JP-80! Last Roland heavy flagship synth for the next decade?

In 1992 I was just getting started in electronic music after getting mesmerized by that newfangled "New Age" music and wanted to be able to make my own musical noodlings with these things called music synthesizers. I was gobbling up every KEYBOARD and Electronic Musician mag as soon as they hit the stands and reading them from cover to cover as I had never played keyboards and wanted to understand this thing called MIDI.

I would spend hours in the music stores, playing every new synth as soon as they were unveiled, and drooling over every one of them as I didn't have much money. So, along comes this teaser in both Keyboard and EM about a new Korg "Open Architecture" unit that would sport PCM, additive, FM, wavesequencing and more through software plug ins or continuous updates.[attachment: imagesCAZCCOA5.jpeg] That would have been in the early 90's (probably 1992 or 1993) and I was quite entranced. Of course, I considered that such an item was probably going to be quite expensive and quite well out of my price range. Well, time passed and other than a couple of uneventful showings at a few places, the OASYS never materialized.

So much time had passed that I had quite forgotten about any such synth, so it was a surprise when I heard in 2007 about the OASYS having been actually being released. I drove about 50 miles to the only Guitar Center that actually had the OASYS in the Dallas area and after playing around for about an hour, not really knowing what KARMA was and how it worked, walked out the door with this $8300 synth and brought it home.

Why had it taken so very long to bring the OASYS to fruition? Was it the elaborate R&D time? Corporate decisions about what to include at what price point? Who but Korg knows? Korg probably realized that they were not going to set the world on fire selling-wise with an $8000-plus synthesizer and quickly shifted gears into making an "OASYS for the masses" with the Kronos. This of course caused a lot of disillusionment with many OASYS owners who felt short-changed and shafted by Korg corporate who had promised so much and fell short on delivering.

I see that in this frenzied "i-phone/you-tube/i'm bored-what's next to keep me entertained" world that expectations often seem to be exceeding people's ability to appreciate what they have been given even if far from perfect. It is almost as though the urge to complain and whine on incessantly about "woulda, shoulda, coulda" because technology has displaced the common sense ability to slow down and appreciate the simpler things in life.

Yes indeed, cars used to be metal marvels, and at a price point that is mind boggling considering the prernicious effects of inflation and how much a "plasticized" one costs today comparatively. A lot of the metal has been replaced with plastic, and technological marvels reign supreme which make the old cars seem pretty simple by comparison. OK, so the cars still don't fly yet but they are getting the programming know-how to allow them to drive themselves. Do the old cars still get the user from point A to point B without all of the gizmo's and doo-dads? Of course they do, and that is the point.

Corporate profits and greed may have sadly replaced good old fashioned customer loyalty and trust, but there is no way that this "plastic" world in which we find ourselves is going to go back to the way it was. Bummer, but that's just the way it T-I is.

Consider the microchip. It has made possible ways of manipulating huge amounts of data that heretofore were impossible or insanely difficult. And it has also at the same time made it possible to do the things we do to make E-music. At the same time, it is quite the subversive invention, throwing untold thousands out of work and allowing corporations to scrutinize costs and cut expenses to the bone for maximum profits.

If I allow misconceptions, and/or misguided expectations to enter my world, then I will have allowed something beyond my control to be able to "rob me of my joy." Every time I sit and play at my synths, new or old, I am still like a kid in a candy store with a $100 bill. Maybe it is because I grew up without much, and never had any real musical training to speak of. I just hope that technology never deprives me of that child-like ability to appreciate the simple joys.

Oh, and that Korg synth called the OASYS? Six years on and I often feel as though I have hardly scratched the surface. I know it has so much more to offer, as does the Jupiter-80 if I just take the time to appreciate them for what they are instead of what they could be.

SoundworldA.D. wrote:

...I just hope that technology never deprives me of that child-like ability to appreciate the simple joys...

Carlos Santana and John McLaughlin Interview in Montreux Switzerland 01.07.2011 - Youtube

Excerpts from the interview:

Santana: "...Just enjoy that you have that gift...."

