Should Roland add a linear Sequencer?

anotherscott wrote:

Tejaso wrote:

the "Ableton" style sequencer...should have never been considered as the primary mode for any modern workstation.

lonelagranger wrote:

They call it a workstation.

mpopean wrote:

It says workstation.

Epiclectic wrote:

A top-end workstation's sequencer should not be just for "jamming over some quick patterns" or programming repetitive dance trash.

Looking at Roland's web site, I actually could not find a single instance where they called the new Fantom a "workstation."

I just wanted to add my +1 to the linear sequencer. :)

As for workstation, I think the reviews are to blame for that. Most call it a workstation, if it's not officially a workstation, it must be a groove box! Lol

This is, by all intents and purposes, both. It is a groove box workstation. It is pattern based sequencing and does everything a workstation usually does, so whatever they call it, it is nothing less than both. ;)

I still want one, but not sure I'll shell out for it without linear sequencing. Anyway, already had that discussion so....

(¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )

Tejaso wrote:

Absolutely, fixing the sequencer is a must.

I'm sorry but the "Ableton" style sequencer is a throwback to 80's style pattern based sequencers. It's a method that is severely limiting and should have never been considered as the primary mode for any modern workstation.

PLEASE give us a "Pro" mode that has a tempo track, 16 linear tracks, multiple time signatures. You can look at the Fantom G sequencer as an example. You could easily make that version of a linear sequencer work with the pattern based workflow we have now quite easily.

100% agree!

No Linear Sequencer required. There is only one problem, the 32 measures. The Yamaha MODX works similarly where you have to connect the parts of the song, but there you can adjust the length of the song yourself. There is no limit. If you take advantage of all 256 measures, it's like a Linear Sequencer. You can load an entire MIDI file without having to bother with 32 measures. Fantom should simply be able to undo the 32 measures and adjust the length of the song sections as you like. Another serious flaw is the lack of user arpeggio creation. An excellent synthesizer for the Fantom, with wonderful sounds, I also love to use it, but these are all basic features. I don't understand why no user arpeggio editing has been included yet and why there is this limit of 32 measures. If these two things were fixed, the joy would be complete. One thing would still be good, even if KB SW Group could be used. I mean, it would automatically turn on the settings for the PAD buttons at different points in the song. This would be good especially for live play. You should not have to press the PAD buttons if you suddenly want to use another KB SW Group. When the key is split from more zones than Split, and each SW Group contains a different Split setting at different stages of the song, they would automatically switch and you only need to focus on the game. MODX has such a function. Very convenient solution. There’s a lot of free space in the PAD menu where I think new features are added, even just in the apreggio menu. So now Roland has to release an update, but for more than half a year nothing. Many people waited before Christmas because we usually get an update every 5 months so let’s hope so.

YES!!,
i dont mind the loop sequencer for quick ideas, but i would love a linear sequencer for long experimental recording sessions and to make it easy to put together any loops rather than using the dump loop chain method the fantom uses now.
please consider adding a linear workflow asap.. right now my fantom is just a giant sound module, i use daw for later production but id like to come away from my pc screen, hook up a couple of hardware synths to my fantom and play jam style. just click record and go, next track etc etc. i know daws do this, but sat at a desk with a pc and screen can be a complete drain.

anotherscott wrote:

Tejaso wrote:

the "Ableton" style sequencer...should have never been considered as the primary mode for any modern workstation.

lonelagranger wrote:

They call it a workstation.

mpopean wrote:

It says workstation.

Epiclectic wrote:

A top-end workstation's sequencer should not be just for "jamming over some quick patterns" or programming repetitive dance trash.

Looking at Roland's web site, I actually could not find a single instance where they called the new Fantom a "workstation."

The old web site and many retailers promoted the new fantom as a workstation, its seems it has since been retracted and now labelled a synthesizer.
A synthersizer that has sampling and a sequencer.. bit random if you ask me.. i have found more fantom users complaining about the sequencer than not. Ive literally read hundres of posts on various forums etc. probably a backlash roland didnt expect... how nieve.. guess thats what happens when you jump on the ableton live, dj producer bandwagon..the the programmers should of implemented both types of sequencer. dont say it cant be done. yamaha have managed it with the montage and the fantom is massively superior in power and capabilty.

Perplextor wrote:

I don’t think Roland will add a linear timeline on top of the pattern sequencer. This would be a massive update if they will add more time signatures, a tempo track, longer pattern, linear tracks, more edit options, import/export of whole songs.

In song mode there could be an additional screen with 16 tracks and a tempo and a time signature track. This would be perfect.

I dont see why not.. yamaha have managed it in a update with the montage. the fantom is way superiour in spec.
montage started out with a linear sequencer and has now been complimented with the loop phrase sequncer. same approach tho in reverse from roland would be great.

mashipx wrote:

I dont see why not.. yamaha have managed it in a update with the montage. the fantom is way superiour in spec.

