Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic To Rick, Kraig, and George, RE: 22-equal Keyboards

I think all of you have missed a point, right from the get go.

All I wanted was a specialized 22-note keyboard. If a generalized
keyboard works with this scale, then any of you could merely have
suggested building a keyboard BASED ON the generalized mapping of
22. Since the generalized keyboard is made to play in also much
larger tuning systems, I presume I could make a specialized keyboard
simply by mapping it to 22 and then "cutting away the fat", and then
reshaping what is left into something with traditional key shapes.
George suggested that for 22 to be utilized effectively in a
generalized design, you only need 9 repeat keys to keep a uniformity
of voicing. Seeing as how this is less than 2 manuals, I would
imagine I could use this subset to make a more compact and
specialized version of the generalized design. I imagine that using
this design the keyboard layout would be asymmetrical, and if I used
keys shaped like those on Fokker's 31-tone organ in rows of varying
height, there would also be tactile landmarks just as functional as
in any other design.

I don't see why it's all or nothing, why no one has suggested this
type of compromise. Nor do I see anyone addressing my argument for
tactile landmarks. Are you all honestly telling me that being able
to feel where you are on the keyboard by touch alone is a *bad*
thing?

Rick, I must also say that your justification of Microtonality's
hiddenness seems to me both defeatist and illogical. You seem to be
arguing that no one should DO anything except keep sitting at their
desks writing theory papers and making MIDI files while nature takes
its course. I don't expect everyone to get behind a specific system,
but it would sure help if at least SOME people got together behind
SOME system for a long enough time to establish it as a viable
alternative to 12. How will anything evolve if no one is pushing for
it?

Honestly, folks, there is no perfect system. Yet at this point in
the musical development of our culture, ANY alternative is a good
alternative. If I so happen to like 22-equal, and I want to make a
bid at bringing this tuning into the cultural consciousness by means
of specialized instruments (not to mention by forming an ensemble to
use them), is that wrong? Do I have my head on backwards? Should I
just be content to sit back and wait for everyone to have their own
epiphanies (as I did) and come trickling into this forum seeking the
same things I have?

I think you guys underestimate the importance of having a well-
implemented music system that is understood and utilized by a large
number of people. Part of the joy of music is playing it with other
people. There are few things I find more exhilirating than a good
jam session. How many of you have experienced the feeling of total
spiritual connection that comes via musical dialogue with others?
Music is so much more than an abstract art. It is a form of
communication that can be deeper than any human language. It can
change lives.

Yet you can't really experience that unless you have other people to
play with. And if there is not at least some large-scale acceptance
of your tuning, you're pretty much S.O.L. unless you can convince a
few friends to shell out big bucks to modify their own instruments.
I mean, I don't expect that I'm going to change the world. It's not
my intent to start a company to manufacture microtonal instruments,
or to get microtonalism all over the news or any such thing. I'm
merely trying to focus on establishing a base around one scale, so
that those looking for an alternative to 12 will have more to draw on
than a few research papers. It's got to start somewhere, right?

*sigh* perhaps I am wasting my breath. Either way, I'm not going to
post asking for any more opinions on a specialized 22-equal
keyboard. It's been made abundantly clear that I will get no
constructive criticism here.

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Stevie Hryciw <codroid@...>

🔗Jacob <jbarton@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Igliashon Jones"
<igliashon@s...> wrote:
> Honestly, folks, there is no perfect system. Yet at this point in
> the musical development of our culture, ANY alternative is a good
> alternative.

Hmm. Must we make up our minds? I like the notion of Johnny
Reinhard's polymicrotonality and the coexistence of different
systems. I recall reading a snippet about him on 31-tone bassoon
doubling Jon Catler in 7-equal or something; perhaps the alternative
I'd be happiest with would be the union of all conceivable tuning
systems. We are limited only by what we are able to hear. (Of course,
this is the worst for fixed-pitch beasts like keyboards!, but I was
thinking maybe a clavichord where the keys are completely moveable,
or something along the lines of Aaron Hunt's gooseplex or tonal
plexus)

But I must clarify. I like to think of clean versus messy
microtonality. Clean is well-defined, consciously created systems,
each perhaps with their own characteristic sound reflecting their
unique construction. Messy is free pitch, relying excessively on
your ears, and *perhaps* not caring so much that this or that note be
right where you planned it; messy is perhaps its own characteristic
sound. Of course, both are of great value musically, and both are
equally tricky to get at. With clean, you often need further
technical apparatus; with dirty you need more familiarity with
whatever instrument, it would seem.

Where was I?

Ah, but what is easiest for people? One clean system? Perhaps, though
I fear the one we have gives enough people ample trouble. Two clean
systems? To me, this is only an (inductive) hop away from all
systems! The building block of any scale at all is the interval, and
if folks can get a grasp on a reasonable interval resolution, a world
of scales comes into reach.

If the question is what most people can quickly comprehend, I don't
know. It took me less than a year to internalize the basics and
begin to draw my own conclusions, and that's short in proportion to
my musical life thus far. If this is all it takes for the average
musician, I would try and convince every musician I know to undergo a
microtonal quest... to become capable of at least an intellectual
understanding of any tuning. Though it's undoubtably harder for some.

Although no matter how perfectly a pianist understands 22 equal,
he'll still need a special keyboard. Oy. Pardon my irrelevance.

> I think you guys underestimate the importance of having a well-
> implemented music system that is understood and utilized by a large
> number of people. Part of the joy of music is playing it with
other
> people. There are few things I find more exhilirating than a good
> jam session. How many of you have experienced the feeling of total
> spiritual connection that comes via musical dialogue with others?

Not me so much :(. But may I ask how much this spiritual connection
relies on the criterion that the parties involved are in the same
tuning system, i.e. "speaking the same language"? My only
polymicrotonal jam session involved two musical saws, turntable, and
some weird electronics. The connection was dubious. Anyone else?

> And if there is not at least some large-scale acceptance
> of your tuning, you're pretty much S.O.L. unless you can convince a
> few friends to shell out big bucks to modify their own instruments.

If you're going for clean microtonality, this is more true. But worth
considering, especially financially, is the necessity-driven
creativity of the dirty mind. Take a ukelele, tune pairs of strings
quartertones apart, or tune whole thing to a 7-limit tetrad, wham!
Instant xenharmony.

> Either way, I'm not going to
> post asking for any more opinions on a specialized 22-equal
> keyboard. It's been made abundantly clear that I will get no
> constructive criticism here.

Sorry we couldn't be helpful. I just thought to mention one thing
about keyboards that I like. It has to do with touch. Specifically,
it's nice to be able to bang out a pan-diatonic something-or-other on
the white keys of a piano. And I would absolutely love to have that
same bangability on a porcupine. Power to ya.

Regardz,
Jacob Barton

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Now IJ!
There was every reason for me to assume that you had looked at the 22 tone generalized patterns. Otherwise i am not sure why you were dismissing the idea so quickly.
On more than 2 post i mentioned you could have keys shaped however you want them.
Personally i don't like the idea of using 22 out of the 31 keyboard. When i came down to mounting a 22 tone vibraphone out if a 31 master set. This did not look easy to play. Now it might be a good idea for you, but do you want me the recommend bad ideas? I don't see how fokker keyboard, which really has the problem of being the reverse of the Bosanquet, is more tactile than any other.
no matter what keyboard you use you can make the surface as rough or smooth as you like too.
So here are some keyboards
pages 7 and 12, note on the latter how well organized all the natural subsets are laid out ( see brackets on the right). Now try playing all the 10 tone subsets on your keyboard
http://www.anaphoria.com/xen3b.PDF
http://www.anaphoria.com/trans22.PDF this has a couple of manifestation of one layout, plus the bosanquet with different shaped keys ( i had mention this design in Helmholtz)
I think there are more plus the 9 rank one that George mentioned. which would push your use of the tuning toward pelog ideas

Igliashon Jones wrote:

>
>Honestly, folks, there is no perfect system. Yet at this point in >the musical development of our culture, ANY alternative is a good >alternative. >

> If I so happen to like 22-equal, and I want to make a >bid at bringing this tuning into the cultural consciousness by means >of specialized instruments (not to mention by forming an ensemble to >use them), is that wrong? Do I have my head on backwards? Should I >just be content to sit back and wait for everyone to have their own >epiphanies (as I did) and come trickling into this forum seeking the >same things I have?
> >
Why not. Why do you care what they do, it is what YOU do that matters. The problem is that even if this your concern, everyone who comes to it feels that everyone else who has been doing it has doing it wrong, otherwise the whole world would be doing the same thing. What this has lead to is each person comes in and reinvents the wheel, this has slowed things down with mircotonality more than anything. There is and have been many very brilliant people who have thought out these problems quite extensively. At this point (nothing would make me happier to be disproved in this statement, really) I think things have developed beyond the point that one is not going to make their mark in the fundamentals in this field. There are ample amounts of scales, and designs to choose from we all know that at this point of the game the idea of a single tuning is not going to happen ,nor is it even a good idea. The only way to make such a thing come about is by musical fascism and force people into a single choice. If such a decision comes about , it cannot be made by the theory , it has to be made by how music actually grows, not how we think it is going to grow. The idea of 'musical evolution' is dangerous, for it leads to the idea that music has an ultimate goal, which in term means any deviation from this is wrong. To prevent these wrong steps one has to use force of some kinds or just dismiss all other alternatives. YOu can't even get those on this list to agree which i guess in your case you would have to reject all of us as being " lead astray in the wilderness"

>I think you guys underestimate the importance of having a well-
>implemented music system that is understood and utilized by a large >number of people. >
I think you greatly underestimate all the thinking and living with these ideas the thousands before have done

> Part of the joy of music is playing it with other >people. There are few things I find more exhilirating than a good >jam session. How many of you have experienced the feeling of total >spiritual connection that comes via musical dialogue with others? >Music is so much more than an abstract art. It is a form of >communication that can be deeper than any human language. It can >change lives.
> >
i would assume you are a fan of Cornelius Cardew or perhaps would be.
Why do you assume that any one on this list has not experienced this?

