22-tone Keyboard design; painting fretboards

Hello again, everyone!

As usual, I have two things to post:

1) I have just uploaded a crude rendering of the Jones-Hryciw 22-tet
keyboard design to the "photos" area of this group. Since Stevie and
I have become huge fans of this tuning, we figured it would make a
good starting point for our hypothetical microtonal band. Any
comments on the design are welcome, as are any suggestions on
building one in real life (materials we should use, etc.).

2) I've decided I'm going follow Mr. Erlich's idea and paint fret
lines for several tunings onto my fretless bass. Any suggestions on
how to go about this? I was thinking of using rulers and paint-pens
to mark off the measurements from FretCalc, though I'm kind of
worried about the lines rubbing off.

Thanks again,

-Igliashon

Since Strings are of different width and such and the height above the fretboard can effect where pitches are, I recommend using a tuner where you tune the open string then slide up to the pitch you want mark it making sure you open string is still in tune. I tune a whole guitar this way and it worked quite well. If you have different gauge strings pick a medium sized one

cityoftheasleep wrote:

>Hello again, everyone!
>
>As usual, I have two things to post:
>
>1) I have just uploaded a crude rendering of the Jones-Hryciw 22-tet >keyboard design to the "photos" area of this group. Since Stevie and >I have become huge fans of this tuning, we figured it would make a >good starting point for our hypothetical microtonal band. Any >comments on the design are welcome, as are any suggestions on >building one in real life (materials we should use, etc.).
>
>2) I've decided I'm going follow Mr. Erlich's idea and paint fret >lines for several tunings onto my fretless bass. Any suggestions on >how to go about this? I was thinking of using rulers and paint-pens >to mark off the measurements from FretCalc, though I'm kind of >worried about the lines rubbing off.
>
>Thanks again,
>
>-Igliashon
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep"
<igliashon@s...> wrote:
>
> Hello again, everyone!
> ...
> 1) I have just uploaded a crude rendering of the Jones-Hryciw 22-
tet
> keyboard design to the "photos" area of this group. Since Stevie
and
> I have become huge fans of this tuning, we figured it would make a
> good starting point for our hypothetical microtonal band. Any
> comments on the design are welcome, as are any suggestions on
> building one in real life (materials we should use, etc.).

I think that the red keys have a usable surface area that is too
small, besides being too narrow and too close together, such that
you'll find it very difficult to press one of them without hitting an
adjacent one.

The familiar pattern of 7-white 5-black is reassuring, but if you're
really serious about expending a significant amount of time and
effort in a keyboard, I think that you'd be much better off in the
long run thinking about a generalized (Bosanquet) key arrangement,
for the following reasons:

1) You get the same fingering patterns in every key, so you only have
to learn scales, chords, etc. twice (once with the left hand and once
with the right hand) instead of 44 times (in each of 22 keys, with
each hand), so it has a much simpler learning curve than with the
heterogeneous layout of a conventional keyboard (or modification
thereof). Note: You'll need some duplicate keys to make full use of
this feature, but they'll serve you well, should you decide to take
advantage of reason 2).

2) Should you subsequently decide to explore divisions of the octave
other than 22 (e.g., 12, 17, 19, 26, 29, 31, 41, 46, and 53, just to
name a few), a generalized keyboard will allow you to do so, with the
same advantages of reason 1).

3) Why reinvent the wheel? The Bosanquet keyboard works, and it
works extremely well. I've had one for 29 years, and I'm even more
delighted with it now than the day I first tried it.

4) If you'd rather buy than build, you'll soon (hopefully) be able to
get one that costs less than a Microzone:

/tuning/topicId_56226.html#56236

5) Get a second opinion:

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> Hi Stevie!
> you might want to look at the following pages as an approach to
basic
> laying out of keyboard designs.
> there is a consistant logic regardless of what tuning one uses and
from
> personal experience i have found going from one tuning to another
> hqaving 'logical' connctions to different layout helpful
> http://www.anaphoria.com/wilson.html

More specifically, see the diagram on page 13 (of 13) of the
following, which shows Erv Wilson's 22-tone Bosanquet layout:

http://www.anaphoria.com/xen3a.PDF

Degrees of 22 are shown at the top of each key. The preceding pages
show how the same keyboard can be used for many other divisions of
the octave. (You may disregard Erv's notation, if you wish. It was
only one of his many proposals.)

