Korg VS Roland

[Gotenks]

Ok, Korg and Roland are the most important Keys manufacturers...

Come here and say what is better.. I need explanations!!!

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by Gotenks:

Ok, Korg and Roland are the most important Keys manufacturers...

 

What makes you come to this conclusion? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/confused.gif

 

Why are they any less important than, say, Yamaha, which is a much bigger company than either of them? Or Kurzweil, whose synths have engines that put anything made to shame?

 

dB

[steadyb]

...or Alesis, who had the best selling 88 note keyboard for 2-3 years in a row in the QS8, and a 16 voice real analog synth for 3 grand (which NO ONE else was able to do), ...or EMU with it's great samplers and modules, ...or AKAI's MPC series, etc. There have been lots of keyboard and synth sales, not to mention record sales, and hit songs, done from all of the above manufacturers, as well as the ones Dave mentioned.

 

Roland is McDonalds, and Korg is Taco Bell. Just 'cause the advertise everywhere and sell lots of burgers or tacos, doesn't make 'em good or important.

 

Hobbyists are Roland and Korg's bread and butter. The serious professional uses a wide variety of the mentioned companies products, and then some. Sure, every now and then, you send someone to grab some Mc D's or make a run for the border, but you aren't going to eat there every day if you want to stay healthy.

[meccajay]

Damn SteadyB, You put that one 'in the pocket'

[Organ Doctor]

I am a Yamaha and Roland Servicer, so I see a lot of these keyboards. I also see Korgs, some of which are really Yamahas. Pros who bang on these every night bring them in for overhuals every year or two depending on mileage.They like them, keep playing them, and keep fixing them. This must say something.I guess in the end you like it, it doesn't let you down, you keep it.

[sbrock1san.rr.com]

steadyb- come on, professionals tend to favor Korg and Roland much more than Alesis or Emu. The Q-series is good, but not compared to an S80, Triton, or VX-5080.

 

No one synth manufacturer is dominant these days, they all seem to have their niches.

[steadyb]

I'm sure Alesis, Kurzweil, Akai, and Emu servicers could say exactly the same thing. ...And Peavey for that matter. Look what the top artists are playing... watch the Tonight Show, Late Night, Conan, etc. I see lot's of Kurzweil, Peavey, and Yamaha keyboards being used. And Emu's samplers have been a favorite of film composers for years because of their great filters and sound.

If music's just a hobby, Roland and Korg seem to provide a mind numbing variety of mediocre products that allow the hobbyist to do their one stop shopping without having to think much or investigate what else might be out there.

 

The problem I have with the "all Roland" and "all Korg" types is that no matter how much Roland or Korg gear they have their music still ends up sounding like a great big Roland or Korg demo song.

 

Would you make a soup with only 15 varieties of carrots, and nothing else???

On the other hand, carrots certainly have there place in a great soup or stew with all the other essential ingredients. Just like a great song or composition.

[stratusloop]

I agree with SteveRB...today's market allows for diversification and the advent of increased competition create situations where the end product gets harder and harder to tell what the quality of equipment is being utilized....many "artists" today use Roland, Yamaha, etc...there's no standard like the old days....like Dave said check out Kurzweil....if you want the "best" then take a look at the K2600.....that's a machine!

[sbrock1san.rr.com]

You mentioned seeing Kurzweil, Yamaha and Peavey, but that's not Alesis. Pick up any Keyboard or Sound on Sound magazine and see what the pros are using. Roland and Korg are as common as anything else. They aren't just for hobbiests.

[steadyb]

Originally posted by SteveRB:

steadyb- come on, professionals tend to favor Korg and Roland much more than Alesis or Emu. The Q-series is good, but not compared to an S80, Triton, or VX-5080.

 

 

That is simply not true. I work on TV and film projects regularly, as well as song and album projects, and the only "essential" Roland piece I see is the JV-1080 or 2080, along with Emu E4, Akai MPCxx, Alesis QS8, not to mention another studio staple the K2500/K2600 in any of it's many forms.

The professionals I work with don't particularly like the Korg sound, but have a JV-2080, like I mentioned. I did really like my Korg T1, but haven't been blown away by anything since.

 

Korg and Roland make literally hundreds of different products, yet you can count the one's that pro's regularly use on one hand.

[MusicWorkz]

Music equipment is no different than cars. My friend prefers M-B, I love BMW. Both have merits, but he is luxury over performance, I am the opposite. I am admittedly biased for Roland since my early days (I still have my Juno-6 and MC-202, among other things). He likes Korg. I can't say why, I just prefer the Roland "sound". I have felt that Roland gear was much more user friendly to ME. Roland has always made innovative gear that appealed to my sensibilities.