I am afraid Montage is so deep, deep and deep again it turns out just a few people on Earth knows it in full.

I have been staring at it since 2016 and simply got amazed every single day...Or maybe I should stop viewing and reading and start touching.

Thanks Roland made Fantom and I am enjoying it immensely.

Anyway I will most probably end buying a Montage 6 and connect it to my Fantom 8 just to see what can I do...probably a mere 9% of what could be done.

mashipx wrote:

I dont see why not.. yamaha have managed it in a update with the montage. the fantom is way superiour in spec.
montage started out with a linear sequencer and has now been complimented with the loop phrase sequncer. same approach tho in reverse from roland would be great.

Montage still doesn't have a full linear multitrack editable sequencer, not like what was in the Motifs (or Fantom G).

I kind of understand the wish to have a fully fledged linear onboard sequencer but Korg has forever changed my mind about them. :) Let's face it - editing MIDI on a small 7" screen with a lot of convenient functions missing just isn't a lot of fun.

I'm still not exactly a big fan of the clip-based sequencer on the Fantom but I think people need to understand that this is not a s throwback into the 80s because it's a "clip" sequencer, which is a bit different from an old pattern sequencer. It's quite useful and pretty quick to explore different options of bass and melody lines, chord progressions arpeggios etc. within the same part of an arrangement. I can do that for 8 different parts of the arrangement, then fire up these parts in realtime like I think the song should be structured and record that performance (just all 16 inputs switched to record) in my attached linear DAW software - that way I have laid out the song structure in my DAW and transferred the sequences in one go, for much accelerated further refinement.

With now 64 bars per pattern it also seems very feasible to transfer sequences back from the DAW into the Fantom, sliced into segments to fire them off as groups via the pads for performing refined arrangements live and still having control about length and structure. But the clip-based internal sequencer could be incredibly useful for anyone if it could do something else: What's really missing tho is utilizing the clip-based sequencer for the missing "arpeggiators"!

If we could "play" (trigger and transpose) the clips from the keyboard, that clip-based sequencer would suddenly become a tremendously powerful tool to extend the Fantom's realtime performance capabilities to the realms of other products. Add a simple import/export function for clips so users can exchange their favorite guitar strumming clips or brass/string section phrases etc. and it would not only rival the convoluted "arpeggiators" of other products, it would put them to shame because different from those you could create them in realtime directly from the keyboard. :)

anotherscott wrote:

Tejaso wrote:

the "Ableton" style sequencer...should have never been considered as the primary mode for any modern workstation.

lonelagranger wrote:

They call it a workstation.

mpopean wrote:

It says workstation.

Epiclectic wrote:

A top-end workstation's sequencer should not be just for "jamming over some quick patterns" or programming repetitive dance trash.

Looking at Roland's web site, I actually could not find a single instance where they called the new Fantom a "workstation."

https://www.roland.com/us/categories/synthesizers/performance_workstation/

Right on the web page...

EdGe wrote:

Right on the web page...

I used CTRL+F to make sure I don't miss the spot where they call the Fantom a workstation - the only hits are the FA series...um.. workstations. ;) Roland is obviously very eager to not call it "workstation", the only place I could find is the reference manual, where they use that word down in the 'Specifications' section and considering the great lengths they go to call it "synthesizer" or "control center' etc. instead I'm pretty sure the appearance of the word in the manual is a glitch.

EdGe wrote:

https://www.roland.com/us/categories/synthesizers/performance_workstation/

Right on the web page...

picking up from 13dka's post... That very page shows they are NOT calling it a workstation. That page has their performance and workstation boards. But each board has its own description. Fantom is called Synthesizer. AX-Edge is called keytar. FA is called workstation. JunoDS is called synthesizer. Integra is sound module. RD2000 is digital piano. And so forth. The only board on that page that they call a workstation (and not coincidentally, the only one with a linear sequencer) is the FA. It seems a very deliberate choice, again, to not call Fantom a workstation.

That discussion fills already a few :) pages over at Gearsl.erm...space and to be fair, it's not surprising if people insist on calling it a workstation if Roland makes "almost a workstation" that looks like a workstation, walks like a workstation and quacks like a duck and puts it on a market full of buyers yearning for a new high-end workstation because the only remaining actual workstation is now in its well-deserved retirement... The decision to avoid that title could have a number of reasons, one of them could be that they do not intend to turn it into everyone's home-made definition of what a workstation is. Also, considering that they added (depending on how you count that) synthesis engines to a total number of 9, they are maybe just trying to avoid looking like they directly aim at the Korg crowd.

That all doesn't bother me tho - I bought the Fantom for what it is (or was at the time of purchase), not for what I think it must become in the future. Of course I hope Roland keeps developing and maintaining the platform that it is and I appreciate if they add functionality but I don't expect it, saves me the disappointment if they don't.