Korg Forums

For those who use Workstations, would the new Fantom O be used or played like an arranger? Thanks!

So Roland ran auto complete on the FA-06, FA-07, and FA-08 and generated the Fantom-06, Fantom-07, and Fantom-08. Ingenious! Unoriginal naming aside, this is an interesting offering.

But no, I don't see any of the typical "arranger" features like styles, auto accompaniment, Rhythm Intros, Variations, End, Magic chord fingering, etc.

This looks like a "workstation" or "music production" keyboard. A Fantom-lite I would surmise.

With no aftertouch, because that would just be silly.

And with no linear sequencing, just the sort of pick-your-arpeggiator style clips, so it's not even a workstation.

It's another groovesynth, with a decent sound library inside.

No linear sequencer a deal-breaker for me, as a standalone all-on-one workstation. √ Old dog. X new tricks.

This is being touted as a "gigging" musician's keyboard by the better-than-sliced-bread early influencer videos. MmmKay. Roland doesn't seem to want to call it a fantom lite which is obviously what it is.

I've seen Guitar Center used "Fantom" keyboards mispriced because they look up the wrong model. Fantoms will continue to flummox e.g. Fantom Fa-76, Fa-07, Fantom-07, Fantom-7 are all different models.

Koekepan wrote:And with no linear sequencing, just the sort of pick-your-arpeggiator style clips, so it's not even a workstation.

It's another groovesynth, with a decent sound library inside.

Pick your arp? Lol... That's funny.

But not true at all. You can actually play data into the clips... And even place samples in them. It's definitely a workstation.

OK, OK, so you can pick an arpeggiator or a sound loop. Ground-breaking.

Still, with no linear sequencing it's not a workstation. Remember that the idea of an audio workstation is that it would enable you to create what you otherwise could have in an old-school studio, with tapes and mixers and all that good stuff. You don't have to be able to do livelooping for something to be a workstation, but end-to-end music production through to mix and master stage is a requirement and without linear sequencing you don't have that.

The Kross will do it. The Krome will do it. The Kronos will do it. Even the Kronos's crippled cousin, the Nautilus will do it. The Akai Force will do it. A wide range of machines from Casio will do it. Kurzweil have some excellent contenders as well. In fact, quite a few arrangers will afford linear capabilities as well.

The Roland won't, which is why it's a groovesynth, not a workstation.

But I bet it's a really groovy groovesynth, ready to make some stage performers very happy, and it's a really strong competitor to other stage keyboard synths. Great. Roland isn't the first company to lie about a product description, and surely won't be the last.

Koekepan wrote:OK, OK, so you can pick an arpeggiator or a sound loop. Ground-breaking.

Still, with no linear sequencing it's not a workstation. Remember that the idea of an audio workstation is that it would enable you to create what you otherwise could have in an old-school studio, with tapes and mixers and all that good stuff. You don't have to be able to do livelooping for something to be a workstation, but end-to-end music production through to mix and master stage is a requirement and without linear sequencing you don't have that.

The Kross will do it. The Krome will do it. The Kronos will do it. Even the Kronos's crippled cousin, the Nautilus will do it. The Akai Force will do it. A wide range of machines from Casio will do it. Kurzweil have some excellent contenders as well. In fact, quite a few arrangers will afford linear capabilities as well.

The Roland won't, which is why it's a groovesynth, not a workstation.

But I bet it's a really groovy groovesynth, ready to make some stage performers very happy, and it's a really strong competitor to other stage keyboard synths. Great. Roland isn't the first company to lie about a product description, and surely won't be the last.

Why is the Nautilus crippled?

Roland has had a linear sequencer... They just changed it to something else.

And if you want a see straight forward sequencer in the Fantom.... It's definitely possible. Just record into the clips as if it was linear. Easy!

Your song will have sections I'm sure ... Just record into the clips in a linear fashion based on sections.

apex wrote:Why is the Nautilus crippled?

Because KORG figured that they could wrap the Kronos software in downgraded wrapping and milk the cow a while longer?