 

That said, if you look in my studio you will find a lot of different stuff-Roland, Yamaha, Ensoniq, Casio, Akai, and Korg. Even with a preference, I realize one manufacturer will not meet everyone of my needs. Both Korg, Roland and Yamaha (to a lesser extent recently) have been effective in their marketing over the years. More marketing=more sales=more marketing dollars to spend.

 

Everyone has their secret potions and weapons that work for them. As long as the music is good in the end, I wouldn't care if you used spoons and a washboard or the latest next-best-thing on the market....

[steadyb]

Originally posted by MusicWorkz:

That said, if you look in my studio you will find a lot of different stuff-Roland, Yamaha, Ensoniq, Casio, Akai, and Korg. Even with a preference, I realize one manufacturer will not meet everyone of my needs.

 

I agree.

I have in my studio Alesis, Apple, ART, Emagic, Fostex, Kurzweil, MOTU, Roland, Sonic Foundry, Sonorus, Steinberg, and Yamaha. Finances permitting, I'd like to add a Korg.

Just trying to make a good stew.

 

steadyb

[Gotenks]

Thanx for your help... somebody says that roland is better than korg and others (NOT KURZWEIL) for piano sounds...

Why korg, that is able to create incredible sounds, is unable to create a decent piano sound?

Why a keyboard like the sp100, digital piano (from Korg), has a piano sound that is a real shit? Do you think about commercial agrees???

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by SteveRB:

steadyb- come on, professionals tend to favor Korg and Roland much more than Alesis or Emu.

 

Really? Tell that to Keith Emerson, Suzanne Ciani, Leon Russell, Oscar Peterson, and a variety of others using QS synths. Also, I'd be willing to bet you'll find one whole heck of a lot more Akai and Emu samplers out there than anything else.

 

I agree with steadyb...McDonalds and Taco Bell.

 

Besides, what was the last innovative synth that Roland came up with? Pretty much everything that they've put out in the last 15 years has basically been bigger, nastier D50's...each one adding a few more bells and whistles, but they're still basically the same thing. Sure, Korg keeps putting out improved M1's as well, but then they make things like the Prophecy and the Z1 - what has Roland done like that? Where do they stretch the boundaries? The JP8000 is the only recent Roland keyboard that comes to my mind that wasn't a D50 on steroids. Am I missing something?

 

dB

[Rod S]

Well, Roland seems to want to refine the 'bread and butter' sound synths, which I think is a valid approach. A lot of people just want a set of high quality sounds without anything extravagant.

 

I'm not sure I would call a Triton and a 5080 mediocre, but to each his own.

 

I think the only 'truth' is diversification as far as synths. I have equipment from emu, kurzweil, yamaha and alesis, and would hate to have all of my equipment be from any one of these companies (OK, maybe if I had a kurz k2600 and large sample library http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif)

[SlopHappy]

Man, you guys are obsessing on shit that doesn't even matter...

 

It's all about making music, not what keyboard is the best. If you're really serious about this, let's at least see some real sales statistics, broken down into the relevant demographics. As usual, good science will show the way. Back it up with facts. How many touring and/or recording professionals are really using what? How many home hobbyists are buying QS8's? Let's see some REAL STATISTICS on the subject.

 

Whatever you prefer is just whatever you prefer. It's always the same shit in the same paper sack folks, you just re-label the argument/sack whatever you want. Ford or Chevy? Gore or Bush? Korg or Roland? Who cares? I'm biased and so are you. Personally speaking, there's nothing that anyone can say to make me not realize that buying that K2500XS in 1996 for $7700 was the worst keyboard purchasing decision I've EVER made.

 

If you're reasonable, you will realize every keyboard has it's strengths and it's weaknesses. But...I also say you guys are doing all us/the non-professionals an extreme disservice saying that we need all that equipment from all those different manufacturers to make decent music. Bullshit. In this day and age of computers and recording that simple is NOT true. And I read more and more film composers in Keyboard mag doing more with less. Gigastudio anyone? If you need 4 keyboards and 12 rack modules to make decent music, then you just can't play. Plain and simple. All Jordan Rudess needs is just one keyboard to make us all look like Homer Simpson scratching his ass. I just used him as an example. There are many others...