>Yet you can't really experience that unless you have other people to >play with. And if there is not at least some large-scale acceptance >of your tuning, you're pretty much S.O.L. unless you can convince a >few friends to shell out big bucks to modify their own instruments.
>I mean, I don't expect that I'm going to change the world. It's not >my intent to start a company to manufacture microtonal instruments, >or to get microtonalism all over the news or any such thing. I'm >merely trying to focus on establishing a base around one scale, so >that those looking for an alternative to 12 will have more to draw on >than a few research papers. It's got to start somewhere, right? > >
You fail to acknowledge it has already started . It is everywhere and thousands are doing it
and like other great musical traditions, it will be a verbal one for quite some time when it gets right down to it.
Go ahead and pick YOUR base and let others decide from themselves

>*sigh* perhaps I am wasting my breath. Either way, I'm not going to >post asking for any more opinions on a specialized 22-equal >keyboard. It's been made abundantly clear that I will get no >constructive criticism here.
> >
I think you fare failing to accept the . Look for instance George and Harold and i all do and have done very different music. Does it not mean something that we all pretty much agree on the advantages of a generalized keyboard.
Do you find any one this list testifying to the advantages of asymmetric keyboard designs.
Right now if any musician plays with any of us on such a keyboard design, it already establish the possibility that a musician can go and play with the other two, regardless of what
tuning or style differences we might have. The system is already here and we can all interchange players. In reality, you are going to be the odd man out when if any one who has worked with us goes to visit you and possibly jam, they are not going to have music that relates to what they have been doing already. i would have a hard time playing your keyboard
( i did mention that it showed allot of ingenuity)
>
> >

--
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

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Dear Igliashon,

This is a pretty amazing group of people around here. The name of the group wasn't chosen idly: it was determined that there was a NEED - a forum for those who want to MAKE microtonal music. I should know: I started this place.

That doesn't mean that everyone makes it the same way, and I'm glad we don't. All I know is that there are quite a few here who *do* make microtonal music, and they are a subset of those who do the same out in the big world. And a lot of them read, and don't post often. So, I want you to stay, and be a new voice in this particular chorus. Take all of the following in that particular positive light.

{you wrote...}
>I think all of you have missed a point, right from the get go. All I >wanted was a specialized 22-note keyboard.

I certainly understood the point. I also note the opening comments from you in the two main threads on this:

#1. "Any comments on the design are welcome, as are any suggestions on building one in real life (materials we should use, etc.)."

#2. "All in all, I think it's a decent blend between innovation and tradition. What do y'all think? Might this one be serviceable?"

You really did solicit peoples opinions and ideas, and you are addressing a crowd that has had more than the usual experience with the difficulties of trying to coax non12 music out of a 12centric world. Even when there was in-depth talk in support of something a little different - say, the generalized kbd area - it was (knowing these people) from the standpoint of attempting a solution that might yield even more than you hoped for. No one would wish you ill if you went your own way and built a 22tet only kbd, and we'd look forward to the results.

>Nor do I see anyone addressing my argument for tactile landmarks. Are you >all honestly telling me that being able to feel where you are on the >keyboard by touch alone is a *bad* thing?

I'm sure they aren't. Then again, a harpist doesn't have anything they can *feel* differently on all those strings, but with practice they find the right ones.

>You seem to be arguing that no one should DO anything except keep sitting >at their
>desks writing theory papers and making MIDI files while nature takes its >course.

I won't actually speak for Rick, but he's been involved in this music for a long time, most commonly creating non12 music for theatrical and dance productions. NO ONE on this list would argue against making music (if you'll allow that in any form), as it is the reason this list exists. Do keep in mind that live performance is one area of microtonality - I'm a performing person, and that is my focus and livelihood. Some people around here aren't performers, but create music to be listened to.

>I don't expect everyone to get behind a specific system, but it would sure >help if at least SOME people got together behind SOME system for a long >enough time to establish it as a viable alternative to 12. How will >anything evolve if no one is pushing for it?

Hmmm. You aren't really thinking this hasn't occurred, are you? As just one example, there is Joe Maneri. He has been working in 72tet for a number of decades, and through his work at the New England Conservatory (and the jazz environments of Boston and NY) has developed not only a body of work, but a group of dedicated students, performers, and composers all thinking along the same lines. Music composed, performed, written about in important journals :( - the whole nine yards. If you don't believe me, check out the Boston Microtonal Society:

http://bostonmicrotonalsociety.org/Pages/OpeningFrameset.html

Johnny Reinhard, with the American Festival of Microtonal Music, has created a place for composers to present their works for over 20 years. Johnny is broad in his tastes, and likes all (I guess) tunings. See his group at:

http://www.afmm.org/

Not to mention, right in your neighborhood, the Just Intonation Network. David Doty and others have been dedicating their activities for many years to the exploration of *that* particular branch of microtonality. While long periods may go by without active concertizing, I'd urge you to note their information on the upcoming 20th anniversary music festival this spring - especially their focus on building both public awareness and building performance groups. JIN is at:

http://www.justintonation.net/

This is just off the top of my head, but remember: 12tet is just one thing, *non12* is _everything_ else. Is it any wonder it is scattered? While Harry Partch may have settled on one particular tuning, did Lou Harrison have to settle on just one tuning to make a lasting (and beautiful) body of music on this world? And with his own hand-built gamelans to perform it?

No, there probably won't be any new monolithic systems. You need to find what works for you, dig in, and make it happen.

>If I so happen to like 22-equal, and I want to make a bid at bringing this >tuning into the cultural consciousness by means of specialized instruments >(not to mention by forming an ensemble to use them), is that wrong?

No. After any consideration to the advice you've received here and elsewhere, you should just go off and Do It. With blazing passion, too!

>Music is so much more than an abstract art. It is a form of communication >that can be deeper than any human language. It can change lives.

I don't think you'll find anyone arguing with you on that. As I mentioned before, I happen to be a performer. But to be a fair and compassionate person, I've had to make myself realize that everyone who loves music may not actually _play_, and it is unfair to consider that they care for music less than you or I.

>I mean, I don't expect that I'm going to change the world.

But I hope you think you can.

>It's got to start somewhere, right?

We're looking to people like yourself.

>Either way, I'm not going to post asking for any more opinions on a >specialized 22-equal keyboard. It's been made abundantly clear that I >will get no constructive criticism here.

I hope I've been able to shed some light on the commentaries you've received, and to slightly convince you that this group is on your side if your intent is to make microtonal music. I've got to leave you with one final thought (and pardon me, fellow MMM'rs, who know this all too well).

I got into this thing through the music of Harry Partch. And, to be more exact, through the *person* of Harry Partch (see: http://www.corporeal.com/how.html ). Think about something: you can sit down at a computer, start Googling on microtonality, and come up with a lot of links to information, people, groups, forums, music, concerts... a world of stuff that has gone on and *is* going on with non12 music.

Now go back to the 1920's when all there was was... 12tet. And someone felt they needed something else. And how hard it must have been to find out what that *Something* might be.

"That Harry Partch is no ordinary person is obvious. If his accomplishments in music had been slight, perhaps it could all end here -- but on the contrary, his accomplishments have been considerable. Anyone who has sat in a room, surrounded by Partch's many instruments, and listened to his music -- this complete and, to many, alien world of sound and drama -- knows what an intimidating experience this can be. The very thought of adopting a philosophical position diametrically opposed to a well-entrenched existing tradition, building a theory of tonal relationships and the instruments to realize this theory, composing the music, staging the drama, rehearsing and bringing it all to performance, recording the result -- all in the face of an uncomprehending public -- and then having the perseverance (perhaps obstinacy would be a better word) to continue all this for the better part of a lifetime, is a staggering thing to contemplate. Perhaps it is not so staggering if you consider Harry Partch's ideas about music. Partch and his music are very close to being one and the same thing."
- Arthur Woodbury

Igliashon, I sincerely hope you are "no ordinary person". I hope that you and your music are strong enough for the staggering task you set for yourself. It sounds like you are, and only time will tell.

With great respect for what we all wish to do,
And the best wishes for your path,
Sincerely,
Jon

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

Hey Jacob,

Please, allow me to clarify myself a little. I did not mean to
suggest that the whole community get behind one tuning system.
That'd be like making the 12-equal mistake all over again. But right
now no one is really pushing for any tuning in specific, except for
maybe Neil Havestick and John Starrett for 19-equal. Yasser had a
good philosophy of it, IMHO, when he spoke of 19-equal being a good
starting point to immediately increase the tonal resources available
to musicians. I'd probably be a 19-toner as well, since there is a
pretty large base for it, but I just like 22-equal so damn much.

I think I may have been a little harsh towards the group, it's just
that so far most people have been only expressing one thought on my
design: scrap it and get a general keyboard. I know everyone is just
trying to help and they think I'm making a mistake putting this much
emphasis on one tuning system, but I've already made my mind up as to
the route that I want to take. I think things are also getting a
little heated in this forum, not just with me but with that
whole "accordion wars" thing, and the last thing I want is freakin'
flame war.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jacob" <jbarton@r...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Igliashon Jones"
> <igliashon@s...> wrote:
> > Honestly, folks, there is no perfect system. Yet at this point
in
> > the musical development of our culture, ANY alternative is a good
> > alternative.
>
> Hmm. Must we make up our minds? I like the notion of Johnny
> Reinhard's polymicrotonality and the coexistence of different
> systems. I recall reading a snippet about him on 31-tone bassoon
> doubling Jon Catler in 7-equal or something; perhaps the
alternative
> I'd be happiest with would be the union of all conceivable tuning
> systems. We are limited only by what we are able to hear. (Of
course,
> this is the worst for fixed-pitch beasts like keyboards!, but I was
> thinking maybe a clavichord where the keys are completely moveable,
> or something along the lines of Aaron Hunt's gooseplex or tonal
> plexus)
>
> But I must clarify. I like to think of clean versus messy
> microtonality. Clean is well-defined, consciously created systems,
> each perhaps with their own characteristic sound reflecting their
> unique construction. Messy is free pitch, relying excessively on
> your ears, and *perhaps* not caring so much that this or that note
be
> right where you planned it; messy is perhaps its own characteristic
> sound. Of course, both are of great value musically, and both are
> equally tricky to get at. With clean, you often need further
> technical apparatus; with dirty you need more familiarity with
> whatever instrument, it would seem.
>
> Where was I?
>
> Ah, but what is easiest for people? One clean system? Perhaps,
though
> I fear the one we have gives enough people ample trouble. Two clean
> systems? To me, this is only an (inductive) hop away from all
> systems! The building block of any scale at all is the interval,
and
> if folks can get a grasp on a reasonable interval resolution, a
world
> of scales comes into reach.
>
> If the question is what most people can quickly comprehend, I don't
> know. It took me less than a year to internalize the basics and
> begin to draw my own conclusions, and that's short in proportion to
> my musical life thus far. If this is all it takes for the average
> musician, I would try and convince every musician I know to undergo
a
> microtonal quest... to become capable of at least an intellectual
> understanding of any tuning. Though it's undoubtably harder for
some.
>
> Although no matter how perfectly a pianist understands 22 equal,
> he'll still need a special keyboard. Oy. Pardon my irrelevance.
>
> > I think you guys underestimate the importance of having a well-
> > implemented music system that is understood and utilized by a
large
> > number of people. Part of the joy of music is playing it with
> other
> > people. There are few things I find more exhilirating than a
good
> > jam session. How many of you have experienced the feeling of
total
> > spiritual connection that comes via musical dialogue with others?
>
> Not me so much :(. But may I ask how much this spiritual connection
> relies on the criterion that the parties involved are in the same
> tuning system, i.e. "speaking the same language"? My only
> polymicrotonal jam session involved two musical saws, turntable,
and
> some weird electronics. The connection was dubious. Anyone else?
>
> > And if there is not at least some large-scale acceptance
> > of your tuning, you're pretty much S.O.L. unless you can convince
a
> > few friends to shell out big bucks to modify their own
instruments.
>
> If you're going for clean microtonality, this is more true. But
worth
> considering, especially financially, is the necessity-driven
> creativity of the dirty mind. Take a ukelele, tune pairs of strings
> quartertones apart, or tune whole thing to a 7-limit tetrad, wham!
> Instant xenharmony.
>
> > Either way, I'm not going to
> > post asking for any more opinions on a specialized 22-equal
> > keyboard. It's been made abundantly clear that I will get no
> > constructive criticism here.
>
> Sorry we couldn't be helpful. I just thought to mention one thing
> about keyboards that I like. It has to do with touch.
Specifically,
> it's nice to be able to bang out a pan-diatonic something-or-other
on
> the white keys of a piano. And I would absolutely love to have
that
> same bangability on a porcupine. Power to ya.
>
> Regardz,
> Jacob Barton

