New Roland GW-8 Patch Demo!

There's a new Patch Demo of the GW-8 up on Roland's site. You can only see the players hands, but based on the hands alone I'm going to say it's Ed Diaz doing the demo. It's not too bad....
http://www.rolandus.com/products/productdetails.aspx?ObjectId=968&ParentId=72

Just too add.... Personally I think these patch demos could have been a bit better. I'm surprised too.., as Ed Diaz has done some nice demos and he's all over YouTube as well.

It's crazy too because this is Roland's newest budget arranger, yet not ONE stellar video demo has been placed on the RolandUS site.

Squeak can't believe no lyrics display on GW8.....not good

[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 09-18-2008).]

Talking of Rolands, has anyone seen/played the new Juno 76 note keyboard?

Dennis

Oh, damn! Now I'm going to have to remember... have to remember.... I'm going........ to....... 'er, what was I saying?

[This message has been edited by Diki (edited 09-18-2008).]

Donny.., do you use the lyric feature for personal use or to display via video out for audience participation?

For personal use I've never really gotten any benefit from a lyric display. Everyone's different I guess. Myself.., I've always learned the words. IMO it really can take from a performance if you gotta focus on playing..., singing.., and reading the lyrics too. For me it would feel like I'm always "still learning" the song..., but again everyone's different.

What I find bothersome about the GW-8 is (no style recording) and the MFX are real-time only. Yammie just brought out the S550 (and from what I can see the recording features on it are stronger than the GW-8).

Squeak

Squeak I very seldom use lyrics at all & if I do I have a laptop......I was just making a statement on a features that isn't on the GW8. I guess at that price point you can't have everything on an entry level WS.

Totally unimpressive demo, although I am not surprised, I've never seen really good demo made by Ed Diaz.

I've just seen Juno Stage demo, also from Ed, and got the same impression as before. By listening to him, I reckon he must be a jazz or blues player, playing unattractive (at least for a wider part of the public) music pieces, and sometimes it seems like he plays the instrument voices (like guitar, accordeon etc.) entirely different than the real player would do.

But Roland never had as good demonstrators as Yamaha has, except for the guy who demoed new sounds and features on Roland G-70 (Chris Halon), he's the best of all of them.


[This message has been edited by kalimero (edited 09-19-2008).]

Roland has just released an Editor\Librarian app for the Juno Stage & GW-8 keyboards (Mac & PC):
http://www.roland.com/PRODUCTS/en/_suppo...000025967&dsp=1

I have to say that I too was rather underwhelmed by this most recent Demo. In all honesty, I've never been a huge fan of Latin music anyway and would prefer the GW-8E (Eastern European) version, which may not even be available here in the States. The way things are looking, I'd much prefer spending an extra 250.00 for the new Korg M50 (definitely NOT an arranger keyboard!). Great M3 sounds, generous fx (quantity & routing), dual appregiators, touchscreen, real sequencer, use as VST\AU plugin, optional Karma software, extremely portable (just over 15 pounds), etc... I'm also impressed by Korg's continued presence on public forums and their product updates. It may just be the end of the road for me and ol' Roland (tho' I still have several pieces of their gear). Time to try something different methinks!

Michael

not great demo.
the general idea about GW8 so far is unfortunatelly not improved with every new demo.
the roland demoer that i like best so far is massimiliano coclite.

but i must say chris halon is great on roland atelier organ!

[This message has been edited by adimatis (edited 09-19-2008).]

The best demo person I've seen to date from Roland is Dr. Scott Tibbs. He has done many videos for Roland..., and is a great player too. He's the one who did the very extensive GW-7 demo.., and played a nice piece at the end. He has also done many Fantom demos, V synth demos, and a few others. I've seen some nice demos by Ed before, but this clearly isn't one of his best.

It's really odd too as this is Roland's new budget arranger and they still have yet to post a great demo of someone playing the thing. Oh well.., we'll just have to wait for them to start popping up on YouTube I guess.

Ocamin.., that new Korg M50 is going to be HOT! Korg just killed Yamaha's MO series with this model...., and if I saw the prices right the 61 key model will only be $99 more than the 61 key MO6, but you get a hell of a lot for that extra $99 too.

Korg's got a winner there. I wonder if they're going to use this to replace the TR series...

*also important to note is the 61 key M50 comes in at less than 15 lbs!!!!!! WOW! That's a lot of M power for under 15 lbs

[This message has been edited by squeak_D (edited 09-19-2008).]

An M50 is not an arranger. It's kind of like saying 'I don't like the look of that new Honda sports car, so I'll go and get a station wagon instead!'

My take is that, despite the bumbling demonstrator, and some of the awful patches he demoed (there actually ARE some very good trumpet sounds in the Sonic Cell ), at the price point it comes at, there isn't much out there with as good a sounding basic sound-set. Just the piano alone is better than most stage pianos of that price range...

