V-Cee-Oh, there's nothing to defend here:
1. Nobody is bashing the demo guys, sympathetic people who do their job. But everybody is really wondering what in heaven their job might have been this year
2. I know demoing is a hard job, but I remember many shows, where *sounds* were demoed intensively in a *musical* way. To pronounce it clear cut: this is the normal way of demoing a music device, and *not* just showing functions, and *not* just talking about features.
What Roland did with the G this year, is absolutely *not* the normal way, even measured by their own former shows. Do you remember the great demos they did when the V-Synth was announced? So you won't tell us this is the ususal way of demoing music gear, especially keyboards with loads of sonic possibilities
Concerning Warren, even in this case I would never bash him.
It was ok to critisize his show, repeatedly demoing his bass rather than *any* G sounds of interest (soundwise this was the poorest kind of demo I can imagine). But I think it's not Warren's fault in the case he perhaps *should* not demo what would have impressed no one if it were just the well known many years old JV sounds, perhaps not even including the best, multisampled of the newer ones (like SRX 12), just because 256Mb is simply too small to implement the best of the best from 12 SRXcards.
Yes, Roland has the right to hold back sound information as long as they wish!
And yes, we have the same right to critisize their attitude concerning demoing or implementing G sound as a highly unprofessional attitude, which I hereby do.
I hope nothing more than that this thread comes to a fast end after learning more about the G sounds soon. What I certainly do not hope (in my own interest), is that this thread could become more substantial and longer than the Roland G sound thread, as soon as we *know* what they did. They are walking on a thin line concerning sounds, after everybody has had the pleasure of plenty of SRX choices...
)
