The poor-person's Blackjack keyboard

Several cans of spray paint and lots of masking tape later ...

http://dkeenan.com/Music/BlackjackKeyboard.gif

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan
Brisbane, Australia
http://dkeenan.com

--- In tuning@y..., David C Keenan <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24892.html#24892

> Several cans of spray paint and lots of masking tape later ...
>
> http://dkeenan.com/Music/BlackjackKeyboard.gif
>
> Regards,
> -- Dave Keenan
> Brisbane, Australia
> http://dkeenan.com

Thanks so much, Dave, for this colorful chart. The "congruent"
colors... here on the Halberstadt "whole tone scale" are, of course,
the LARGE intervals of blackjack.

The chart really doesn't show, though, the possible just harmonies...
as Paul's tetradic charts do...? Or am I just reading it wrong...

________ _______ ____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., David C Keenan <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_24892.html#24892
>
> > Several cans of spray paint and lots of masking tape later ...
> >
> > http://dkeenan.com/Music/BlackjackKeyboard.gif
> >
> > Regards,
> > -- Dave Keenan
> > Brisbane, Australia
> > http://dkeenan.com
>
> Thanks so much, Dave, for this colorful chart. The "congruent"
> colors...

What do you mean by "congruent"?

> here on the Halberstadt "whole tone scale" are, of course,
> the LARGE intervals of blackjack.

Huh? If you mean "large _steps_", No. They are the 117 cent
MIRACLE generators.

> The chart really doesn't show, though, the possible just
harmonies...
> as Paul's tetradic charts do...?

What charts are you talking about here?

> Or am I just reading it wrong...

Probably. Sorry I didn't explain it better.

I assumed you already knew the _patterns_ the chords make on the
keyboard. The colours in my scheme let you avoid the wolves. I have
sleep. I'll explain later, or maybe Paul can explain. Or maybe it's a
dumb idea.

Note that I've centered the point of symmetry of the Blackjack scale
on a D, a point of keyboard symmetry, to give additional cues.

-- Dave Keenan

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24892.html#24896

>
> > Or am I just reading it wrong...
>
> Probably. Sorry I didn't explain it better.
>
> I assumed you already knew the _patterns_ the chords make on the
> keyboard. The colours in my scheme let you avoid the wolves. I have
> sleep. I'll explain later, or maybe Paul can explain. Or maybe it's
a dumb idea.
>

Hi Paul...

I'm obviously "messed up" here. What's going on?? And, I don't have
my keyboard right here at work, which makes things DOUBLY
confusing... Help!

_________ _________ ______
Joseph Pehrson

Here's an update that should make the reason for the colouring crystal
clear. Because MsWord97 screws some things up when it converts to GIF, I've
included the original Word document as well.

http://dkeenan.com/Music/BlackjackKeyboard.gif
http://dkeenan.com/Music/BlackjackKeyboard.doc

Joseph,

If you're trying to colour keys according to what chord they belong to,
it's doomed because a single note belongs to so many (particularly near the
middle of the chain).

If you're trying to colour keys according to what identity a note has (e.g.
1,3,5,7,9,11, that's doomed too because a single note can have so many (in
different chords) (particularly near the middle of the chain).

Blackjack is a MOS. So except for the unison/octave, every interval-class
(number of scale-steps) comes in two sizes of interval (frequency ratio).
This colour scheme is the simplest one that ensures that the two sizes in
any given interval class are always coloured differently. Of course the
specific colours don't particularly matter.

On a generalised (or Blackjack-specific) keyboard each colour would occupy
a different overlapping row, which would slope gently downwards to the right.

This is not a replacement for Paul's chord lists, it's a complement to
them. Whenever the same keyboard pattern gives the _same_ chord, you will
find it has the _same_ colouring (within a shift along the rainbow).
Whenever the same keyboard pattern gives a _different_ chord, you will find
it has _different_ colouring (not counting shifts along the rainbow).

Except for one little problem. I (and the above diagrams) don't agree with
your choice of a C keyboard mapping, which is what Paul's chord list was
made for. I strongly believe that it will be easier in general, for folks
to find their way around Blackjack, if the central note of a chain is
aligned with the D above middle-C on the keyboard. I don't know exactly how
you do that with your setup, but it sounds like you might just need to
choose a "map D linear" or something. Anyway, it should be easy.

I know this will render a little of what you've already learnt obsolete,
but think of the thousands (?) who will come after you, or who might be
performing your Blackjack works on a keyboard. It also relates to
compatibility with a Blackjack guitar (both Graham's and mine will center
on a D). It's a fundamental symmetry thing between MIRACLE and meantone.

If you send me a copy of Paul's chord list, I'll redo it for a D mapping.
I'll also relabel his lattice.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan
Brisbane, Australia
http://dkeenan.com

--- In tuning@y..., David C Keenan <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24892.html#24926

> Here's an update that should make the reason for the colouring
crystal
> clear. Because MsWord97 screws some things up when it converts to
GIF, I've
> included the original Word document as well.
>
> http://dkeenan.com/Music/BlackjackKeyboard.gif
> http://dkeenan.com/Music/BlackjackKeyboard.doc
>

Thanks so much, Dave, for your recent contribution to blackjack
keyboard theory! What a colorful keyboard! This will give me
something to puzzle about for a time. Naturally, I printed this out
and hope to spend some time with it.

