Diamond Marimba design.

Hi Folks,

I'm thinking of setting out my steel bars in a diamond marimba layout.
Aesthetic reasons mainly, I think it looks very cooool. Also I get my 21
Blackjack tones going from 'rows' 1 to 6 and going back to 1 again I get
36 tones, so I can have more than one octave:

-
- -
- - -
- - - -
- - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - -
- - - -
- - -
- -
-

(hope this comes out).

There are many ways of setting out the tones within the diamond, even
if there's no Tonality Diamond as such. I welcome any creative
suggestions.

Also I had a good look at the Partch designs and am having difficulty
working out design of the stands and supports. Any intimate close - ups
Jon?

Dear Alison,

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> Also I had a good look at the Partch designs and am having
> difficulty working out design of the stands and supports. Any
> intimate close - ups
> Jon?

I always want to help out whenever possible, so here's the caveat:
I've got a killer schedule for the next week, with three separate
concert series in different cities to prepare. If you aren't in some
sort of crucial rush, by next week sometime I can go through the
photo archives I have (the Partch Foundation Archives, which are
pretty much all of the photos Harry kept over the years) and find
some shots. There are quite a few of the DM.

Also, John Schneider had a beautiful copy of the DM commissioned and
built, and while the base and bar supports is more 'modern',
utilitarian, and somewhat less art-oriented, it is a much more stable
and functional setup. Would suit very well to moving around to
different rehearsals. I can send you his email privately, and he can
put you in touch with the maker of the basic instrument.

But I just can't do it *immediately*! :(

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I'm thinking of setting out my steel bars in a diamond marimba
layout.
> Aesthetic reasons mainly, I think it looks very cooool. Also I get
my 21
> Blackjack tones going from 'rows' 1 to 6 and going back to 1 again
I get
> 36 tones, so I can have more than one octave:
>
> -
> - -
> - - -
> - - - -
> - - - - -
> - - - - - -
> - - - - -
> - - - -
> - - -
> - -
> -
>
> (hope this comes out).
>
> There are many ways of setting out the tones within the diamond,
even
> if there's no Tonality Diamond as such. I welcome any creative
> suggestions.

Hi Alison . . .

Well, the Tonality Diamond is an eminently logical formation for one
pitch set . . . the Tonality Diamond (29-tone "cross-set", restricted
to one octave, pitch ascending from left to right). Why not adopt an
arrangement which will have more to do with the pitch set you're
using? Otherwise, the player will be faced with the musical
equivalent of the QWERTY keyboard -- no logic whatsoever.

I suggest looking at Erv Wilson's metallophone and generalized
keyboard designs for inspiration, since, like Wilson's 22- and 31-
tone Eikosany designs, and his 41-tone (with 2 auxillaries) design
for Partch's full scale, but unlike the Diamond, Blackjack is a
Constant Structure . . . a feature which can be very helpful for a
musician trying to navigate its waters . . . I wonder if Graham Breed
has already drawn out some generalized keyboard designs for Blackjack?

Jon Szanto wrote:

> Dear Alison,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> > Also I had a good look at the Partch designs and am having
> > difficulty working out design of the stands and supports. Any
> > intimate close - ups
> > Jon?
>
> I always want to help out whenever possible, so here's the caveat:
> I've got a killer schedule for the next week, with three separate
> concert series in different cities to prepare. If you aren't in some
> sort of crucial rush, by next week sometime I can go through the
> photo archives I have (the Partch Foundation Archives, which are
> pretty much all of the photos Harry kept over the years) and find
> some shots. There are quite a few of the DM.
>
> Also, John Schneider had a beautiful copy of the DM commissioned and
> built, and while the base and bar supports is more 'modern',
> utilitarian, and somewhat less art-oriented, it is a much more stable
> and functional setup. Would suit very well to moving around to
> different rehearsals. I can send you his email privately, and he can
> put you in touch with the maker of the basic instrument.
>
> But I just can't do it *immediately*! :(
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>

Excellent Jon, I appreciate your help. No great hurry on my part.

Best wishes

Paul Erlich wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > I'm thinking of setting out my steel bars in a diamond marimba
> layout.
> > Aesthetic reasons mainly, I think it looks very cooool. Also I get
> my 21
> > Blackjack tones going from 'rows' 1 to 6 and going back to 1 again
> I get
> > 36 tones, so I can have more than one octave:
> >
> > -
> > - -
> > - - -
> > - - - -
> > - - - - -
> > - - - - - -
> > - - - - -
> > - - - -
> > - - -
> > - -
> > -
> >
> > (hope this comes out).
> >
> > There are many ways of setting out the tones within the diamond,
> even
> > if there's no Tonality Diamond as such. I welcome any creative
> > suggestions.
>
> Hi Alison . . .
>
> Well, the Tonality Diamond is an eminently logical formation for one
> pitch set . . . the Tonality Diamond (29-tone "cross-set", restricted
> to one octave, pitch ascending from left to right). Why not adopt an
> arrangement which will have more to do with the pitch set you're
> using? Otherwise, the player will be faced with the musical
> equivalent of the QWERTY keyboard -- no logic whatsoever.

Well this is where I would need some help in prioritising the features of Blackjack that would
figure in my music and how these would present themselves to the percussionist. I'd be looking at
the harmonic resources which are at the moment quite overwhelming.

>
> I suggest looking at Erv Wilson's metallophone and generalized
> keyboard designs for inspiration, since, like Wilson's 22- and 31-
> tone Eikosany designs, and his 41-tone (with 2 auxillaries) design
> for Partch's full scale, but unlike the Diamond, Blackjack is a
> Constant Structure . . . a feature which can be very helpful for a
> musician trying to navigate its waters . . . I wonder if Graham Breed
> has already drawn out some generalized keyboard designs for Blackjack?

I'll have to go over 'constant structures' again. Lots to study. I have been looking at Wilson's
papers. Initially I found these to be very inspiring and probably as you suggest more logical.
It's just the look of the diamond that would have such a visual impact. Hmmm probably best to let
the music speak.

Best wishes.

>
>
>

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:

> Well this is where I would need some help in prioritising the
features of Blackjack that would
> figure in my music and how these would present themselves to the
percussionist. I'd be looking at
> the harmonic resources which are at the moment quite overwhelming.

They are. Unlike the Diamond, where each tone is part of only
two 'consonant' chords (notes that are in more are represented in
more than one place on the diamond layout to compensate), in
Blackjack there are more 'senses' in which the notes can be taken.
For Joseph Pehrson, we put multi-colored stickers on his keyboard to
indicate these multiple relationships. But . . . with a generlized
keyboard arrangement, you have an opportunity to do much better.
You'll see that every type of chord has a unique 'shape' on the
instrument, and that 'shape' will only ever give you that type of
chord. Besides Graham Breed, I believe Dave Keenan has drawn up some
arrangements of this type for Blackjack.

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

/tuning/topicId_29387.html#29394

> I suggest looking at Erv Wilson's metallophone and generalized
> keyboard designs for inspiration, since, like Wilson's 22- and 31-
> tone Eikosany designs, and his 41-tone (with 2 auxillaries) design
> for Partch's full scale, but unlike the Diamond, Blackjack is a
> Constant Structure . . . a feature which can be very helpful for a
> musician trying to navigate its waters . . . I wonder if Graham
Breed
> has already drawn out some generalized keyboard designs for
Blackjack?

Well, of course, Monzo mapped out Blackjack within an octave of 72-
tET... Don't know if that could be reasonably transferred to a
marimba-type layout, but it probably could...

http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/blackjack.htm

________ ________ ______
Joseph Pehrson

In-Reply-To: <9r23j7+oa6l@eGroups.com>
Paul wrote:

> . . . with a generlized
> keyboard arrangement, you have an opportunity to do much better.
> You'll see that every type of chord has a unique 'shape' on the
> instrument, and that 'shape' will only ever give you that type of
> chord. Besides Graham Breed, I believe Dave Keenan has drawn up some
> arrangements of this type for Blackjack.

Yes, well, if you check the lattices at
<http://x31eq.com/decimal_lattice.htm>, they would work as a
generalized keyboard. Chords would be easy, but melody weird. If you can
work out the decimal notation, a 10 column keyboard should be obvious. In
72-equal, it'd be (use fixed-width font):

2
2 9 16 23 31 37 44 51 58 65 0
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70
70

If you don't like it being square, you could try

2 9
2 9 16 23 31 37 44 51 58 65 0
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70
63 70

which makes the octaves slightly smaller, and also makes the 11-limit
chords that bit easier to get to.

Graham

In-Reply-To: <9r2jpv+91tq@eGroups.com>
Joseph Pehrson wrote:

> Well, of course, Monzo mapped out Blackjack within an octave of 72-
> tET... Don't know if that could be reasonably transferred to a
> marimba-type layout, but it probably could...

