ingrained ivories [keyboard]

Paul Erlich wrote, TD 667:

> Joseph, it seems you're placing far too much importance on the way these
> scales are mapped to the keyboard. The "former" or "traditional" function of
> any interesting intervals in these scales is _totally irrelevant_ because
> the mapping to the traditional keyboard, and the fact that the traditional
> keyboard is used at all, is _purely arbitrary_. These characteristics you've
> been focusing on are completely incidental, and could easily disappear in a
> keyboard mapping philosophy different from "one key, one pitch"

I suppose Paul, you are right in that after about 12+ years squeezing
out a living as a "professional pianist" I would develop a keyboard
fixation!

HOWEVER, I'm not totally convinced I don't have a point in comparing
these "new" scales to the traditional keyboard. After all, our standard
associations with the keyboard goes back a long way. I remember being a
little startled seeing a 500 year old standard 2+3 keyboard at the
Metropolitan Museum... This goes back a ways, of course...

Is comparing our "standard" practices as musicians... the "standard"
12t-ET keyboard with xenharmonic scales really all that reprehensible??
I realize it doesn't FEATURE the entire spectrum of sound with the
freedom maybe desired through the eyes of a theoretical physicist...

I suppose I might feel the same way about the 5-line staff. This stuff
is just so "ingrained" that I, personally, see nothing wrong with
comparing the "xenharmonic" against it.

But, I will keep an open mind until I am convinced.

Speaking of MAPPING, I do have a few questions concerning the Erlich
22-note scales and others. I believe I understand the procedure in
Scala for mapping scales to the keyboard. It looks pretty much like
it's a simple text file that you load in...

However, in the Erlich 22-note scales in Scala, there is only ONE, I
believe #5 that contains 22 notes that a person COULD map to a keyboard.
The others are all decatonic -- 10. How could you map that to a
keyboard except one note at a time ascending. I DID read your paper,
but I'm not understanding how it is done... except that you say
something about starting another set at the pitch "E," or something of
that nature. I'm mystified at this.

Oh yes, and the 1,4,7,9 in the decatonic certainly show the difference
between major and minor. They really do make beautiful chords.

And I WAS comparing the "quasi jazz" chords that I made when I just
played familiar "keyboard patterns" with the new scales... But is that,
as I say again, so totally IRREVELANT... when it is the product of such
ingrained musicianship??...

I always enjoy agreeing with you when I am convinced... but on this one
I still feel I have a case and am not yet totally convinced.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this topic?... or is it really so
irrelevant?? I would like to hear specifically from the "ingrained
ivory" set...

__________ _____ __ __ _
Joseph Pehrson