Roland for Pianos and Korg for Organs

[Greg Mein]

Is this some outdated, misguided impression that somehow got into my head or is/was there some basis in truth for this idea I seem to have?

[AnotherScott]

Subjective, and I doubt there's much consensus.

 

Piano:

Korg (Kronos, Grandstage, Vox Continental) have the biggest sample sets (no looping, lots of velocity layers)

Roland (RD-2000/ Fantom) has fully modeled piano; numerous other Rolands have SuperNATURAL hybrid sampled/modeled pianos.

So each company has a claim to having the the most sophisticated piano tech in the field. Yet you'll find people who prefer the sound of a Kawai, Nord, or Yamaha to either of them. Personally, I'd probably take models from all three of them over Korg or Roland. The "best" tech isn't always what best suits my ears/fingers.

 

Organ:

Korg's best is Kronos, Roland's best is VR-09/VR-730, I'm not sure there's a clear winner between those, but I think most would say both lag Nord and some other more dedicated clonewheels.

 

[allan_evett]

That combination can work well, but there are a great many choices available now; lots of tasty variations abound. Roland is very popular for piano tones, but many also choose Yamaha. Korg, Nord, Kawai, and Kurzweil also have a large fan base. And Casio has certainly come to the forefront over the past decade. Their latest effort in stage pianos, the PX-S1000 and PX-S3000 models, are highly playable and expressive.

 

'Clonewheel' instruments are the most popular format for recreating the tonewheel organ sound. Korg has had a couple of versions of that, but currently the only full, tonewheel model they provide is within the Kronos line of keyboards. Kurzweil offers something similar, along with Roland. For dedicated, organ keyboards Hammond and Nord are very popular, along with Crumar (Mojo) and Studiologic (Numa Organ).

[Outkaster]

Yamaha for pianos hands down. The Korg and Roland stuff is OK but if I had my choice it wouldn't be one of them although I love the Kronos.

[montunoman]

I seldom see pianists that play digital pianos in public using Korg.

[Song80s]

Kronos is excellent with Acoustic Pianos.

 

Want a Steinway ? Check

 

Want a Yamaha ? Check

 

Want a Fazioli ? Check

 

Want a Bosey ? Check

 

And I see and hear numerous pianists using Kronos A/P's

[Outkaster]

Greg I kind of wish my Kronos was 88 keys. My CP88 and Forte is though.

[Song80s]

Greg I kind of wish my Kronos was 88 keys. My CP88 and Forte is though.

 

there are many great keyboards. Almost all of them, all sound categories , range from very good to excellent.

 

And its almost scary that there will be further improvement in the next year and 2021.

[montunoman]

Want a Steinway ? Check

 

Want a Yamaha ? Check

 

Want a Fazioli ? Check

 

Want a Bosey ? Check

 

And I see and hear numerous pianists using Kronos A/P's

 

I didn"t say they don"t sound good. Maybe a Kronos has too many bells and whistles for your average pianist.

 

[ChiefDanG]

Is this some outdated, misguided impression that somehow got into my head or is/was there some basis in truth for this idea I seem to have?

 

 

Sorry, Greg, but this IS some outdated, misguided impression.

Maybe true around 1985 or so.

[CEB]

Pianos. Kawaii and YoMammaHa.

 

Organs: Hammond, Anything else is just a clone.

[Dave Ferris]

If I have to play an electronic keyboard on a gig (sigh) , Yamaha is first choice for piano. Surprise.

 

The Roland RD 2000 -- while it felt and sounded good playing by itself, when I was in a "live in the studio" controlled environment, I had the same problems I've had with past Roland models. I wasn't hearing, or feeling it present enough within the soundscape of the group. Consequently, I was playing harder then I usually do and and was turning the volume up more to compensate. And it's then too loud. Basically I've given up on Roland.

 

The Korg Grandstage is a provided keyboard I've been playing for about a year now, subbing on a christian rock church gig. I think it works very well for a louder rock context. It's really clear in the onstage mix with guitar, bass, drums, and the singer plays violin at times. Out front through a fairly large sound system, it's very full and convincing. I prefer the Yamaha action but the Korg is playable. I wouldn't want to have to use it on a Jazz Trio/Quartet blowing gig though.

 

I don't play a lick of organ so can't help you there. I've always heard Korg synth tones and textures as sounding the best in louder rock situations. With Yamaha a fairly close second.

[Tom Williams]

Purely subjective. At this point in my life, I am repeatedly inspired by a Casio PX-5S piano and a Kurzweil PC3 KB3 organ (the latter in great part due to Bill's Leslie). They're both 5+ years old in their designs/engineering, and yet both are head and shoulders above anything I ever had in the previous 4 decades.

 

My current stuff is great. Even if there are things out there that are (somehow) objectively better, I'm not sure I care.

[J. Dan]

I think any flagship product from any of the major manufacturers is going to be adequate for a live band. Do some do certain things better than others? Sure, but not enough to justify bringing out a whole extra board just for one thing.

 

Now if you're strictly doing piano gigs, or strictly doing organ gigs, then there's probably a clear choice for one or the other. But if you need one board to cover everything, all of the flagships are good enough. Just pick the one that you like to work with the best in terms of layout, ergonomics, operating system, etc.

[Outkaster]

For me it's putting my best foot forward so for my Americana band I carry a CP88 and Hammond XK1C. For that music is makes sense. I am not a fan of one board for everything because it makes the gig kind of suck. I need to have options when I play.

[Synthoid]

I think any flagship product from any of the major manufacturers is going to be adequate for a live band. Do some do certain things better than others? Sure, but not enough to justify bringing out a whole extra board just for one thing.