I forgot that George Secor included a keyboard mapping in his
Xenharmonikon 3 article. See the last page of
<http://www.anaphoria.com/secor.PDF>, "A Keyboard for the Partch
Monophonic Fabric". It's like what I suggested, but different (JI, not
blackjack).

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_29387.html#29394
>
> > I suggest looking at Erv Wilson's metallophone and generalized
> > keyboard designs for inspiration, since, like Wilson's 22- and 31-
> > tone Eikosany designs, and his 41-tone (with 2 auxillaries)
design
> > for Partch's full scale, but unlike the Diamond, Blackjack is a
> > Constant Structure . . . a feature which can be very helpful for
a
> > musician trying to navigate its waters . . . I wonder if Graham
> Breed
> > has already drawn out some generalized keyboard designs for
> Blackjack?
>
>
> Well, of course, Monzo mapped out Blackjack within an octave of 72-
> tET... Don't know if that could be reasonably transferred to a
> marimba-type layout, but it probably could...
>
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/blackjack.htm

This is not the _generalized_ mapping I was talking about . . .

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <9r23j7+oa6l@e...>
> Paul wrote:
>
> > . . . with a generlized
> > keyboard arrangement, you have an opportunity to do much better.
> > You'll see that every type of chord has a unique 'shape' on the
> > instrument, and that 'shape' will only ever give you that type of
> > chord. Besides Graham Breed, I believe Dave Keenan has drawn up
some
> > arrangements of this type for Blackjack.
>
> Yes, well, if you check the lattices at
> <http://x31eq.com/decimal_lattice.htm>, they would work
as a
> generalized keyboard.

That's not what I was thinking of. The arrangement I was thinking of
had hexagonal keys which were almost square because two of the sides
were very short. Who drew this? Dave Keenan? George Secor?

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> . . . with a generlized
> keyboard arrangement, you have an opportunity to do much better.
> You'll see that every type of chord has a unique 'shape' on the
> instrument, and that 'shape' will only ever give you that type of
> chord. Besides Graham Breed, I believe Dave Keenan has drawn up some
> arrangements of this type for Blackjack.

Almost. See several files in http://dkeenan.com/Music/Miracle/

I've drawn it up with rhombic and hexagonal keys for Partch's Genesis
scale on a Miracle-45 keyboard layout. But for Blackjack only, you can
see the generalised keyboard pattern superimposed on the Halberstadt
keyboard using black and white dots.

The .doc files have the same as the corresponding .gif files only
clearer. The .doc files are about 5 times the size.

No, I'm not back. This is a one-off by special request from Paul
Erlich.

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

/tuning/topicId_29387.html#29435

> > Well, of course, Monzo mapped out Blackjack within an octave of
72-tET... Don't know if that could be reasonably transferred to a
> > marimba-type layout, but it probably could...
> >
> > http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/blackjack.htm
>
> This is not the _generalized_ mapping I was talking about . . .

Ummm, I had an "inkling" that somehow it wasn't "generalized..."

Maybe, Paul, it's time for a brief "gentle introduction" to
a "generalized" keyboard... since I'm clearly not "getting" it.

Why wouldn't 72-tET be "generalized" again?? Is it because it
contains *more* pitches than the keys for the scale in question??

Any help would be appreciated...

Thanks, Paul!

_______ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_29387.html#29435
>
> > > Well, of course, Monzo mapped out Blackjack within an octave of
> 72-tET... Don't know if that could be reasonably transferred to a
> > > marimba-type layout, but it probably could...
> > >
> > > http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/blackjack.htm
> >
> > This is not the _generalized_ mapping I was talking about . . .
>
>
> Ummm, I had an "inkling" that somehow it wasn't "generalized..."
>
> Maybe, Paul, it's time for a brief "gentle introduction" to
> a "generalized" keyboard... since I'm clearly not "getting" it.

On a generalized keyboard, any fingering gives you exactly the same
sound (chord, scale) no matter where you find it on the keyboard, and
any sound (chord, scale) is always found with the same fingering no
matter where you find it in the scale. The Fokker keyboard is one
example.

Dave Keenan's MIRACLE-45 keyboard layouts are another example. I
think Alison should arrange her maribma bars in accordance with the
Blackjack scales within one of these layouts.

There is no single correct generalised keyboard layout for a given ET.
GK layouts correspond to linear temperaments. A GK layout for a given
linear temperament is essentially a 2D lattice where pitch increases
from left to right while chains of generators form straight lines.

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

/tuning/topicId_29387.html#29457

> On a generalized keyboard, any fingering gives you exactly the same
> sound (chord, scale) no matter where you find it on the keyboard,
and any sound (chord, scale) is always found with the same fingering
no matter where you find it in the scale. The Fokker keyboard is one
> example.
>
> Dave Keenan's MIRACLE-45 keyboard layouts are another example. I
> think Alison should arrange her maribma bars in accordance with the
> Blackjack scales within one of these layouts.

Got it... thanks, Paul!

_________ ________ _______
Joseph Pehrson

Here is the scale in standard form again with the corrected note name (thanks Manuel), and a slightly different comment at the top.

! blackjack.scl
!
21 note MOS of "MIRACLE" temperament, Erlich & Keenan, TL 2-5-2001
21
! G
83.33333 ! G#v
116.66667 ! Ab^
200.00000 ! A
233.33333 ! A>
316.66667 ! Bb^
350.00000 ! B[
383.33333 ! Bv
466.66667 ! C<
500.00000 ! C
583.33333 ! C#v
616.66667 ! Db^
700.00000 ! D
733.33333 ! D>
816.66667 ! Eb^
850.00000 ! E[
933.33333 ! E>
966.66667 ! F<
1050.00000 ! F]
1083.33333 ! F#v
1166.66667 ! G<
2/1 ! G

Here's what I believe is the best linear keyboard mapping for the above. This scale and keyboard mapping are attached as files too.

! blackjack.kbm
!
! Linear mapping for blackjack.scl
! having the maximum number of naturals on white keys.
! 1/1 = G = 392 Hz is mapped to the B above middle-C key.
! A point of symmetry of the scale B[ aligns with a point of symmetry of
! the keyboard at the Ab/G# below middle-C key.
! The middle-C pitch is on the B below middle-C key.
! The D above middle-C key has its standard pitch.
! The A440 pitch is on the D above C above middle-C key.
! Size:
0
! First MIDI note number to retune:
0
! Last MIDI note number to retune:
127
! Middle note where scale degree 0 is mapped to:
71
! Reference note for which frequency is given:
71
! Frequency to tune the above note to (floating point e.g. 440.0):
391.9954
! Scale degree to consider as formal octave:
0

Here's a picture of the keyboard mapping on a 61-note C-to-C keyboard. It just happens that you can play one of the K2 chords on this 61-key mapping, Bv Eb^ F#v C#v G D F< A, but only if you've got four hands (or two really huge ones). Is that "K2" as in the Himalayas? :-)

________________
| __________ Bv
|-----|__________ C<
| __________ C
|-----|__________ C#v
|________________ Db^
| __________ D
|-----|__________ D>
| __________ Eb^
|-----|__________ E[
| __________ E>
|-----|__________ F<
|________________ F]
| __________ F#v
|-----|__________ G<
| __________ G
|-----|__________ G#v
|________________ Ab^
| __________ A
|-----|__________ A>
| __________ Bb^
|-----|__________ B[ The middle of a chain of secors and the point
| __________ Bv of symmetry of the keyboard mapping
|-----|__________ C<
|________________ C The middle-C ~261 Hz pitch
| 60 __________ C#v The middle-C key
|-----|__________ Db^
| __________ D The key that produces the same pitch as usual
|-----|__________ D>
|________________ Eb^
| __________ E[
|-----|__________ E>
| __________ F<
|-----|__________ F]
| __________ F#v
|-----|__________ G<
|_71_____________ G 1/1 or degree 0 pitch
| __________ G#v
|-----|__________ Ab^
| __________ A The A440 pitch
|-----|__________ A>
|________________ Bb^
| __________ B[
|-----|__________ Bv
| __________ C<
|-----|__________ C
| __________ C#v
|-----|__________ Db^
|________________ D
| __________ D>
|-----|__________ Eb^
| __________ E[
|-----|__________ E>
|________________ F<
| __________ F]
|-----|__________ F#v
| __________ G<
|-----|__________ G
| __________ G#v
|-----|__________ Ab^
|________________ A
| A>
`----------------

Regards,

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

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

/tuning/topicId_29387.html#30707

Hi Dave!

Thanks so much for your recent mappings...

