Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic 22-tET keyboard attempt #2

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Stevie Hryciw" <codroid@y...>
wrote:
>
> --- 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?

I disagree. The Scalatron with a generalized keyboard has the same
center-to-center lateral key distance as a piano, but the octave
reach is one key shorter (equivalent to C-to-B on the piano.),
making the interval of a tenth a rather easy reach, which is mighty
fine IMHO.

> --> 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.

But the Bosanquet arrangement *is* similar to the traditional layout,
so much so that I could teach you to play a major scale on it (in any
key) in less than a minute, using the very same fingering in the
right hand that you already use on the piano for C major. I recall
that, as a piano student, it took me several months to learn my major
scales fluently.

Perhaps I need to show you a diagram of this in *color* to get my
point across (sorry, but you'll need to join tuning-math to access
this):

/tuning-math/files/secor/kbds/

KbScal5C.gif has the keys unmarked
KbScal31.gif has the keys marked for 31-ET

You'll find the familiar white (natural) and black (sharp) keys,
along with red (flat) keys and others (blue and green, not
specifically colored for 22-ET). Also, the keys in these diagrams
are elliptical rather than hexagonal. My point is that, whatever the
key shape, the two-and-three pattern of the black keys is impossible
to miss.

> 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.

To which I respond, *only* octave repetition is easy with the
conventional keyboard, whereas with a generalized key arrangement you
can have kinesthetic repetition with each and every interval. If
you're still skeptical about how natural a generalized key
arrangement can feel within a relatively short time, then please read
about my bedsheet experiment:

/tuning/topicId_39323.html#39407

> 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.

If you say so. I'm sure that whatever you decide on will be usable.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep"
<igliashon@s...> wrote:
>
> Okay folks, I've been at the drawing board all night, playing
around
> with tessellations and generalized keyboard designs, and I've come
to
> the conclusion that they are not particularly well-suited to 22-
tET.

Well, what can say? I've been playing 22-ET on a generalized
keyboard for years and find it difficult to imagine how it could be
any easier on another keyboard.

> Likewise variations on the "7-white/5-black" idea. Right now what
> seems to me to be the most useful and efficient mapping of the
> temperament is the new one I just uploaded to the Photos section of
> this group (I wish I knew how to directly link on these
> boards).

Yes, this one's a definite improvement over your first attempt --
more uniformity of interval patterns, even though you've lost the 7-
white/5-black pattern.

> It is based on a Porcupine scale, allows for usably-sized
> keys, and contains very consistent patterns for scales and chords.
> The white keys aren't mapped to a diatonic scale, but that
shouldn't
> be a problem.

Even though Stevie already said this?: ;-)

> --> 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.

Hey, guys, I'm just trying to save you some grief a few months (or
years) down the road by pointing out that a generalized arrangement
is *both* similar to a traditional diatonic layout and completely
consistent in its patterns for scales and chords (and a lot more,
besides). :-)

> And please for Pete's sake can we end the Accordion Wars already?

Golly, no! I just got back here after a long weekend away. ;-)

--George

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

> Well, what can say? I've been playing 22-ET on a generalized
> keyboard for years and find it difficult to imagine how it could be
> any easier on another keyboard.

Well, of course! We humans are creatures of habit. Anything is easy
once you get the knack of it. I could say the same thing about
the "QWERTY" keyboard, and we all know that IT was designed to be
DIFFICULT. Honestly, I myself am not a keyboard player. It usually
takes me a good minute to pick out a major scale in one of the more
distant keys. I can see the advantages of the generalized design,
but for 22-equal I don't see the advantage it has over my design.
Granted, my design doesn't allow for universal shapes that are the
same in every key, but that's the whole point. Since Stevie has been
playing piano since the 2nd grade, I'll take him at his word that it
helps to have pattern variation between key signatures. Also, my
design should be no more difficult to play than a standard keyboard,
and it gets away with keeping the same span, key shape, and key
size. The generalized design requires the equivalent of at least two
manuals. It's more of a squarish design, as opposed to the elongated
rectangle of a traditional keyboard. Perhaps if I knew what mapping
you used, I might get a better feel for the idea. But I've been
trying and trying, and I just can't find a lattice layout that would
be simultaneously conducive for diatonics, decatonics, and porcupine
scales.