At the moment, my main concern with blackjack is varying the
consonance and dissonance level. Too much consonance is, well, too
much and, in fact, is too related to much of our traditional Western
music. But, admittedly, when the blackjack tetrads are pure, it
makes an impact!

The question, as a composer, is how to integrate this into an entire
fabric. This whole question is important for me since, after hearing
Herman Miller's excellent work with all the different ET's, I'm
beginning to understand that perhaps the "pursuit of consonance" is
not necessarily the only "best" paradigm to go for...

In any case, it seems that Paul Erlich *also* wanted to map the
blackjack scale to "D" at first. I'm going to have to study this in
more detail to understand your preference for this. I'm sure there's
a good reason.

My only concern, frankly, is whether "middle C" on the keyboard will
still be 261.6 Hz, so the blackjack keyboard can "line up"
with "everybody else's" "middle C."

Frankly, for musicians, I think that's important, since it gives
something to "hang on to..."

Of course, it seemed "nice" if the blackjack scale would also START
on middle C, just for that reason, so there must be compelling
reasons to change this.

In any case, I will send you Paul's charts, and you can work out a "D-
verson..."

Thanks again for this contribution!

_________ ________ ______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

> At the moment, my main concern with blackjack is varying the
> consonance and dissonance level. Too much consonance is, well, too
> much and, in fact, is too related to much of our traditional
Western
> music. But, admittedly, when the blackjack tetrads are pure, it
> makes an impact!

Joseph, I gave you nine tetradic keyboard patterns which should give
you (with 21 positions and 4 inversions for each) 756 tetrads to try
out. Though these 756 tetrads just barely scratch the surface of the
possibilities, they should give you an idea of the vast range of
harmonic possibilities, spanning the range from pure consonance to
extreme dissonance, available in this scale. So I hope your concern
is just that, a "concern", and not a "trouble" or "problem".

> In any case, it seems that Paul Erlich *also* wanted to map the
> blackjack scale to "D" at first.

I did, but . . . at this point I think Dave Keenan's being too much
of a mathematician and not enough of a musician . . . I don't think
it's worth confusing matters at this point by moving things from "C"
to "D".
>
> My only concern, frankly, is whether "middle C" on the keyboard
will
> still be 261.6 Hz, so the blackjack keyboard can "line up"
> with "everybody else's" "middle C."

Well, _that_ can be arranged, while still having the D as the center
of the keyboard mapping . . . just transpose the resulting scale so
that whatever note ends up on the C-key is pitched at 261.6 Hz . . .
but I don't think it's worth the trouble at this point.

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24892.html#24957

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > At the moment, my main concern with blackjack is varying the
> > consonance and dissonance level. Too much consonance is, well,
too much and, in fact, is too related to much of our traditional
> Western music. But, admittedly, when the blackjack tetrads are
pure, it makes an impact!
>
> Joseph, I gave you nine tetradic keyboard patterns which should
give you (with 21 positions and 4 inversions for each) 756 tetrads to
try out. Though these 756 tetrads just barely scratch the surface of
the possibilities, they should give you an idea of the vast range of
> harmonic possibilities, spanning the range from pure consonance to
> extreme dissonance, available in this scale. So I hope your concern
> is just that, a "concern", and not a "trouble" or "problem".
>

Hi Paul!

Oh yes... well, I guess I wasn't making myself clear. My "concern"
is figuring out ways to vary the level of dissonance in blackjack...
I started out using, quite naturally, given the nature of the scale,
consonances. However, now the water is getting "deeper" as far as my
ear is concerned and I am wanting something *more.* I'm looking at
the hexanies, which give interesting dissonant patterns as *one*
possible answer, but I realize there are many more. I just don't
know what they are yet, and it will take a lot of experimentation
with this scale until I *do!*

> > In any case, it seems that Paul Erlich *also* wanted to map the
> > blackjack scale to "D" at first.
>
> I did, but . . . at this point I think Dave Keenan's being too much
> of a mathematician and not enough of a musician . . . I don't think
> it's worth confusing matters at this point by moving things
from "C" to "D".
> >

I'm not fond of that concept right now either... especially since I
have already started working with it based on "C..."

Pretty colors in the Keenan chart, though... certainly something to
study through more...

> > My only concern, frankly, is whether "middle C" on the keyboard
> will still be 261.6 Hz, so the blackjack keyboard can "line up"
> > with "everybody else's" "middle C."
>
> Well, _that_ can be arranged, while still having the D as the
center of the keyboard mapping . . . just transpose the resulting
scale so that whatever note ends up on the C-key is pitched at 261.6
Hz . . . but I don't think it's worth the trouble at this point.

Oh sure... that makes sense. In a way, though, blackjack is
blackjack and the mapping is somewhat arbitrary anyway, right?? The
*sounds* are all there...