I don't really know if I'm so happy about having "middle C" mapped to
B! That's against my religion. Allah akbar.

Do I *really* have to do that?? :)

I've gone so far as to use the naturals C-G-D-A! I thought that was
pretty good right there!

Now here is where I am so far:

In the first place, I don't know how to retrieve an attachment from
your post, since I only get the posts from the Web. Frankly, I don't
think it's possible.

Could you please post these mappings and SCALA files either in the
FILES section or send them to me privately??

Regarding my "conversion..."

Firstly, I wasn't able to get SCALA to start 1/1 on G automatically.
So Paul Erlich recommended the simple method of actually starting on
C and subtracting 500 cents, etc. Well, that seemed to work, so I
have the new scale. However it presently is mapped with middle C on
middle C, and I'm pretty sure I would like to keep it that way.

That means that the A below middle C is actually the B[ or the center
point of the scale.

I tried all of this with my synths with a SCALA tuneup and it works
like a charm. My electronic piece written in the F-C-G base really
sounds *horrible* in this tuning, so I know it worked! :)

No, I tried it out, etc., and the starting note is o the B[ (A below
middle C in my C-key keyboard mapping) and everything works fine.

Curiously enough, I was *not* able to get Graham Breed's Midi Relay
to work with the Blackjack G scale correctly. It's not the same as
the F-C-G base, but I can tell there are things wrong with it, like
the location of the central B[ pitch. Oh well, at least the synths
do it accurately... of that I am certain.

So, now, what I really need is a color keyboard mapping pattern...
the rainbow-type thing like you did before in the Word file for the
previous version of Blackjack. Then, when I put the new stickers on
my keyboard, I can use the secor color-coding like the one you used
before.

I would prefer, though, to use a mapping that keeps Middle C as
Middle C... That's not too troublesome, is it??

I don't think that's going to effect the "Blackjack standard" all
that much, and I really think keyboard players are going to like it
better.

Otherwise, you're going to have to do a "selling job" on the B-as-
middle C phenominon, since I'm not getting the significance of it as
yet...

Thanks!!!!

Joseph

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> I don't really know if I'm so happy about having "middle C" mapped
to
> B! That's against my religion. Allah akbar.
>
> Do I *really* have to do that?? :)
>
> I've gone so far as to use the naturals C-G-D-A! I thought that was
> pretty good right there!

Hee hee! Of course this whole standardisation thing is really just an
excuse for me to torment you, Joseph. :-)

> Now here is where I am so far:
>
> In the first place, I don't know how to retrieve an attachment from
> your post, since I only get the posts from the Web. Frankly, I
don't
> think it's possible.

It looks like the tuning list doesn't accept attachments any more (if
it ever did). Probably a good thing, with the viruses about.

They are on my website now
http://dkeenan.com/Music/Miracle/blackjack.scl
http://dkeenan.com/Music/Miracle/blackjack-c.kbm
http://dkeenan.com/Music/Miracle/blackjack-d.kbm

I have no idea if I should expect these .kbm files to work with your
setup or not. blackjack-c.kbm should be the one for those with a
middle-C fetish.

> Regarding my "conversion..."
>
> Firstly, I wasn't able to get SCALA to start 1/1 on G automatically.
> So Paul Erlich recommended the simple method of actually starting on
> C and subtracting 500 cents, etc. Well, that seemed to work, so I
> have the new scale. However it presently is mapped with middle C on
> middle C, and I'm pretty sure I would like to keep it that way.

Can Joseph, Paul or Graham please explain to me about .kbm files and
Joseph's setup. Does Joseph have Midi Relay between Scala and his
synth. Does MidiRelay use these .kbm files? Does it take notice of all
the parameters in those files?

> So, now, what I really need is a color keyboard mapping pattern...
> the rainbow-type thing like you did before in the Word file for the
> previous version of Blackjack. Then, when I put the new stickers on
> my keyboard, I can use the secor color-coding like the one you used
> before.

OK.

> I would prefer, though, to use a mapping that keeps Middle C as
> Middle C... That's not too troublesome, is it??

No problem.

But if anyone else is interested, I'd still like to persue the
question of whether any particular keyboard mapping is going to make
more future Blackjack keyboard players happier.

> I don't think that's going to effect the "Blackjack standard" all
> that much,

It's not going to affect the Blackjack key/notation standard at all.

> and I really think keyboard players are going to like it
> better.

I seem to remember that some keyboard players who joined in the key
standardisation effort did not share your middle-C fetish. Some might
prefer to have the 1/1 pitch mapped to the middle-C key, or the 1/1
pitch mapped to a G key, since it _is_ a G. Or they might prefer A440
to appear in its usual place. Or they might prefer to use the
available keyboard symmetry to provide cues to the scale symmetry
(which would incidentally result in a D having its regular pitch).

We can probably find C, G, D and A fetishists.

Saying that you want a particular note to have its usual pitch is
nice, or at least it might be if everyone agreed on which note, but
this completely ignores the other 60 notes (or 84 or whatever). Isn't
it possible that there might be better or worse locations for them
too?

I asked myself "Apart from fetishes about particular notes, what
features might a good keyboard mapping have?" And I answered myself
"How about having as many of the blackjack naturals as possible,
ocurring on white keys?" Does anyone else think that is of any
significance at all?

And how about aligning keyboard symmetry with scale symmetry? Does
anyone place any importance on that?

> Otherwise, you're going to have to do a "selling job" on the B-as-
> middle C phenominon, since I'm not getting the significance of it as
> yet...

I'm not totally sure now that middle-C pitch on B below misddle-C key
is the optimum. But certainly the aim was maximum naturals on white
keys with middle-C not too far from middle-C. It just happens to align
symmetries too.

If you take that ASCII keyboard picture I gave, print it out, cut the
note names away from the keyboard and slide them up and down, you can
see for yourself. But I'll let you know when I have more info.

-- Dave Keenan

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

> We can probably find C, G, D and A fetishists.

Irving Berlin was an F# fetishist. He had a special piano built which
would allow him to play any key as if it was F#. This shows both that
such things can vary widely, and that once established, they are hard
to break. However I imagine C is the most popular for keyboardists.

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

/tuning/topicId_29387.html#30712

>
> Hee hee! Of course this whole standardisation thing is really just
an excuse for me to torment you, Joseph. :-)
>

That's what I figured! It's a little like going to the dentist,
though... I hope it will be over quickly and I can get back to things!

>
> They are on my website now
> http://dkeenan.com/Music/Miracle/blackjack.scl
> http://dkeenan.com/Music/Miracle/blackjack-c.kbm
> http://dkeenan.com/Music/Miracle/blackjack-d.kbm
>
> I have no idea if I should expect these .kbm files to work with
your setup or not. blackjack-c.kbm should be the one for those with a
> middle-C fetish.
>

Thanks for these, and I'll probably mess around with them. Thanks,
also, for including the C-base for me.... since I prefer that one.

I think the .kbm files should work fine with Scala to create the
appropriate scale. However, I "cheated" and used a different method
using, essentially, a "C-base" and subtracting and adding the cents
of your posted values.

However, no biggie. The upside is that I have the correct pitches
now, and the C-G-D-A mapping is correct for my system. I *know* it
is, since the central pitch B[ is now on my Halberstadt "A" where it
should be in my system (your D-base system has it on Ab as I
understand...)

I can hear it's correct, and the other smaller 33 cent values are
where they should be...

So, I may not mess with it much anymore on the "if it's not broke..."
principle... :)

I don't use Graham Breed's Midi Relay with my composing system at
present. I send converted Scala files (converted to MIDI) *directly*
to my TX81Z synths... This is all working correctly.

HOWEVER, I'm not getting Breed's Midi Relay to play the C-G-D-A Scala
file correctly, which it should do right off. I know it's not
correct, since D natural sounds like D quarter-tone flat.

I don't really know where the problem is, there, but it really is
immaterial as far as my composing goes, except for the "exploratory"
work that I like to do sometimes in Midi Relay... That's a mystery.