Really, though, I think the bottom line here is aesthetics. The
form/appearance of the instrument is very important. I can't speak
for anyone but myself here, but I don't think the generalized design
LOOKS like a keyboard. You can color-code it till the cows come
home, but to me it still looks more like an array of buttons, like
something designed to input data to a computer. What my design may
lack in universality, I think it more than makes up for in
appearance. It's still recognizably a keyboard, though it's a good
few steps up the ladder from it's 12-tone counterpart.

> Hey, guys, I'm just trying to save you some grief a few months (or
> years) down the road by pointing out that a generalized arrangement
> is *both* similar to a traditional diatonic layout and completely
> consistent in its patterns for scales and chords (and a lot more,
> besides). :-)

I appreciate that, George, but you must bear in mind that we have a
different mindset than a lot of people on this board. We're taking
this slowly, one handful at a time. For myself, I'm content with
four equal temperaments at the most. 31, 22, 15, and maybe 19 or 17
on an acoustic guitar to knock around with. I look at the body of
music written in 12-tet alone, and I know that each and every new
temperament has the potential for even GREATER works to be written.
I want to dedicate myself to exploring the few that I find to be most
striking. I could easily spend all my money just on getting guitars
refretted to every tuning that strikes my fancy, but that would be
very counter-productive. For Stevie, I know that he would probably
be content to spend his life exploring even ONE new temperament.
Which is why, for him and for me, specialized designs are
preferable. They meet our needs in both form and function. And
really, do you honestly believe that the generalized design is the
perfect answer for everything, that it is "the Jesus" of keyboard
designs? I believe that there is no such thing as perfection, that
there is only personal preference. You can calculate all you want,
but at the end of the day it comes down to how a musician "feels"
towards his/her instrument. Different designs inspire different
people, and certainly inspire different sorts of music. Some people
just prefer a linear arrangement of rectangles to a plane of
ellipses.

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Igliashon Jones"
<igliashon@s...> wrote:
>
> > Well, what can say? I've been playing 22-ET on a generalized
> > keyboard for years and find it difficult to imagine how it could
be
> > any easier on another keyboard.
>
> Well, of course! We humans are creatures of habit. Anything is
easy
> once you get the knack of it.

True, but the question you need to be asking is how much repetition
it takes to get the knack of it. (Much more about this below.)

> I could say the same thing about
> the "QWERTY" keyboard, and we all know that IT was designed to be
> DIFFICULT. Honestly, I myself am not a keyboard player. It
usually
> takes me a good minute to pick out a major scale in one of the more
> distant keys. I can see the advantages of the generalized design,
> but for 22-equal I don't see the advantage it has over my
design.
> Granted, my design doesn't allow for universal shapes that are the
> same in every key, but that's the whole point. Since Stevie has
been
> playing piano since the 2nd grade, I'll take him at his word that
it
> helps to have pattern variation between key signatures. Also, my
> design should be no more difficult to play than a standard
keyboard,
> and it gets away with keeping the same span, key shape, and key
> size.

It finally dawned on me why I'm having such a hard time convincing
you, when the advantages of a homogeneous over a heterogeneous key
layout are as obvious to me as the difference between day and night.

Most musicians just don't seem to realize how really *difficult* it
is to learn to play the conventional keyboard until they have had the
experience of subsequently learning one with a homogeneous key layout
and are thereby able to make a comparison. For most this never takes
place, because, once one is comfortable with the existing layout
(whether QWERTY or 7-white-5-black), there would seem to be little or
no incentive to learn a new (Dvorak or von Janko) layout --
especially when one considers that the installed user-base for the
existing layout is humongous.

The only way most of us could justify spending the time and effort to
learn (and money to build) a new, improved keyboard is if the new one
could do something that the existing one was completely incapable of
doing. Aha! Is this not precisely the situation you're in? If a
new keyboard is required, then why keep the inefficiencies of the
existing 7-white-5-black? Why not do it right?

