Yes, I got it and loved it. Different strokes

Stephen,
you brought back a few memories - Novel - not many people remember what that is.
Yep, CNE, CNI - the whole nine yards. Made a lot of money those days.

Deane

Deane,

Yup, Novell is old stuff for sure. I'm about to retire from my full time job at the end of this year in systems support. We're looking for a replacement and starting to arrange interviews. My boss and I chuckle when we see the Novell certifications, yes at one time they were worth plenty of $$$, now at least where I work it just takes space up on a resume.

I can remember the very first efforts at providing wireless networking to businesses. It was a hard sell because everyone was afraid of security issues. I had a team of 6 people and we contracted ourselves out to places like General Dynamics, IBM, and Lockheed. It was quite an experience filled with all kinds of high level security requirements and secrecy. My lowest paid team member earned $125.00 an hour to give you and idea of the pay scale back then for experienced Novel personnel. The only problems we encountered were caused by the union guys who did't want us on the job. The night shift often would undo the work we had done that day. Management went nuts and we wasted a lot of time in useless meetings for which they got to pay my team over $1500.00 an hour to just sit there and listen to their complaints. They didn't believe the work had actually been done so we setup secret cameras to prove our point and low and behold about a dozen of their employees got fired. Yea, great memories.

Deane

... not so much for those dozen or so employees, but then we reap what we sow ...

It might be interesting to hear a bit more detailed explanation of what about the BK-9 OS didn't work out for you. It might help Roland develop more user friendly OS's, for one thing, and perhaps allow some of us the opportunity to explain how we somehow have overcome these problems, or found workarounds for them.

I am continually surprised at how some owners seem to have missed out on some of the shortcuts and alternative methods the BK-9 OS allows. There are many that want to be able to do things the way they USED to, on arrangers built by a completely different manufacturer. I find this a bit perplexing. I doubt many who own Korg's or Yamaha's, when I describe something that Roland's do that I find hard to figure out on a Korg or Yamaha, would think I made a good decision dropping them because I could not get used to their 'system'.

Add to that that most of the easiest editing options involve the iPad apps (or access options really, as the apps don't really ADD anything not already in the OS) which most haven't tried. But, be that as it may, it would be interesting to see what it is that proves so perplexing, and whether we can explain our solution to them.

Personally, I think that an awful lot of problems start because many older players want to work arrangers the way they used to, in the days when arrangers were quite simple devices with so few options, the ability to run them entirely from the front panel was easy. Nowadays, though, they have developed a complexity that defies this system. Hence, they have all developed the Performance and/or Songbook as the way to call up what you need for a particular song. Once you bow to the inevitable, most of them operate as easily as any other. You do the grunt work in advance, and simply call up the title.

Without that, each one has shortcomings to work live without using these tools. Thing is, each one has DIFFERENT roadblocks to 'free panel' usage. But they all make it harder than it used to be. I doubt, however, that many would want to go back to an arranger so simple, it COULD be run easily from the front panel!

Deane, perhaps you would be a little more specific about what it is that irks you to the point of selling it, and explain how other modern arrangers manage to make it that much simpler...?

Hi Diki,
First I want to say thanks for helping and trying to get me through the learning curve. I have a feeling there are several bugs in the current OS offered by Roland. The main thing that caused me to just give up on it was the fact that several settings I made to both rhythms and saved performances defaulted to the original versions after doing power off-on events. To be clear, yes I did read and re-read the manual. I did in fact do a factory reset and start all over using only the users manual and followed along page by page performing the tasks per the printed instructions. It actually was a good learning tool. For instance, for the life of me I could not get the favorites tones to stay the way I set them up after I powered down. Also, the tones assigned to the buttons, not favorites, would also not stay the way I had them set. I went through global saves, and what ever saves were offered to maintain my setups. I never got the split point to stay where I set it - even after doing a global save. I never was able to make the split mode stay on and had to turn it on after EVERY rhythm, variation, or performance change. The same was true even with rhythms and variation selections Either I am the dumbest person ever to own an arranger or there or bugs in the OS.