--George

Well, perhaps you are correct, Mr. Secor. This design of ours may
not be usable, but I am still convinced there must be an alternative
to the "hex-lattice" style or the Bosanquet style. See, Stevie and I
aren't particularly interested in creating a "generalized" design,
nor are we likely to work with tunings higher than 22 (or perhaps 31,
though that is unlikely). We are both of the mindset that each and
every tuning represents an infinity of possible music, so our goal is
to pick a couple to explore as thoroughly as we can. Thus,
specialized instruments are of equal use to us as generalized ones.
However, if any of the projects you mentioned in your reply should
come to marketable fruition, and are sold for a reasonable price,
that would certainly change things. Currently our biggest motivation
to design and build something of our own is that it would be cheaper
than purchasing from Starr Labs.

Regards,
-Igliashon Jones

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor"
<gdsecor@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep"
> <igliashon@s...> wrote:
> >
> > Hello again, everyone!
> > ...
> > 1) I have just uploaded a crude rendering of the Jones-Hryciw 22-
> tet
> > keyboard design to the "photos" area of this group. Since Stevie
> and
> > I have become huge fans of this tuning, we figured it would make
a
> > good starting point for our hypothetical microtonal band. Any
> > comments on the design are welcome, as are any suggestions on
> > building one in real life (materials we should use, etc.).
>
> I think that the red keys have a usable surface area that is too
> small, besides being too narrow and too close together, such that
> you'll find it very difficult to press one of them without hitting
an
> adjacent one.
>
> The familiar pattern of 7-white 5-black is reassuring, but if
you're
> really serious about expending a significant amount of time and
> effort in a keyboard, I think that you'd be much better off in the
> long run thinking about a generalized (Bosanquet) key arrangement,
> for the following reasons:
>
> 1) You get the same fingering patterns in every key, so you only
have
> to learn scales, chords, etc. twice (once with the left hand and
once
> with the right hand) instead of 44 times (in each of 22 keys, with
> each hand), so it has a much simpler learning curve than with the
> heterogeneous layout of a conventional keyboard (or modification
> thereof). Note: You'll need some duplicate keys to make full use
of
> this feature, but they'll serve you well, should you decide to take
> advantage of reason 2).
>
> 2) Should you subsequently decide to explore divisions of the
octave
> other than 22 (e.g., 12, 17, 19, 26, 29, 31, 41, 46, and 53, just
to
> name a few), a generalized keyboard will allow you to do so, with
the
> same advantages of reason 1).
>
> 3) Why reinvent the wheel? The Bosanquet keyboard works, and it
> works extremely well. I've had one for 29 years, and I'm even more
> delighted with it now than the day I first tried it.
>
> 4) If you'd rather buy than build, you'll soon (hopefully) be able
to
> get one that costs less than a Microzone:
>
> /tuning/topicId_56226.html#56236
>
> 5) Get a second opinion:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady
<kraiggrady@a...>
> wrote:
> > Hi Stevie!
> > you might want to look at the following pages as an approach to
> basic
> > laying out of keyboard designs.
> > there is a consistant logic regardless of what tuning one uses
and
> from
> > personal experience i have found going from one tuning to another
> > hqaving 'logical' connctions to different layout helpful
> > http://www.anaphoria.com/wilson.html
>
> More specifically, see the diagram on page 13 (of 13) of the
> following, which shows Erv Wilson's 22-tone Bosanquet layout:
>
> http://www.anaphoria.com/xen3a.PDF
>
> Degrees of 22 are shown at the top of each key. The preceding
pages
> show how the same keyboard can be used for many other divisions of
> the octave. (You may disregard Erv's notation, if you wish. It
was
> only one of his many proposals.)
>
> --George

Hi IJ!
And Pardon for adding a few more cents ( pardon the Pun!)
One is free to shape the keys however one wants.
The layout though i do not think is a trivial matter in that it will directly effect how you think about the scale. I think i have mentioned how i have used a few different 22 tone layouts before i was happy with how it effected me and others as a player.
This is the way most people say i made a few mistakes before i ran out of options
There is allot to be said about using less notes as opposed to more. Less always makes it easier to get around.
i also think it is best to explore a few tunings and really get into them and dig absolutely everything you can out of them.
More often than not this has lead me into other tunings where the one i was using preventing me from doing something , or wanted to do something even more.
This way ones development from one tuning into another is more organic, or so it seems to me.

cityoftheasleep wrote:

>Well, perhaps you are correct, Mr. Secor. This design of ours may >not be usable, but I am still convinced there must be an alternative >to the "hex-lattice" style or the Bosanquet style. See, Stevie and I >aren't particularly interested in creating a "generalized" design, >nor are we likely to work with tunings higher than 22 (or perhaps 31, >though that is unlikely). We are both of the mindset that each and >every tuning represents an infinity of possible music, so our goal is >to pick a couple to explore as thoroughly as we can. Thus, >specialized instruments are of equal use to us as generalized ones. >However, if any of the projects you mentioned in your reply should >come to marketable fruition, and are sold for a reasonable price, >that would certainly change things. Currently our biggest motivation >to design and build something of our own is that it would be cheaper >than purchasing from Starr Labs.
>
>Regards,
>-Igliashon Jones
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor"
<gdsecor@y...> wrote:

> I think that the red keys have a usable surface area that is too
> small, besides being too narrow and too close together, such that
> you'll find it very difficult to press one of them without hitting
an
> adjacent one.
...