The *reason* it takes you so long to pick out a major scale in a
distant key is that there is a *pattern variation* among the keys.
Eliminate that variation and you've eliminated well over 90% of the
effort it takes to master the keyboard. Eliminate that variation and
you would be able to play a major scale in any key -- blindfolded.
Or you could play a major scale simultaneously in two different keys
(one with each hand) in opposite directions without half thinking
about it. Or you could even transpose a simple microtonal piece at
sight! Really! (No kidding!)

I just remembered an incident that took place perhaps 20 years ago,
when I was the principal organist at a large Pentecostal church in
Los Angeles. I customarily played my own impromptu arrangements of
hymns and gospel songs as organ solos for 15 minutes before the
Sunday morning service, frequently modulating to whatever key struck
my fancy. On one occasion I took something lively (that required a
bit of technique) that was originally in Eb and modulated to E, and I
remember another organist (who happened to be watching me rather
intently) afterward telling me how impressed he was that I could play
in the sharp keys just as easily as in the flat keys, something I had
long taken for granted -- but only because I had practiced my scales
and chords in all of the keys many years before.

And now you want to go through all of that effort in 22?

> The generalized design requires the equivalent of at least two
> manuals.

I've found that I can get by with only 9 duplicate keys per octave,
for a total of 31 keys/octave, or 1.4 manuals. From experience I
would say that the best cost-benefit yield for any tuning would be
around 1.6 times the number of tones/octave, which comes to 36 keys
for 22-ET.

> It's more of a squarish design, as opposed to the elongated
> rectangle of a traditional keyboard.

One problem you're going to have with your design #2 is that it will
be awkward to play the bottom note of a wide chord with the right-
hand thumb on a black key if the fingers are also playing some white
keys. Duplicate black keys in a fourth row (closest to the player)
would do a lot to remedy that. The reason why conventional piano
keys are so long is to accommodate the short length of the thumb.
(You'll also find that you won't be able to get your fingers between
those black keys to depress either red or white keys, so that part of
piano technique has also gone by the wayside.) When you start
putting keys in more than a couple of rows, then duplicates make a
lot of sense.

So you see that duplicate keys have two functions:

1) To preserve uniform patterns in remote keys;
2) To facilitate fingering, particularly for chords.

> Perhaps if I knew what mapping
> you used, I might get a better feel for the idea.

I don't understand what you mean. The slightly upward-slanting /
rows are 4 degrees of 22-ET, while the steeper downward-slanting \
rows are a single degree. On a Bosanquet layout there's no other way
to do it.

> But I've been
> trying and trying, and I just can't find a lattice layout that
would
> be simultaneously conducive for diatonics, decatonics, and
porcupine
> scales.

No layout will be optimally intuitive for multiple scale generators.
That's why the best strategy is to select the layout that will most
easily and logically accommodate the most tunings.

> Really, though, I think the bottom line here is aesthetics. The
> form/appearance of the instrument is very important. I can't speak
> for anyone but myself here, but I don't think the generalized
design
> LOOKS like a keyboard. You can color-code it till the cows come
> home, but to me it still looks more like an array of buttons, like
> something designed to input data to a computer. What my design may
> lack in universality, I think it more than makes up for in
> appearance. It's still recognizably a keyboard, though it's a good
> few steps up the ladder from it's 12-tone counterpart.

Over the years I've taken my generalized keyboard Scalatron across
the U.S. a couple of times (including both East and West coasts) and
have shown it at more than a few universities and music conventions.
A lot of people have told me how impressed they were with the
appearance of the keyboard, and I don't recall that there was ever a
single negative comment in that regard. Perhaps a photograph might
change your mind?

I was looking for a photograph of the Wilson-Hackleman 19-tone
clavichord (which appeared on the cover of Xenharmonikon 5), but no
luck. The best I can do is refer you to a couple diagrams of its
construction (pp. 6 ff.):

http://www.anaphoria.com/xen456.PDF

> > Hey, guys, I'm just trying to save you some grief a few months
(or
> > years) down the road by pointing out that a generalized
arrangement
> > is *both* similar to a traditional diatonic layout and completely
> > consistent in its patterns for scales and chords (and a lot more,
> > besides). :-)
>
> I appreciate that, George, but you must bear in mind that we have a
> different mindset than a lot of people on this board.