There are some really good features on the BK-9 which I did like. I wish all the arrangers I owned had this key feel. I liked the concept of favorite tones. I liked the concept of saving rhythms. I liked the concept of creating unlimited gig sets using the performance assistant. I do like the idea that factory tones and rhythms are protected but can be used to make adjustments and saved. Even the wheel was ok after getting use to it.

In general, I just don't wish to spend anymore time trying to get it setup the way I play. I know with the Korgs I have owned it was not this complicated or hard to understand. In about 3 days I took the PA900 out of the box to a gig with it setup up for all my playing needs.

Anyway, I don't want this to turn into "mine is better than yours" discussion. I truly believe for those players who don't rely on the arranger functions on the BK-9 and play full piano keyboard style using bass and drums the BK-9 would make a killer keyboard for them.

I hope this explains my decision.

Deane

I explained on the Roland-arranger site how to get your split points to be held. Did you not read that?

Perhaps you misunderstood the concept of Favorite Tones? They are not intended to call up an EDITED version of a Tone, simply the Tone from the regular bank. If you need a Tone with all edits, it has to be either in the Performance the way you want it, or in an OTS setting.

I simply feel that you tried to grok the BK-9 without reading the manual (how could you miss the split point hold if you had?) enough, and have assumptions about the OS brought in from other arrangers and think everything should be a Korg, or whatever you hold as your favorite?

I can probably think of several things a Roland can do a Korg can't. But if I buy a Korg, it's no good assuming it CAN do these. Every time you change manufacturers, assume there ARE going to be significant differences. If you can't live with these, don't change manufacturers! Take Donny... keeps going away from Yamaha, raving about his new arranger, then going back to Yamaha when he realizes it's not the same!

I think, on the whole, you have wildly underestimated how long it would take you to get used to an operating system utterly different to what you are comfortable and familiar with. I think there ARE ways to do what you want. But they aren't Korg's ways. They are Roland's.

But best of luck with whatever you settle on.

Diki,

With all due respect ( and gratitude for having helped me during my brief fling with Roland arrangers earlier on this year) yours is a very long story but to cut to the chase:
Roland should simply have retained a touchscreen. Contemporary keyboards have that many parameters that can be changed that is it virtually undoable not to include one. And even with one included ( like on the G70) I still found the Korg OS much more accessible. I know you and Fran will disagree but like Deane says it is not a contest. And Deane is making a point there as many times you and Fran have stated that you often bypass the arranger or part of the arranger using simply RH voices, manaul bass and drums.
All in all it was an interesting odyssey that Deane was on. I wish him well and advised him to try and intergrate the PSR950 with the Micro Arranger, both of which he is pleased with.

regards,
John

Deane wasn't having an issue with accessing the features he wanted. He simply couldn't FIND them! That's more an issue with reading and understanding the manual, and getting to the parameters than it is an issue with knowing how to do something, but not being able to get to it quick enough to use live.

I agree that a touch screen would speed things up bigtime, but the touchscreen does not add features! Or help someone that doesn't know how to do something in the first place.

And once again (pointed this out ad nauseam), a BK-9 and an iPad, which adds back all the touch screen convenience lost with the dual screens on the BK-9, is still considerably LESS than the cost of a G70 was. In fact, with a BK-9 and an iPad, you now have THREE screens active at a time... Lyrics on one, full front page on one, full editor on another. While the Korg's touch screen is OK (apparently, the PA900 has a MUCH better touch sensitivity that the PA3X, which, TBH I found pretty unresponsive compared to the G70's), it is still only capable of showing one screen at a time.

Originally, when the BK-9 first came out, I was quite dismayed and perplexed with Roland's decision. Now that the BK-9 Performance Editor is out for the iPad, I think things are a LOT better, and some stuff is quite a lot better than the G70 (which couldn't, for instance, display lyrics and allow sound access at the same time).

It takes time to find out what is good and bad in a new arranger, and new OS's often make initial impressions moot. Having had the BK-9 for a while now, I have made quite a change in my initial impression. I only wish others had the same degree of patience and determination to find out how to do things in an unfamiliar fashion.