>
> > So, now, what I really need is a color keyboard mapping
pattern...
> > the rainbow-type thing like you did before in the Word file for
the previous version of Blackjack. Then, when I put the new stickers
on my keyboard, I can use the secor color-coding like the one you
used before.
>
> OK.
>
> > I would prefer, though, to use a mapping that keeps Middle C as
> > Middle C... That's not too troublesome, is it??
>
> No problem.
>
> But if anyone else is interested, I'd still like to persue the
> question of whether any particular keyboard mapping is going to
make more future Blackjack keyboard players happier.
>
> > I don't think that's going to effect the "Blackjack standard" all
> > that much,
>
> It's not going to affect the Blackjack key/notation standard at
all.
>
> > and I really think keyboard players are going to like it
> > better.
>
> I seem to remember that some keyboard players who joined in the key
> standardisation effort did not share your middle-C fetish. Some
might prefer to have the 1/1 pitch mapped to the middle-C key, or the
1/1 pitch mapped to a G key, since it _is_ a G. Or they might prefer
A440
> to appear in its usual place. Or they might prefer to use the
> available keyboard symmetry to provide cues to the scale symmetry
> (which would incidentally result in a D having its regular pitch).
>
> We can probably find C, G, D and A fetishists.
>
> Saying that you want a particular note to have its usual pitch is
> nice, or at least it might be if everyone agreed on which note, but
> this completely ignores the other 60 notes (or 84 or whatever).
Isn't
> it possible that there might be better or worse locations for them
> too?
>
> I asked myself "Apart from fetishes about particular notes, what
> features might a good keyboard mapping have?" And I answered myself
> "How about having as many of the blackjack naturals as possible,
> ocurring on white keys?" Does anyone else think that is of any
> significance at all?
>
> And how about aligning keyboard symmetry with scale symmetry? Does
> anyone place any importance on that?
>
> > Otherwise, you're going to have to do a "selling job" on the B-as-
> > middle C phenominon, since I'm not getting the significance of it
as yet...
>
> I'm not totally sure now that middle-C pitch on B below misddle-C
key is the optimum. But certainly the aim was maximum naturals on
white keys with middle-C not too far from middle-C. It just happens
to align symmetries too.
>
> If you take that ASCII keyboard picture I gave, print it out, cut
the note names away from the keyboard and slide them up and down, you
can see for yourself. But I'll let you know when I have more info.
>

Well, it's absolutely clear what you're doing, and from the
engineering standpoint it makes a lot of sense.

*HOWEVER* the problem is the "indoctrination" of the traditional
keyboard player.

It seems silly, but "Middle C" is the first note that a child learns
on the piano. It's really a very basic note for a keyboardist.

Having it on the note *right next to it*, the B-natural is,
essentially, a travesty! It's almost humorous.

I think it's going to "turn off" a lot of players who might actually
want to experience the system, but when they see something as "kooky"
as that, they won't want to deal with it.

I'm willing to accept the fact that I could be wrong about this, and
I would like to hear the opinions of other keyboard players but, for
me, having middle C on the note B right next to it is
almost "perverse..." :)

Although it might make the most sense from the design standpoint, in
matters of music and art there is a certain "lethargy..." Let's call
it "conservatism." There are certain conventions that are historical
and overturning conventions is probably easier in science and
engineering than it is in art and music...

After all, there are *many* conservative players who would even
resist *any* deviations from 12-tET as "out of tune" playing...

I'm certainly not trying to "defend" this ilk, but I'm just
reiterating the obvious fact that certain conventions pertain in
music, and having "middle C" on the B right next to it is not one of
them!

I prefer it on the "usual" note, as is clear, and would like to use
the C-G-D-A Blackjack system that way.

However, I would enjoy hearing from other keyboard players who would
suggest that having "middle C" on the B right next to it is quite
OK...

Anybody???

JP

--- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_29387.html#30713

> --- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
>
> > We can probably find C, G, D and A fetishists.
>
> Irving Berlin was an F# fetishist. He had a special piano built
which would allow him to play any key as if it was F#. This shows
both that such things can vary widely, and that once established,
they are hard to break. However I imagine C is the most popular for
keyboardists.

Hi Gene!

Thanks for your contribution to the "C-fetish" argument. I'm still
awaiting commentary from others, but I really think that
having "middle C" on the B right next to it will strike many
musicians as humorous, even ludicrous... which is not, necessarily,
what one wants when exposing somebody to a serious new system...

Just my *own* opinion, I guess. I'll be interested in hearing from
others...

JP

In-Reply-To: <9ttl4g+4dge@eGroups.com>
Joseph Pehrson wrote:

> Thanks for your contribution to the "C-fetish" argument. I'm still
> awaiting commentary from others, but I really think that
> having "middle C" on the B right next to it will strike many
> musicians as humorous, even ludicrous... which is not, necessarily,
> what one wants when exposing somebody to a serious new system...

I've got middle C on the C# on the other side again. It makes sense to
me! I'll put rationale and tuning tables on the web sometime.

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_29387.html#30724

>
> I've got middle C on the C# on the other side again. It makes
sense to me! I'll put rationale and tuning tables on the web
sometime.
>

Leave it to *you* to do this "unholy" thing, Graham! :)

JP

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> Thanks for your contribution to the "C-fetish" argument. I'm still
> awaiting commentary from others, but I really think that
> having "middle C" on the B right next to it

That will happen only in one of the octaves, I think.

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

/tuning/topicId_29387.html#30731

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for your contribution to the "C-fetish" argument. I'm
still
> > awaiting commentary from others, but I really think that
> > having "middle C" on the B right next to it
>
> That will happen only in one of the octaves, I think.

Hmmm... this seems reasonable, Paul!

Actually, since Blackjack was not at all designed for the Halberstadt
keyboard, and equally, the other way around... it seems as though it
really doesn't make all *that* much difference how it's mapped... yes?

JP

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

> Actually, since Blackjack was not at all designed for the
Halberstadt
> keyboard, and equally, the other way around... it seems as though
it
> really doesn't make all *that* much difference how it's mapped...
yes?
>
> JP

Right.

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> I've got middle C on the C# on the other side again. It makes sense
to
> me! I'll put rationale and tuning tables on the web sometime.

Hi Graham. Could you just give us the rationale straight away?

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

/tuning/topicId_29387.html#30744

> --- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> > I've got middle C on the C# on the other side again. It makes
sense
> to
> > me! I'll put rationale and tuning tables on the web sometime.
>
> Hi Graham. Could you just give us the rationale straight away?

Frankly, I think Graham just wants to be on "the other side" of the
issue... Hee hee...

JP

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > > ... but I really think that
> > > having "middle C" on the B right next to it ...
> >
> > That will happen only in one of the octaves, I think.
>
> Hmmm... this seems reasonable, Paul!

Yes. Particularly since middle-C only _occurs_ in one octave. :-)

> Actually, since Blackjack was not at all designed for the
Halberstadt
> keyboard, and equally, the other way around... it seems as though it
> really doesn't make all *that* much difference how it's mapped...
yes?

The point is that it does make _some_ difference. And we should
exploit these differences if at all possible. Here are the
possibilities I can think of.
1. A particular key such as the middle-C key or the A440 key keeping
its usual pitch.
2. The compass of the keyboard arranged to fit certain large chords,
or to fit the maximum number of chords, or something.
3. Black and white having some meaning, at least in a majority of
cases, or at least near the middle of the keyboard.
4. Keyboard symmetry giving cues for scale symmetry, at least near the
middle of the keyboard.

What others can people think of.

It seems that 1. above (whether C or A is favoured), conflicts with 3
and 4. A is slightly better than C in this regard.

Regarding 3. I'm assuming 61 note C-to-C is the most common keyboard.
61 notes fits less than 3 blackjack octaves so the compass might be an
important consideration in regard to chord voicing. The middle key of
such a keyboard is the F# above middle-C key. The nearest point to
that, of black-white symmetry, is the G#/Ab above middle-C key. There
might be an advantage in aligning a B[ (the point of scale symmetry)
with one of these.

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

/tuning/topicId_29387.html#30746

> > > > > ... but I really think that
> > > > having "middle C" on the B right next to it ...
> > >
> > > That will happen only in one of the octaves, I think.
> >
> > Hmmm... this seems reasonable, Paul!
>
> Yes. Particularly since middle-C only _occurs_ in one octave. :-)
>

That's a good one... :)

> The point is that it does make _some_ difference. And we should
> exploit these differences if at all possible. Here are the
> possibilities I can think of.
> 1. A particular key such as the middle-C key or the A440 key
keeping its usual pitch.

Now *that's* a good idea, particularly if it's middle-C :)

Say, Dave, your still going to do a color chart for me with middle-C
mapped to middle-C like I want to use it, even though you're still
deliberating other superior options, yes??

JP

On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 07:21:05 -0000, "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>
wrote:

>No problem.
>
>But if anyone else is interested, I'd still like to persue the
>question of whether any particular keyboard mapping is going to make
>more future Blackjack keyboard players happier.

I'd prefer a keyboard mapping that uses 24 notes (with the extra 3 notes
either duplicating other notes or providing more pitches from the MIRACLE
temperament). This would especially be nice for full-size (88-key)
keyboards, but even with 61-key keyboards it's helpful, to avoid having to
learn a different pattern for every octave. Preferably, there should also
be some pattern to the usage of white and black notes (as in my old
Blackjack keyboard mapping, which uses the black keys for the first 10
notes in the chain and the white notes for the other 11 plus the 3
redundant notes).