McLaughlin: "...well, a kid is a kid....you know, Herbie Hancock came out with this Man-Child concept, I think because we are all by nature very innocent and pure. We become cynical and selfish with adulthood. But these are the conventions of society, but we both hold to the ideals we adopted in the 1960's, which is love and tolerance, acceptance...and work also...make love not war...

...Music is about the well beeing of the human beeing, it's about the real nature. So we are innocent, everybody is innocent...We can change ourselves and become cynical, but in music you cannot be cynical, you have to be who you really are..."


Herbie Hancock - Man-Child (1975) - Youtube

Yes, yes, yes! Good one Dany. Music is the UNIVERSAL language and as such transcends any man-made boundaries and walls erected by insecure power grabbers, elitest snobs and those who don't appreciate art for art's sake because they just don't "get it!"

Dylan was booed by folk purists when he used electric instruments for the first time, and likewise Herbie was accused of being a sellout when he tried other forms of music that dared to be a commercial success.

From man-child:

"In the popular forms like funk, which I've been trying to get into, the attention is on the interplay of rhythm between different instruments. It's almost like African drummers where seven drummers play different parts."

Translated to seventies jazz-funk, this meant that keyboards, bass, drums and percussion were each assigned riff figures which became building blocks in a pulsing, grooving monolith of sound. When jazz slipped in, the duties were relaxed, but the tension between the tightness of the groove and the wildness of the jazz was one of the sources of the music's excitement.

A PULSING, GROOVING MONOLITH OF SOUND! What a concept!!

Indeed, and these guys did it with old analog gear and either no sequencers or antiquated ones with no computers! I think that the new synths we have are technological marvels, and the SuperNATURAL has given us a realism that defies old norms, but does the music itself that we make with them sound so much better than what was done in the 60's and 70's and 80's? Not to my ears.

Music is a about feeling...and that special feeling that it can impart to a listener is there whether it is Betty Carter's lovely 1955 vocal caress on "Moonlight in Vermont" or one of the latest techno crooners with all of the technological marvels at their disposal.

Well the demise of rolands ability to sustain its customer base is no surprise given its unforgivable actions over the past decade..
Its tried to many times resell the same recycled tech over and over with no real innovation along the way..
The V was the innovation and the XT was the logical next step after that it just got messy
they tryed to reinvent the FantomX with release of the G which had lots of potential but they didnt keep the iron hot there and let it just go cold and die leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth..
After that its just a complete mess with roland not having any real clear direction.
Even if they are thinking of a workstation,, WHAT!? could it ever offer to make it any better than whats been without offering you the same recycled tech all over again?
The routine is getting soooo old now even their latest RC 505 just way over priced by about 300%
you could get yourself a laptop for less and do 100 times more.
Looking at what tech is already to hand past and present i dont see any more room for new or inovative from roland now or in the future.

Shame realy.. :(

Quinnx. wrote:

...Its tried to many times resell the same recycled tech over and over with no real innovation along the way...The V was the innovation and the XT was the logical next step after that it just got messy...

What most people overlook: The JP-80 is in fact the current D-50 successor!
Its architecture and sound character is much more related to the D-50's LA (Linear Arithmetic) synthesis, than to the JP-8's analog synthesis...

The new SN technology combined with the unique architecture is innovative and revolutionary and not just recycled tech. The JP-80's sound character, quality, musicality, programmability, responsiveness and playability are quite unmatched, unique and addictive. One wouldn't think this, by just reading the specifications and the manual, or by listening to lame and data compressed youtube demos...

As Roland did release the V-Synth GT some years after the original V-Synth, can we expect a kind of Jupiter-80 GT in the future? As I've already stated in my OP, I don't think so. But of course, I might be completely wrong with all my predictions, as I am not a prophet...

;)

PS:

I've just seen this video for the first time and I think it is quite useful:

Bernie Smith - Take That's keyboard player - Youtube

Bernie Smith also mentions the capability of the JP-80 to produce 30 partials at a time (resp. per note). Each partial can either be a VA synth (a single VA tone has max. 3 partials, each partial can use a VA osc or a PCM osc and most original D-50, JD-800, etc. PCM waveforms are available) or it can be a SN acoustic tone (each acoustic tone has its own unique SN acoustic engine).