... or did you mean in which way was it a crippled cousin of the Kronos? There are a couple of threads on the topic already, but to give you a quick list of highlights: Karma, controls, keybed. That should get you started.

apex wrote:Roland has had a linear sequencer... They just changed it to something else.

You're right. And when they did that, they stopped producing workstations. That's all. You see, in market-speak, linear sequencing is table stakes for a workstation entry. No linear capability? Not a workstation.

apex wrote:And if you want a see straight forward sequencer in the Fantom.... It's definitely possible. Just record into the clips as if it was linear. Easy!

Sure, unless you want to do anything that crosses a clip boundary (a mere 32 measures maximum according to their manual, page 36), or that doesn't even fit into a pattern-based mould at all (quite common in media composing, which is a lot of what I do).

apex wrote:Your song will have sections I'm sure ... Just record into the clips in a linear fashion based on sections.

Alas, no. That's where you're wrong. Sometimes a director will ask me to do some dance music, and then it works but at other times? No. It's a terrible workflow fit. I'm literally better off with a Kross and a good sound module and multitrack recorder.

Even the freaking Akai MPC One can give you what amounts to a linear recording experience by extending a single pattern to ludicrous lengths. Roland couldn't even get off the couch long enough to do that in their new flagship Fantom, let alone the Fantom O. How the mighty have fallen.

Koekepan wrote:

apex wrote:Why is the Nautilus crippled?

Because KORG figured that they could wrap the Kronos software in downgraded wrapping and milk the cow a while longer?

... or did you mean in which way was it a crippled cousin of the Kronos? There are a couple of threads on the topic already, but to give you a quick list of highlights: Karma, controls, keybed. That should get you started.

apex wrote:Roland has had a linear sequencer... They just changed it to something else.

You're right. And when they did that, they stopped producing workstations. That's all. You see, in market-speak, linear sequencing is table stakes for a workstation entry. No linear capability? Not a workstation.

apex wrote:And if you want a see straight forward sequencer in the Fantom.... It's definitely possible. Just record into the clips as if it was linear. Easy!

Sure, unless you want to do anything that crosses a clip boundary (a mere 32 measures maximum according to their manual, page 36), or that doesn't even fit into a pattern-based mould at all (quite common in media composing, which is a lot of what I do).

apex wrote:Your song will have sections I'm sure ... Just record into the clips in a linear fashion based on sections.

Alas, no. That's where you're wrong. Sometimes a director will ask me to do some dance music, and then it works but at other times? No. It's a terrible workflow fit. I'm literally better off with a Kross and a good sound module and multitrack recorder.

Even the freaking Akai MPC One can give you what amounts to a linear recording experience by extending a single pattern to ludicrous lengths. Roland couldn't even get off the couch long enough to do that in their new flagship Fantom, let alone the Fantom O. How the mighty have fallen.

Why would they have to rewrap the Kronos when they could have just kept selling it?

The keybeds are the same. And that's directly from James at Korg.

I disagree that a keyboard MUST have a linear sequencer to be considered a workstation.... You gotta be like SUPER old to even think that's accurate. (I don't mean that disrespectfully either)... Just saying stuff has changed alot.

The clips length is now 64. Double what you referenced....

Yeah....dance music or not.... The music will still have sections.... And if not just combine two clips... Now your section is twice as long. There are ways.

But then again, new technology is not for everyone.

But this is a perfect example of there not being a perfect keyboard. There going to always be something that people can and will complain about. Even if it's the color. Lol.

I think this is a great time for the keyboard industry. But that's just me.... I'm sure I'm not alone though.

I watched the Roland 0 series video and was quite impressed with it.

Not sure I would choose it over a Nautilus.

I am not familiar with Roland terminology but the new Fantom 0 series has a 64 measure Sequencer.

What do they mean by 64 Measure?

64 quarter notes

64 notes whatever their duration

64 bar

The Juno DS and FA are pretty rubbish in Recording and was expecting the FA replacement to equate to what Korg include.

apex wrote:Why would they have to rewrap the Kronos when they could have just kept selling it?