(Somewhere along the line I stopped working on my Blackjack piece when I
got distracted by retuning Pachelbel, but I still use the Blackjack
keyboard mapping. I didn't have any strong preferences regarding the key
standardization, but I'm satisfied with the C-G-D-A version.)

>I asked myself "Apart from fetishes about particular notes, what
>features might a good keyboard mapping have?" And I answered myself
>"How about having as many of the blackjack naturals as possible,
>ocurring on white keys?" Does anyone else think that is of any
>significance at all?

Yes. But less so than having a nicely repeating octave pattern, as far as
I'm concerned.

>And how about aligning keyboard symmetry with scale symmetry? Does
>anyone place any importance on that?

Yes.

--
see my music page ---> ---<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/index.html>--
hmiller (Herman Miller) "If all Printers were determin'd not to print any
@io.com email password: thing till they were sure it would offend no body,
\ "Subject: teamouse" / there would be very little printed." -Ben Franklin

Herman,

Can you give us your mapping exactly, for CGDA? Feel free to steal my
ASCII keyboard and put in your pitch names.

Joseph,

Herman raises a good point about making all octaves have the same
pattern. Middle-C pitch on middle-C key would make more sense to me if
_all_ the C pitches were on C-keys. Is the reason that you aren't
willing to lose 8 or 9 pitches out of 61?

Graham,

Is your mapping a 21 key octave or a 24 key octave? Can you lay yours
out for us too?

-- Dave Keenan

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

/tuning/topicId_29387.html#30753
>
> Joseph,
>
> Herman raises a good point about making all octaves have the same
> pattern. Middle-C pitch on middle-C key would make more sense to me
if
> _all_ the C pitches were on C-keys. Is the reason that you aren't
> willing to lose 8 or 9 pitches out of 61?
>

Well, Dave, essentially it's *all* pretty strange from the poor
Halberstadt's point of view. I just asked one...

I just already set up my tuning files, etc., with the C-base, and
everything is working, so I'd rather go with that...

At least we're "on the same page" with C-G-D-A. :)

JP

On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 03:59:09 -0000, "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>
wrote:

>Herman,
>
>Can you give us your mapping exactly, for CGDA? Feel free to steal my
>ASCII keyboard and put in your pitch names.

Here's the original version from June 22. (I use a tuning of 0 = 256 Hz).

0^ 1^ 2^ 3^ 4^ 5^ 6^ 7^ 8^ 9^ Blackjack notes
0 1 2 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 7 8 9 0 decimal notation
0v

C# Eb F# G# Bb C# Eb F# G# Bb Keyboard notes
C D E F G A B C D E F G A B C traditional notation

Using the CGDA notation, setting 0 = B[ :

Bv C Db^ D> E[ F< F#v G Ab^ A>
B[ C< C#v C#v D Eb^ E> E> F] G< G< G#v A Bb^ B[

So this exact mapping doesn't seem to make much sense with the position of
the "naturals" scattered around like this. But something like it might
work. Especially since the three "extra" notes can be arbitrarily placed.

--
see my music page ---> ---<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/index.html>--
hmiller (Herman Miller) "If all Printers were determin'd not to print any
@io.com email password: thing till they were sure it would offend no body,
\ "Subject: teamouse" / there would be very little printed." -Ben Franklin

From: jpehrson@rcn.com
Subject: psychological torture [blackjack]

> It seems silly, but "Middle C" is the first note that a child learns
> on the piano. It's really a very basic note for a keyboardist.
>
> Having it on the note *right next to it*, the B-natural is,
> essentially, a travesty! .

Joe makes a good point. B (and Bb) are tough on keyboarders. C is the best
known. I've got students that came to me playing everything in C and hitting
the transpose button when necessary. In response they say, "What does
'acoustic' mean?"

Don't get me wrong, though. I understand the B point of view and I'm not
using the scale on a keyboard or notating it on a staff, so don't take the
above as a vote for middle C. I'm just agreeing with the ease of C. On the
surface, using B makes it look like you tried to hit C but missed.

<bad cents pun omitted>
Andy F.

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> I just already set up my tuning files, etc., with the C-base, and
> everything is working, so I'd rather go with that...

Yes. I'm familiar with the "That's how I started doing it and I don't
want to have to change", argument. No one's asking you to change.

We're just trying to figure out what might be easiest for someone who
hasn't learnt _any_ way of doing it yet. I thought you might be able
to stand outside your current situation enough to have an opinion on
24 vs 21 for such a person.

I wrote (to Joseph Pehrson):
> I thought you might be able
> to stand outside your current situation enough to have an opinion on
> 24 vs 21 for such a person.

Oops! I see you've already done so in subsequent messages. And a good
point you make too.

If a given interval size is always to span the same number of steps,
then every secor must span the same number of steps. It is not
possible to make a secor always span 2 steps while having an octave
span 24.

But still, folks might be willing to give up parallel chord patterns
in order to have constant octaves. There might be a least painful
place to break the patterns.

--- In tuning@y..., AMiltonF@a... wrote:
> From: jpehrson@r...
> Subject: psychological torture [blackjack]
>
> > It seems silly, but "Middle C" is the first note that a child
learns
> > on the piano. It's really a very basic note for a keyboardist.
> >
> > Having it on the note *right next to it*, the B-natural is,
> > essentially, a travesty! .
>
>
> Joe makes a good point. B (and Bb) are tough on keyboarders. C is
the best
> known. I've got students that came to me playing everything in C
and hitting
> the transpose button when necessary. In response they say, "What
does
> 'acoustic' mean?"

Hi Andy,

Good to hear from you. I hope you understand, we're not talking about
the key of C major. We're not even talking about the pitch-class C.
We're talking about a single pitch, middle-C.

> Don't get me wrong, though. I understand the B point of view and
I'm not
> using the scale on a keyboard or notating it on a staff, so don't
take the
> above as a vote for middle C. I'm just agreeing with the ease of C.
On the
> surface, using B makes it look like you tried to hit C but missed.

OK. So maybe it's better to have middle-C _nowhere_near_ where it used
to be. I think someone else already said that. It just gives a false
sense of security, since _none_ of the other 60 or 87 keys on the
keyboard are going to give a pitch _anything_ like what they used to.

> > From: jpehrson@r...
> > > It seems silly, but "Middle C" is the first note that a child
> learns
> > > on the piano. It's really a very basic note for a keyboardist.

In case you're thinking I'm from another planet where keyboards are
concerned. In fact I did have piano lessons as a child and remember
very well the beginning ritual of "THE CENTERING OF THE STOOL" and
"THE PLACING OF THE THUMBS" (on middle C). :-)

However, while I can understand why someone who has been doing that a
lot more than I have, would find it hard to stop, I can also see that
it will serve no useful purpose with a CGDA blackjack.

I understand that middle-C, while not representing any musical point
of symmetry or any physical point of symmetry for the keyboard, is
drummed into keyboardists to become their psychological and
physiological point of symmetry. Perhaps it is this that might be
considered psychological torture? No. I'm getting carried away with
the sound of the words.

I can understand why you wanted to align this psychological centre
with the point of symmetry of blackjack, giving rise to the FCG
system. But luckily we realised this would have disadvantaged
non-keyboardists by not letting them have the maximum of 4 naturals.
So why do you not now want to align the psychologial centre (the
middle-C key) with a centre of the new CGDA key (a B[ pitch)? Then all
your chord patterns and coloured stickies could have stayed exactly
the same.

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

> But still, folks might be willing to give up parallel chord
patterns
> in order to have constant octaves. There might be a least painful
> place to break the patterns.

Why not simply use 24 secors instead of 21?

--- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
>
> > But still, folks might be willing to give up parallel chord
> patterns
> > in order to have constant octaves. There might be a least painful
> > place to break the patterns.
>
> Why not simply use 24 secors instead of 21?

Can you show us the resulting keyboard mapping? I don't think it will
give parallel chord patterns, or if it does, pitch will not be
monotonic.

In-Reply-To: <9tv32d+b9ft@eGroups.com>
Dave Keenan wrote:

> Is your mapping a 21 key octave or a 24 key octave? Can you lay yours
> out for us too?

Oh, I get asked again. It's a 24 key octave, and is very similar or
identical to Herman's (which I didn't know about before). The black notes
are decimal nominals and adjacent white notes are either a quomma sharp or
flat.

This mapping has one Blackjack scale with 3 extra notes. There are two
complementary mappings: one where ambiguous notes are a quomma higher than
the white note to the left (the high mapping), and the other where they're
a quomma lower than the black note to the right (the low mapping). You
could also map it so that, say, the B key is two quommas below the C# key,
and I'm guessing this is how Herman does it.