And, if software can be used to edit styles, setups, etc., how is this any different to Yamaha, that require quite a bit of extra software (that they are too cheap to even develop themselves and leave it to talented amateurs to do it for free for them) to do the same things?

Overall, this move towards the Sonic Cell as the underlying engine on newer low and mid-price keyboards is a hugs step in the right direction for Roland...

The move AWAY from hiring talented demonstrators, OTOH, is an idiotic exercise in cost cutting in the wrong areas... Yamaha spare no expense for their product demonstrations, and reap the benefit of it. Roland should do likewise.

Whoever is in charge of Roland arranger division marketing SHOULD BE FIRED! And replaced with someone with at least HALF a brain! What do you need to run Roland's marketing these days? A PULSE?

This barely flies as an MS demo

We're well aware that the M50 isnt an arranger. Ocamin mentioned it in an above post.

Also from what I saw.., the software for the GW-8 doesn't allow you to create a custom style from scratch using the GW-8 as the base.., and is more of a STYLE CONVERTER that you use to convert styles from other makers or take a midi file and create a style from that. It allows some editing, but the Yamaha S-550 does all the style recording "internally", and allows you to build a style from the ground up (all within the environment of the keyboard).

I agree that it's great Roland is bringing the SonicCell sounds into the GW-8. Although Ed's demo wasn't anything close to stellar you can still hear the quality of the sound itself.

Yes I too agree RolandUS needs to clean out the house in the demo department. People have been complaining about poor demos of the GW-8 since it was introduced. Roland even put up that gawd-awful demo of the one guy playing (which was an absolute joke and insult) to the latin music community.

Yamaha does a great job on their product demos..., and Roland could learn a thing or two from them on that.

Does the GW-8 software allow you to import MIDI files?

That would be the door to user style creation, I guess, and to be honest, I prefer to do all my editing in Cubase (because of the power and familiarity) before I assemble the style, anyway...

And, I'm still confused... as radically different as an M50 is to the GW-8, why is this the next choice? Surely, if that's what you would need, you wouldn't even LOOK at the GW-8 in the first place (or vice versa)? Loop and arp WS's have virtually NOTHING in common with any arranger, either sound, OS or style-wise...

It's still kind of like saying that, if the T3 doesn't work out for you, your next choice would be a FantomG

They are like chalk and cheese!

Creating a user styles from a midi is not the same as starting with a blank canvas.., and entering in the parts yourself. Sure you could create your own midi.., then use the software to convert that to a style, but it's really not the same as starting with a blank canvas and creating all the intros, ending, and variations.

Ocamins decision on the GW and the M50 are his own. It's also not uncommon for someone to move from an arranger to the synth.., it just depends on one's needs really....

Too much sway towards the Latin arena for me. Sounds are ok, I don't understand the need to play MP3 files within the keyboard when most Keyboards have an aux in for an MP3 Player or even Notebook.

Just like many of the older workstations were Hip Hop and Rap oriented. I prefer a generic workstation that is versatile.

How is making your own MIDI file from a blank state on a sequencer any different from creating your own style file from a blank slate on an arranger?

Surely the vastly better display and editing capabilities more than makes up for the inconvenience of having to do a quick USB transfer before you can try it out in arranger mode?

And especially with Intros and Endings, all they are is MIDI files, pure and simple. Linear, one shot sequences. How is it easier to make those on-board, with next to no display and editing power, than to use a sequencer? You DO use a sequencer, don't you?

I still have yet to see Roland's software with this..., but Diki have you ever created a user style using a midi file? The programs for this vary..., I've yet to see what Roland has included, but often it works like Style Conversion. The program will take your Midi and the program will make the decision on HOW the midi is split up for style use.

I don't want the program to make all those decisions for me. I want to say..., this is the intro, this is the ending, variation and so on. Perhaps Roland has included features in this new software that will allow you to take midi, convert it to a style and then allow YOU to choose what goes where within that style rather than let the program just take it and do a conversion. If this progam for the GW-8 lets you create a midi.., then during the process of conversion allow the user to decide what and where each part will go.., then it won't be so bad..., but creating user styles on the keyboard itself isn't rocket science. It takes talent, but I don't see any current mid and top arrangers working with 2 line LED displays.. The current models are no PC screen, but are more than capable of providing enough viewable info to the user.

Again....., I'll have to look at the software. Once I see what it can do.., then who knows.., maybe I'll smile

Also.., when it gets converted you may not like the conversion done by the software. What if variation one isn't exactly to your liking. Will the GW's software let you go in and make more detailed changes or will you be stuck with how the software has converted the file? What if the midi converted kinda loses it's feel from the original? Can you go back with the software and put it back? Your original midi seq could have some great feel to it, but sometimes midi to style conversions will lose the original feel.

[This message has been edited by squeak_D (edited 09-19-2008).]

Yes, Roland allow you to say which bar #'s are which divisions.

How on earth could it work any other way?