 

Did Bach need all that equipment? Chopin? Rachmaninov? Deaf Beethoven's music is still being heard till this day, and indeed will continue to be as long as humans can survive themselves/fate here. How long do you think your music will stay relevant? You guys take this shit way too serious. Even the most beloved classical peices are repetitive. Guess what? So is everything else! People complain about Roland and Kurzweil handing out the same old garbage, while others complain that they can't use their Trinity upgrades in their new Triton. For everything there is, there's a group pissed off about it...and they act like it's the end of world or something!

 

That's really the bottom line isn't it?

 

We are an angry, bitchy lot. All of us.

 

 

SlopHappy

[steadyb]

Originally posted by SlopHappy:

If you need 4 keyboards and 12 rack modules to make decent music, then you just can't play. Plain and simple. All Jordan Rudess needs is just one keyboard to make us all look like Homer Simpson scratching his ass.

 

No one is equating having 4 keyboards and 12 rack modules with being able to play. on the other hand, having monster chops doesn't mean you can make decent music...it means you have monster chops.

 

The point regarding using gear from just one company is this...every manufacturer's gear has a "sound", and each company's "sound" is different. By mixing gear from different companies, your music will sonically have more depth, because each company's synths sound like they're coming at you from a different place. Some sound very up front, others more far away, and others more spread out. It's all of these different depths of field, along with the different color you get from each one, that helps you reach a more 3 dimentional sound, that's all.

 

steadyb

[SlopHappy]

Well I propose that %99 of keyboard players do NOT use the full potiential of any one instrument they posses. I'm not talking about polyphony either. Are you saying that Mike Martin's Identity Crisis is flawed because he only used one instrument? He used samples so I think that renders your point meaningless. A computer would obliviate the point. Maybe you don't feel his music is "superior" music, but there is no such thing. That's a totally subjective opinion...it would be like saying I like apples better than grapes. So what? That doesn't make your choice "wrong." It's just a preference. People saying their opinion is the "only truth" is the preference I have a problem with.

 

I did not say monster chops made good music either. You assumed that was the totality of my statement. Beethoven and others wrote/played music that has been adored for centuries that were neither complex nor fast. Fur Elise, Anna Magdelena's Notebook, Moonlight Sonata movement 1, etc... There are many other examples. None of these required 4 synthesizers, or even electricity.

[steadyb]

Originally posted by SlopHappy:

Well I propose that %99 of keyboard players do NOT use the full potiential of any one instrument they posses.

 

Why would you "propose" that??? And what if only 95% of keyboard players take you up on your proposal to NOT use the full potential of their keyboard??? What should we do about the 4% who refuse???

 

Are you saying that Mike Martin's Identity Crisis is flawed because he only used one instrument?

 

I never heard it, but based on Mike's reputation here I'm sure it was excellent.

 

He used samples so I think that renders your point meaningless.

 

No it doesn't. Different samplers have different sound. Emu, Akai, Roland, and Kurzweil.

 

A computer would obliviate the point.

 

Do you mean "obliterate"???

 

Maybe you don't feel his music is "superior" music, but there is no such thing.

 

I never mentioned his music, until this post, at which time I said it was probably excellent.

 

...it would be like saying I like apples better than grapes.

 

But do you like Apples better than PC's???

 

People saying their opinion is the "only truth" is the preference I have a problem with.

 

...and who said that???

 

 

I did not say monster chops made good music either. You assumed that was the totality of my statement.

 

True, but you did suggest using many synths to make decent music means you can't play. Dave Bryce had over 20 synths, and can still keep a room rockin' all night with just a piano. Try not to generalize.

 

Beethoven and others wrote/played music that has been adored for centuries that were neither complex nor fast. Fur Elise, Anna Magdelena's Notebook, Moonlight Sonata movement 1, etc... There are many other examples. None of these required 4 synthesizers, or even electricity.

 

..."Yesterday", "I Left My Heart in San Francisco", "Roll Over Beethoven", "God Only Knows"...no synths there either. But this is a keyboard forum, and we were talking about synths from different companies, not Fur Elise, so just try and stay with us. Thanks.

steadyb

[SlopHappy]

Do I have to explain everything in complete detail down to every minutia, and grammatically perfect, because you don't like what I'm saying? Ok, here's what I'm saying...

 

Samplers can sample anything. Your point suggests that ALL samplers are flawed, because no matter their capabilities, whether hardware or computer, that they cannot produce a realistic enough representation of their inputted signals. It will be "colored" and "one-dimensional" so as to be unusable. Well, I'm sorry friend, I just don't agree with that assertion. Samplers with digital/optical ins and outs, do not "color" the sound to THAT extent. If you combine one keyboard with one computer, which could also run plug-ins, you would instantly have access to multiple sound sources of differing types (FM synthesis, subtractive, additive, sample playback, virtual analog, etc etc etc). You can also use dsp functions within audio editors on the computer, and effects in both devices to further mangle the sounds. Using a multi-track DAW program, you could record all kinds of different things at different times...all of this with just two devices, not 4 keyboards and 12 rackmount modules. There is wealth of possibilities in this simple setup.