With the high mapping, which I'd previously favoured and Mary used for the
historic first Miracle piece, the standard Blackjack maps with B[=>0, D=>3
and G=>7^. With the low mapping, C=>0, G=>6 and D=>2v. As it's
preferable to have our standard tonic of G on a decimal nominal, and I
wanted C=>0 anyway, that's what I've gone for. I put the 0/C on the C#
key. It would work as well on the F# key.

I could go into diagrams and everything, but then I'd have to do it again
next time the subject comes up, which is why I want to put it on a web
page.

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <9tv32d+b9ft@e...>
> Dave Keenan wrote:
>
> > Is your mapping a 21 key octave or a 24 key octave? Can you lay
yours
> > out for us too?
>
> Oh, I get asked again.

I'm sorry to be a nag, and I'm sorry I didn't just find where you'd
explained it before.

> It's a 24 key octave, and is very similar or
> identical to Herman's (which I didn't know about before). The black
notes
> are decimal nominals and adjacent white notes are either a quomma
sharp or
> flat.
>
> This mapping has one Blackjack scale with 3 extra notes. There are
two
> complementary mappings: one where ambiguous notes are a quomma
higher than
> the white note to the left (the high mapping), and the other where
they're
> a quomma lower than the black note to the right (the low mapping).

I assume a "quomma" is a sixth of a tone. But what do you mean by
ambiguos notes? Should I just wait for the web page?

> You
> could also map it so that, say, the B key is two quommas below the
C# key,
> and I'm guessing this is how Herman does it.
>
> With the high mapping, which I'd previously favoured and Mary used
for the
> historic first Miracle piece, the standard Blackjack maps with
B[=>0, D=>3
> and G=>7^. With the low mapping, C=>0, G=>6 and D=>2v. As it's
> preferable to have our standard tonic of G on a decimal nominal, and
I
> wanted C=>0 anyway, that's what I've gone for.

Oops! I thought you wanted G=0.

> I put the 0/C on the
C#
> key. It would work as well on the F# key.
>
> I could go into diagrams and everything, but then I'd have to do it
again
> next time the subject comes up, which is why I want to put it on a
web
> page.

So does it have the same pattern (ignoring black/white) for all
transpositions of a given chord? I guess not.

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

> Can you show us the resulting keyboard mapping? I don't think it
will
> give parallel chord patterns, or if it does, pitch will not be
> monotonic.

The pattern of steps would be 2525252525223223223225.

In-Reply-To: <9tvq0n+3o2d@eGroups.com>
Dave Keenan wrote:

> I assume a "quomma" is a sixth of a tone. But what do you mean by
> ambiguos notes? Should I just wait for the web page?

A quomma's the difference between 10 secors and an octave.

The C key must be a quomma lower than the C# key, and the B key must be a
quomma higher than the Bb key. There aren't any other adjacent black
keys. But the D key could be a quomma higher than C# or a quomma lower
than Eb, so it's ambiguous. To get a single chain of secors, you have
to use the same rule for all such notes.

> > With the high mapping, which I'd previously favoured and Mary used
> for the
> > historic first Miracle piece, the standard Blackjack maps with
> B[=>0, D=>3
> > and G=>7^. With the low mapping, C=>0, G=>6 and D=>2v. As it's
> > preferable to have our standard tonic of G on a decimal nominal, and
> I
> > wanted C=>0 anyway, that's what I've gone for.
>
> Oops! I thought you wanted G=0.

I briefly thought G=>0 would work, but it doesn't. I wanted C=>0 right
from the start, before there were any arguments for it being otherwise.

Here's the original post:

</tuning/topicId_22183.html#22183>

You can tell from the Kyma files that I was tuning C# as C. Well, I can,
anyway.

> So does it have the same pattern (ignoring black/white) for all
> transpositions of a given chord? I guess not.

You can't ignore black/white. If you orient yourself by the black notes,
it transposes okay until you hit the 9/0 boundary. But that's unavoidable
anyway if you want octave equivalence.

Transposition by octaves obviously gives the same pattern, until you run
out of notes.

Graham

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

/tuning/topicId_29387.html#30762

> Hi Andy,
>
> Good to hear from you. I hope you understand, we're not talking
about the key of C major. We're not even talking about the pitch-
class C.
> We're talking about a single pitch, middle-C.
>

Hello Dave!

Actually, looking at the C-based blackjack keyboard, I can see that
this is not entirely true.

With C on "middle C" in the conventional way, I also have "G" an
octave above on a C key. Additionally, I have the natural "D" an
octave above that on a C key.

There could be nothing more "intuitive" than that.

I realize that the lower G and D don't work out on "white keys" but
the predominant placement of the three naturals on C keys I think is
a significant "selling point" for a middle-C based system.

Oh... by the way, I am fortunate enough now to have a full 88 key
midi controller. Would you mind sometime filling in the colors for a
full 88 keyboard if you get a chance? I *might* be able to figure it
out myself, but I don't want to make a mistake with it...

Thanks!

Joseph

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

/tuning/topicId_29387.html#30763

> In case you're thinking I'm from another planet where keyboards are
> concerned. In fact I did have piano lessons as a child and remember
> very well the beginning ritual of "THE CENTERING OF THE STOOL" and
> "THE PLACING OF THE THUMBS" (on middle C). :-)
>
> However, while I can understand why someone who has been doing that
a lot more than I have, would find it hard to stop, I can also see
that it will serve no useful purpose with a CGDA blackjack.
>

Hi Dave!

Well, please see my previous post about the "middle-C" Blackjack
keyboard. The other notes G and D being on main "C keys" is pretty
significant, I feel...

> I understand that middle-C, while not representing any musical
point
> of symmetry or any physical point of symmetry for the keyboard, is
> drummed into keyboardists to become their psychological and
> physiological point of symmetry. Perhaps it is this that might be
> considered psychological torture? No. I'm getting carried away with
> the sound of the words.
>

No, actually the difficult part for me was only the fact that I had
*already* been composing in Blackjack, so I have lots of notations,
lattices for harmonies, etc., that I have *already* worked out and
which will have to be changed in the new system...

> I can understand why you wanted to align this psychological centre
> with the point of symmetry of blackjack, giving rise to the FCG
> system. But luckily we realised this would have disadvantaged
> non-keyboardists by not letting them have the maximum of 4
naturals.
> So why do you not now want to align the psychologial centre (the
> middle-C key) with a centre of the new CGDA key (a B[ pitch)? Then
all your chord patterns and coloured stickies could have stayed
exactly the same.

Well, *my* understanding was that you wanted to assign B[ to the Ab
*below* middle C, and B natural becomes middle C. So, I still have
to change all the stickers in *that* system, yes?

Joseph

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

/tuning/topicId_29387.html#30771

> --- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_29387.html#30762
>
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> > Good to hear from you. I hope you understand, we're not talking
> about the key of C major. We're not even talking about the pitch-
> class C.
> > We're talking about a single pitch, middle-C.
> >
>
> Hello Dave!
>
> Actually, looking at the C-based blackjack keyboard, I can see that
> this is not entirely true.
>
> With C on "middle C" in the conventional way, I also have "G" an
> octave above on a C key. Additionally, I have the natural "D" an
> octave above that on a C key.
>
> There could be nothing more "intuitive" than that.
>

Oh! I even forgot the "A..." There's an "A" on a "C-key" even an
octave above the D...

So the entire string C-G-D-A is on "C-keys" on the C-based keyboard!!!

JP

--- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
>
> > Can you show us the resulting keyboard mapping? I don't think it
> will
> > give parallel chord patterns, or if it does, pitch will not be
> > monotonic.
>
> The pattern of steps would be 2525252525223223223225.

That doesn't look like it would map to the keyboard in any nice way --
we don't get the Decimal naturals on the black keys; nor do we have
consistent chord patterns.

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

> The other notes G and D being on main "C keys"

C, G, D, and A are all on "main C keys".

> Well, *my* understanding was that you wanted to assign B[ to the Ab
> *below* middle C, and B natural becomes middle C. So, I still have
> to change all the stickers in *that* system, yes?
>
> Joseph

Joseph has note names written on all his stickers, so all of them
will have to change -- unless C stays where it is, in which case a
few of the other stickers will stay where they are . . .

On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 05:42:48 -0000, "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>
wrote:

>I wrote (to Joseph Pehrson):
>> I thought you might be able
>> to stand outside your current situation enough to have an opinion on
>> 24 vs 21 for such a person.
>
>Oops! I see you've already done so in subsequent messages. And a good
>point you make too.
>
>If a given interval size is always to span the same number of steps,
>then every secor must span the same number of steps. It is not
>possible to make a secor always span 2 steps while having an octave
>span 24.