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

Alright, Kraig! I think you've got me. Indeed I suppose I have
underestimated this forum.

But let me clarify just a little of what I meant (for the internet is
the most ferile ground for misunderstanding that I have yet
encountered). I never meant that the whole microtonal world should
unite around a single system. That would be ridiculous. I know
everyone here has different ideas, and for most everyone here (myself
included!) multiple tuning systems are required and thus are
generalized designs. Not to mention that I'm sure you are correct
that everyone who makes their way here has their own ideas on how to
reinvent the wheel (I must be a classic example of this).

I think the reason I am so stuck on this is that I am actually a
*fan* of limitation. When faced with the infinity of possibilities
in the microtonal world, I am daunted, and my creativity drops
through the floor. It becomes so easy to get lost in theorizing and
never to get any music made. Unless I narrow it down to a tiny
subset of possibilities, I will spend my life making 'etudes' in
every tuning system.

I don't want the world to go from one fascist musical regime to
another. I want the world to open up to more possibilities. And I
know damn well that I have no control over that, and there's not a
whole lot I can do except throw my 10 cents into the pond. In
setting out to change the world, I do not expect to accomplish it, or
even to make a dent. But I want to start building the possibilities.

So far it takes a special breed of person to become interested in
microtonality. It really is amazing that any of us are here at all,
given the oppressive system that is in place with 12-equal. But I
think more people would be interested if there was some kind of
a "package" that could be handed to them, a sort of seed that could
be planted. That's what I am trying to create. Others are doing it
with 19 (Haverstick and Starrett, Elaine Walker, Yasser, etc.), while
others are doing it or have done it with JI (Jon Catler is the first
to come to mind, and he's doing a hell of a job, too!). Now I want
to do it with 22. Thankfully I have Paul Erlich's immense knowledge
to draw on, and he has been extremely supportive of my ideas.
Believe it or not, he actually thinks my first design is not only
feasible but a good ideal for the tuning.

But I digress.

You must remember that I am a guitar player, and there is
no "generalized guitar", except perhaps a fretless. Microtonal
guitars are already fairly easy to acquire, but microtonal keyboards
are another beast altogether. The generalized design is pretty much
the only thing going right now in that field, and there is good
reason for that. I do not dispute this. I have no argument against
the design, and in fact the only reason I am trying to develop an
alternative at this point is because I am starting an ensemble, and
Stevie wants to start with a specialized instrument to help him
become familiar with the tuning.

Kraig, I like both the ideas you linked to (the modulus-22 and the 5-
12-5), but they both seem to have their problems. I'm trying to make
a synthesis of those two ideas, something that will minimize the
difficulties by compromizing the two extremes. The designs I put up
are not my final product, they're just ideas I'm throwing out. The
reason I said I'm getting "no constructive criticism" is because so
far most of the people commenting have dismissed the idea of a
specialized keyboard out of hand and told me that general is the way
to go, and that I should stop wasting my time. I don't consider that
constructive.

However, you have just given me some darn good ideas, and you have
made a lot of good points. Somehow my initial request for friendly
critiques turned into a huge battle between my self-important
idealism and the well-established and experienced traditionalism of
you older guys. I never meant for it to blow up like this.

Hopefully I'll be able to hammer out a design soon that meets the
expressed criticism and yet still fits Stevie's criteria. I think
something based on the modulus-22 that involves rows of keys at
different heights will be able to provide the tactile landmarks he
desires, and will preserve a certain type of uniformity. Though I
think the only way to really preserve the uniformity of the general
keyboard is to have rows an octave deep as well as several octaves
long. Well, back to the drawing board.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> Now IJ!
> There was every reason for me to assume that you had looked at the
22
> tone generalized patterns. Otherwise i am not sure why you were
> dismissing the idea so quickly.
> On more than 2 post i mentioned you could have keys shaped however
you
> want them.
> Personally i don't like the idea of using 22 out of the 31
keyboard.
> When i came down to mounting a 22 tone vibraphone out if a 31
master
> set. This did not look easy to play. Now it might be a good idea
for
> you, but do you want me the recommend bad ideas? I don't see how
fokker
> keyboard, which really has the problem of being the reverse of the
> Bosanquet, is more tactile than any other.
> no matter what keyboard you use you can make the surface as rough
or
> smooth as you like too.
> So here are some keyboards
> pages 7 and 12, note on the latter how well organized all the
natural
> subsets are laid out ( see brackets on the right). Now try playing
all
> the 10 tone subsets on your keyboard
> http://www.anaphoria.com/xen3b.PDF
> http://www.anaphoria.com/trans22.PDF this has a couple of
> manifestation of one layout, plus the bosanquet with different
shaped
> keys ( i had mention this design in Helmholtz)
> I think there are more plus the 9 rank one that George mentioned.
which
> would push your use of the tuning toward pelog ideas
>
> Igliashon Jones wrote:
>
> >
> >Honestly, folks, there is no perfect system. Yet at this point in
> >the musical development of our culture, ANY alternative is a good
> >alternative.
> >
>
> > If I so happen to like 22-equal, and I want to make a
> >bid at bringing this tuning into the cultural consciousness by
means
> >of specialized instruments (not to mention by forming an ensemble
to
> >use them), is that wrong? Do I have my head on backwards? Should
I
> >just be content to sit back and wait for everyone to have their
own
> >epiphanies (as I did) and come trickling into this forum seeking
the
> >same things I have?
> >
> >
> Why not. Why do you care what they do, it is what YOU do that
matters.
> The problem is that even if this your concern, everyone who comes
to it
> feels that everyone else who has been doing it has doing it wrong,
> otherwise the whole world would be doing the same thing. What this
has
> lead to is each person comes in and reinvents the wheel, this has
slowed
> things down with mircotonality more than anything. There is and
have
> been many very brilliant people who have thought out these problems
> quite extensively. At this point (nothing would make me happier to
be
> disproved in this statement, really) I think things have developed
> beyond the point that one is not going to make their mark in the
> fundamentals in this field. There are ample amounts of scales, and
> designs to choose from we all know that at this point of the game
the
> idea of a single tuning is not going to happen ,nor is it even a
good
> idea. The only way to make such a thing come about is by musical
fascism
> and force people into a single choice. If such a decision comes
about ,
> it cannot be made by the theory , it has to be made by how music
> actually grows, not how we think it is going to grow. The idea of
> 'musical evolution' is dangerous, for it leads to the idea that
music
> has an ultimate goal, which in term means any deviation from this
is
> wrong. To prevent these wrong steps one has to use force of some
kinds
> or just dismiss all other alternatives. YOu can't even get those on
this
> list to agree which i guess in your case you would have to reject
all
> of us as being " lead astray in the wilderness"
>
>
>
>
> >I think you guys underestimate the importance of having a well-
> >implemented music system that is understood and utilized by a
large
> >number of people.
> >
> I think you greatly underestimate all the thinking and living with
these
> ideas the thousands before have done
>
> > Part of the joy of music is playing it with other
> >people. There are few things I find more exhilirating than a good
> >jam session. How many of you have experienced the feeling of
total
> >spiritual connection that comes via musical dialogue with others?
> >Music is so much more than an abstract art. It is a form of
> >communication that can be deeper than any human language. It can
> >change lives.
> >
> >
> i would assume you are a fan of Cornelius Cardew or perhaps would
be.
> Why do you assume that any one on this list has not experienced
this?
>
> >Yet you can't really experience that unless you have other people
to
> >play with. And if there is not at least some large-scale
acceptance
> >of your tuning, you're pretty much S.O.L. unless you can convince
a
> >few friends to shell out big bucks to modify their own instruments.
> >I mean, I don't expect that I'm going to change the world. It's
not
> >my intent to start a company to manufacture microtonal
instruments,
> >or to get microtonalism all over the news or any such thing. I'm
> >merely trying to focus on establishing a base around one scale, so
> >that those looking for an alternative to 12 will have more to draw
on
> >than a few research papers. It's got to start somewhere, right?
> >
> >
> You fail to acknowledge it has already started . It is everywhere
and
> thousands are doing it
> and like other great musical traditions, it will be a verbal one
for
> quite some time when it gets right down to it.
> Go ahead and pick YOUR base and let others decide from themselves
>
> >*sigh* perhaps I am wasting my breath. Either way, I'm not going
to
> >post asking for any more opinions on a specialized 22-equal
> >keyboard. It's been made abundantly clear that I will get no
> >constructive criticism here.
> >
> >
> I think you fare failing to accept the . Look for instance George
and
> Harold and i all do and have done very different music. Does it not
mean
> something that we all pretty much agree on the advantages of a
> generalized keyboard.
> Do you find any one this list testifying to the advantages of
> asymmetric keyboard designs.
> Right now if any musician plays with any of us on such a keyboard
> design, it already establish the possibility that a musician can go
and
> play with the other two, regardless of what
> tuning or style differences we might have. The system is already
here
> and we can all interchange players. In reality, you are going to
be the
> odd man out when if any one who has worked with us goes to visit
you and
> possibly jam, they are not going to have music that relates to what
they
> have been doing already. i would have a hard time playing your
keyboard
> ( i did mention that it showed allot of ingenuity)
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

Mr. Szanto,

It may be that I am horribly sleep-deprived and thus emotional right
now, but you nearly brought a tear to my eyes. Yes yes yes this is
the attitude I am all about, and is exactly what I expected from this
group. If I have nothing else it is passion, which I hope is
apparent by now. Harry Partch is my hero. The importance of his
works is simply inexpressible, and I would give nearly anything if I
could have known him when he was alive. It is his spirit I've been
trying to evoke, for much like him I have ideas that I want to bring
to the world.

