more creative method. My "outside the box" idea would be to simply make the ball ever so slightly larger--which would in theory make long-range shooting more difficult, and also reduce the palming/carrying that is now commonplace.

Funny...Based on your description, I'm 90% sure this is the same casino one of my bands played at a couple times last year. We decided our last time would be our LAST time there as well--for some of the same reasons I'm sure 😂

I have nothing to add, other than....like the others who've responded--I've never seen anything like that before! Someone mentioned the possibility of your case causing the damage...1) are you by chance using the same case with the Kurzweil that you were using with the old Alesis board?...2) are the damaged keys around the same area/range on both the Kurz and the Alesis

Also: Built-in ribbon controller Internal Power Supply (Maybe?... probably?) Different action ...but yeah...as I said in the other thread about these boards: so far it seems like this it fills a gap (between the PC4 and the K2700) that wasn't large enough to need filling in the first place IMO. But who knows...maybe the Kurz folks still have some surprises in store for us with these models...or maybe the pricing will make it all make sense

Just curious...what do you mean by the "same gig"? He's doing a medley of many of the biggest hits he's had throughout his career here, no? That's exactly the type of gig I expect from someone who's a bit "long in the tooth"--or at least past the peak of their commercial success/popularity. Can you elaborate?

Hmmmm...honestly, greatly improved pianos is not the type of update that seems likely for a board like the Roland IMO. There are some boards, like the Nords for instance where the sample content is designed to be loaded in and out as needed...and new sounds/samples are added regularly. But I don't think the Fantom 0 is that type of board. Hope I'm wrong though (I have a Fantom 07) Regarding your desire to have less sounds, but of higher quality... I'd say this is kinda the opposite of what the Fantom-0 is honestly. Having had both the FA and now the Fantom-0...they offer sort of a "best of" some of the older Roland Boards. There are TONS of sounds, many somewhat redundant (with similar names, maybe just different effects, filter settings, etc). But I wouldn't call any particular category of sounds on the Fantom-0 as "standout" or "top-tier" really...they are "better" than the FA, but not in a different class IMO. Obviously YMMV As far as ease of use, like nursers said above, it's certainly subjective...I do think the architecture, layout, and naming conventions of the Fantom-0 are generally more straightforward than my MODX8...but...the Fantom has some quirks too (as the FA did).

What was interesting to me is that Adam Blackstone (to Justin's left, our right) is on synth for this particular gig. Blackstone--who has become one of those "it" MDs and band leaders, getting the call for everything from Superbowl halftime to award shows--is normally on bass when I see him. I've seen him play synth bass before of course, but here I think he's just on regular synth duties, cause theres another guy (stage right) playing bass. Haven't watched the whole thing closely enough to verify yet though. There's also another keys player in the back playing a stack. On some songs, couldn't really tell which keyboard (Justin's or the other guy) I was hearing. Again, haven't watched the whole performance yet though--and haven't listened through high quality speakers/phones either.

No, I don't think it's a dumb idea at all--now that I understand what you're going for. By everything you've described, this SHOULD work! The software (Reaper) supports multiple outputs...The Focusrite interface has 4 outputs...the mixer has enough inputs... So sounds like what you basically are doing is "submixing"...so that you maintain some control over your sounds and can adjust levels prior to going to FOH/soundman? Again, no reason this shouldn't work with the stuff you already have. Everything is just pointing to a software setting/routing option. I don't know Reaper well enough to offer specific advice though. Could you still hear track 3 when the song was playing, even though the knob didn't do anything?...and if so, was track 3 affected by knobs 1 or 2? If the answers are yes, then that even further points to there just not being a 3rd output activated and routed correctly within the software. One thing to keep in mind (not sure it's been mentioned)... typically, these interface also have their own software/app that allows you to route its inputs and outputs. So even if you have Reaper setup such that track 3 is going to an output called "Focusrite Out 3" for instance...you might still need to go into the Focusrite software and make sure that "Focusrite Out 3" is actually routed to the 3rd physical output on your interface. Think the Focusrite app is called MixControl or something like that (been a while since I had mine)

What mixer are you using? But more importantly...What exactly do you mean by "control" the tracks? If you're routing the tracks to an analog mixer, then the most you could do would be to adjust the levels/gain and apply whatever EQ is built into the mixer*...but to be clear, you're not really "controlling" the tracks (i.e....you won't see the knob or fader on the software moving). ...when someone says "control," I tend to assume they mean using hardware to adjust the various parameters and sounds of the computer software...if this is what you're trying to do, the right tool for the job is a MIDI control surface...not a "mixer". I don't think the Focusrite is the problem here...unless I'm totally misunderstanding what you're trying to accomplish. *Note...sending audio tracks out through your interface, to an analog mixer, is in fact a "thing"...but it's typically done in professional studios, where the mixer in question costs as much as a house, and adds something special to the sound...or in live settings, where you are sending individual tracks/stems to FOH...but again, I'm not sure if that's what you're ultimately trying to accomplish.

Very true. I struggle with that sometimes as well. Both in 1) writing, as well as 2) performing/covers. In writing, as you said, every song doesn't require sophisticated chord voicings or hip progressions (or, to keep it on topic, playing "outside")--in fact, one could argue that the most popular/effective songs are overtly simple in that regard... As far as performing other people's material, I have to remind myself, not every major chord is a major 7th or major 9th!!! Sticking those types of chords where they don't belong (or playing too far outside, too often) is at the very least inaccurate to the original--and in the worst cases can downright ruin the vibe of a song.

That was my first thought when I saw the first teaser videos about the superknob years ago..."cool, but I'm pretty sure Kurzweils have been capable of that for a long time"... not to say it isn't a great feature, or that Yamaha's implementation is better or worse--just interesting how much they hyped it, as if it was something unheard of.

Believe I said something similar earlier in the thread...but now that we have an official page with some specs... This still seems like a pretty tight gap they are trying to fill here...I mean, whether you look at this board as 1) a K2700 with less memory, no audio interface, and new keybed/size options...or 2) a PC4 with an onboard ribbon and internal power supply...either way, seems strange to have 3 boards in the market with so much overlap. ...unless this is just the first step in a broader strategy for them--say if they were to make a new Forte, or discontinue the PC4 (kinda doubtful, since I think it's done pretty well and is still getting regular OS updates)

There's a thread about the new boards here: The thread name mentions the 61 model, but I believe the 88 was discussed quite a bit as well.

As someone who has (clearly) never played the style, I'll ask what's probably a silly question... isn't what Gershwin is doing here fairly typical stride piano*? Or does this stand out as exceptional even amongst that style? *Albeit maybe ahead of its time by a decade or two...