Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    Dave, your argument is pretty sound (and probably quite noble 8-), but
    the people who lose are those of us who live in the sticks.
    
    The closest music store to my house is around 85 miles ... oh sure,
    there's a 'Roland franchise' about 20 miles away, but they sell pianos
    and band instruments, not synths. (For example, they have a super JX on
    a stand with a $2100 price tag on it ... when asked a few weeks ago,
    they said, 'well, we can give you $100 off'.  Thanks a lot.)
   
    I don't have the time to spend driving two hours one way to a
    'reputable' music store to twiddle with machines - especially when the
    people at that store know less about the instrument than I do (thanks
    in good part to the members of this conference). These guys weren't
    even aware that the JX10 had been discontinued.  Sigh.
   
    So I'm faced with this - either pay $2000 for a JX10, or drive four
    hours and pay a few hundred less ... or thank the good Lord that I have
    friends in the NYC area who are picking up my JX10 tomorrow and mailing
    it to me.
   
    I choose door number 3.
   
-b

    
    IMO : When a manufacturer deals with line franchising (like Roland),
          the manufacturer goes into a cooperative agreement with the
    	  person purchasing the lines.  In order for a music store to
    	  carry a specific line of equipment, they have to purchase
   	  a minimum of equipment.  If they cannot sell that minimum
    	  purchase amount, they have two choices...
    
    		1. Consult with their dealer and make arrangements to
    		   either modify the line requirements through a reduction
    		   of the required minimum purchase amount, or request
   		   a cooperative trade agreement to reduce Roland dealers
    		   or Roland sales in general in the area so the music
    		   store has a higher potential for sales.  Some examples
    		   of how Roland has assisted the retail outfits is
    		   by offering upgrades, perks, specials, semminars
    		   held at the stores... etc.
    
    		2. The store can drop the line.
    
    
    	It seems obvious to me in this case that Roland values the dealer
    sales enough to listen to the petitions and cease their direct
    competition through MO sales.  If the stores don't carry the equipment,
    I doubt Roland would get much in the way of MO sales.  (Probably
    not enough to support the bussiness.)
    
    	IMO there are no laws or codes of ethics being broken here at
    all, just an establishment of a cooperative trade agreement which
    is better than the existing one.
    
    DJ
    

    >    -< Like I said earlier, the sticks get stuck. >-
    
    Someone is ALWAYS gonna get stuck unless the problem is (and "can be")
    addressed.
    
    When people take the attitude "that's tough" towards one litigant
    getting "stuck" (the retailers), I can't have much sympathy when
    the litigant uses their resources to make sure they aren't the
    ones that it's "tough" for, even if their solution is "tough" for
    someone else.
    
    	db

I still maintain that most MO stores are also shops with a showroom floor.
Roland's argument is just so much smoke...Of the MO shops that I know only do MO
the prices haven't competed (yet that I've ever seen) with the MO shops with 
showrooms...

the real problem is that the gear (like nearly all musical equipment) is very 
overpriced, and Roland's gig is intended to maintain an artificially high dealer
price, and consequently a higher used price giving the perception that their 
gear maintains it's purchase value, which it really doesn't.

The shops that are complaining are the shops IMO who refuse to compete without
major provocation. The problem is theirs, not mine.

re: stockholder of ROland

If I were a stockholder it would likely make little difference to me as Roland's
profit on the sale of X widget is the same whether or not a dealer discounts it
to sell it; this is the same even if the sale is not mail order...

The entire thing is bogus, just another reason not to buy Roland gear.

dbii

ps: speaking of reasons not to buy Roland; I just heard a good one...if it's not
waranty work they will not work on it...even if they made it....instead they'll
attempt to get you to take it to a local dealer, regardless of the dealer's 
qualifications. I'm done with Roland unless they invent something with features
that are impossible to get anywhere else.

	I say go VFX and get an EPS to substitute for an R-8 and MC-500.

	Nothing much else from Roland that impresses me anymore.


-=mikie=-

    
    If I were a Roland stockholder (or, better yet, an officer of the
    corporation Roland USA) I would have grave doubts about skirting
    a Sherman Antitrust case, _even_ if the lawyers I'd paid said "we
    probably don't have to worry."
    
    This is a double-ended effect:
    
    	1) What are my actual legal exposures?
    