Which is precisely why we're having this discussion. :-)

> We're taking
> this slowly, one handful at a time. For myself, I'm content with
> four equal temperaments at the most. 31, 22, 15, and maybe 19 or
17
> on an acoustic guitar to knock around with.

I've used all of those on my Scalatron, except for 15, and they're
quite easy to negotiate on the Bosanquet layout.

> I look at the body of
> music written in 12-tet alone, and I know that each and every new
> temperament has the potential for even GREATER works to be
written.
> I want to dedicate myself to exploring the few that I find to be
most
> striking. I could easily spend all my money just on getting
guitars
> refretted to every tuning that strikes my fancy, but that would be
> very counter-productive. For Stevie, I know that he would probably
> be content to spend his life exploring even ONE new temperament.
> Which is why, for him and for me, specialized designs are
> preferable. They meet our needs in both form and function.

Do you honestly believe that you'll be thinking the same thing 5 or
10 years from now? How long have you two been working with alternate
tunings anyway?

When I first got my Scalatron I had already been exploring
microtonality for around 12 years with a retuned electronic organ.
At first I used 31-ET most of the time on the Scalatron, but after
several years I found myself increasingly attracted to low-error 13-
limit temperaments of 17 and 29 tones. I also developed a well-
temperament circle of 19 that, along with 3 auxiliary tones, gave me
13-limit capability, and my interest in 31-ET has since that time
taken a back seat. Fortunately, all of these are easily accommodated
by the Bosanquet keyboard, but had I originally gone with a single-
purpose keyboard, I would have had to make the best of it with
something less than optimal -- keyboards aren't cheap, and, as you
noted, you can't get a new one for every tuning that strikes your
fancy. (Unless you have one that will do it all.)

> And
> really, do you honestly believe that the generalized design is the
> perfect answer for everything, that it is "the Jesus" of keyboard
> designs? I believe that there is no such thing as perfection, that
> there is only personal preference.

While the Bosanquet keyboard geometry is not the perfect answer for
everything, it comes much closer to that ideal than anything else,
and that's the reason why I chose it. You may call this my personal
preference, but I have found that there have been many microtonal
people who are in agreement. I would caution you not to bypass a
design supported by a 130-year track record of enthusiastic
advocates, especially since it has already been demonstrated that it
handles the tuning you want to use extremely well.

> You can calculate all you want,
> but at the end of the day it comes down to how a musician "feels"
> towards his/her instrument. Different designs inspire different
> people, and certainly inspire different sorts of music. Some
people
> just prefer a linear arrangement of rectangles to a plane of
> ellipses.

Ellipses, hexagons, rectangles, or Popsicle sticks (which latter
Bosanquet's original keys resemble) -- the key shape is secondary.
Don't get hung up on key shape -- it's the keyboard geometry that's
important! And it's not aesthetics that's of paramount importance --
it's facility and function!

But if you want to lock yourself into a single-purpose keyboard
that'll take a lot longer to learn, then suit yourself. I, for one,
would hate to be building QWERTY while the rest of the (microtonal)
world may be in the process of adopting Dvorak.

--George

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

> The *reason* it takes you so long to pick out a major scale in a
> distant key is that there is a *pattern variation* among the keys.
> Eliminate that variation and you've eliminated well over 90% of the
> effort it takes to master the keyboard. Eliminate that variation
and
> you would be able to play a major scale in any key -- blindfolded.

But how would you know which key you were in, or which chord you were
fingering? On a general keyboard, there are no *tactile* landmarks.
I assume that that has something to do with why there are a different
number of white and black keys on a trad. keyboard when an
alternating white-black pattern would have worked equally well and
would have provided (at least for 12) all or most of the benefits of
your general keyboard. One of the chief desires Stevie expressed was
to have a keyboard where each key signature would feel "different".
Not this has acoustical relevance in an equal temperament, but at
least on a visual/tactile level it gives each key a sense of
identity. This is definitely lost to a significant degree on a
general keyboard. You may be able to play by touch alone, but unless
you look or have perfect pitch (which, in microtonality, is a
difficult skill to master indeed) you can't know if you're in the
right key. And unless you can re-color-code for each tuning you
might want to use, the "multi-tuning" advantage is significantly
lessened.