But the converse isn't true even with the 21-note octave: you still have to
learn _which_ n-step intervals correspond to a given interval, and there's
no obvious pattern to them. For example, C - E> and G - Bv are 7-step
intervals, which look the same on the keyboard, but sound very different.
So to me there doesn't seem to be much of an advantage to 21-note octaves
other than the slightly increased range compared with 24-note octaves.

--
see my music page ---> ---<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/index.html>--
hmiller (Herman Miller) "If all Printers were determin'd not to print any
@io.com email password: thing till they were sure it would offend no body,
\ "Subject: teamouse" / there would be very little printed." -Ben Franklin

--- In tuning@y..., Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 05:42:48 -0000, "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...>
> wrote:
> >If a given interval size is always to span the same number of
steps,
> >then every secor must span the same number of steps. It is not
> >possible to make a secor always span 2 steps while having an octave
> >span 24.
>
> But the converse isn't true even with the 21-note octave: you still
have to
> learn _which_ n-step intervals correspond to a given interval,

That's true but there are only ever _two_ different acoustic intervals
for a given keyboard interval in the 21 case. In the 24 case there
will be more than two. The addition of suitably positioned coloured
dots to the keys can allow the two kinds to be distinguished. As in
http://dkeenan.com/Music/Miracle/BlackjackHalberstadt21C2.doc

If you can't read that MsWord document, let me know and I'll see if I
can remember how to make a .gif of it. See
/tuning/topicId_30778.html#30789
for explanation.

Joseph, note that the above .doc is new, and shows coloured dots on
black and white keys, as you would actually do it. No paint-job
required.

> and there's
> no obvious pattern to them. For example, C - E> and G - Bv are
7-step
> intervals, which look the same on the keyboard, but sound very
different.

That's true. There's no obvious pattern to distinguish them until the
above colouring and/or positioning information is added. Is there an
obvious pattern in the 24 case, or a simple way of marking the keys?

> So to me there doesn't seem to be much of an advantage to 21-note
octaves
> other than the slightly increased range compared with 24-note
octaves.

Are the coloured dots enough to change your mind? Can you do a bit
more of a 'sell' on the 24 key octave with regard to finding
blackjack chords?

-- Dave Keenan

Joseph Pehrson wrote:
> > With C on "middle C" in the conventional way, I also have "G" an
> > octave above on a C key. Additionally, I have the natural "D" an
> > octave above that on a C key.
> >
> > There could be nothing more "intuitive" than that.
> >
>
> Oh! I even forgot the "A..." There's an "A" on a "C-key" even an
> octave above the D...
>
> So the entire string C-G-D-A is on "C-keys" on the C-based keyboard!!!

You might convince me yet.

C keys vs. white keys?
----------------------
As you mentioned, there is more than one CGDA chain of fifths on the keyboard. Consider an 88 key board.

The C-based layout has two complete CGDA chains and parts of 3 others. It only puts one of them (and parts of two others) on white keys (in particular, C keys). Of the 8 naturals that do not fall on white keys, four of them are near the middle of the keyboard. They fall on F# and Eb keys.

If instead we put the middle-C pitch on either the B above middle-C key or the D below middle-C key we get 3 complete CGDA chains and parts of two others. All three of these chains (and part of another) end up on white keys. The lowest chain is on F keys, the middle one on D keys and the highest on B keys. The four naturals that don't end up on white keys are towards the two ends of the keyboard and fall on G#/Ab keys.

Since a blackjack octave is a keyboard major 13th (major 6th plus octave), using F, D and B keys is the only way to get so many blackjack naturals to fall on white keys.

So, are you saying that it is more important to have 4 out of the 17 naturals fall on C keys than to have 13 of them fall on white keys?

White tetrads
-------------
Having 7-limit tetrads fall on all white keys would seem to be an advantage. Otonal ones (4:5:6:7, harmonic 7th chords) can do so in only the following keyboard patterns CGCF, GDGC, DADG, AEAD, EBEA. There are 30 of these patterns on an 88 key board, however those near the middle are likely to be more important.

The C-based layout has 11 of these being h7 chords. The max-naturals-on-white layout mentioned above has 12 of these being h7 chords. Not a significant difference, and they both do about the same with reagard to having them near the middle.

The maximum possible all-white h7s is 13. The minimum possible is 10.

Considering all h7 chords, (irrespective of whether they are all white), the C-based layout has 26 of them while the max-white layout has 28 (the maximum possible).

Consider harmonic 9th chords (h9, 9-limit otonal pentads, 4:5:6:7:9). Both layouts have 6 of them. The maximum of any layout is 7 and the minimum is 6. Consider those that fall on all white keys. The C-based layout has 2. The max-white layout has 3. Max 4, min 1.

Are there any other properties of interest? I have a spreadsheet set up to answer these sorts of questions, comaparing the 21 possible 21-key-per-octave layouts.

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

--- In tuning@y..., Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote:

> >Oops! I see you've already done so in subsequent messages. And a
good
> >point you make too.
> >
> >If a given interval size is always to span the same number of
steps,
> >then every secor must span the same number of steps. It is not
> >possible to make a secor always span 2 steps while having an
octave
> >span 24.
>
> But the converse isn't true even with the 21-note octave: you still
have to
> learn _which_ n-step intervals correspond to a given interval, and
there's
> no obvious pattern to them.

Unless you color the keyboard the Keenan way. Then there's an obvious
pattern to _everything_.

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

>
http://dkeenan.com/Music/Miracle/BlackjackHalberstadt21C2.doc

This not only makes apparent the harmonic structure of the scale, but
its melodic structure too!

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

/tuning/topicId_29387.html#30797

> Joseph Pehrson wrote:
> > > With C on "middle C" in the conventional way, I also have "G"
an octave above on a C key. Additionally, I have the natural "D" an
> > > octave above that on a C key.
> > >
> > > There could be nothing more "intuitive" than that.
> > >
Oh! I even forgot the "A..." There's an "A" on a "C-key" even an
> > octave above the D...
> >
> > So the entire string C-G-D-A is on "C-keys" on the C-based
keyboard!!!
>
> You might convince me yet.
>

Hi Dave!

See, I *told* you it was a pretty good layout. I'm entirely
satisfied with it, actually. Also, since I have it "tuned up" and up
and running, all I have to do now is put the color stickers and
pitches on according to your recent post...

However, I *do* applaud your further explorations with this...

But, can't you go back to concentrating on the *guitar* for a
while?? :)

> C keys vs. white keys?
> ----------------------
> As you mentioned, there is more than one CGDA chain of fifths on
the keyboard. Consider an 88 key board.
>
> The C-based layout has two complete CGDA chains and parts of 3
others. It only puts one of them (and parts of two others) on white
keys (in particular, C keys). Of the 8 naturals that do not fall on
white keys, four of them are near the middle of the keyboard. They
fall on F# and Eb keys.
>
> If instead we put the middle-C pitch on either the B above middle-C
key or the D below middle-C key we get 3 complete CGDA chains and
parts of two others. All three of these chains (and part of another)
end up on white keys. The lowest chain is on F keys, the middle one
on D keys and the highest on B keys. The four naturals that don't end
up on white keys are towards the two ends of the keyboard and fall on
G#/Ab keys.
>
> Since a blackjack octave is a keyboard major 13th (major 6th plus
octave), using F, D and B keys is the only way to get so many
blackjack naturals to fall on white keys.
>
> So, are you saying that it is more important to have 4 out of the
17 naturals fall on C keys than to have 13 of them fall on white keys?
>

[JP]
Well, probably not. My only real "objection" to your suggestion is
that fact that "middle C" at 261hz will be too far from it's normal
starting position.

I realize I complained that it was too *close* before! :)

But, 261Hz really is a kind of "central" pitch, neither too high or
two low. I'm certain you're aware of the fact that on
the "traditional" keyboard, the range of frequencies is such that it
encompasses pretty much the entire range of orchestral instruments...

With Blackjack, of course, the range is almost halved, (it *would*
be, of course, with the 24-note Blackjack suggestion... another
reason I'm not too happy about that one...) but, still, moving a
traditional "middle C" so far off it's range will change the
flexibility of the keyboard either for either the high or low
direction, depending on which one you choose.

That would be my only concern about it.