    	2) What's the impact on my unit volumes if I cut off MO? 
           (i.e. how many people bought Roland MO who would have 
    	    bought somebody else if Roland MO was nonexistent?)
    
    As a Roland stockholder/officer, I would have IGNORED what the dealers
    said/did.  There are lots of other music stores out there who aren't
    Roland dealers and wouldn't mind picking up the line if the current
    crop of dealers can't cut it.  My sole goal as an officer is to
    make the highest profit for the stockholders of Roland USA that
    I can, within the bounds set by the applicable laws and regulations.                                  
                                                                
    As an officer of Roland USA, I'm not out to protect the small music
    store.  I'm out to make a profit... and the more profit I make,
    the better.
    
    	-Bill
    

    
    
    As a Roland stockholder you could always sell your shares ?
    
    Do we actually have any Roland stockholders ?
    
    Do Roland have a mission statement ?
    
    Is profit the top of the list ?
    
    			Forty Two !
    
    
    				Paul.
    
    

    One thing that's always p*s*e* me off about nearly all music stores in
    the known universe is that after seeing an advert for just about every
    product at just about the best price, you turn up and "Global Music
    Megastore" turns out to be a slightly extended hot-dog stand in a 
    part of town where:
    
    	1) The one way streets all point AWAY from the hot-dog stand
    	2) A hot-dog costs you a million pounds
    	3) There are no toilets (restrooms)
    	4) So you have to use the nearest window-cleaner's bucket
    	5) It's about as close to a music shop as I am to a vice-presidency
    
    This is just my opinion, of course, but it happens to be true.
    
    Richard.

    re .4 - the notion that Roland gear is overpriced is just so much
    hogwash.  You want expensive, overpriced, consider Yamaha.  So you
    can't justify the cost of the top of the line Roland gear?  Well I
    can't justify the cost of Ensoniq or Kurzweil.
    
    Roland makes a lot of nice, inexpensive gear.  Just like everybody
    else.  Roland's top of the line gear is admittedly quite pricey.
    Just like everybody else.  Oh yeah, there's Alesis, but let's not
    get into that.
      
    Why don't you just admit to being a Roland-basher (for whatever
    reasons, bad luck with "reliability" and service support I'd guess in
    your case) and stop misrepresenting the facts.
                  
    Roland is not unique in any respect.  Other manufacturers' stuff
    breaks.  Other manufacturers make expensive stuff.
    
    len.
     
    

    This whole discussion prompts me to ask, why does Roland attract
    such incredible vituperation from those who don't like Roland gear?
    I don't much care for Ensoniq or Yamaha or Alesis, but I don't feel
    it necessary to disparage them quite as venomously as some of the
    comments here.  This reminds me a lot of the Atari vs. Amiga "debate";
    the Amigans always said, "hey, the Atari STs are ok machines, but
    I like my Amiga better", while the Atarians said "the Amiga's a
    piece of s**t, only a braindamaged a**hole would buy one".
    
    Why does Roland warrant such overt attacks?
    
    len.
    

			< Note 2061.10 by DRUMS::FEHSKENS >
>    comments here.  This reminds me a lot of the Atari vs. Amiga "debate";

	len, didn't that happen with Mac's, too?  I kinda remember the Mac
people bein' sore about how the Amiga performed.

--mikie--

>  the Amigans always said, "hey, the Atari STs are ok machines, but
>    I like my Amiga better", while the Atarians said "the Amiga's a
>    piece of s**t, only a braindamaged a**hole would buy one".
   

Showing your bias here len  ;-) ?

This is the *real* way it is said:

the Atarians always said, "hey, the Amigas are an ok machine, but I like my
Atari ST better", while the Amigans said "the Atari's a piece of s**t, 
only a braindamaged a**hole would buy one".



;-)
;-)
;-)

Chad

But I agree with what len said about Roland and Yamaha, etc.  Especially yamaha.
Their stuff is quite pricey for what it offers.  All companies charge a lot
for new stuff.

    Re: Yamaha
    
    The notable exception, of course, is the noble TX81Z which anyone
    will tell you is the singular best value value on the market.
    
    I should get my 3rd soon...
    
    Edd

Of course, my favorite MIDI toy is my Yamaha WX-7,
but that was a deal at $300

Chad

who wishes he could really play a WX-7

    len, your point is well taken.  I'm not bashing Roland per se - hey,
    I'd be a hypocrite if I did, owning an M160 and a SuperJX. 