By contrast, the D-50 is capable to produce 4 partials at a time (resp. per note), while each partial can be either a kind of VA osc synth or a PCM osc synth.

Both, the JP-80 and the D-50, offer ring mod between partials.

That's why I mentioned before, that the JP-80 is IMHO much more related to the classic D-50, than to the classic JP-8, concerning sound character and synth architecture (Linear Arithmetic or "LA" Synthesis). That's why Roland should have called the JP-80, the "D-5000" instead...

But the often misunderstood JP-80 finally gravitates through its own and unique sound universe...

;)

Dany wrote:

... each partial can use a VA osc or a PCM osc and most original D-50, JD-800, etc. PCM waveforms are available)...

This is intriguing! Do you know which waveforms come from which synths? Or do you have a list of all the synths the Jupiter-80 has borrowed waveforms from? This would be very fun to know and useful when making partials with PCM oscillators.

Its debatable whether or not Jupiter 80 is the real successor to the original or D50. If folks paid attention to what Scott Tibbs said when the video was leaked....back in the 80's Jupiter represented the best they had to offer. Fast forward to today this JU80 is the best they have to offer. Thats it. Nowhere did they ever say JU80 was supposed to be a analog synth or it was to include a librarian 2 years after release.

JU80 is destined to become a classic.

Maybe for pure Roland synths, but I don't truly believe the end is near for high spec synths. This year was the Nord Lead 4, next year comes a new Motif (XF will be 4 years old by then). Korg will probably add a larger SSD to Kronos and call that an upgrade. Put on yer shades, the future is bright!

Dany

You site the JP-80's lack of hardware knobs and sliders as a possible partial explanation for its disappointing sales, but I can not help thinking of a possible similar source. The smaller Juno Di and Gi synths' sales are lagging behind those of their "i-less" D and G predecessors, and many of those who sold or traded in their older units to get what they perceived as "upgrades" are now feeling ripped-off. And . . . so . . . we are forced to consider the one design feature that the Di/Gi/JP50/JP80 have in common. Perhaps we are seeing the synth buying public's answer to Roland's onboard-sequencerless direction. I wonder how many prospective synth buyers perceive a sequencerless keyboard as being, somehow, crippled - even though they may have never used and may never use an onboard sequencer - kind of like a car's spare tire - it's nice to have it there in case you ever need it. I think us key bangers have our own unmentioned quirks just like we have accused drummers of for years. There may well be many of us in this modern outspoken social media world who, in order to avoid being verbally accosted as being dinosaurs because they have not joined the computer-umbilically addicted bandwagon, just keep their own council and quietly withdraw from the store and not split with their hard earned cash for something they see as lacking a much needed feature. I still keep seeing comments about having to drag yet another piece of gear to the gig. It may take this attitude some years to go away, and in the meantime Yamaha and Korg and the used gear vendors may very well cash in. And before you come after me as a soft-synth bashing dinosaur, allow me to say that I bought both the Juno-Gi and the JP-50 knowing full well that both lacked sequencers, and other than the Gi lacking an editor and the JP-50 lacking a librarian, I am full-well satisfied with both. An onboard sequencer is no longer a required item for me. I am just offering this for consideration in addition to your comments.

Regards,

Ted

Dany wrote:

Quinnx. wrote:

...Its tried to many times resell the same recycled tech over and over with no real innovation along the way...The V was the innovation and the XT was the logical next step after that it just got messy...

What most people overlook: The JP-80 is in fact the current D-50 successor!
Its architecture and sound character is much more related to the D-50's LA (Linear Arithmetic) synthesis, than to the JP-8's analog synthesis...

The new SN technology combined with the unique architecture is innovative and revolutionary and not just recycled tech. The JP-80's sound character, quality, musicality, programmability, responsiveness and playability are quite unmatched, unique and addictive. One wouldn't think this, by just reading the specifications and the manual, or by listening to lame and data compressed youtube demos...