_________ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

> However, now the water is getting "deeper" as far as my
> ear is concerned and I am wanting something *more.* I'm looking at
> the hexanies,

Well . . . these aren't chords, really . . . how about trying out the
many chords I sent you? Each type of chord has a distinct shape on
the lattice . . . if you choose to use the lattice for composing . . .

> Oh sure... that makes sense. In a way, though, blackjack is
> blackjack and the mapping is somewhat arbitrary anyway, right??

Yes -- the Halbestadt keyboard doesn't "fit" blackjack at all, in any
transposition.

> The
> *sounds* are all there...

_That's_ what's important . . .

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24892.html#24959

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > However, now the water is getting "deeper" as far as my
> > ear is concerned and I am wanting something *more.* I'm looking
at
> > the hexanies,
>
> Well . . . these aren't chords, really . . . how about trying out
the many chords I sent you? Each type of chord has a distinct shape
on the lattice . . . if you choose to use the lattice for
composing . . .
>

Yes... I'll get deeper into that. I'm sure that's the solution.
I'll do that tonight. But, the hexany I was "fiddling with" had an
interesting sound too, even though it might not be considered
a "chord..." What exactly are you using as your criteria
for "chord"... are you suggesting something related to
our "traditional" consonant chords...? In so called "modern music"
even a "cluster" of notes is considered a "chord..." (??)

________ ______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

> Yes... I'll get deeper into that. I'm sure that's the solution.
> I'll do that tonight. But, the hexany I was "fiddling with" had an
> interesting sound too, even though it might not be considered
> a "chord..." What exactly are you using as your criteria
> for "chord"... are you suggesting something related to
> our "traditional" consonant chords...? In so called "modern music"
> even a "cluster" of notes is considered a "chord..." (??)

If all six notes of the hexany were played at once, that would of
course be a chord . . . it's just that I know that the way you set up
your synth, you can't play more than four notes at once, right?

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24892.html#24963

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > Yes... I'll get deeper into that. I'm sure that's the solution.
> > I'll do that tonight. But, the hexany I was "fiddling with" had
an
> > interesting sound too, even though it might not be considered
> > a "chord..." What exactly are you using as your criteria
> > for "chord"... are you suggesting something related to
> > our "traditional" consonant chords...? In so called "modern
music"
> > even a "cluster" of notes is considered a "chord..." (??)
>
> If all six notes of the hexany were played at once, that would of
> course be a chord . . . it's just that I know that the way you set
up
> your synth, you can't play more than four notes at once, right?

Ah... I see what you mean. Well, yes, this is true, but I've
been "fudging" it by alternating it "melodically" so I pretty much
get the effect of six notes...

But good news is at hand. A SECOND TX81Z is on order and is being
sent to me! (hopefully)... So, I can use all 16 midi channels, or a
couple of channels with 4 or 5 voice harmony!!

__________ ________ ________
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

> Ah... I see what you mean. Well, yes, this is true, but I've
> been "fudging" it by alternating it "melodically" so I pretty much
> get the effect of six notes...
>
> But good news is at hand. A SECOND TX81Z is on order and is being
> sent to me! (hopefully)... So, I can use all 16 midi channels, or
a
> couple of channels with 4 or 5 voice harmony!!

Ah! Well, I may have to produce some _pentad_ chord charts for you
then . . . but I've barely scratched the surface of the _tetrads_
possible . . . for example, I didn't even begin to catalogue
the "crunchy" tetrads . . . anyway, future correspondence on all this
can be conducted off-list . . . let's try to stick to topics of
_general_ interest . . .

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > Oh sure... that makes sense. In a way, though, blackjack is
> > blackjack and the mapping is somewhat arbitrary anyway, right??
>
> Yes -- the Halbestadt keyboard doesn't "fit" blackjack at all, in
> any transposition.

Blackjack has points of musical (harmonic and melodic) symmetry. The
Halberstadt keyboard has points of visual symmetry. The alignment of a
point of visual symmetry (preferably near the middle of the keyboard)
with a point of musical symmetry must give some advantage for
navigating the scale.

A D key is not only a point of visual symmetry of the keyboard but it
is also (by no accident) a point of musical symmetry of the other
scales most commonly played on it. C is the _starting_point_ of a
major diatonic, not its point of symmetry.

The alignment of a starting point with a starting point makes some
musical sense too. But I don't think we have any agreement on a
_starting point_ for a Blackjack scale. It probably doesn't even make
sense to ask. It only makes sense to ask about the starting point
of a scale that forms a melodic gestalt. There are many of these in
Blackjack, all with different starting points.

The alignment of a point of symmetry with a point of symmetry is the
only thing available to us that has any musical logic that I can see.

So no, I don't agree that all Blackjack-Halberstadt mappings are
created equal. This is not a mathematical argument, but one that
considers the cognitive processes (even unconscious ones) of composers
and performers.

If there is any advantage to be had from a D-centred mapping, we owe
it to the future to do it now, despite some possible short term
discomfort for those few (2?) who have started using C-centred (or
else it will never happen).

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan