A developer balances time and effort against likely return for said time and effort.

Given that here, you are the ONLY member with this particular issue, and it might be fair to extrapolate that percentage across the board, that’s not enough demand to make it worth while doing it for FREE.

Somewhere there’s a guy with a bunch of Atari sequences who would LOVE to be able to read them on an iPad. Now, if you had the skill to code that Ted, would you do it for him for free, without knowing there was anyone else that needed that? Would you do it knowing there was maybe two or three?

No. No you wouldn’t. Not in a million years!

It’s hard to understand how you don’t seem to see how solitary your problem is. How you come up with the idea that there’s hundreds if not thousands of Roland OFS system users that would flock to his product ‘if only’ he would spend days and weeks programming a fingering system that has been defunct for years beats me. Where’s ONE person here chiming in he agrees?

Crickets.

You want him to code it, PAY HIM TO CODE IT.

Apparently, you don’t want it bad enough…

I really don't want to debate the issue any further. I posted initially to document what I perceive as an inconvenience, or potential shortcoming for anyone else out there who happens to think and play as I do. Based on posts I've read on the Korg Forums and PSR Tutorial, I KNOW there are others who were frustrated and disappointed to learn that a new board didn't incorporate the chord fingering they were used to. If any of them are also here on SynthZone and stumble across this thread, I don't blame them for staying on the sidelines and out of this fracas!

Re: software development. I've repeatedly mentioned that "Klaus" reached out to me, and we worked together to add Roland-style chord recognition to his software arranger Nimbu. I didn't pay him, and he didn't compensate me for the time I invested. Perhaps the same thing will happen with Giglad. And why would I pay? Based on my reading of the documentation, I just wouldn't buy the product as it currently stands. As I pointed out in my reply to Bill, additional chord recognition modes are a win-win for users AND the developer because they expand the potential sales base.

You've repeatedly characterized my observations and exhortations as a "problem." I've tried to demonstrate to you and other trained musicians here that they are also an opportunity.
Have you ever studied the history of the QWERTY keyboard layout? It's nearly universal, but it's also widely acknowledged to be sub-optimal. Common English vowels are hard to reach, etc. When the typewriter was first invented, QWERTY was seemingly a physical necessity to avoid 'key clash.' By the mid-20th Century, new mechanical designs eliminated any possibility of key clash. QWERTY is still the dominant layout (and collective typing ease likely suffers as a result!) However... there is a tiny percentage of users who have explored improved keyboard layouts like Dvorak and Colemak. I encourage you to Google these if you're not familiar with them. Windows supports this minority of users through customizable settings, remapping keyboard input to conform to these layouts. I think this is a reasonable analogy to my observations about Giglad, and simplified chord systems in general.

As a side note, Roland-style partial chord fingering isn't "defunct." I briefly tested the new Ketron Event and it seemed to demonstrate 100% conformance. Every Casio model made since 2012 or so has about 95% conformance, enough to play most songs without re-learning. Casios are often "first keyboards" for nascent musicians and the musically curious. That's a lot of users, but probably not here on the 'zone. Roland's E-A7 is still available new at retail. And the FP-E50 and latest Go:Keys models use Roland's venerable Chord Intelligence as originally devised in 1991.

We all come to our beloved arrangers from different viewpoints, with different hopes and expectations. As a home hobbyist, part of the appeal for me is that these machines are musical automatic weapons, a novelty and "force multiplier" for someone of lower skill. The first true Arranger was the Hammond S6 chord organ, a purpose-built "easy play" instrument that wasn't even a good gateway to learning a "real" home organ. Laurens Hammond himself wasn't a musician, he was an engineer! So please don't hate on me for hoping to sustain this facet of arranger tradition. Whether or not you agree, I'm grateful that you let me hang out on the 'Zone, and that it provides an enduring forum for healthy discourse.

As far as I can see, Nimbu does not support the Mac, whereas Giglad does, hence the title of the post.

Bill

Look, I can sympathize with your problem, Ted. You might remember how many long years I chastised everyone BUT Roland for not implementing a chord sequencer!