As Roland did release the V-Synth GT some years after the original V-Synth, can we expect a kind of Jupiter-80 GT in the future? As I've already stated in my OP, I don't think so. But of course, I might be completely wrong with all my predictions, as I am not a prophet...

;)

PS:

I've just seen this video for the first time and I think it is quite useful:

Bernie Smith - Take That's keyboard player - Youtube

Bernie Smith also mentions the capability of the JP-80 to produce 30 partials at a time (resp. per note). Each partial can either be a VA synth (a single VA tone has max. 3 partials, each partial can use a VA osc or a PCM osc and most original D-50, JD-800, etc. PCM waveforms are available) or it can be a SN acoustic tone (each acoustic tone has its own unique SN acoustic engine).

By contrast, the D-50 is capable to produce 4 partials at a time (resp. per note), while each partial can be either a kind of VA osc synth or a PCM osc synth.

Both, the JP-80 and the D-50, offer ring mod between partials.

That's why I mentioned before, that the JP-80 is IMHO much more related to the classic D-50, than to the classic JP-8, concerning sound character and synth architecture (Linear Arithmetic or "LA" Synthesis). That's why Roland should have called the JP-80, the "D-5000" instead...

But the often misunderstood JP-80 finally gravitates through its own and unique sound universe...

;)

I completely agree with you on the JP-80 / D50 comparison! besides that I do have one D-50 inside my V-Synth XT, which I continue to use from time to time, but now more since the time I have the i-7

SoundworldA.D. wrote:

A PULSING, GROOVING MONOLITH OF SOUND! What a concept!!

Miles Davis - Agharta - 1975 - Youtube

Instructions were placed on the above cover of the original Japanese LP, urging listeners to "...play this record at the highest possible volume in order to fully appreciate the sound of Miles Davis!"

SoundworldA.D. wrote:

Music is a about feeling...and that special feeling that it can impart to a listener is there whether it is Betty Carter's lovely 1955 vocal caress on "Moonlight in Vermont" or one of the latest techno crooners with all of the technological marvels at their disposal.

+1

Betty Carter - Moonlight in Vermont - Youtube


;)

Well pennies in a stream never sounded like so much gold!

Thanks for yet another Miles tip Dany. Add Agharta and Pangaea to my ever growing Miles collection! One day shipping and I should get them by tomorrow.

And speaking of really cool mid-70's Jazz Fusion, here is the one that got me into Jazz in the first place...[attachment: L.A.Express.jpeg] Blast! Looks like it's already OOP again!

SoundworldA.D. wrote:

...And speaking of really cool mid-70's Jazz Fusion, here is the one that got me into Jazz in the first place...

Blast! Looks like it's already OOP again!

Great band! Thanks for the hint! I didn't know them so far: Tom Scott & L.A. Express (1974) - Youtube

May the patient readers forgive us our off topic tendency...

Devnor wrote:

JU80 is destined to become a classic.

+1

wow...what a thread! No offense, but some are getting lost in the technology here.
Let me offer a short reply to Dany's first posting.

Isn't it simply all about the sounds and the satisfaction we provide ourselves and our audiences? The type of instrument--acoustic/electronic, analog/digital, whatever--we use to generate those sounds is just one part of the process, and the choice of that instrument is personal and not really that debatable. They all work well, in the proper hands.

And why worry about plastic...or light weight? Plastic is used in gun frames, aircraft, and through-hull boat fittings, so isn't it sturdy enough for significant use in keyboards? The flagship keyboards (and many of the lesser) stand up to hard use, be they heavy or light.

Oh...did I say it's really all about the sound?

R

I'm with RoyR, here. I've recently been getting wowed by my 2 newest synths: an Alesis QSR and the mighty Korg Wavestation A/D. Ultimately I have only 2 considerations: 1) do I connect with the architecture/ organisation of a synth in such a way that I feel I can successfully program my emotions in sound and then "play" them out convincingly; and 2) do my audience hear the emotion I am trying to convey?

Beyond that latest/classic, analogue/digital, korg/roland etc who cares? Certainly not my audience, and if they don't neither should I: the'connection' is ultimately all that matters. </stinkinghippy>