It's just that the response I got from a few people here did not seem
either positive or encouraging. When I asked for criticism, I didn't
expect to be told that I should completely reject the idea of a
specialized keyboard. That, to me, is a little beyond the realm of
criticism. That is a condemnation, and I was not expecting it from
anyone here. I know it was made with the best intentions, and I know
it was probably the result of my own ambiguity, but it struck me in a
rather harsh way. I know I'm young and EXTREMELY inexperienced
compared to almost everyone else here, but I don't like being talked
down to, and that's what it felt like. Perhaps it is due to the
impersonal ambiguity of internet forums; misunderstandings are so
easy.

I would like to make it clear that I did not mean to devalue the
contributions of anyone here. I know that there is much that has
been built, and that I am a very late arrival to the field. All I
have are vauge impressions of everyone here, and I am regrettably
ignorant about what everyone here has done. If I have made wrongful
estimations of anyone, I cannot apologize enough. I should now
acknowledge what I have failed to before: everyone has an important
role to play, and my self-importance about my own role (that of the
rebellious performer) has been getting in the way of constructive
discourse.

I have no right to demean anyone here. We are all in the same boat,
more or less, and we need to stick together. Some of my comments
have been overly harsh, and for that I apologize.

Perhaps, if it please the forum, I may post another design attempt,
one that is closer to finished. Or maybe a couple of different
ideas, just to get some perspective on them? Hopefully everyone
understands now what I am trying to accomplish, that I'm trying to
sort of establish "my" own sort of system (though it is based HEAVILY
on the ideas of others), and that my approach is different from other
microtonalists.

-Igliashon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Dear Igliashon,
>
> This is a pretty amazing group of people around here. The name of
the group
> wasn't chosen idly: it was determined that there was a NEED - a
forum for
> those who want to MAKE microtonal music. I should know: I started
this place.
>
> That doesn't mean that everyone makes it the same way, and I'm glad
we
> don't. All I know is that there are quite a few here who *do* make
> microtonal music, and they are a subset of those who do the same
out in the
> big world. And a lot of them read, and don't post often. So, I want
you to
> stay, and be a new voice in this particular chorus. Take all of the
> following in that particular positive light.
>
> {you wrote...}
> >I think all of you have missed a point, right from the get go. All
I
> >wanted was a specialized 22-note keyboard.
>
> I certainly understood the point. I also note the opening comments
from you
> in the two main threads on this:
>
> #1. "Any comments on the design are welcome, as are any suggestions
on
> building one in real life (materials we should use, etc.)."
>
> #2. "All in all, I think it's a decent blend between innovation and
> tradition. What do y'all think? Might this one be serviceable?"
>
> You really did solicit peoples opinions and ideas, and you are
addressing a
> crowd that has had more than the usual experience with the
difficulties of
> trying to coax non12 music out of a 12centric world. Even when
there was
> in-depth talk in support of something a little different - say, the
> generalized kbd area - it was (knowing these people) from the
standpoint of
> attempting a solution that might yield even more than you hoped
for. No one
> would wish you ill if you went your own way and built a 22tet only
kbd, and
> we'd look forward to the results.
>
> >Nor do I see anyone addressing my argument for tactile landmarks.
Are you
> >all honestly telling me that being able to feel where you are on
the
> >keyboard by touch alone is a *bad* thing?
>
> I'm sure they aren't. Then again, a harpist doesn't have anything
they can
> *feel* differently on all those strings, but with practice they
find the
> right ones.
>
> >You seem to be arguing that no one should DO anything except keep
sitting
> >at their
> >desks writing theory papers and making MIDI files while nature
takes its
> >course.
>
> I won't actually speak for Rick, but he's been involved in this
music for a
> long time, most commonly creating non12 music for theatrical and
dance
> productions. NO ONE on this list would argue against making music
(if
> you'll allow that in any form), as it is the reason this list
exists. Do
> keep in mind that live performance is one area of microtonality -
I'm a
> performing person, and that is my focus and livelihood. Some people
around
> here aren't performers, but create music to be listened to.
>
> >I don't expect everyone to get behind a specific system, but it
would sure
> >help if at least SOME people got together behind SOME system for a
long
> >enough time to establish it as a viable alternative to 12. How
will
> >anything evolve if no one is pushing for it?
>
> Hmmm. You aren't really thinking this hasn't occurred, are you? As
just one
> example, there is Joe Maneri. He has been working in 72tet for a
number of
> decades, and through his work at the New England Conservatory (and
the jazz
> environments of Boston and NY) has developed not only a body of
work, but a
> group of dedicated students, performers, and composers all thinking
along
> the same lines. Music composed, performed, written about in
important
> journals :( - the whole nine yards. If you don't believe me, check
out the
> Boston Microtonal Society:
>
> http://bostonmicrotonalsociety.org/Pages/OpeningFrameset.html
>
> Johnny Reinhard, with the American Festival of Microtonal Music,
has
> created a place for composers to present their works for over 20
years.
> Johnny is broad in his tastes, and likes all (I guess) tunings. See
his
> group at:
>
> http://www.afmm.org/
>
> Not to mention, right in your neighborhood, the Just Intonation
Network.
> David Doty and others have been dedicating their activities for
many years
> to the exploration of *that* particular branch of microtonality.
While long
> periods may go by without active concertizing, I'd urge you to note
their
> information on the upcoming 20th anniversary music festival this
spring -
> especially their focus on building both public awareness and
building
> performance groups. JIN is at:
>
> http://www.justintonation.net/
>
> This is just off the top of my head, but remember: 12tet is just
one thing,
> *non12* is _everything_ else. Is it any wonder it is scattered?
While Harry
> Partch may have settled on one particular tuning, did Lou Harrison
have to
> settle on just one tuning to make a lasting (and beautiful) body of
music
> on this world? And with his own hand-built gamelans to perform it?
>
> No, there probably won't be any new monolithic systems. You need to
find
> what works for you, dig in, and make it happen.
>
> >If I so happen to like 22-equal, and I want to make a bid at
bringing this
> >tuning into the cultural consciousness by means of specialized
instruments
> >(not to mention by forming an ensemble to use them), is that wrong?
>
> No. After any consideration to the advice you've received here and
> elsewhere, you should just go off and Do It. With blazing passion,
too!
>
> >Music is so much more than an abstract art. It is a form of
communication
> >that can be deeper than any human language. It can change lives.
>
> I don't think you'll find anyone arguing with you on that. As I
mentioned
> before, I happen to be a performer. But to be a fair and
compassionate
> person, I've had to make myself realize that everyone who loves
music may
> not actually _play_, and it is unfair to consider that they care
for music
> less than you or I.
>
> >I mean, I don't expect that I'm going to change the world.
>
> But I hope you think you can.
>
> >It's got to start somewhere, right?
>
> We're looking to people like yourself.
>
> >Either way, I'm not going to post asking for any more opinions on
a
> >specialized 22-equal keyboard. It's been made abundantly clear
that I
> >will get no constructive criticism here.
>
> I hope I've been able to shed some light on the commentaries you've
> received, and to slightly convince you that this group is on your
side if
> your intent is to make microtonal music. I've got to leave you with
one
> final thought (and pardon me, fellow MMM'rs, who know this all too
well).
>
> I got into this thing through the music of Harry Partch. And, to be
more
> exact, through the *person* of Harry Partch (see:
> http://www.corporeal.com/how.html ). Think about something: you can
sit
> down at a computer, start Googling on microtonality, and come up
with a lot
> of links to information, people, groups, forums, music, concerts...
a world
> of stuff that has gone on and *is* going on with non12 music.
>
> Now go back to the 1920's when all there was was... 12tet. And
someone felt
> they needed something else. And how hard it must have been to find
out what
> that *Something* might be.
>
> "That Harry Partch is no ordinary person is obvious. If his
accomplishments
> in music had been slight, perhaps it could all end here -- but on
the
> contrary, his accomplishments have been considerable. Anyone who
has sat in
> a room, surrounded by Partch's many instruments, and listened to
his music
> -- this complete and, to many, alien world of sound and drama --
knows what
> an intimidating experience this can be. The very thought of
adopting a
> philosophical position diametrically opposed to a well-entrenched
existing
> tradition, building a theory of tonal relationships and the
instruments to
> realize this theory, composing the music, staging the drama,
rehearsing and
> bringing it all to performance, recording the result -- all in the
face of
> an uncomprehending public -- and then having the perseverance
(perhaps
> obstinacy would be a better word) to continue all this for the
better part
> of a lifetime, is a staggering thing to contemplate. Perhaps it is
not so
> staggering if you consider Harry Partch's ideas about music. Partch
and his
> music are very close to being one and the same thing."
> - Arthur Woodbury
>
> Igliashon, I sincerely hope you are "no ordinary person". I hope
that you
> and your music are strong enough for the staggering task you set
for
> yourself. It sounds like you are, and only time will tell.
>
> With great respect for what we all wish to do,
> And the best wishes for your path,
> Sincerely,
> Jon

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

Hey, Igliashon,

I think the arguments for a generalized keyboard existing side-by-side with a
specialized one you would develop are sound. ;)

I think those who have advised you against a specialized one are coming from
the point of view that the intense amount of labor required means that you
should think it through well. And, 'cold feet' about committing to any one
tuning, as I will explain below.....

Which leads to another idea: I love 22. It has that unique 'schismatic
temperament' sound. The step sizes are like JI, in that a diatonic scale for
instance has different sized major 2nds, a neat effect. I also love 19.
There's a kind of restlessness, but it's a meantone, a beautiful effect. 31
has a gorgeous restfulness, a meantone/JI compromise. 17 has wonderful
neutral 3rds. 3-and-7 based JI without the 5 factor is wonderfully new (like
the scale Gene designed for me 'aaron'). 5 limit JI is always very pleasant,
and bring one back to an elegant, warm simplicity. The list goes on....every
tuning is a good tuning for some musical expression. But I understand your
desire to work long and hard in a chosen one tuning. I can't do it, even
though that desire is strong in me, only because I'm afraid of not choosing
well, knowing what qualities I might be sacrificing in not exploring the
others....