Don't get me started I've seen some really sh*%&y programs that convert midi to styles. If the GW's software will allow you to take that midi and duing the conversion control what goes here and there and more.., then I'll give it a thumbs up However.., does the software allow you to go back into the converted styles and make more detailed changes if some of the feel is lost during the conversion. Can you go back in and make really detailed changes?

Anyone know where we can get detailed info on what all the GW's software will allow you to do with a midi to style conversion? I'd really love to look at it.

Once again, the Roland MIDI import doesn't touch the MIDI file in any way, just uses it to load the style division.

I'd say yes, you HAVE been using some shitty software! I guess the difference is that Roland's tools aren't MIDI 'translation' software, it's simply MIDI 'import'. It doesn't make any assumptions, but leaves it up to you... Good if you know what you are doing, not so good if you don't (mind you, if you don't know what you are doing, best of luck! )

One thing Roland pretty much always gets right is MIDI files and how to edit and change them...

That's great info to know right there.., and yes I have used some sh&$ty programs I'd really love to see the software for the GW's.

I still say that It's a big bummer that the GW-8's MFX are "real-time only" What if your solo instrument doesn't need the MFX, but one of our backing instruments in a user song is a distorted guitar and you need the MFX (Distortion).... Does you guitar part now have to suffer?

Actually, it's the same deal with the G70. MFX for realtime parts only. The FX for the song and style section is pretty decent, though, but send only, not insert.

There IS a workaround, though... you take the part you want MFX'd, run it out a separate out, back into the IFX (an independent full MFX block dedicated to the RCA ins) and Bob's yer' uncle!

You'll find these hardware routing restrictions apply to a LOT of arrangers, and even some WS's, as well. It's a drag, but not a deal-breaker, IMO

BTW, E80 DOES have two extra MFX FX blocks dedicated to Song and Style Parts. And an extra Master FX (EQ and 3-band comp) for independent compression of style and realtime Parts. Not too shabby... (for an arranger )

Wow! I didn't know that about the G-70 Diki.... Good work-around though.

I'm not even going to post this video-demo of the GW-8 on my site. Horrible. The first few patches were "ok", but playing those accordeon-patches killed the whole instrument.

(Not that I care for accordeons though, but I know a great deal of arranger players use accordeons and organs a lot. So if you want to chase them away from your product, let this guy do the demo!)

I sure hope Roland CE can do a better job.

------------------
- THE DUTCH KEYBOARD FORUM
http://www.keyboardforum.nl

The new 3.0 version of the Style Converter software can now be downloaded from Roland and the only difference from the previous version (for the GW-7), are the extra Style variations that are available in the GW-8.

I currently own the GW-7 and have been more than pleased with its performance and utter simplicity. I really do like the GW-8 for what it is (a simple arranger workstation with great portability, polyphony and sounds) and was planning on its purchase...but after spending time playing around with Logic Studio and various soft synths, I am looking more towards a portable synth workstation like the Korg M50. I definitely do miss the Fantom S and X I once owned and the GW-7 was only meant to be a "filler" instrument until our finances changed, which they thankfully have! Still have to keep it tho' for the daughter, who loves to tickle the ivories when she visits every couple of weeks (she taught herself to play and she's in her mid-twenties!). I am using an Edirol PCR-50 with my computer upstairs and it really sucks but definitely better than nothing!

I am just ready to switch directions and try something different. Worst case scenario is that I'll use it for a year then move on but with the Karma possibilities of the M50, I don't think this is too likely. Should be fun!

Michael

What's the software like for the GW-7....? How much can you do with it?

Squeak,

I've never actually used the GW-7 software because I bought the EMC Styleworks software (Roland version), which easily converts Styles from the other major arrangers, past and present. My appraisal of Roland's GW Converter software was from comparing the manuals of both versions (2.0 & 3.0). If you don't have anything else, it's definitely better than nothing...and it's free! With the huge number of MIDI files online, it offers a virtual goldmine of potential Styles.

Michael

Look, here's the problem with converting existing MIDI files in a nutshell...

The file that needs to be used in a style cannot have ANY changes in it. However long the variation loop is for, that's how long the pattern must go on for without any chord changes...

Best of luck finding ANY MIDI files with no changes, without passing notes in the bassline or comping parts, and with four different sections with all the above that are usable as a building structure to make a usable style. From what I can make out, most of these lousy 'MIDI to Style' converter programs try to do this task automatically, usually to poor results. It is a VERY complex task, analyzing chord changes, and extrapolating what they WOULD be playing if no chord change had occurred. Beyond the scope of software, IMO.

This is a task best done by humans (and well trained ones, at that!), not left to some automatic process.

Prepare up the style divisions yourself, make sure that likely chord change boundaries don't have passing notes on them, prepare up alternative variations for minor modes, sevenths, diminished (whatever your arranger allows), prepare up major and minor intros and endings, and than import them to your style creator section of your arranger (or the 'blank slate' programs that the manufacturer provides), and note CAREFULLY which bar #'s are which divisions, and go from there...

That will lead to a FAR more successful conversion than leaving it up to any automatic process...