Fantom sequencer question.

Currently, you can make "Song" sequences as long as you want by chaining patterns that are limited to 32 measures together. It is way more than just a glorified groove box. Way more. If your intent is to just sit down and play forever and record that to a MIDI file, it can't do that. You can hook it up to your computer and do that however. Pairing up the Fantom with a computer removes most of its limitations and keeps all of its current features and benefits. There is no word from Roland about improving the limitations, but I am sure they are well aware and may or may not decide to come out with a new version to address them. You can either wait and see, buy something else, or buy this and work around its limitations. Anything else will have its own set of limitations. It just depends on what is most important to you.

Fantom is astounding: my short review after two years with my 8.
🎹🎹🎹🎹
You will surely meet some handicaps as you carry on along your work flow, as most of us hereabouts already have, but none capable of impending great, big, beautiful results.
🎼🎼🎼🎼
But I am just a music lover enjoying very much what Roland made, while patiently hoping for some improvements update after update...if any.
🤪🤪🤪🤪
I think you better have a try...
🤗🤗🤗🤗

😃😃😃😃

Here is one of my favorite demonstrations of how quickly you can throw a song together that sounds great with no thought about 32-measure limits, just pure creativity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPBVPhv71DU

I finally bought my Fantom after seeing him here...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4xK33FmiW24

Thank you for your replies, very much appreciated.

Making "Songs" out of "Patterns" is what groove boxes are for. It makes no difference what else this machine does, if it doesn't have a linear sequencer, it is effectively a groove box. There are no arguments otherwise. Every other detail of what it can do is irrelevant, the sequencer determines whether it is a groove box, Groove boxes were invented as quick idea making machines with patterns strung together to make songs, that by definition makes the Fantom a groove box. That is my opinion and only my opinion.

I do not need to be sold on what the Fantom is or is not, I know what it is which is why I am saving for it. But if Roland do not add full linear sequencing, it would be such a shame as it will be a purchase I will not make. This thing has so much potential to be greater than the G6, yet it's let down by that sequencer. Maybe not for you, but there are plenty who have been let down by it, as a forum search reveals.

It is a beast, an amazing tool, excellent abilities, but at this price it should be more than just more of what I currently have. I really need something with a proper sequencer, I do not want to sequence patterns, I want to sequence MIDI and Audio. There's a difference. If I was happy sequencing patterns, I'd stick with my Electribes! lol It's a different workflow, one that I don't really like. Gives a few minutes of fun and that's it.

It's kind of like working in my DAW, you can make all copied sequences either independant or separate entities. With patterns, you have no choice but to create a new variation in another pattern, or Scene, as I believe it's called here. Crap way of working in my opinion, but that's only my opinion, again. But as I will be potentially forking out £3,000 for this thing, I am quite entitled to judge it from my own perspective, not to attack it, but to have that opinion that it doesn't serve the purpose I need it for.

I can forgive anything missing, except this one thing! Lack of audio recording tracks is another major wish, but to have the ability to record in a linear sequencer is an absolute must and the sole reason for making a hardware purchase. I even thought about getting the FA-06 instead, seeing as that is far cheaper and actually has a real sequencer on it!.

I'm doubtful there will ever be a linear sequencer update anyway. Nowadays companies seem to release something, give a few bug and feature updates to make it look good for PR, then abandon it for the next big sell. I hope that doesn't happen in this case, but we'll see, fingers crossed! :)

It seems these companies think they know what everyone wants but only look to those using DAW's! I dislike making music on my DAW as it is far too bloated and computers are too distracting. Plus all the fun of actually creating and making music is gone as you're always fighting the operating system or the software due to audio issue's, latency, bugs, or just too many damn entries in context menus!!! I just wanted to get away from computers and much prefer Roland's sound and their workstations. Perhaps I'll just wait another five or ten years and see if they do it right next time! :D

Sorry for sounding like a dick, just my pov. Didn't mean to offend anyone, these are just my views and not intended to start a "who's right" war. ;)

thorr wrote:

Here is one of my favorite demonstrations of how quickly you can throw a song together that sounds great with no thought about 32-measure limits, just pure creativity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPBVPhv71DU

That's not a song, it's a pattern of a few bars! Without counting it, sounds like about 8 bar loop. I could do very similar on an EMX! lol Yeah, I know, not with that sound quality or sounds, but I'm talking about sequencing, not sounds or synthesis.