My point? I can't live without *any* of these systems, which kind of curses
me. In a way, I feel like I want to explore them all! (This is the
overwhelmingness of the ocean that is everything non-12, there are *infinite*
possibilities, literally!) So I guess my remaining life *will* be writing
'etudes' as you say, in some of these systems. So far, I've done some good
work in 19 (the 'Juggler', a fugue in progress), 17 (Insect Scherzo), 53
('Melancholic'), 10 ('10-Fantasy'), JI (lots of my 'Peer Gynt' suite), and
5-and-7 (lots of other stuff), but 22 and 31 are next, once I finish that
darned fugue. I admire and envy you that 22 speaks to you so much that you
want to dig into it deeply enough to make instruments based on it and only on
it, but I can understand that those of us who love *all* tunings might be
personally shy to the idea of boxing ourselves in to one and only one tuning.
I would not take this personally, and if you've found a complete marriage
with 22 compelling, by all means, commit to it unreservedly! ;)

Good luck on you endeavors, and let me know what the final design will be.

Cheers,
Aaron.

On Thursday 06 January 2005 07:14 am, Igliashon Jones wrote:
> Mr. Szanto,
>
> It may be that I am horribly sleep-deprived and thus emotional right
> now, but you nearly brought a tear to my eyes. Yes yes yes this is
> the attitude I am all about, and is exactly what I expected from this
> group. If I have nothing else it is passion, which I hope is
> apparent by now. Harry Partch is my hero. The importance of his
> works is simply inexpressible, and I would give nearly anything if I
> could have known him when he was alive. It is his spirit I've been
> trying to evoke, for much like him I have ideas that I want to bring
> to the world.
>
> It's just that the response I got from a few people here did not seem
> either positive or encouraging. When I asked for criticism, I didn't
> expect to be told that I should completely reject the idea of a
> specialized keyboard. That, to me, is a little beyond the realm of
> criticism. That is a condemnation, and I was not expecting it from
> anyone here. I know it was made with the best intentions, and I know
> it was probably the result of my own ambiguity, but it struck me in a
> rather harsh way. I know I'm young and EXTREMELY inexperienced
> compared to almost everyone else here, but I don't like being talked
> down to, and that's what it felt like. Perhaps it is due to the
> impersonal ambiguity of internet forums; misunderstandings are so
> easy.
>
> I would like to make it clear that I did not mean to devalue the
> contributions of anyone here. I know that there is much that has
> been built, and that I am a very late arrival to the field. All I
> have are vauge impressions of everyone here, and I am regrettably
> ignorant about what everyone here has done. If I have made wrongful
> estimations of anyone, I cannot apologize enough. I should now
> acknowledge what I have failed to before: everyone has an important
> role to play, and my self-importance about my own role (that of the
> rebellious performer) has been getting in the way of constructive
> discourse.
>
> I have no right to demean anyone here. We are all in the same boat,
> more or less, and we need to stick together. Some of my comments
> have been overly harsh, and for that I apologize.
>
> Perhaps, if it please the forum, I may post another design attempt,
> one that is closer to finished. Or maybe a couple of different
> ideas, just to get some perspective on them? Hopefully everyone
> understands now what I am trying to accomplish, that I'm trying to
> sort of establish "my" own sort of system (though it is based HEAVILY
> on the ideas of others), and that my approach is different from other
> microtonalists.
>
> -Igliashon

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

🔗Stevie Hryciw <codroid@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

Hey, Aaron,

I think you summed it all up just perfect. Except that I think I may
have given myself an inappropriate characterization--I'm not married
to 22. I completely agree with you that every tuning system has its
own special and unique character. I've become a huge fan of 15
lately, as well as 26 and 29. My goal is to amass a Darregian
arsenal of many differently-tempered guitars. I've had an idea to
also make a fretless guitar with different-colored fret lines for
multiple less harmonic systems, most likely 14 and 20 EDO (I've been
listening to a lot of Dan Stearns lately, and he's really sold me on
these tunings). So I myself will likely be acquiring a general
keyboard some day as well, since there are at least a few groups who
are developing them for sale. For the purpose of playing in multiple
systems, I indeed think that is the ideal design, and since I'm not a
keyboard player anyway I think it'd suit me just fine.

But there's a difference between my own personal experimentation and
what I want to do with an ensemble. I've come to the conclusion that
it would simplify my efforts to get a group together if I based the
group on one specific tuning, and after much analysis I've decided 22
is ideal for that goal. I think 22 is the most perfect compromise
tuning for what I want to do, since it contains a vast wealth of
tonalities (diatonic, decatonic, and porcupine to name my top 3
faves), has a broad spectrum of consonance and dissonance, and does
good approximations of several JI intervals up to an 11 limit, all
while keeping the number of notes very manageable. It's the kind of
tuning that I can see people getting into. That's why I'm so gung-ho
about it.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
<akjmicro@c...> wrote:
>
> Hey, Igliashon,
>
> I think the arguments for a generalized keyboard existing side-by-
side with a
> specialized one you would develop are sound. ;)
>
> I think those who have advised you against a specialized one are
coming from
> the point of view that the intense amount of labor required means
that you
> should think it through well. And, 'cold feet' about committing to
any one
> tuning, as I will explain below.....
>
> Which leads to another idea: I love 22. It has that
unique 'schismatic
> temperament' sound. The step sizes are like JI, in that a diatonic
scale for
> instance has different sized major 2nds, a neat effect. I also love
19.
> There's a kind of restlessness, but it's a meantone, a beautiful
effect. 31
> has a gorgeous restfulness, a meantone/JI compromise. 17 has
wonderful
> neutral 3rds. 3-and-7 based JI without the 5 factor is wonderfully
new (like
> the scale Gene designed for me 'aaron'). 5 limit JI is always very
pleasant,
> and bring one back to an elegant, warm simplicity. The list goes
on....every
> tuning is a good tuning for some musical expression. But I
understand your
> desire to work long and hard in a chosen one tuning. I can't do it,
even
> though that desire is strong in me, only because I'm afraid of not
choosing
> well, knowing what qualities I might be sacrificing in not
exploring the
> others....
>
> My point? I can't live without *any* of these systems, which kind
of curses
> me. In a way, I feel like I want to explore them all! (This is the
> overwhelmingness of the ocean that is everything non-12, there are
*infinite*
> possibilities, literally!) So I guess my remaining life *will* be
writing
> 'etudes' as you say, in some of these systems. So far, I've done
some good
> work in 19 (the 'Juggler', a fugue in progress), 17 (Insect
Scherzo), 53
> ('Melancholic'), 10 ('10-Fantasy'), JI (lots of my 'Peer Gynt'
suite), and
> 5-and-7 (lots of other stuff), but 22 and 31 are next, once I
finish that
> darned fugue. I admire and envy you that 22 speaks to you so much
that you
> want to dig into it deeply enough to make instruments based on it
and only on
> it, but I can understand that those of us who love *all* tunings
might be
> personally shy to the idea of boxing ourselves in to one and only
one tuning.
> I would not take this personally, and if you've found a complete
marriage
> with 22 compelling, by all means, commit to it unreservedly! ;)
>
> Good luck on you endeavors, and let me know what the final design
will be.
>
> Cheers,
> Aaron.
>
> On Thursday 06 January 2005 07:14 am, Igliashon Jones wrote:
> > Mr. Szanto,
> >
> > It may be that I am horribly sleep-deprived and thus emotional
right
> > now, but you nearly brought a tear to my eyes. Yes yes yes this
is
> > the attitude I am all about, and is exactly what I expected from
this
> > group. If I have nothing else it is passion, which I hope is
> > apparent by now. Harry Partch is my hero. The importance of his
> > works is simply inexpressible, and I would give nearly anything
if I
> > could have known him when he was alive. It is his spirit I've
been
> > trying to evoke, for much like him I have ideas that I want to
bring
> > to the world.
> >
> > It's just that the response I got from a few people here did not
seem
> > either positive or encouraging. When I asked for criticism, I
didn't
> > expect to be told that I should completely reject the idea of a
> > specialized keyboard. That, to me, is a little beyond the realm
of
> > criticism. That is a condemnation, and I was not expecting it
from
> > anyone here. I know it was made with the best intentions, and I
know
> > it was probably the result of my own ambiguity, but it struck me
in a
> > rather harsh way. I know I'm young and EXTREMELY inexperienced
> > compared to almost everyone else here, but I don't like being
talked
> > down to, and that's what it felt like. Perhaps it is due to the
> > impersonal ambiguity of internet forums; misunderstandings are so
> > easy.
> >
> > I would like to make it clear that I did not mean to devalue the
> > contributions of anyone here. I know that there is much that has
> > been built, and that I am a very late arrival to the field. All I
> > have are vauge impressions of everyone here, and I am regrettably
> > ignorant about what everyone here has done. If I have made
wrongful
> > estimations of anyone, I cannot apologize enough. I should now
> > acknowledge what I have failed to before: everyone has an
important
> > role to play, and my self-importance about my own role (that of
the
> > rebellious performer) has been getting in the way of constructive
> > discourse.
> >
> > I have no right to demean anyone here. We are all in the same
boat,
> > more or less, and we need to stick together. Some of my comments
> > have been overly harsh, and for that I apologize.
> >
> > Perhaps, if it please the forum, I may post another design
attempt,
> > one that is closer to finished. Or maybe a couple of different
> > ideas, just to get some perspective on them? Hopefully everyone
> > understands now what I am trying to accomplish, that I'm trying to
> > sort of establish "my" own sort of system (though it is based
HEAVILY
> > on the ideas of others), and that my approach is different from
other
> > microtonalists.
> >
> > -Igliashon
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.dividebypi.com

🔗Jacob <jbarton@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Igliashon Jones" <
igliashon@s...> wrote:
> So I myself will likely be acquiring a general
> keyboard some day as well, since there are at least a few groups who
> are developing them for sale. For the purpose of playing in multiple
> systems, I indeed think that is the ideal design, and since I'm not a
> keyboard player anyway I think it'd suit me just fine.

But wait. Here's one idea of mine that I hope to pursue. An alternating
black/white keyboard in which various black-white configurations could
be made by pushing un-needed keys into the instrument, out of sight.
The feel would probably be substantially different; the keys might be
more like drawbars. What do you think?

>
> But there's a difference between my own personal experimentation and
> what I want to do with an ensemble.