    In spite of db's arguments, I fail to see why Roland feels they must
    resort to munging mail order ... paltry few others have ever done this
    (at least to my knowledge - I may be showing my ignorance here). 

    Apart from the mail order woes and the poor documentation, my only
    gripe with them is their somewhat arcane architectures.

-b

re: .9 & .10 I don't want to get into a reference war (pointing out notes) but
 you have (in the past at least) bashed Alesis at every opportunity based on
 your one bad experience with the XT. Is there a difference between that and me
treating Roland as poorly based on 6-7 seperate unrealated bad experiences?

I'll admite readily to Roland bashing, as far as I'm concerned they're a very
poor outfit that makes pretty damn good gear, and I've said that before. I see
no point in encouraging them to continue being so crappy to customers by buying
any more of their gear.

You completly ignored the base note here which deals with MO.

Anybody wanna get back on track? I'm still waiting for a response to my position
that most MO houses also are showrooms and the entire argument is hogwash 
intended to cover the fact that they are trying to maintain an artificially 
high price to support the notion that Roland gear maintains a high trade in
value. (this was explained to me by EUW's store manager in Portsmouth, as the 
reason why they can't discount Roland very much)

dbii

    Sorry, I don't consider pointing to an obvious quality control problem
    to be "bashing".  I have several times stated that I admired what
    Alesis was trying to do, but that I wished they would build more
    robust gear.  I do, after all, own an HR-16.  I did, you'll recall,
    buy the Alesis XT when the company was brand spanking new.  I have
    never denounced Alesis with anything like the fervor that Roland
    is being taken to task here.  I have bought Roland instead of Alesis,
    because I personally have never had any serious quality problems with
    Roland, when I have they have been at least as responsive as any
    other vendor, their equipment quite nicely satisfies my needs, and I
    can afford it.
    
    I admit to ignoring the base note, so what.  It's part of the noting
    tradition to go off on diversions.  Be that as it may, I don't see
    any point in just throwing out more unsupported opinions in the
    absence of any facts.
    
    I also find it amusing that folks who often chastise others for
    generalizing from their personal experience (e.g., "I do this,
    therefore everybody must do it"), seem to be quite willing to do
    so with respect to Roland.
    
    Finally, I have found Roland gear to be as heavily discounted as
    everything else.  After all, I'm the guy who got a brand new SRV-2000
    that lists for $1595 for $1000, a TR-909 that lists for $895 for
    $500, and a SuperJupiter that lists for $2495 for $1250.
    
    "Artifically" high prices?  Again, let's compare Roland and Yamaha.
    OK, the TX81Z is an inexpensive unit, but let's consider the DX-7
    or the TX-802 or the TX-816.  And Roland's MT-32 is not exactly
    overpriced.
    
    Most mailorder houses may in fact also have showrooms, but the bulk
    of their business is mailorder, not walkin.  The presence of the
    showroom is irrelevant.  It's volume that counts.  And mailorder
    houses, showroom or not, live and die by their mailorder volume.
    I assert this without any support.
    
    And you've obviously had better experience than me in terms of the
    veracity of store managers, who we all know have a direct line to
    the truth and are always totally objective.
    
    len.
    
    
    So, sorry, my experience just doesn't jive with yours, in any respect. 

All units beome inexpensive when discontinued.  Most of the low prices seen
on the TX81Z lately are because they are being dumped.  I've had just as good
deals on Roland as others for comparable stuff when the stuff is still a
product, not in dump mode.

Chad

    A feeble attempt to generate some light rather than heat (I'm sorry I
    ever whined about this  8-( .... ) 

    What's this about TX81z dumping?  Where, how much and why?  Chad,
    are you saying that Y* has discontinued these things, too?

-b

    Please, dump a couple at my house...
    
    I'd love a rack full of those puppies!
    
    Edd

Back when Sam Ash had them, they were being dumped for $275 or so (also
saw $299).  Saw a used one the other day at daddy's for $229.  Dan Gosselin's
brother wanted one so we called Sam Ash and some other places and they don't
have them anymore -- they are discontinued.

Chad

    This is weird ... it would appear that all Y*'s stuff is being
    discontinued.  For example, I've heard that the following units have
    been discontinued (some sources more reliable than others): 

	TX81z (for that matter, all 4op FM except V50)
	TX802
	DX7 series II (on its last run)
	SPX90
    	TX16w

    The only 'pro gear' items that are being continued are: 

	DMP7
	V50
	SPX1000

    Perhaps there's something to the rumor I heard back when the V80 got
    cancelled ... that Yahama really IS getting out of the professional
    digital synth arena. 