It seems like Korg and Yamaha got enough market research in to prompt them to eventually add it. But they’re huge corporations that can afford to do the market research. Thing is, software arrangers are still a tiny niche application. It doesn’t look like adding Roland’s fingering system has turned Nimbu into a must have piece of software for all arranger players… and it might be what’s driving Giglad to not bother.

There are so many features unique to each brand. Another person might complain that Nimbu hasn’t implemented Yamaha’s Ensemble voicing feature, or the ability to play Ketron Live Loop styles, or Korg’s clip launching pad system or ‘two styles simultaneously’ feature.

When you think about it, a software arranger that could duplicate EVERYTHING from every arranger brand is an insane proposition..!

Your pet peeve is just one of close to an infinite selection that could be raised. I don’t envy the position of one of these developers!

In closing, let me just point out that BEFORE QWERTY, there were also innumerable typewriter layouts. They settled on ONE, and for almost a century those who preferred one of the previous layouts simply knuckled down and learned QWERTY until there was enough demand and cash behind those demands for electronic typewriter companies to implement Dvorak etc..

A little bit of history you have conveniently ignored. Follow the money. 💵💶💷💴💰

Exactly !

Can this program play old Roland styles ?

It's only people that can't play proper chords that somehow think it takes longer to put down four fingers that it does two. IT TAKES THE EXACT SAME TIME. The keyboard didn't get any further away from your hands, your fingers don't get any shorter, the effort to press four notes on these lightweight keybeds is essentially the same as two.

You know what works on every brand of arranger, and every other type of keyboard there is? PLAYING PROPER CHORDS...

Ted's been bitching about this for hundreds of times (thousands!) longer than it would have taken to just sit down AND LEARN IT. Let's be honest. He's the ONLY person complaining about the issue, and has been doing so FOR YEARS... 🙄

Me, I'd stop blaming other people for things I'm too lazy to address myself that would take a few months to do. And the payoff would be the ability to play any arranger, any software and ANY REGULAR KEYBOARD. Why that isn't incentive enough to get Ted to knuckle down for a few months beats the hell out of me.

Just easier to whine, I suppose. For years. But no amount of it is going to bring the fingering system back. You either move on, or you don't. But should you DELIBERATELY choose to not move on, it seems a bit churlish to complain constantly to the very people who a) can't do a damn thing about it, and b) already took the time to master the skill to make the problem moot for themselves.

There are DEFINITELY combinations of successive chords that, if all notes comprising each chord are played, require repositioning your whole hand to play the progression. However, when the same progression is played using "intelligent" chords (triggering major chords with one note), it can be played WITHOUT repositioning your hand. I find this particularly true when the progression contains slash chords requiring a specific bass note.

My issue (which I don't think you share) is that I play a lot of music originally written for organ. The chord and bass change on almost every beat. There are also frequent changes in time signature, so I play with sync stop enabled. The accompaniment sounds decay rapidly, so I can't just "stab and move" like a typical arranger player would; I have to be smooth, quick, and accurate. The only other way to play without hand jumps would be to use an actual organ with bass pedals. And that would take even more training and skill!

I'm NOT the only person complaining. I've seen posts on PSRTutorial and the Korg Forums by folks who acquired a Yamaha and were disappointed and frustrated by the same issue. Just because Yamaha has more marketing muscle, that doesn't make their system better. As I've stated before, Roland was first in this space. Yamaha may have compromised to avoid patent infringement. Simplified chord systems have been around since the '80s, at least. Every brand has now adopted the basic "single finger" system, i.e., nearest black key to the left triggers a minor chord, etc. That system isn't musical or logical but I suppose it's easy for non-musicians to remember. It has proliferated and become a quasi-standard. The Roland / GEM / Casio intelligent system is much better; it too should be promulgated to every MIDI keyboard controller, DAW software, etc.

You can advocate for the discipline of learning archery and muzzle loaders if you want. I have a pristine RA-800 stored safely in a Faraday cage; the great skill equalizer--a musical automatic weapon! I'm pretty sure it'll be the last functional arranger on the planet. When the world ends due to the next Carrington event, I'll be banging away "Nearer my God to Thee" with one-finger chords :-)