Aha! Me too. In personal experimentation I've hit up equal tunings from
1 to 19. See foum [complete] and Moods on my Fun with Xenharmonicity
page. In real life I've been slower getting off the ground. Last
spring I tried 72-tet in this cool composing-performing class they have
at Rice. We're talking basically strings and clarinet. The strings
had a hard time hearing that micro so quickly, and/or making sense of
any of it. I made this webpage <http://brown-1111.brown.rice.edu/~jb/
ooks/> but that didn't do much good unfortunately. All I ended up
doing with 72-edo was some silly harmonic series scale doodling - not
worth it! Recording of that someday.

> I've come to the conclusion that
> it would simplify my efforts to get a group together if I based the
> group on one specific tuning, and after much analysis I've decided 22
> is ideal for that goal. I think 22 is the most perfect compromise
> tuning for what I want to do, since it contains a vast wealth of
> tonalities (diatonic, decatonic, and porcupine to name my top 3
> faves), has a broad spectrum of consonance and dissonance, and does
> good approximations of several JI intervals up to an 11 limit, all
> while keeping the number of notes very manageable. It's the kind of
> tuning that I can see people getting into. That's why I'm so gung-ho
> about it.

My gung-ho choice for tuning is 31. Mainly I got attached to the
thirds. A large historical trend - see the Huygens-Fokker foundation,
if that ain't a push for one tuning, I don't know what is. Also, Johnny
Reinhard has online bassoon fingerings for it, which I wrote out in
index cards and did one short solo piece so far but hope to eventually
churn out an entire 31-tone bassoon method book with duets and quartets
and all the modes fit to print. Wooo! I'm hoping to get that same
ensemble this semester to do 31. But if there are a lot of strings, it
might be easier to do a more pythagorean 22 for them, huh?

Which theoretical idea do you think would be more imposing on normal
theory? 1) Exaggerating the difference between the pythagorean and just
major thirds, writing them as two separate notes (22), or 2) Meantone
with its thirds-mandated flat fifths (31)? Let's all go out and try one
or the other on our unenlightened friends and figure this out.

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Igliashon Jones wrote:

>
>You must remember that I am a guitar player, and there is >no "generalized guitar", except perhaps a fretless. >
actually a guitar is a genralized pattern. look how the bar chords are transposed up and down the neck

>
>Kraig, I like both the ideas you linked to (the modulus-22 and the 5-
>12-5), but they both seem to have their problems. I'm trying to make >a synthesis of those two ideas, something that will minimize the >difficulties by compromizing the two extremes. >
Let me just state these are not my ideas. You asked for examples of some genralized 22 tone patterns and i grabbed some that were immediately available. I BTW on my 22 tone instruments used neither one of these and there is absolutely no way that the one i do use could i have gotten to by strickly theoretical means.
For me i would have to start with exactly what type of instrument i was going to build, out of what mechanism, size etc. Then i would see which layouts would work best. I am overly practical in this way
>However, you have just given me some darn good ideas, and you have >made a lot of good points. Somehow my initial request for friendly >critiques turned into a huge battle between my self-important >idealism and the well-established and experienced traditionalism of >you older guys. I never meant for it to blow up like this.
> >
i apologize if i got heavy handed . and am glad that some of what i said might be useful.
I really have no problem with the direction you are going. Just some assumptions about the bosanquet i felt were not quite true.

>Hopefully I'll be able to hammer out a design soon that meets the >expressed criticism and yet still fits Stevie's criteria. I think >something based on the modulus-22 that involves rows of keys at >different heights will be able to provide the tactile landmarks he >desires, and will preserve a certain type of uniformity. Though I >think the only way to really preserve the uniformity of the general >keyboard is to have rows an octave deep as well as several octaves >long. Well, back to the drawing board. >
>
>--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> >wrote:
> >
>>Now IJ!
>> There was every reason for me to assume that you had looked at the >> >>
>22 > >
>>tone generalized patterns. Otherwise i am not sure why you were >>dismissing the idea so quickly.
>> On more than 2 post i mentioned you could have keys shaped however >> >>
>you > >
>>want them.
>>Personally i don't like the idea of using 22 out of the 31 >> >>
>keyboard. > >
>>When i came down to mounting a 22 tone vibraphone out if a 31 >> >>
>master > >
>>set. This did not look easy to play. Now it might be a good idea >> >>
>for > >
>>you, but do you want me the recommend bad ideas? I don't see how >> >>
>fokker > >
>>keyboard, which really has the problem of being the reverse of the >>Bosanquet, is more tactile than any other.
>> no matter what keyboard you use you can make the surface as rough >> >>
>or > >
>>smooth as you like too.
>> So here are some keyboards
>>pages 7 and 12, note on the latter how well organized all the >> >>
>natural > >
>>subsets are laid out ( see brackets on the right). Now try playing >> >>
>all > >
>>the 10 tone subsets on your keyboard
>> http://www.anaphoria.com/xen3b.PDF
>>http://www.anaphoria.com/trans22.PDF this has a couple of >>manifestation of one layout, plus the bosanquet with different >> >>
>shaped > >
>>keys ( i had mention this design in Helmholtz)
>> I think there are more plus the 9 rank one that George mentioned. >> >>
>which > >
>>would push your use of the tuning toward pelog ideas
>>
>>Igliashon Jones wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>>Honestly, folks, there is no perfect system. Yet at this point in >>>the musical development of our culture, ANY alternative is a good >>>alternative. >>>
>>> >>>
>>>If I so happen to like 22-equal, and I want to make a >>>bid at bringing this tuning into the cultural consciousness by >>> >>>
>means > >
>>>of specialized instruments (not to mention by forming an ensemble >>> >>>
>to > >
>>>use them), is that wrong? Do I have my head on backwards? Should >>> >>>
>I > >
>>>just be content to sit back and wait for everyone to have their >>> >>>
>own > >
>>>epiphanies (as I did) and come trickling into this forum seeking >>> >>>
>the > >
>>>same things I have?
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>> Why not. Why do you care what they do, it is what YOU do that >> >>
>matters. > >
>>The problem is that even if this your concern, everyone who comes >> >>
>to it > >
>>feels that everyone else who has been doing it has doing it wrong, >>otherwise the whole world would be doing the same thing. What this >> >>
>has > >
>>lead to is each person comes in and reinvents the wheel, this has >> >>
>slowed > >
>>things down with mircotonality more than anything. There is and >> >>
>have > >
>>been many very brilliant people who have thought out these problems >>quite extensively. At this point (nothing would make me happier to >> >>
>be > >
>>disproved in this statement, really) I think things have developed >>beyond the point that one is not going to make their mark in the >>fundamentals in this field. There are ample amounts of scales, and >>designs to choose from we all know that at this point of the game >> >>
>the > >
>>idea of a single tuning is not going to happen ,nor is it even a >> >>
>good > >
>>idea. The only way to make such a thing come about is by musical >> >>
>fascism > >
>>and force people into a single choice. If such a decision comes >> >>
>about , > >
>>it cannot be made by the theory , it has to be made by how music >>actually grows, not how we think it is going to grow. The idea of >>'musical evolution' is dangerous, for it leads to the idea that >> >>
>music > >
>>has an ultimate goal, which in term means any deviation from this >> >>
>is > >
>>wrong. To prevent these wrong steps one has to use force of some >> >>
>kinds > >
>>or just dismiss all other alternatives. YOu can't even get those on >> >>
>this > >
>>list to agree which i guess in your case you would have to reject >> >>
>all > >
>>of us as being " lead astray in the wilderness"
>>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>>>I think you guys underestimate the importance of having a well-
>>>implemented music system that is understood and utilized by a >>> >>>
>large > >
>>>number of people. >>>
>>> >>>
>>I think you greatly underestimate all the thinking and living with >> >>
>these > >
>>ideas the thousands before have done
>>
>> >>
>>>Part of the joy of music is playing it with other >>>people. There are few things I find more exhilirating than a good >>>jam session. How many of you have experienced the feeling of >>> >>>
>total > >
>>>spiritual connection that comes via musical dialogue with others? >>>Music is so much more than an abstract art. It is a form of >>>communication that can be deeper than any human language. It can >>>change lives.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>> i would assume you are a fan of Cornelius Cardew or perhaps would >> >>
>be.
> >
>> Why do you assume that any one on this list has not experienced >> >>
>this?
> >
>>>Yet you can't really experience that unless you have other people >>> >>>
>to > >
>>>play with. And if there is not at least some large-scale >>> >>>
>acceptance > >
>>>of your tuning, you're pretty much S.O.L. unless you can convince >>> >>>
>a > >
>>>few friends to shell out big bucks to modify their own instruments.
>>>I mean, I don't expect that I'm going to change the world. It's >>> >>>
>not > >
>>>my intent to start a company to manufacture microtonal >>> >>>
>instruments, > >
>>>or to get microtonalism all over the news or any such thing. I'm >>>merely trying to focus on establishing a base around one scale, so >>>that those looking for an alternative to 12 will have more to draw >>> >>>
>on > >
>>>than a few research papers. It's got to start somewhere, right? >>> >>>
>>> >>>
>> You fail to acknowledge it has already started . It is everywhere >> >>
>and > >
>>thousands are doing it
>> and like other great musical traditions, it will be a verbal one >> >>
>for > >
>>quite some time when it gets right down to it.
>> Go ahead and pick YOUR base and let others decide from themselves
>>
>> >>
>>>*sigh* perhaps I am wasting my breath. Either way, I'm not going >>> >>>
>to > >
>>>post asking for any more opinions on a specialized 22-equal >>>keyboard. It's been made abundantly clear that I will get no >>>constructive criticism here.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>> I think you fare failing to accept the . Look for instance George >> >>
>and > >
>>Harold and i all do and have done very different music. Does it not >> >>
>mean > >
>>something that we all pretty much agree on the advantages of a >>generalized keyboard.
>> Do you find any one this list testifying to the advantages of >>asymmetric keyboard designs.
>> Right now if any musician plays with any of us on such a keyboard >>design, it already establish the possibility that a musician can go >> >>
>and > >
>>play with the other two, regardless of what
>>tuning or style differences we might have. The system is already >> >>
>here > >
>>and we can all interchange players. In reality, you are going to >> >>
>be the > >
>>odd man out when if any one who has worked with us goes to visit >> >>
>you and > >
>>possibly jam, they are not going to have music that relates to what >> >>
>they > >
>>have been doing already. i would have a hard time playing your >> >>
>keyboard
> >
>>( i did mention that it showed allot of ingenuity)
>> >>
>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>-- >>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
>> >>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >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

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jacob" <jbarton@r...> wrote:
> But wait. Here's one idea of mine that I hope to pursue. An
alternating
> black/white keyboard in which various black-white configurations
could
> be made by pushing un-needed keys into the instrument, out of
sight.
> The feel would probably be substantially different; the keys might
be
> more like drawbars. What do you think?