Totally makes sense. No offense taken at all. Everyone has their priorities of what is important to them. For me, it is more about playing and the synthesizer capabilities than the sequencing, but I wish it could do that too and eliminate the need for a DAW. Learning and using DAW's are tedious. The Fantom is pretty intuitive so far, so maybe they could make a great linear sequencer into the Fantom that is easy to use. It would be totally awesome if Roland could deliver what you are looking for in the next release. It would also be cool if they could do some kind of video out via USB to an application on a PC so you could use all the controls on the Fantom, but display your sequencing on a larger screen and maybe interact with it on the PC side as well. It does have some DAW integration capabilities, but I am saying the Fantom is the DAW in this case. Thinking about it, maybe the DAW integration capabilities will satisfy some of what you are looking for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8MAjxzzVGk

sl23 wrote:

thorr wrote:

Here is one of my favorite demonstrations of how quickly you can throw a song together that sounds great with no thought about 32-measure limits, just pure creativity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPBVPhv71DU

That's not a song, it's a pattern of a few bars! Without counting it, sounds like about 8 bar loop. I could do very similar on an EMX! lol Yeah, I know, not with that sound quality or sounds, but I'm talking about sequencing, not sounds or synthesis.

Correct, but what he is playing live on top of it is what in my opinion makes it into a song. The problem is if you want to sequence the live part, you are limited to 32 measures at a time and a limited number of patterns. The 4x4x4 challenge included a built-in limitation to 4 chords as part of the challenge, so of course it is going to be extra limited in this case, lol.

Don't get me wrong, I know the Fantom is a brilliant piece of hardware without even using it. It's just that I'm fed up working with patterns on hardware. You can't even create a decent melody on most of it as it's only 4 bars long! You get into playing something then have think about splitting it up! Buzz killer! Lol

The 32 measures limit and the restriction to 3/4 and 4/4 are indeed the most commented areas and the arenas where a fix is mostly requested.

The measure limit can be circumnavigated to an extend, as I said long ago in a post I am unable to find now, and only under some restricted conditions, provided arppegios, if any, can be get under proper control via its own settings by 2x, 3x,4x them as we go 1/2,1/3, 1/4 with tempo so as to extend the time length of those very same 32 measures. The relationship is not exact, but simply a good try to be understood anyway.

Setting tempo to 10 wil provide 18 seconds at 3/4 and 24 seconds at 4/4 for every measure involved.
So by using all 32 measures we will have 576 seconds or 9 minutes and 36 seconds at 3/4; and 768 seconds or 12 minutes and 48 seconds at 4/4.

Tempo at 60 will 1/6 those times.

I have some songs recorded (partialy, since there was not enough time) at their original tempo, say 120, and then recorded to its full length at 60, 1/2 the original tempo, and hardly nobody notice...and even some measures were left unused.

Anyway I went recording via a laptop and I am very happy and only using the recording capabilities of Fantom to grab the incoming ideas before they disappear like smoke...

An example...

Original idea...

Tempo 120, arpeggio variation 3, shuffle rate 70%.
[attachment: Tempo 120 Variation 3 Shuffle 70%.jpg] [attachment: Tempo 120 Variation 3 Shuffle 70%.mp4]

New adjustments to double the time...

Tempo 60, arpeggio variation 5, shuffle rate 57%.
[attachment: Tempo 60 Variation 5 Shuffle 57%.jpg] [attachment: Tempo 60 Variation 5 Shuffle 57%.mp4]

Maybe a bit more could be adjusted any further, but is a quick example that took me only a couple of minutes.

So, what do you think, they sound about the very same...?

By the way: the very same can be achieved, should we need even more time, by going 4/4 instead of 3/4. Just set tempo 60, 4/4, arpeggio variation 11 and shuffle rate 70%.

In a nutshell:

1...tempo 120 at 3/4, arpeggio 3, shuffle 70% and 32 measures provide 48 seconds to record.

2...tempo 60 at 3/4. arpeggio 5, shuffle 57% and 32 measures provide 96 seconds to record.

3...tempo 60 at 4/4, arpeggio 11, shuffle 70% and 32 measures reach a recording time of 128 seconds.

Anyway, Roland is surely aware Ravel's Bolero needs 340 compasses (lasting 17 minutes according to the composer himself, although no one has been seen conducting it at a pace any slower than 72?, 73?, so much faster than the required 60) and that the CD recording size was fixed based on Beethoven's 9th, so it goes without saying most Fantom proud owners will accept very willingly a compromise falling anywhere between those extremes/boundaries/software-clues, won't we ?

😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃

I have two EMX and an ESX. When the newer electribe was released, I waited and bought that too. The limiting sequencer, among it's many other issues, was not satisfactory even using the same technique as you are proposing. To this day, I have used it around 5 or 6 times in 7 years! It's just not good enough having to work like that. Especially on something this costly.

Not to mention that korg stopped updating the electribe in 2016! I expect by the end of next year the Fantom will also be abandoned in the same way.

It wouldn't take much to add a linear sequencer, so why won't they do that? Many people want it. Doesn't make sense!

I appreciate your comments, I understand it is a fantastic workstation, but for me, without that sequencer, it's just not good enough.

(¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )