Boss GM-800 and GK-5

[gumtown]

GM-800 and GKC-AD incoming for me soon, adding that to the SY-1000 and retiring the GR-55 (poor old GR has had a long and hard life).
so..
How you all doing with your GM-800 so far ?
Is it still all 'that' and more ?

What sorts of uses and usage case scenarios is your GM-800 filling ?

I have a little DIY project going which I am building a row of 12 footswitches to sit in front of the SY-1000 and GM-800,
connected to a small microcontroller which, will send button presses, to midi note data, to the GM-800,
so I can play at least one GM partial with my feet.
(roll on ACDC 'it's a long way to the top' bagpipes drone).

 

[Trollbait]

I listened to a recent GM800 youtube demo by a technically skilled guitar player doing an Organ sound. The P2M tracking errors were audible.

If everyone just ignored Roland's repackaging of midi triggered PCM samples, perhaps they would give us something new (for them) like the current modeling technology of acoustic instruments.

DSP modeling of course yields better tracking results which does not require translating guitar pitch to midi.

 

[JiveTurkey]

In "taking my own advice for $500, Alex"; the GM is the best current tool for making your guitar sound like other fake instruments. I wish that wasn't the case but it is. Take from that what you must.

 

[Sascha Franck]

DSP modeling of course yields better tracking results which does not require translating guitar pitch to midi.

Fwiw, it's not only about tracking for me. Tracking could possibly still be improved (but in fact, it's not all that bad since some years already), but the main issue would still be that guitar playing techniques simply don't translate well into MIDI commands or possible implementations on the receiving side.
I mean, what's the MIDI equivalent of a slur? Or a rake, a scratch - or whatever noises you feel like creating on a guitar? In MIDI land, pretty much none of those have an exact counterpart. And even less so on the receiving instrument side (because those were built around the MIDI possibilities). Now, sure, modern instruments and libraries have partially extended options for more expressive playing, but you'd still have to send the required playing instructions through the MIDI pipe. As a stupid example, a keyboard player might be able to send a key switch command or a controller message to switch the receiving instrument into, say, "glide" mode (which might be slides, portamento, whatever...), but what are you gonna do to get there with your MIDI-fied guitar? Yeah, you might add a bunch of controller switches and pedals - but that's still entirely different from just performing that slur on your guitar.

And fwiw, because we possibly can't really get rid of most of our typical playing habits, this results in bad tracking perception. But that's not necessarily the case, it's just that there's no ways of translation, so that tonal informations exceeding the MIDI boundaries will sound like horribly tracked garbage.
If you really take care of your playing technique, ideally playing finger style (or hybrid) for chords, also avoiding most articulation manners but plain bends and vibratos, ideally paired with generally excellent technique (no unwanted buzz, great L/R hand synchronisattion, no stupid "unsecure" vibratos and what not), current Guitar-to-MIDI systems are tracking quite well IMO (and already are since quite a while).
But do we really want to do that? Just to still fall way behind keyboardars in terms of proper playing options?
Personally, I don't. I should still slap my GK onto whatever guitar for recording purposes, but that's simply because I'm such a miserable keyboard player, not at all to enhance my guitar sound universe.
After all, one of the reasons for me to play guitar is exactly that it allows for all these kinda things MIDI is completely taking away.

This is precisely why I wish more folks would do things similar (ideally following whatever kinda "standard") as Roland/Boss with their VG/SY series.

 

[Whizzinby]

In "taking my own advice for $500, Alex"; the GM is the best current tool for making your guitar sound like other fake instruments. I wish that wasn't the case but it is. Take from that what you must.

Yeah I moved on from it, but I thought the core sounds were really good. Some of the piano and synth sounds were very convincing to me.

 

[TJontheRoad]

It's easy to "blame" MIDI. OTOH, raking, tapping, string scratching, and alike aren't for anything but guitar. Why would anyone bother with a synth if that's what they are going to play? You buy a guitar synth because you want to have synth sounds without learning another instrument. What a synth expects to get via MIDI is readily there via the GM-800. Sloppy playing is somehow ok on guitar. A guitar synth exposes these weaknesses in a player. There's little to no translation because there's no other instrument other than guitar that works the same way. Strings, horns, piano, etc. need clean playing in the real world and via MIDI.

 

[Sascha Franck]

It's easy to "blame" MIDI. OTOH, raking, tapping, string scratching, and alike aren't for anything but guitar. Why would anyone bother with a synth if that's what they are going to play? You buy a guitar synth because you want to have synth sounds without learning another instrument. What a synth expects to get via MIDI is readily there via the GM-800. Sloppy playing is somehow ok on guitar. A guitar synth exposes these weaknesses in a player. There's little to no translation because there's no other instrument other than guitar that works the same way. Strings, horns, piano, etc. need clean playing in the real world and via MIDI.

I don't buy all that. Keyboards are built around MIDI - or rather, MIDI is built around keyboards. Guitar-to-MIDI is an awkward afterthought, if there ever was one. Sure, it's working somewhat - but only in case you don't play a guitar as a guitar should be played. That's a fundamental difference towards playing a keyboard.

 

[JiveTurkey]

Couple of guitar synth rules I live by. Right or wrong.

1. Bend the sh!t out trumpets and do all sorts of dumb slides/non-real moves when I can. It's obviously not a trumpet; it's a flying V. So the audience can adjust their expectations accordingly

2. What I am NOT going to do is adjust my playing style drastically beyond being mindful of overall normal playing technique. Muting string noises, etc. as I normally would obviously; but I am NOT going to suddenly throw my pic to the side and gingerly finger pick with a clawed hand on an accordion part because "YOUE HAVV TO APROCH IT LIKE THU REEL THINGE" bs. I get it but that's a hard no. I am tremolo picking a PCM piano with a 2mm Jim Dunlop and the box is just going to have to deal with it

 

[BROCKSTAR]

You all think too much, settle down

Play the damn thing, experiment and have fun!

 

[TJontheRoad]

I don't buy all that. Keyboards are built around MIDI - or rather, MIDI is built around keyboards. Guitar-to-MIDI is an awkward afterthought, if there ever was one. Sure, it's working somewhat - but only in case you don't play a guitar as a guitar should be played. That's a fundamental difference towards playing a keyboard.

With respect, that's a narrow point of view IMHO. MIDI wasn't design to be mainly a keyboard thing. MIDI was designed to a standard digital protocol. It's used in lots of non keyboard applications that are too many to mention. In terms of synth controllers (just off the top of head), there wind synths (like my Emeo Digital Sax), touch pads, Linnstrument, Haken Audio Continuum, and much more. Each one these MIDI controllers requires the player to adjust their approach for best results.

This stuff isn't for everyone and that perfectly ok. As a guitarist myself, I find there both strengths and weaknesses to the instrument that can be broadened by MIDI. It's just another tool in the toolbox.

 

[TJontheRoad]

You all think too much, settle down

Play the damn thing, experiment and have fun!

 

[Sascha Franck]

With respect, that's a narrow point of view IMHO.

No, it's not. It's realistic.

MIDI wasn't design to be mainly a keyboard thing.

Yes, it was. The fact that it can be used for at least somewhat different things doesn't change a thing with that. It was developed both with keyboarders involved and with keyboarders in mind.

In terms of synth controllers (just off the top of head), there wind synths (like my Emeo Digital Sax), touch pads, Linnstrument, Haken Audio Continuum, and much more.

None of these feature even remotely as awkward mechanisms as Guitar-to-MIDI. In fact, they are sometimes even expanding the instrument playing options (such as that you can play chords on an EWI, something impossible on a sax) whereas GTM is severely limiting your playing/articulation options.

 

[Sascha Franck]

It was developed both with keyboarders involved and with keyboarders in mind.

And fwiw:

A Brief History of MIDI - Perfect Circuit

What is MIDI? Where did it come from? We offer an overview of MIDI's early history and its evolution, including discussions of ZIPI, MPDL, OSC, MPE, and MIDI 2.0.

www.perfectcircuit.com

 

[Sascha Franck]

2. What I am NOT going to do is adjust my playing style drastically beyond being mindful of overall normal playing technique. Muting string noises, etc. as I normally would obviously; but I am NOT going to suddenly throw my pic to the side and gingerly finger pick with a clawed hand on an accordion part because "YOUE HAVV TO APROCH IT LIKE THU REEL THINGE" bs. I get it but that's a hard no. I am tremolo picking a PCM piano with a 2mm Jim Dunlop and the box is just going to have to deal with it

All that is obviously working in many situations. You likely wouldn't record it that way, though (but rather clean up the MIDI data).
And it also doesn't contradict what I was saying. MIDI is not well suited to transport guitar playing nuances. Even so little that it's not just nuances getting lost but, depending on your playing style of course, even half of the information. In case you're lucky, it'll only be a loss of certain information, in case you're not, it'll be a truckload of warbling mess.

 

[JiveTurkey]

All that is obviously working in many situations. You likely wouldn't record it that way, though (but rather clean up the MIDI data).
And it also doesn't contradict what I was saying. MIDI is not well suited to transport guitar playing nuances. Even so little that it's not just nuances getting lost but, depending on your playing style of course, even half of the information. In case you're lucky, it'll only be a loss of certain information, in case you're not, it'll be a truckload of warbling mess.

I'm not discounting anything you are saying.

 

[gumtown]

Dang, better go fire up the ovens then.

 

[TJontheRoad]

No, it's not. It's realistic.



Yes, it was. The fact that it can be used for at least somewhat different things doesn't change a thing with that. It was developed both with keyboarders involved and with keyboarders in mind.



None of these feature even remotely as awkward mechanisms as Guitar-to-MIDI. In fact, they are sometimes even expanding the instrument playing options (such as that you can play chords on an EWI, something impossible on a sax) whereas GTM is severely limiting your playing/articulation options.

And fwiw:

A Brief History of MIDI - Perfect Circuit

What is MIDI? Where did it come from? We offer an overview of MIDI's early history and its evolution, including discussions of ZIPI, MPDL, OSC, MPE, and MIDI 2.0.

www.perfectcircuit.com

Again with respect, the article you posted is contradictory to much of what you're saying. The primary focus of MIDI was for communication between synths and computers. Not exclusively keyboard synths. Many synths of the time were actually rack mounted or large specialized computers themselves (Fairlight CMI, PPG, Synclavier). Yes it started out with keys but was always ideally adapted to anything.

Guitar was and is still a challenge to confine within the limits of a 40 year standard that is MIDI. This we can agree. That doesn't mean it wasn't intended to be a part of the action from the beginning. Roland, the company along with Sequential that came up with MIDI, had guitar synths from the beginning.

Note, I don't mean to make this discussion an argument in any way. It is to me a worthwhile historical discussion as it pertains to the GM-800 and where we are today. I think the GM-800 is a big step forward for guitarist. It isn't perfect though. Nothing is.

Pease :)

 

[Sascha Franck]

The primary focus of MIDI was for communication between synths and computers.

No, you should possibly read the article again. The first noteworthy MIDI connection was made between two keyboards.
But then, it's not even about that. Because, even if it was meant to connect a computer (which, back then, didn't make much sense as there was hardly any software to work with), the "nature of the data stream" is every bit keyboard centric. The main informations transmitted at first were note on/off and velocity, followed by certain controllers.
All of this is extremely keyboard centric as these are the very informations you can gather with ease from keyboards. Gathering the same information from a guitar is a fundamentally (!) different process, not even just because it involves pitch to MIDI conversion but because a whole amount of other information is much more difficult to gather or even needs to be stripped out entirely as to not confuse the receiving side of the system.
Sorry, but saying that MIDI isn't mainly suited to deal with keyboards is ignoring both history and practical aspects.

Guitar was and is still a challenge to confine within the limits of a 40 year standard that is MIDI. This we can agree. That doesn't mean it wasn't intended to be a part of the action from the beginning. Roland, the company along with Sequential that came up with MIDI, had guitar synths from the beginning.

That is just not true. MIDI has been developed completely without any guitars in the making, Roland was using a different data format for their guitar synths internally and only hopped onto the MIDI train when it became clear that this was the new standard. Internally, they continued to use something else (probably pretty similar but suited better for guitar).
Yes, Roland was involved in developing MIDI, yet, their guitar synths weren't part of the MIDI development.

It is to me a worthwhile historical discussion

Same here. And again sorry, but you seem to be sort of missing what the MIDI roots were.
Seriously, you can even see it by the nature of MIDI and the partially huge issues coming along with Guitar-to-MIDI that these two languages simply don't translate well into each other. Can you use it, though? Of course. And it's partially excellent. But saying anything that a guitar would be even remotely as suitable to control a synth via MIDI than a keyboard, well - IMO that's almost absurd.

 

[TJontheRoad]

No, you should possibly read the article again. The first noteworthy MIDI connection was made between two keyboards.
But then, it's not even about that. Because, even if it was meant to connect a computer (which, back then, didn't make much sense as there was hardly any software to work with), the "nature of the data stream" is every bit keyboard centric. The main informations transmitted at first were note on/off and velocity, followed by certain controllers.
All of this is extremely keyboard centric as these are the very informations you can gather with ease from keyboards. Gathering the same information from a guitar is a fundamentally (!) different process, not even just because it involves pitch to MIDI conversion but because a whole amount of other information is much more difficult to gather or even needs to be stripped out entirely as to not confuse the receiving side of the system.
Sorry, but saying that MIDI isn't mainly suited to deal with keyboards is ignoring both history and practical aspects.



That is just not true. MIDI has been developed completely without any guitars in the making, Roland was using a different data format for their guitar synths internally and only hopped onto the MIDI train when it became clear that this was the new standard. Internally, they continued to use something else (probably pretty similar but suited better for guitar).
Yes, Roland was involved in developing MIDI, yet, their guitar synths weren't part of the MIDI development.



Same here. And again sorry, but you seem to be sort of missing what the MIDI roots were.
Seriously, you can even see it by the nature of MIDI and the partially huge issues coming along with Guitar-to-MIDI that these two languages simply don't translate well into each other. Can you use it, though? Of course. And it's partially excellent. But saying anything that a guitar would be even remotely as suitable to control a synth via MIDI than a keyboard, well - IMO that's almost absurd.

Agree to disagree.

Cheers TJ

 

[Sascha Franck]

Agree to disagree

And I'm seriously wondering what kinda things there are to disagree with. I mean, it's largely just historical and technical stuff, explaining why guitars aren't as good as MIDI triggering devices as keyboards. These are mainly facts.