> And now you want to go through all of that effort in 22?

22 shall be effort to learn, regardless. Tonality will have to be
redefined. Assuming I can produce a specialized design that is no
more difficult to play than a standard keyboard, I imagine it would
be actually *easier* to learn than on a generalized design, where
you'd have to visually memorize where all the notes fall on the
lattice and navigate to them by sight as opposed to touch.

> One problem you're going to have with your design #2 is that it
will
> be awkward to play the bottom note of a wide chord with the right-
> hand thumb on a black key if the fingers are also playing some
white
> keys. Duplicate black keys in a fourth row (closest to the player)
> would do a lot to remedy that.

Indeed, I shall see what I can do with a four row design.

> (You'll also find that you won't be able to get your fingers
between
> those black keys to depress either red or white keys, so that part
of
> piano technique has also gone by the wayside.)

There is no reason that my design should require less surface area
per key than a generalized design would.

> I don't understand what you mean. The slightly upward-slanting /
> rows are 4 degrees of 22-ET, while the steeper downward-slanting \
> rows are a single degree. On a Bosanquet layout there's no other
way
> to do it.

That same design may actually be applicable to my ideas...perhaps
attempt #3 will reflect a similar layout.

> No layout will be optimally intuitive for multiple scale
generators.
> That's why the best strategy is to select the layout that will most
> easily and logically accommodate the most tunings.

To accomodate the "most" tunings would require compromise, whereas a
specialized design can be optimized for the tuning in question. I
believe that for an inexperienced musician to play an instrument
designed *specifically* for a given tuning will facilitate his or her
ability to become familiar with that tuning.

Now, I am not arguing on a general scale here. Nor am I saying there
is something wrong with the generalized design. It suits its
intended purpose perfectly: to allow its player to utilize almost any
tuning system he so desires with a minimum of difficulty. For you
and many others it is obviously exactly what you desire. But for
Stevie and I, we desire something specialized. Granted, that may
seem illogical. But there is something deeper at work here.

I have been wondering why Microtonalism is such a small movement; why
did I have to dig to find it? I think the reason is because there is
no unified support for a specific alternative to 12-equal. For a
newcomer, it is a bewildering world. One finds oneself suddenly
thrust into a mathamatical jungle of infinite possibilities. Just
Intonations, Equal Temperaments, Pitch Lattices, Vector Notation,
Rational Notation, Horagrams, Partch, Sethares, Wilson...where does
one begin? I have spent the last year of my life attempting to break
in. I have spent countless of my own free hours studying what most
here consider to be "the basics": theories of consonance, the physics
of music, theoretical systems for alternate forms of tonality. I've
had to seek out individuals and ask them the most elementary of
questions...all this just to be able to hold my own (if I can even be
said to do that!) in a discussion forum. And precious little music
has resulted from it! Few people have even spent the time to relate
microtonality to traditional theory, or to design instruments that a
neophyte could pick up and say "oh! So this is what 17-equal feels
like!". There are very few sign posts on this road. To me, it's
been very liberating and rewarding, but how do I explain this to my
friends, those who HAVEN'T spent the time that I have? To show them
the big picture all at once is impossible. Yet I imagine that if I
had one specific new tuning in mind, with specialized instruments to
play it and a group of musicians to help me show it off, then maybe I
might be able to help Microtonalism drag itself out of the shadows.

I am designing a specialized keyboard for 22 not just for me and
Stevie but for EVERYONE. I want something that anyone can pick up
and say "oh! So 22 equal divisions of the octave looks like *this*!
It sounds like *this*!" Granted, they won't understand it right from
the get-go, but it will be easier to digest than an alien-looking
generalized keyboard that can play in an infinity of tuning systems.

If you want to help, I ask you for ideas on how to *refine* my
specialized keyboard. I am not interested in a general keyboard at
this time. Some day I may want one for myself, to help me continue
in my exploration of different systems. But I am young, and right
now I neither need nor want a generalized design.