    Can anyone confirm/deny this?  I think it would be a shame.

-b

> I'm still waiting for a response to my position
> that most MO houses also are showrooms and the entire argument is hogwash 
    
    The response is simple.  The objection is not that they don't operate
    a showroom, but rather that the MO part of their business is generated
    by other businesses showrooms.
    
    The point being that no one objects to the business generated by
    the showrooms that MO's operate.  They object to the business generated
    by people using (for example) Daddy's showrooms to demo equipment
    they order from Sam Ash.
    
>intended to cover the fact that they are trying to maintain an artificially 
>high price to support the notion that Roland gear maintains a high trade in
>value. (this was explained to me by EUW's store manager in Portsmouth, as the 
>reason why they can't discount Roland very much)
    
    Clearly an EU store manager has no interest in convincing you that
    he HAS to charge you more.
    
    And the notion that Roland stuff isn't discounted is news to me.
    
    That was NOT my experience when I bought my S-550, MT-32, JC-120,
    RD-300, etc.   I got my S-550 for $2250 when most places were selling it
    for $2600.   Think it listed in the upper upper $2k range ($2800,
    $2900).
    
    	db

    re: .6
        
>    If I were a Roland stockholder (or, better yet, an officer of the
>    corporation Roland USA) I would have grave doubts about skirting
>    a Sherman Antitrust case, _even_ if the lawyers I'd paid said "we
    
    I don't think this is a case of anti-trust, and if it was, the case
    certainly isn't against Roland.  The case would be against the
    quasi-cartel of showrooms pressuring Roland.
    
>    As a Roland stockholder/officer, I would have IGNORED what the dealers
>    said/did.  There are lots of other music stores out there who aren't
>    Roland dealers and wouldn't mind picking up the line if the current
>    crop of dealers can't cut it. 
    
    Why do you think they chose not to ignore it.  Are they less
    informed than you, or just not as smart?  What?
    
>    make the highest profit for the stockholders of Roland USA that I can
>                                                                
>    As an officer of Roland USA, I'm not out to protect the small music
>    store.  I'm out to make a profit... and the more profit I make,
>    the better.
    
    Why do you think Roland is the bad guy?  My guess is that this move is
    almost certain to cut profit if anything.  They'll almost certainly
    sell less units because they have less outlets and less discounting.
    
    Their motivation isn't profit, it's future prospects.  They know
    (as does MO) they their gear has to be in showrooms for future product
    lines to survive.
    
    	db
    
    p.s.  I think Roland is just the first to do this because they're
          the biggest.   You'll probably see pressure put on other
          companies and they'll do it too.

    re: .22 Brad, check out my note 1848. I think it already happened.
    
    Ken
    

    Rarely have my responses been answered by such a deafening silence.
    
    I thought we could have generated at least 60 or more replies for
    this.  ;-)
    
    I'm curious to know if I'm the only guy who thinks Roland isn't
    the clear bad guy here.
    
    I don't think they're completely without sin, but the only thing
    I fault them for is yelling Uncle when someone had the by the 
    balls, instead of bravely (and perhaps futily) standing firm.
    
    ;-)
    
    	db

    Having watched the showroom vs mailorder debates for nigh on three
    years now, Dave, it bores me.. a [,] keypad press for sure.
    
    karl

    Gotta agree with Karl. This one and the Tape Tax/DAT discussion are
    sure skips for me...
    
    Then how am I here??
    
    Edd 

    < Note 2061.28 by WEFXEM::COTE "Another day, another segue..." >
>    Then how am I here??     Edd 

    .. answering a question from a friend, that's how.

I think Roland  is  the  bad  guy,  but don't have the time or energy to
     defend this position.

/Mitch

    I've got it - since Roland is the bad guy, we should make them pay
    the tape tax!
    
    len.
    

    There ain't no good or bad guys, just survivors and startups.  Also,
    looks like a major shift in the music industry.  Big news at NAMM
    was the S-770 going for 8K (too much, but probably OK for studios)
    and all kinds of gear targeted for the 'working' musician.  Seems
    the hi-tech goodies aimed at the home market are falling off.
    Guess I'm to blame ...
    
    Steve