 

Now if you're strictly doing piano gigs, or strictly doing organ gigs, then there's probably a clear choice for one or the other. But if you need one board to cover everything, all of the flagships are good enough. Just pick the one that you like to work with the best in terms of layout, ergonomics, operating system, etc.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

 

 

[AnotherScott]

I think any flagship product from any of the major manufacturers is going to be adequate for a live band. Do some do certain things better than others? Sure, but not enough to justify bringing out a whole extra board just for one thing.

 

Now if you're strictly doing piano gigs, or strictly doing organ gigs, then there's probably a clear choice for one or the other. But if you need one board to cover everything, all of the flagships are good enough. Just pick the one that you like to work with the best in terms of layout, ergonomics, operating system, etc.

We don't really know the context of the OP's question, I looked at it strictly literally, as an academic question (who makes best piano boards and who makes best organ boards), not as relating to a decision about which boards to bring to a gig, That said, you're right, there are lots of boards from a variety of companies that reasonably cover both sets of sounds, but I disagree about it not being worth bringing a second board... I think that, for a lot of players, regardless of piano+organ sounds that may indeed be perfectly adequate for a typical gig, it is still highly desirable to play piano from a hammer action and organ from a non. The single board piano/organ compromise can be at least as much about feel as sound. Though if your repertoire is such that your piano playing doesn't require a lot of finesse and/or your organ playing doesn't require a lot of organ-specific technique, sure, it's easier to get by with one, even if still probably less satisfying to play (and some actions do handle the compromise better than others).

[allan_evett]

I agree, Scott. The OP's context was vague, so I responded with a general overview of brand offerings.

 

Regarding digital pianos, I'm in Dave Ferris' camp on that. Yamaha would still be my first choice, though Roland SN is very enjoyable to play; there are some instances when I would choose Roland for piano. For organ I normally use the C2D engine in my Stage 3, 76. The Kronos 61 runs a close second to that; not as much for authenticity as for the way it cuts in a dense rock mix. I have a Hammond XM-1/1c in my studio space. It has a way of evoking the old wood, grit and dirt of an original tonewheel; not as authentic as an XK5, but it has a certain soul.

As an aside, the Stage 3 is likely the most practical stage keyboard I've owned. The piano engine is a chameleon; between the sample sets and velocity choices, plus EQ and effects options, it handily mimics my favorite Yamaha and Roland live piano tones. Also, the Lead A1 engine in it is a monster..

[AnotherScott]

IAs an aside, the Stage 3 is likely the most practical stage keyboard I've owned. The piano engine is a chameleon; between the sample sets and velocity choices, plus EQ and effects options, it handily mimics my favorite Yamaha and Roland live piano tones.

Interesting! I never tried making one piano sound more like another (though I have done that with other sounds). I'd be curious to know which Nord piano models and EQ settings you found to best approximate your Yamaha and Roland. Yamaha emulation, I assume, would likely be using a Yamaha based sample set in the Nord, but Roland SN is supposedly a kind of amalgam, so it would be harder to guess at which Nord sample would provide the best foundation for that Roland character.

 

[Bill H.]

Is this some outdated, misguided impression that somehow got into my head or is/was there some basis in truth for this idea I seem to have?

 

I'm not sure this was ever true for pianos. Even 20 years ago (my second wind in bands) stage pianos of choice were usually Yamahas (P-200, P-250, etc). When the Motif was introduced, it was regarded by many as having the best piano you could get in a workstation. CX3? Maybe that's where Korg enters the picture for organs if you're looking back in time.

 

Nowadays a common discussion is whether you should just do it all on a Nord. Or not.

 

[Kevin Sage]

As stated....subjective. If it sounds good to you and the work flow is comfortable for you, then that's all that matters.

[Greg Mein]

Is this some outdated, misguided impression that somehow got into my head or is/was there some basis in truth for this idea I seem to have?

 

 

Sorry, Greg, but this IS some outdated, misguided impression.

Maybe true around 1985 or so.

 

Yes I'm certain it is. I've had a few of both over the years and I definitely felt it was true at least as late as the 90's and perhaps into the 2000's but I've always had the "kitchen sink" models if you will. The keyboards I was most recently using for band gigs are an FA-08 and a Krome 61 and overall I've found what I believe to be good organ and piano sounds on both. Since the Krome was just a 61 it sat on top and was typically used when I needed organ sound. I've actually been pretty happy with the Casio Privia PX-3, I think it has some great piano, organ and other sounds. It's the one my wife uses for our duo gigs and it gets massive bonus points for being so light weight.

 

I doubt that there's anything I'd ever find plugged into a wall outlet that would sound as good as our 1920 Steinway Model O and I don't have a Hammond for organ comparisons. I'm thinking that with the improvements in memory size and technology most keyboards you can buy these days have some great sound.

[David Emm]

I've never made use of any workstation that didn't require the same kind of programming as a Prophet or the like. That includes early Korg M- & 0-series piano Combis. While its certainly an ongoing grail to get detailed release tails on acoustics, the new Fantom offers even the lid height parameter from the V-Piano. Its hard to ask for more customization than that. Even if the base engine has decent presence, its still a given that you'll need to shape it to "fit the room."

 

For organs, its a lot simpler because they share a lot of sonic territory with synths. You can build several very capable organs within a synth far more easily than you can recreate an acoustic piano. That's not necessarily a stand-out virtue, but its a lot less challenging than giving your piano section the same kind of muscle as the full swell pipe organs.

 

My biggest issue with Rolands has simply been the generally sluggish weighted actions. The keys haven't snapped back readily if I wanted to do a trill. Pianist deal-breaker alert!