 

If you NEED 4 keyboards and 12 rackmount modules to make decent music, you simply cannot play. That's what I said. I didn't say POSSESSING those items made you unable to play as you suggest. Chopin only needed one piano. How is this not relevant? Any music can be played on an S80, Triton, or whatever other synth you prefer. It could be a string quartet, jazz trio, rock band, solo flute, B3 organ, etc etc etc.

 

If Chopin were here alive today, maybe he would prefer Roland? I don't know...but, he probably would have an opinion. But that's all it would be. You and/or I may not agree with his opinion. (He may not even like synthesizers.)

 

This is getting old...steadyb would you like to end this with us just agreeing that we disagree on these subjects?

 

SlopHappy

[Rod S]

Originally posted by SlopHappy:

If you NEED 4 keyboards and 12 rackmount modules to make decent music, you simply cannot play. That's what I said. I didn't say POSSESSING those items made you unable to play as you suggest. Chopin only needed one piano. How is this not relevant? Any music can be played on an S80, Triton, or whatever other synth you prefer. It could be a string quartet, jazz trio, rock band, solo flute, B3 organ, etc etc etc.

 

Simply cannot play what? What qualifies as decent music? Some styles of music will seem silly if all you had was a piano to play it on. Does that qualify it as bad music? If you try to emulate an orchestra, and need different samplers to be able to emulate all the instruments, are you making bad music?

 

I wouldn't play a solo piano piece on my cs6x if my life depended on it. It would sound like shit even if I was a freaking piano genius.

 

Talk to a lot of producers, he will prefer an AKAI for certain thing, a roland for others, and EMU for others, and maybe a kurz.

 

Have you seen JR interviews? The guy does a lot of programming on the kurz. If I choose not to learn to program the k2600 to its depth, but instead rather buy another module for tonal variety, that makes me a crappy player? No, maybe I don't wanna spend months learning to program it correctly. The guy probably goes through about 200 program changes during a 5 song concert. If you don't want to spend time creating the multiple setups, but instead carry 2-3 keyboards makes you a bad keyboard player?

 

You mention Mike's piece. I listened to it, and I love it. I wish I could play like that. Guess what? He works for kurzweil. He knows the instrument inside out. (Yes, he is an outstanding player) He knows the instrument so well that he was able to make his own sample CD with a piano sound with no multiple layers, only controlling the timbre variations by programming the kurz. Same argument as I was saying about JR.

 

You cannot judge someone's ability by equipment choice. I agree that some people put too much emphasis on equipment (I've actually been meaning to start a thread on this topic), but you're opinion is completely polarized. Each person has their own goal and vision of what their music should sound like.

[aeon]

>>A computer would obliviate the point.

 

>Do you mean "obliterate"???

 

I think he meant obviate. I also think we all know the difference among creativity, inspiration and more silicon - that said, lets talk gear! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

As it regards the original post, I think important and better are value judgements than only have meaning as it relates to the end-user and their intended use. You can ask for advice, read reviews and weigh anecdotal reports all day, but the only way to arrive at answers (and buy some keys) that work for you is to define what you need for your situation, list possible purchases and try them yourself.

 

I find pros tend to lean toward certain manufacturers, but I see that as a function of the style of music they are creating more than anything else. As others have said, every maker has its own sound, and a little diversity goes a long way in a mix.

 

The last time I bought a new Roland product it was a JD-800. I picked up a used JD-990 and then sold the JD-800 a couple of years ago. I never owned a Korg synth until this year when I bought an OASYS. I think the OASYS and JD-990 are great products for what I do, but they hardly define my personal studio. My current synth/effects hardware lineup makes use of equipment from Roland, Korg, Yamaha, Clavia, Waldorf, Access, E-mu, Lexicon, t.c. electronic and Sony. None are best. None are essential. All add something magical that I love.

[steadyb]

Well said.