I think that that's a fantastic idea, definitely do-able, but it will
be no easy task to engineer. You'll have to get creative with MIDI
programming, to be sure, but go for it! For any trained keyboardist
into microtonality, that would be REALLY worth having...heck, if I
were up to the engineering task I'd ask you if I could steal it!
Perhaps you might even consider pitching it to a company. Man, if
you get that idea off the ground, let me know!

> Aha! Me too. In personal experimentation I've hit up equal tunings
from
> 1 to 19. See foum [complete] and Moods on my Fun with Xenharmonicity

Both of which are excellent pieces. I checked out foum [complete] as
soon as you posted the link to it, and since then it's hardly a few
days that go by where I don't listen to it. Top notch!

>All I ended up
> doing with 72-edo was some silly harmonic series scale doodling -
not
> worth it! Recording of that someday.

72...what a scale! I would surely be daunted to compose in it. 31
is hard enough!

> My gung-ho choice for tuning is 31. Mainly I got attached to the
> thirds.

Actually, 31 was originally my first choice, until I began thoroughly
exploring it and other systems. I still like it a whole lot (my 31-
tone Gibson SG is quite fun to play, as well), as it is a very serene
tuning, and I kind of consider it a complementary system to 22. The
whole reason I opted for 22 is because I find it pushes my playing in
a more Xenharmonic direction. 31 seems to be perfect for 5-limit
diatonic/meantone playing, so that's that groove I tend to fall in
with it. Though I'm working on some 12- and 10-note scales for it
that hopefully will push me out of that.

>But if there are a lot of strings, it
> might be easier to do a more pythagorean 22 for them, huh?

Quite likely, if only because the smallest step size in 22 (54 cents)
is much bigger than the smallest in 31 (38 cents), and will allow
your strings to play chromatic behavior easier. However, their ears
might have an easier time with 31...

> Which theoretical idea do you think would be more imposing on
normal
> theory? 1) Exaggerating the difference between the pythagorean and
just
> major thirds, writing them as two separate notes (22), or 2)
Meantone
> with its thirds-mandated flat fifths (31)?

Well, both can be compatible with normal theory (though diatonic 22
behavior favors the 7-non-5-limit 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 MOS major, which
gives it an interesting character), and both contain both just and
pythagorean-style major thirds, but in a blindfold test I think 22
sounds more overtly xenharmonic. 31 is real easy to disguise, but 22
almost always has that bizarre little twist that pricks up the ears
of the "uninitiated". Though 31 can do that to, when used certain
ways. Hmm, I'd say it's a pretty even split. Flip a coin, maybe?

There's no wrong way to eat a Reese's.

-Igliashon

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:

> actually a guitar is a genralized pattern. look how the bar chords
are
> transposed up and down the neck

Well, I meant "generalized" more along the lines that one guitar
cannot be capable of playing in multiple tuning systems unless it is
fretless. Though in response to your comment on the general
positions, I should say any guitarist worth his salt will not rely
too heavily on those general patterns, because they get quite boring
both to hear and play. Those durn "root-fifth-octave" power chords
are like eating a diet of bread and mayonaise...bland bland bland.

> Let me just state these are not my ideas. You asked for examples
of
> some genralized 22 tone patterns and i grabbed some that were
> immediately available. I BTW on my 22 tone instruments used neither
one
> of these and there is absolutely no way that the one i do use could
i
> have gotten to by strickly theoretical means.
> For me i would have to start with exactly what type of
instrument i
> was going to build, out of what mechanism, size etc. Then i would
see
> which layouts would work best. I am overly practical in this way

That's actually how I'm trying to approach it, as well. Though not
being an experienced instrument builder like yourself, I'm sure I
easily overlook things, which is why I came here for criticism in the
first place. I know I came off as opposed to the generalized design,
but I'm really not. It just doesn't seem optimal for what I want to
do with 22. Any general arrangement that facilitates diatonics seems
to make decatonics and porcupines difficult (and vice versa for the
others). That 22-lattice in the first Wilson paper you linked to is
a great example of it: to play porcupine scales well, you would need
the lattice to be almost as long vertically as it is horizontally.
And Decatonic scales are pretty much all over that map. My latest
designs sidestep almost all of these problems, and also provide
intuitive tactile and visual landmarks unique to each. Once I'm
decently satisfied that I've done all I can, I'll make a detailed
post about it and let you guys point out any oversights I may have
made.

> i apologize if i got heavy handed .

No apology necessary. I think it was *I* who was really making a
bigger deal out of all this than I should have. You know the
drill: "hot-headed newcomer trying to make a name for himself" and
what not. I'm very new to the field, and I have so little experience
to draw on that I'm certain to make some wrongful assumptions.
However I do feel confident that in context of my particular goals,
my ideas do have merit. I just have to remember to keep my cool. I
think it's something about internet forums...I always get so riled up
on them!

Anyway, I hope everything is understood now and we're all cool with
each other.

Peace!

_Igliashon

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Igliashon Jones"
<igliashon@s...> wrote:
>
> I think all of you have missed a point, right from the get go.

Igliashon, I apologize that this reply is so late, but I've been
deluged (literally) lately with a few other things (including some
flooding in the lower floor of my house as the result of a record 5-
day rainfall) and was not able to finish the reply I had already
started until today. Although I've read the subsequent messages, I
will not be replying directly to any of those.

> All I wanted was a specialized 22-note keyboard. If a generalized
> keyboard works with this scale, then any of you could merely have
> suggested building a keyboard BASED ON the generalized mapping of
> 22. Since the generalized keyboard is made to play in also much
> larger tuning systems, I presume I could make a specialized
keyboard
> simply by mapping it to 22 and then "cutting away the fat", and
then
> reshaping what is left into something with traditional key shapes.

While there is quite a bit of latitude for key shape and aspect ratio
(more about this below), I have the feeling that what you're looking
for is rectangular key shapes with perfectly horizontal and vertical
sides. (Hmmm, I think it's possible.) Am I correct in assuming this?

You also mentioned tactile landmarks below.

Anything else?

> George suggested that for 22 to be utilized effectively in a
> generalized design, you only need 9 repeat keys to keep a
uniformity
> of voicing.

I said that I thought you could "get by" with 9 duplicates for
uniformity of *fingering*, because that's how many I have had to make-
do with on my Scalatron (which used 1975 technology). Although there
are 50 keys/octave on the instrument, 19 of these are permanently
hard-wired as duplicates for 31-ET, that particular number,
approximately 1.6 times 31, being arrived at by determining how many
keys would be needed to play various microtonal scales and chords in
all 31 keys with the same patterns. When I'm using a tuning of N
tones with fewer than 31/octave (such as 19 or 22), my usable
duplicates are limited to 31 minus N. For 19-ET the 12 duplicates
have proved completely satisfactory (12 being 19 times 1.6, rounded
upward).

For 22-ET you could do quite a bit with 9 duplicates. The instances
where you'd be coming up short would be in certain remote keys, so
you might have to use some awkward alternate fingerings. That's why
I'd consider 36 keys/octave optimal for 22. But if you were building
this yourself, I guess you could always add more duplicate keys later
on.

> Seeing as how this is less than 2 manuals, I would
> imagine I could use this subset to make a more compact and
> specialized version of the generalized design.

There's no "official" specification for how many keys/octave should
be on a Bosanquet keyboard, nor how far apart the key centers should
be along the x or y directions, nor what the x:y aspect ratio should
be (all of which would influence the size and shape of the keys). I
would *strongly* recommend that keys an octave apart be at exactly
the same position along the y-axis (unlike the Fokker keyboard), even
though this causes the rows to slant. But it's still possible for
the rows to slant without having diagonal sides on the keys.

An example of a different x:y aspect ratio is in my design for a
generalized accordion treble keyboard (with 2-cm round keys):

/tuning-
math/files/secor/kbds/KbAc19p3.gif

Something you should take note of in this diagram (as well as the
others in my postings) is the vertical generator ruler immediately to
the left of the lowest-pitch keys. The key center for C lines up
with 0G on the ruler, G is +1, D is +2, etc., according to the
location of the tone (relative to C) in the sequence of fifths. The
number of generators (fifths, in this case) that a tone is distant
from C (or whatever tone of origin) thus determines its y-axis
placement on any generalized keyboard, regardless of type (or
generating interval).

I'm not suggesting that you use circular keys -- the above is just an
illustration of how the aspect ratio can be altered.

> I imagine that using
> this design the keyboard layout would be asymmetrical, and if I
used
> keys shaped like those on Fokker's 31-tone organ in rows of varying
> height, there would also be tactile landmarks just as functional as
> in any other design.
>
> I don't see why it's all or nothing, why no one has suggested this
> type of compromise. Nor do I see anyone addressing my argument for
> tactile landmarks. Are you all honestly telling me that being able
> to feel where you are on the keyboard by touch alone is a *bad*
> thing?

No, quite the contrary, I think tactile landmarks are essential. I
play the accordion (a special free-bass type with no chord buttons),
and for the left hand (which it is impossible for me to see) I depend
on having some of the buttons marked with dimples in the center,
which helps me to find my way around.

Unless you read my generalized keyboard description very closely:
/tuning/topicId_39323.html#39407
you probably missed the phrase "employment of touch coding on the
sharp and flat keys", which I also referred to here:
/tuning/topicId_50065.html#50101

The touch-coding that I referred to involves some sort of variation
in the *feel* of a key surface. On the Scalatron I would have liked
a textured key surface to identify the sharp and flat keys (which
occur in twos and threes), but that would have required a second mold
for the keytops (too expensive), so we settled for a pair of brass
pinheads set into small holes drilled in the key surfaces, which
proved to work okay -- even with the bedsheet thrown over the
keyboard! So I've found that it's not necessary to have an irregular
pattern of keys in order to have useful tactile landmarks -- either
on the generalized-keyboard Scalatron or on the bass buttons of an
accordion.