Beats me. Ask them. Many Kronos buyers have the same question. I'm not on KORG's product management team.

apex wrote:The keybeds are the same. And that's directly from James at Korg.

Aftertouch. That's the word you're looking for. Now go read those threads.

apex wrote:I disagree that a keyboard MUST have a linear sequencer to be considered a workstation.... You gotta be like SUPER old to even think that's accurate. (I don't mean that disrespectfully either)... Just saying stuff has changed alot.

Words have meanings. If anything that can string together polyphonic clips is now a workstation, then a whole host of grooveboxes are suddenly workstations including an army of electribes. What distinguishes a workstation? The presence of a keyboard? No. The clue is in the word: workstation. The whole market segment came about because of the idea that a composer could do with an M1 what would previously have taken a set of synths, and effects units, and tape machines, and splicing tools. Even disco used things like long stringer notes that just hung around to add a top layer, and disco's big time was way before the M1 even made the scene. If you cap the measures per clip, take that very basic function off the table because it is no longer possible. The same applies to other genres; half of Tangerine Dream's output would have been impossible, or extremely difficult to do. Deciding simply for your marketing convenience that something that doesn't meet that criterion is somehow a workstation is cool; now we can have a different segment: things-that-apex-thinks-are-workstations-but-aren't-actually-fit-for-purpose. That's a little wordy - perhaps we could call them groovesynths instead? Or grooveboards; grooveboxes with keyboards?

apex wrote:The clips length is now 64. Double what you referenced....

OK, so their manual is out of date, so sue me. Doesn't change the basic problem.

apex wrote:Yeah....dance music or not.... The music will still have sections.... And if not just combine two clips... Now your section is twice as long. There are ways.

There is a whole world of music out there of which you appear to be unaware. I don't quite know how to tell you this, but there are situations where "if not just combine two clips" is not a functionally adequate answer, besides being a completely unnecessary workflow-breaker. This is in fact one of the reasons for many media composers shying away from clip-oriented DAWs such as Ableton.

apex wrote:But then again, new technology is not for everyone.

Sure. Especially not when it is measurably functionally inferior to the predecessor. I feel no loyalty to any music equipment manufacturer, and I feel totally free to point out weaknesses and misleading advertising when I see them. It's not rocket science.

apex wrote:But this is a perfect example of there not being a perfect keyboard. There going to always be something that people can and will complain about. Even if it's the color. Lol.

Can I also add: no deceptive branding? That would be nice. I mean, while we're wishing here.

apex wrote:I think this is a great time for the keyboard industry. But that's just me.... I'm sure I'm not alone though.

I agree! Keyboards galore! Magnificent, rampant, glorious, turgid keyboards parading across the scene! Hail keyboards!

Workstations from the big three? Less so. Key word: workstations.

Right now the kings of the workstation that I see are Akai Professional, and Kurzweil. KORG hasn't brought anything new to the scene since almost a decade ago, Yamaha is confused about what a workstation is, compared to an arranger, Roland has given up trying. Even Casio is nearer the mark. Maybe this is old-fashioned thinking, and the last few spavined dinosaurs stumbling into the yawning maw of oblivion are the only ones to adhere to it, but while you're building a new world could you do us all a favour and choose new words for your new meanings? You can have grooveboard for free.

Biggles wrote:I watched the Roland 0 series video and was quite impressed with it.

Not sure I would choose it over a Nautilus.

I am not familiar with Roland terminology but the new Fantom 0 series has a 64 measure Sequencer.

What do they mean by 64 Measure?

64 quarter notes

64 notes whatever their duration

64 bar

The Juno DS and FA are pretty rubbish in Recording and was expecting the FA replacement to equate to what Korg include.

64 measures (bars) no matter the duration....

So if I need more time on my "linear" song... I'm going to cut my BPM in half. Now I've seemingly got 128.... (Technically...)

The Fantom 0 pattern sequencer only supports time signatures 4/4 and 3/4. So for me it's not just new technology, it's the new constraints imposed regarding what kind of music you can produce with that new technology.