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

Igliashon Jones wrote:

> I have been wondering why Microtonalism is such a small movement;

Because it's off the beaten track? It can be "difficult". And it isn't
widely taught. If, as Carl has pointed out, "Classical" music is a niche,
microtonal music is an even smaller niche.

> why did I have to dig to find it? I think the reason is because
> there is no unified support for a specific alternative to
> 12-equal. For a newcomer, it is a bewildering world.

Yes, that's one reason, definitely. But the frontier is always that way. I
don't foresee there will ever be unified support for one specific
alternative to 12 tET. That means the wilderness will stay wilder longer.
But also, it means that good tools will take much longer to evolve, or will
evolve differently. The history of musical notation is only approximately
1000 years old, and the common practice period with exactly modern notation
is about 400, give or take. It took 600+ years in Europe to evolve a set
of instruments and notations together as a system, and spread it widely
throughout the continent. I wouldn't foresee it happening that way again,
even at the modern accellerated pace of change.

Already look at notation: traditional notation can be "useless" for
microtonal work. One could fret over that and either do it oneself the
Harry Partch way, or ignore the problem the McGowan way. I ignore the
problem by pushing the tuning onto the synth (VSTi with .tun files) and
using traditional notation tools with radical interpretations. E.g., I
notate 15 tET on an ordinary staff in Finale, using ordinary tools,
commercially available tools. The acoustic octave in 15 tET is fifteen
steps C up to E-flat. You can get used to it. Allows creation of music
right away, instead of waiting for tools. And anyone who can find their way
around ordinary notation can use the score on an ordinary instrument like
a 7/5 white/black keyboard, without re-training. Yeah, it gets more awkward
in higher ETs! But I'm not going to get worked up about note names or
notation -- all of which are merely means to the end of having the stuff
get turned into sound waves.

In the future, there may be a wide acceptance of traditional-like acoustic
instruments with non-traditional tunings playing non-traditionally scored
music. But I wouldn't bet on it happening this century in any big way.

Rick

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

to start with i am all for you doing what ever keyboard seems right to you as often ones own direction lead in directions that may not be fore known ahead of time.
My objection are not in attack on your keyboard , but in defense of the bosanquet which i will point out likewise, you don't know till you have worked with it

Igliashon Jones wrote:

> >
>
>
>But how would you know which key you were in, or which chord you were >fingering? On a general keyboard, there are no *tactile* landmarks. >I assume that that has something to do with why there are a different >number of white and black keys on a trad. keyboard when an >alternating white-black pattern would have worked equally well and >would have provided (at least for 12) all or most of the benefits of >your general keyboard. >
these feature transpose to the bosanquet without any problem naturals white sharps etc. black. or you can add any thing you want and like i said you can make the shape of the key in any way you wish. Look at the pictures in helmholtz book.

> One of the chief desires Stevie expressed was >to have a keyboard where each key signature would feel "different". >Not this has acoustical relevance in an equal temperament, but at >least on a visual/tactile level it gives each key a sense of >identity. This is definitely lost to a significant degree on a >general keyboard. >
this seems to be a meaningless goal . If you want something different in each key in regards to feel, tuning is the best way to do it.

> You may be able to play by touch alone, but unless >you look or have perfect pitch (which, in microtonality, is a >difficult skill to master indeed) you can't know if you're in the >right key. >
If it doesn't sound like you are in the wrong key, then you are not. I don't think you can find someone who has used these keyboards and had this problem. except possibly momentarily.
There is a great advantage unconsciously using generalized keyboard is that you mind know and learn quickly exactly where intervals are and often i found , i was not sure if my ear or hand was leading or if even there was really a separation between the two.
> And unless you can re-color-code for each tuning you >might want to use, the "multi-tuning" advantage is significantly >lessened. > > >
>>And now you want to go through all of that effort in 22?
>> >>
>
>22 shall be effort to learn, regardless. Tonality will have to be >redefined. Assuming I can produce a specialized design that is no >more difficult to play than a standard keyboard, I imagine it would >be actually *easier* to learn than on a generalized design, where >you'd have to visually memorize where all the notes fall on the >lattice and navigate to them by sight as opposed to touch.
> >
As someone who has worked with 22 tone scales for extended periods on a daily basis, as much as your keyboard shows great ingenuity, i would not use it.

> >
>
>
>There is no reason that my design should require less surface area >per key than a generalized design would.
> >
I think the reverse could also be said. that the bosanquet need not be larger, in which case , what have you gained.

> >
>
>Now, I am not arguing on a general scale here. Nor am I saying there >is something wrong with the generalized design. It suits its >intended purpose perfectly: to allow its player to utilize almost any >tuning system he so desires with a minimum of difficulty. For you >and many others it is obviously exactly what you desire. But for >Stevie and I, we desire something specialized. Granted, that may >seem illogical. But there is something deeper at work here. > >
i would argue that it is not more specialized in this particular case, i have built and played 222 tone instruments in a host of layouts.

>I have been wondering why Microtonalism is such a small movement; why >did I have to dig to find it? I think the reason is because there is >no unified support for a specific alternative to 12-equal. For a >newcomer, it is a bewildering world. One finds oneself suddenly >thrust into a mathamatical jungle of infinite possibilities. Just >Intonations, Equal Temperaments, Pitch Lattices, Vector Notation, >Rational Notation, Horagrams, Partch, Sethares, Wilson...where does >one begin? I have spent the last year of my life attempting to break >in. I have spent countless of my own free hours studying what most >here consider to be "the basics": theories of consonance, the physics >of music, theoretical systems for alternate forms of tonality. I've >had to seek out individuals and ask them the most elementary of >questions...all this just to be able to hold my own (if I can even be >said to do that!) in a discussion forum. And precious little music >has resulted from it! Few people have even spent the time to relate >microtonality to traditional theory, or to design instruments that a >neophyte could pick up and say "oh! So this is what 17-equal feels >like!". There are very few sign posts on this road. To me, it's >been very liberating and rewarding, but how do I explain this to my >friends, those who HAVEN'T spent the time that I have? To show them >the big picture all at once is impossible. Yet I imagine that if I >had one specific new tuning in mind, with specialized instruments to >play it and a group of musicians to help me show it off, then maybe I >might be able to help Microtonalism drag itself out of the shadows. > >
I would say you should concern yourself with your own musical directions and desires. Microtonality as a movement will take care of it self, when and only if people start doing real music in it. And just like you want your own keyboard, i imagine more than anything you want your own music. if you want to show people something it is 'listen to this!". we are not here to convert anyone to any idea they are not already inclined for, we are here cause we want to open music up to more possibilities, specifically using the parameter of Pitch.
As our everyday experience differ more and more from each other, it seems the idea of 'universals' are impossible if not undesirable, if we are to open ourselves from the varied experiences that cry to be expressed. One cannot compromise what one has to say artistically without risking saying nothing. Tradition will always be a well from which we may draw , but only those elements that serve in it being viable to our own expression. Look at Partch's instruments, everyone who plays upon them loves them and these are instruments that have much less to do with tradition than bosanquet.
i do agree with you that an ensemble of instruments that can play a tuning is what is needed is exactly the path i have taken. i will warn you that i have gone through maybe 4 different tuning on this scale ( many other i have investigated, but did not hold me for one reason or another). Maybe you will be lucky and guess what you want right off the bat. I found though once i had a tuning, i would discover certain things that appealed to me more than others, finally it would get to a point that i would realize that i could do that with such and such tuning. other times i would want to do something that the tuning i had did not do, this is another reason to investigate something else.
Partch did more for microtonality than anyone without a doubt, and it was because he wrote music that worked, and although some have criticisms of his tuning ( me included) it does not alter the fact that his tuning inspired him to do what he did. The only argument really can only be what does another tuning inspire someone else to do.
We know longer need everyone to do the same tuning. we have recordings to spread our musical message. DVD to present our theater.
w

> >
>
>
>
> >

--
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

22-tET keyboard attempt #2

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@...>

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@...>

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗paolovalladolid <phv40@...>