[SlopHappy]

I never said there was anything wrong with owning equipment Rod. The point is it can be used as a crutch. That's all I meant. That doesn't make all owners of big rigs less talented. (Some must be though, because I read Tori Amos and other pros complain about it in Keyboard magazine...possibly statistically irrelevant.) The point was with a simple setup, and some talent, you can do a lot. Not everybody needs to score a film. But networking 3 karma's together with 3 motifs using all factory presets and arps, and hitting the middle C key...that's got to be a crutch! (Some folks are actually doing this with Karma's.) You know what I consider the biggest problem with the Karma? The stigma of ownership. Ya I know, I'm getting off topic, but it's got to be relevant somehow... Anyway,

 

A local sales guy here can play stuff I can only dream of with one keyboard any day of the week. And I'm not talking about chops. Sometimes I don't think it would matter which keyboard he played.

 

I just think there is too much emphasis on big rigs as necessary things. I strongly disagree with this, and obviously from your post you agree at least somewhat. With some projects, yes, it is necessary. I know that. But the gear lust thing is running wild. If you enjoy that, and can afford it, that's fine, I just don't think it's a necessary thing.

 

For the record, my playing sucks.

 

 

SlopHappy

[Bucktunes]

Nothing like the double-edged sword of technology to spark such a heated debate! I think of musical equipment kind of like a mechanic's tool collection; Certain jobs only require common hand tools, others demand state of the art computer diagnostics. It just depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

 

Or to put it in a more musical perspective; Keith Emerson has made some stunning music with nothing more than a piano. He also has composed equally stunning music that would require a truckload of keyboards to recreate live. Being better equipped means you're prepared for a wider variety of musical demands, but it doesn't mean you have to use every tool in the garage for every job. And a mature artist knows how much, or how little technology to apply to the music he/she is making.

 

I agree that over-using technology just because it's so easily accessable is a dangerous crutch. This particular battle has been raging since the early days of sequencers and drum machines, and probably goes back to the time when the pipe organ was new! I think it all comes down to knowing the difference between tools and toys.

 

Peace all,

Steve

[sbrock1san.rr.com]

Equating Korg and Roland to McDonalds and Taco Bell ? Maybe I'm hallucinating when I open up Keyboard magazine every month and see professional's studios with racks full of their modules. Maybe they all just have bad hearing and don't know any better. I agree that Roland hasn't come up with anything revolutionary, but very few manufacturers have. It doesn't mean much anyway, look at how much people will shell out for a used Oberheim or Moog....those aren't exactly cutting edge products.

 

Didn't I read that Dave B. is lusting after a Roland MKS-70....he must have a junk food craving. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

[mwisniewski]

Originally posted by SteveRB:

Equating Korg and Roland to McDonalds and Taco Bell ?

 

I guess that would make Steinway - Le Cirque or something, Steinways kinda look like steaks don't they? Mmmmmm, drool ....

 

This message has been edited by mwisniewski on 08-04-2001 at 02:30 PM

[steadyb]

Actually, Roland is McDonalds and Korg is Taco Bell...

[midispaceho]

McDonalds, Taco Bell, stew, carrots, apples, grapes...you all must be starving musicians are'nt you? I love gear. I lust after gear. I fantisize about gear. Dallas Austin's studio rig gave me an erection for a week when I got my July Keyboard. My chops suck. I have no intention of doing anything with my music besides please myself and have fun. Gear is gear and it is all good (except KARMA) in my opinion.

[Steve44]

I think it's funny that everybody pretty much agrees that there's no point in comparing or trying to get one to beat the other.. but that you still ran over a long argument anyway!

 

Plus, nobody seemed to notice that the guy who started this thread also wrote this:

Originally posted by Gotenks:

Thanx for your help... somebody says that roland is better than korg and others (NOT KURZWEIL) for piano sounds...

Why korg, that is able to create incredible sounds, is unable to create a decent piano sound?

Why a keyboard like the sp100, digital piano (from Korg), has a piano sound that is a real shit? Do you think about commercial agrees???

 

So here's the answer. Korg does have some crappy digital pianos. It is also fair to say that Korg's piano sounds have always been worse off than Roland's or Yamaha's or Kurzweil or even Alesis's. Who knows why Korg took forever to make a decent piano sound. Maybe it's because it's such a small company that they didn't have the resources to create the perfect digital piano. After all, Roland, Yamaha, Kurzweil and even Emu have been sampling pianos meticulously since the early 80's. Korg synths have always revolved around workstation models, and they've only recently gone into the digital piano arena. Now that they have, the quality of their piano samples has improved, but it's not on par with those of the toeher big guns.

 

The SP100 was a budget model 88 key piano. It is still the lowest price point digital piano that ever came out. But there are much better pieces out there, from Roland's RS9 and RD150 to Korg's own C1500.. but then it depends what kind of unit you're looking for.

 

 

I hope that clears some things up... but it's likely to just stir up more debate.