With a heterogeneous keyboard one generally plays by *note* (i.e.,
absolute pitch), but with a generalized keyboard one may play by
note, by *interval* (relative pitch), or by a *combination* of the
two. When playing by interval, one easily learns to associate each
type of interval with a different vector (having a unique distance
and direction) in several ways: by sight, by feel (i.e., relative
position of fingers), and by kinesthetic memory (hand/arm movement).
I've found these interval patterns so useful that I've often used the
generalized keyboard as an interval calculator to figure out such
things as the notes in a harmonic eleventh chord built on some remote
root. From this it should also be obvious that you don't even need
to memorize the notes in all possible harmonic eleventh chords in the
tuning -- just memorize the pattern (finger positions) for the
voicing you want, and move your fingers into position as you move
your hand into the proper place to select one of those notes with the
appropriate thumb or finger, and all of the rest automatically fall
into place. This makes improvisation a breeze -- but you lose this
feature with any heterogeneous design!

> ...
> *sigh* perhaps I am wasting my breath. Either way, I'm not going
to
> post asking for any more opinions on a specialized 22-equal
> keyboard. It's been made abundantly clear that I will get no
> constructive criticism here.

Igliashon, I hope to prove to you that, if you were to make the
necessary improvements, one by one, to arrive at the
best "specialized" 22-ET design, you would in fact end up with a
*generalized* design!

Best,

--George

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

Okay, George. I think I understand you much better now. Interesting
idea about differently textured keys...I shall have to ask Stevie
about his opinion on that.

I think 22 is a little more of a challenge to make a lattice for than
22, though. In 22, I desire to use 3 systems as different bases for
tonality: Paul's Pajara-based Decatonics, Super-pythagorean
Diatonics, and Porcupine-8 Octatonics. In the first system, one
constructs 10-note scales using 8 2-degree steps and 2 3-degree
steps. In Diatonics, the scales are 2 1-degree steps and 5 4-degree
steps. And in Porcupine, it is 1 1-degree step and 7 3-degree
steps. This makes designing a keyboard INSANELY difficult. I
examined a suggested lattice for 22-based Diatonics, but that one
makes playing in the other two systems (Porcupine especially!) very
difficult. I haven't attempted one based on a decatonic scale yet,
but one based on the Porcupine seems to work quite well. If it was
mapped to a hex lattice, going "up" would ascend one degree,
going "right" would ascend 3, and going "diagonal" would be 4. It's
almost exactly the same as the Wilson idea, now that I think about
it, except that the axes are switched around. It is precisely that
design I applied to my keyboard (though the last design I posted did
not feature the 4th row of duplicate white keys at the top that I
later added), but modified to fit in one dimension. This removes
some of the uniformity a lattice provides, since at one point the
horizontal ascends by 1 degree instead of 3 (though I may yet find a
way around this), but this seems like the best compromise between
traditional and general.

Would it be possible, do you think, to use rectangular (or even
square) keys that would feel fairly traditional to make a lattice
that could ascend uniformly without needing to stretch too far in the
vertical dimension? Indeed it seems that a uniform design might help
in allowing multiple systems to be played on the same keyboard. I
must admit that I have lost a little enthusiasm for the traditional
design since considering that three systems need to be accomodated by
one design.

Rest assured, too, that I am not dead-set on anything yet; I'm trying
to avoid making a mistake as well, since it will be tremendous effort
to build this thing ourselves. If I seem stubborn, it's because I
don't want Stevie to be stuck with something that he doesn't want to
play. Also, one thing I think we ought to keep in mind is that this
will be a MIDI controller; as such, the potential difficulty of
transposing to some keys may feasibly be avoided simply be retuning
the synthesizer.

Apologies should be made for my earlier attitude; the internet makes
misunderstanding easy, and I'm all too accustomed to the "flame wars"
that occur on other forums. Your input is greatly appreciated, since
you have a perspective that both Stevie and I are lacking. Please
remember too that we are young, and we sort of have to learn at our
own pace. Before we give in and go general, we first must make sure
that there are no alternatives that would be more favorable, and this
could take awhile (if it is indeed the case).

Regards,
-Igliashon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor"
<gdsecor@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Igliashon Jones"
> <igliashon@s...> wrote:
> >
> > I think all of you have missed a point, right from the get go.
>
> Igliashon, I apologize that this reply is so late, but I've been
> deluged (literally) lately with a few other things (including some
> flooding in the lower floor of my house as the result of a record 5-
> day rainfall) and was not able to finish the reply I had already
> started until today. Although I've read the subsequent messages, I
> will not be replying directly to any of those.
>
> > All I wanted was a specialized 22-note keyboard. If a
generalized
> > keyboard works with this scale, then any of you could merely have
> > suggested building a keyboard BASED ON the generalized mapping of
> > 22. Since the generalized keyboard is made to play in also much
> > larger tuning systems, I presume I could make a specialized
> keyboard
> > simply by mapping it to 22 and then "cutting away the fat", and
> then
> > reshaping what is left into something with traditional key
shapes.
>
> While there is quite a bit of latitude for key shape and aspect
ratio
> (more about this below), I have the feeling that what you're
looking
> for is rectangular key shapes with perfectly horizontal and
vertical
> sides. (Hmmm, I think it's possible.) Am I correct in assuming
this?
>
> You also mentioned tactile landmarks below.
>
> Anything else?
>
> > George suggested that for 22 to be utilized effectively in a
> > generalized design, you only need 9 repeat keys to keep a
> uniformity
> > of voicing.
>
> I said that I thought you could "get by" with 9 duplicates for
> uniformity of *fingering*, because that's how many I have had to
make-
> do with on my Scalatron (which used 1975 technology). Although
there
> are 50 keys/octave on the instrument, 19 of these are permanently
> hard-wired as duplicates for 31-ET, that particular number,
> approximately 1.6 times 31, being arrived at by determining how
many
> keys would be needed to play various microtonal scales and chords
in
> all 31 keys with the same patterns. When I'm using a tuning of N
> tones with fewer than 31/octave (such as 19 or 22), my usable
> duplicates are limited to 31 minus N. For 19-ET the 12 duplicates
> have proved completely satisfactory (12 being 19 times 1.6, rounded
> upward).
>
> For 22-ET you could do quite a bit with 9 duplicates. The
instances
> where you'd be coming up short would be in certain remote keys, so
> you might have to use some awkward alternate fingerings. That's
why
> I'd consider 36 keys/octave optimal for 22. But if you were
building
> this yourself, I guess you could always add more duplicate keys
later
> on.
>
> > Seeing as how this is less than 2 manuals, I would
> > imagine I could use this subset to make a more compact and
> > specialized version of the generalized design.
>
> There's no "official" specification for how many keys/octave should
> be on a Bosanquet keyboard, nor how far apart the key centers
should
> be along the x or y directions, nor what the x:y aspect ratio
should
> be (all of which would influence the size and shape of the keys).
I
> would *strongly* recommend that keys an octave apart be at exactly
> the same position along the y-axis (unlike the Fokker keyboard),
even
> though this causes the rows to slant. But it's still possible for
> the rows to slant without having diagonal sides on the keys.
>
> An example of a different x:y aspect ratio is in my design for a
> generalized accordion treble keyboard (with 2-cm round keys):
>
> /tuning-
> math/files/secor/kbds/KbAc19p3.gif
>
> Something you should take note of in this diagram (as well as the
> others in my postings) is the vertical generator ruler immediately
to
> the left of the lowest-pitch keys. The key center for C lines up
> with 0G on the ruler, G is +1, D is +2, etc., according to the
> location of the tone (relative to C) in the sequence of fifths.
The
> number of generators (fifths, in this case) that a tone is distant
> from C (or whatever tone of origin) thus determines its y-axis
> placement on any generalized keyboard, regardless of type (or
> generating interval).
>
> I'm not suggesting that you use circular keys -- the above is just
an
> illustration of how the aspect ratio can be altered.
>
> > I imagine that using
> > this design the keyboard layout would be asymmetrical, and if I
> used
> > keys shaped like those on Fokker's 31-tone organ in rows of
varying
> > height, there would also be tactile landmarks just as functional
as
> > in any other design.
> >
> > I don't see why it's all or nothing, why no one has suggested
this
> > type of compromise. Nor do I see anyone addressing my argument
for
> > tactile landmarks. Are you all honestly telling me that being
able
> > to feel where you are on the keyboard by touch alone is a *bad*
> > thing?
>
> No, quite the contrary, I think tactile landmarks are essential. I
> play the accordion (a special free-bass type with no chord
buttons),
> and for the left hand (which it is impossible for me to see) I
depend
> on having some of the buttons marked with dimples in the center,
> which helps me to find my way around.
>
> Unless you read my generalized keyboard description very closely:
> /tuning/topicId_39323.html#39407
> you probably missed the phrase "employment of touch coding on the
> sharp and flat keys", which I also referred to here:
> /tuning/topicId_50065.html#50101
>
> The touch-coding that I referred to involves some sort of variation
> in the *feel* of a key surface. On the Scalatron I would have
liked
> a textured key surface to identify the sharp and flat keys (which
> occur in twos and threes), but that would have required a second
mold
> for the keytops (too expensive), so we settled for a pair of brass
> pinheads set into small holes drilled in the key surfaces, which
> proved to work okay -- even with the bedsheet thrown over the
> keyboard! So I've found that it's not necessary to have an
irregular
> pattern of keys in order to have useful tactile landmarks -- either
> on the generalized-keyboard Scalatron or on the bass buttons of an
> accordion.
>
> With a heterogeneous keyboard one generally plays by *note* (i.e.,
> absolute pitch), but with a generalized keyboard one may play by
> note, by *interval* (relative pitch), or by a *combination* of the
> two. When playing by interval, one easily learns to associate each
> type of interval with a different vector (having a unique distance
> and direction) in several ways: by sight, by feel (i.e., relative
> position of fingers), and by kinesthetic memory (hand/arm
movement).
> I've found these interval patterns so useful that I've often used
the
> generalized keyboard as an interval calculator to figure out such
> things as the notes in a harmonic eleventh chord built on some
remote
> root. From this it should also be obvious that you don't even need
> to memorize the notes in all possible harmonic eleventh chords in
the
> tuning -- just memorize the pattern (finger positions) for the
> voicing you want, and move your fingers into position as you move
> your hand into the proper place to select one of those notes with
the
> appropriate thumb or finger, and all of the rest automatically fall
> into place. This makes improvisation a breeze -- but you lose this
> feature with any heterogeneous design!
>
> > ...
> > *sigh* perhaps I am wasting my breath. Either way, I'm not going
> to
> > post asking for any more opinions on a specialized 22-equal
> > keyboard. It's been made abundantly clear that I will get no
> > constructive criticism here.
>
> Igliashon, I hope to prove to you that, if you were to make the
> necessary improvements, one by one, to arrive at the
> best "specialized" 22-ET design, you would in fact end up with a
> *generalized* design!
>
> Best,
>
> --George