----

Thank you for your input, George. What you say may be true, but I must
agree with Igliashon about finding an alternative to the hex-lattice
interface.

3 main things:

--> There will be some spatial sacrifice with the design, you're
right. But, the keys would be slightly larger to allow for that.
Probably, the distance of an interval of a 9th (ie from c to high d)
on a normal piano would become the distance of an octave on the new
layout. Most pianists can reach a good 9th, and I can reach a 10th
(and this is currently a personal project anyway), so a little
stretching couldn't hurt. In light of all the benefits of creating
several microtones inbetween tones, I think it's not so bad just to
lose a little coverage, right?

--> Although the hex style is potentially universal, I must once again
agree with Igliashon that we're not going for as many keys as possible
-- we want to develop one at a time. The 22 keyboard idea is designed
for 22-tet only. I still have so much to learn about this kingdom that
I couldn't possibly make good music if I had millions more
possibilities than I could handle at once. Out of our limitations
slowly creeps creativity...

--> The most important point, I feel, is that I would indeed RATHER
have something based on, or similar to, the traditional keyboard
layout, as uneven as it is. This is because, although I would have
only to learn the hex system twice (once for each hand, as you said),
I feel it would still be difficult to use and be inspired by a
"monochromatic" design -- by that, I don't mean because all the keys
are one color, but rather that they are all the same shape. One of the
reasons the traditional piano layout is so great is because the keys
are unevenly divided: 7 white keys and 5 black keys grouped into 2 and
3. This way, finding octave repetition is easiest, and the shape is
more organic or natural. Every key has its own different visual effect
on one's mind. I think at this point it's probably just a
matter of aesthetics.

Anyway, I definately feel there is something to be learned from all
the designs out there. The general keyboard is awesome, truly, but
it's not for this project.

Either way, keep it coming! This forum is a well of inspiration and
knowledge. That's why I blab so much.

With pregards,
-Stevie

Hi Stevie,

>Probably, the distance of an interval of a 9th (ie from c to high d)
>on a normal piano would become the distance of an octave on the new
>layout. Most pianists can reach a good 9th, and I can reach a 10th
>(and this is currently a personal project anyway), so a little
>stretching couldn't hurt. In light of all the benefits of creating
>several microtones inbetween tones, I think it's not so bad just to
>lose a little coverage, right?

But you can pitches and *reduce* the stretch at the same time.
I'm not necessarily a hexagonal layout fan, but adding distance/oct.
is a definite all-around disadvantage. It's too wide on a piano
as it is.

>--> Although the hex style is potentially universal, I must once again
>agree with Igliashon that we're not going for as many keys as possible
>-- we want to develop one at a time. The 22 keyboard idea is designed
>for 22-tet only. I still have so much to learn about this kingdom that
>I couldn't possibly make good music if I had millions more
>possibilities than I could handle at once. Out of our limitations
>slowly creeps creativity...

Good for you! But a question: Will you layout have transpositional
invariance -- the ability to play the same pattern anywhere on the
keyboard and have it sound the same?

>--> The most important point, I feel, is that I would indeed RATHER
>have something based on, or similar to, the traditional keyboard
>layout, as uneven as it is. This is because, although I would have
>only to learn the hex system twice (once for each hand, as you said),
>I feel it would still be difficult to use and be inspired by a
>"monochromatic" design -- by that, I don't mean because all the keys
>are one color, but rather that they are all the same shape. One of the
>reasons the traditional piano layout is so great is because the keys
>are unevenly divided: 7 white keys and 5 black keys grouped into 2 and
>3. This way, finding octave repetition is easiest, and the shape is
>more organic or natural. Every key has its own different visual effect
>on one's mind. I think at this point it's probably just a
>matter of aesthetics.

One can use color, and textured keytops. One can also go 3-D like
this:

http://lumma.org/stuff/carlos-keyboard.jpg

>Anyway, I definately feel there is something to be learned from all
>the designs out there. The general keyboard is awesome, truly, but
>it's not for this project.

Good results have been achieved with button Accordions (popular in
Europe, esp. Russia), and related instruments, which have regular
keyboards. Even the standard Accordion has a regular layout for
the left hand.

-Carl

>But you can pitches and *reduce* the stretch at the same time.

That's, uh, *add* pitches...

-C.