> White tetrads
> -------------
> Having 7-limit tetrads fall on all white keys would seem to be an
advantage. Otonal ones (4:5:6:7, harmonic 7th chords) can do so in
only the following keyboard patterns CGCF, GDGC, DADG, AEAD, EBEA.
There are 30 of these patterns on an 88 key board, however those near
the middle are likely to be more important.
>
> The C-based layout has 11 of these being h7 chords. The max-
naturals-on-white layout mentioned above has 12 of these being h7
chords. Not a significant difference, and they both do about the same
with reagard to having them near the middle.
>
> The maximum possible all-white h7s is 13. The minimum possible is
10.
>
> Considering all h7 chords, (irrespective of whether they are all
white), the C-based layout has 26 of them while the max-white layout
has 28 (the maximum possible).
>

Well, I agree these are important chords to try to get on "white
notes..." but it looks like the two systems are about the same
here... Thanks for this investigation...

Joseph

On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 04:37:15 -0000, "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>
wrote:

>Are the coloured dots enough to change your mind? Can you do a bit
>more of a 'sell' on the 24 key octave with regard to finding
>blackjack chords?

Since my old keyboard layout is based on Graham Breed's decimal notation,
finding blackjack chords is pretty easy once you know the intervals in
decimal notation. If you ignore the E's and B's, the white keys are
"naturals" and the black keys to the right are the sharp versions. So a
major third for instance could be played F - C# (2 - 5>) or A - F# (4 -
7>). One disadvantage is that the same pattern an octave higher on the
keyboard produces a different interval (7 - 0> or 9 - 2>).

Graham Breed's blackjack keyboards look very similar, differing in minor
details (I think his actually came first, but I was too busy to keep up
with the list when he mentioned them the first time, so I ended up
reinventing the wheel.)

So with a little practice you wouldn't need any kind of labeling with any
of the 24-note systems.

But I gave the 21-note system a try, and it certainly has some nice
features. The consonances and dissonances line up about as well as can be
expected with the 12-note scale: blackjack fifths are octaves on the
keyboard, major thirds are fifths, and both minor and subminor thirds are
fourths on the keyboard. Major sevenths on the keyboard are dissonant
Blackjack intervals. Tritones are neutral thirds.

The dots are a nice addition, but they don't really sell the system. If you
have to be looking at the dots all the time to figure out where you are, it
doesn't really matter which keyboard mapping you use. (I use narrow strips
of paper taped above the keyboard to label the different ET scales I use.)

--
see my music page ---> ---<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/index.html>--
hmiller (Herman Miller) "If all Printers were determin'd not to print any
@io.com email password: thing till they were sure it would offend no body,
\ "Subject: teamouse" / there would be very little printed." -Ben Franklin

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_29387.html#30712
>
> >
> > Hee hee! Of course this whole standardisation thing is really
just
> an excuse for me to torment you, Joseph. :-)
> >
>
> That's what I figured! It's a little like going to the dentist,
> though... I hope it will be over quickly and I can get back to
things!
>
> >
> > They are on my website now
> > http://dkeenan.com/Music/Miracle/blackjack.scl
> > http://dkeenan.com/Music/Miracle/blackjack-c.kbm
> > http://dkeenan.com/Music/Miracle/blackjack-d.kbm
> >
> > I have no idea if I should expect these .kbm files to work with
> your setup or not. blackjack-c.kbm should be the one for those with
a
> > middle-C fetish.
> >
>
> Thanks for these, and I'll probably mess around with them. Thanks,
> also, for including the C-base for me.... since I prefer that one.
>
> I think the .kbm files should work fine with Scala to create the
> appropriate scale. However, I "cheated" and used a different
method
> using, essentially, a "C-base" and subtracting and adding the cents
> of your posted values.
>
> However, no biggie. The upside is that I have the correct pitches
> now, and the C-G-D-A mapping is correct for my system. I *know* it
> is, since the central pitch B[ is now on my Halberstadt "A" where
it
> should be in my system (your D-base system has it on Ab as I
> understand...)
>
> I can hear it's correct, and the other smaller 33 cent values are
> where they should be...
>
> So, I may not mess with it much anymore on the "if it's not
broke..."
> principle... :)
>
> I don't use Graham Breed's Midi Relay with my composing system at
> present. I send converted Scala files (converted to MIDI)
*directly*
> to my TX81Z synths... This is all working correctly.
>
> HOWEVER, I'm not getting Breed's Midi Relay to play the C-G-D-A
Scala
> file correctly, which it should do right off. I know it's not
> correct, since D natural sounds like D quarter-tone flat.
>
> I don't really know where the problem is, there, but it really is
> immaterial as far as my composing goes, except for
the "exploratory"
> work that I like to do sometimes in Midi Relay... That's a mystery.
>
> >
> > > So, now, what I really need is a color keyboard mapping
> pattern...
> > > the rainbow-type thing like you did before in the Word file for
> the previous version of Blackjack. Then, when I put the new
stickers
> on my keyboard, I can use the secor color-coding like the one you
> used before.
> >
> > OK.
> >
> > > I would prefer, though, to use a mapping that keeps Middle C as
> > > Middle C... That's not too troublesome, is it??
> >
> > No problem.
> >
> > But if anyone else is interested, I'd still like to persue the
> > question of whether any particular keyboard mapping is going to
> make more future Blackjack keyboard players happier.
> >
> > > I don't think that's going to effect the "Blackjack standard"
all
> > > that much,
> >
> > It's not going to affect the Blackjack key/notation standard at
> all.
> >
> > > and I really think keyboard players are going to like it
> > > better.
> >
> > I seem to remember that some keyboard players who joined in the
key
> > standardisation effort did not share your middle-C fetish. Some
> might prefer to have the 1/1 pitch mapped to the middle-C key, or
the
> 1/1 pitch mapped to a G key, since it _is_ a G. Or they might
prefer
> A440
> > to appear in its usual place. Or they might prefer to use the
> > available keyboard symmetry to provide cues to the scale symmetry
> > (which would incidentally result in a D having its regular pitch).
> >
> > We can probably find C, G, D and A fetishists.
> >
> > Saying that you want a particular note to have its usual pitch is
> > nice, or at least it might be if everyone agreed on which note,
but
> > this completely ignores the other 60 notes (or 84 or whatever).
> Isn't
> > it possible that there might be better or worse locations for
them
> > too?
> >
> > I asked myself "Apart from fetishes about particular notes, what
> > features might a good keyboard mapping have?" And I answered
myself
> > "How about having as many of the blackjack naturals as possible,
> > ocurring on white keys?" Does anyone else think that is of any
> > significance at all?
> >
> > And how about aligning keyboard symmetry with scale symmetry?
Does
> > anyone place any importance on that?
> >
> > > Otherwise, you're going to have to do a "selling job" on the B-
as-
> > > middle C phenominon, since I'm not getting the significance of
it
> as yet...
> >
> > I'm not totally sure now that middle-C pitch on B below misddle-C
> key is the optimum. But certainly the aim was maximum naturals on
> white keys with middle-C not too far from middle-C. It just happens
> to align symmetries too.
> >
> > If you take that ASCII keyboard picture I gave, print it out, cut
> the note names away from the keyboard and slide them up and down,
you
> can see for yourself. But I'll let you know when I have more info.
> >
>
>
> Well, it's absolutely clear what you're doing, and from the
> engineering standpoint it makes a lot of sense.
>
> *HOWEVER* the problem is the "indoctrination" of the traditional
> keyboard player.
>
> It seems silly, but "Middle C" is the first note that a child
learns
> on the piano. It's really a very basic note for a keyboardist.
>
> Having it on the note *right next to it*, the B-natural is,
> essentially, a travesty! It's almost humorous.
>
> I think it's going to "turn off" a lot of players who might
actually
> want to experience the system, but when they see something
as "kooky"
> as that, they won't want to deal with it.
>
> I'm willing to accept the fact that I could be wrong about this,
and
> I would like to hear the opinions of other keyboard players but,
for
> me, having middle C on the note B right next to it is
> almost "perverse..." :)
>
> Although it might make the most sense from the design standpoint,
in
> matters of music and art there is a certain "lethargy..." Let's
call
> it "conservatism." There are certain conventions that are
historical
> and overturning conventions is probably easier in science and
> engineering than it is in art and music...
>
> After all, there are *many* conservative players who would even
> resist *any* deviations from 12-tET as "out of tune" playing...
>
> I'm certainly not trying to "defend" this ilk, but I'm just
> reiterating the obvious fact that certain conventions pertain in
> music, and having "middle C" on the B right next to it is not one
of
> them!
>
> I prefer it on the "usual" note, as is clear, and would like to use
> the C-G-D-A Blackjack system that way.
>
> However, I would enjoy hearing from other keyboard players who
would
> suggest that having "middle C" on the B right next to it is quite
> OK...
>
> Anybody???
>
> JP

JP!

My opinion as a microtonal keyboardist (ha! how I flatter myself!) is
that C should be based on 256Hz, A=27/16 'above' that, @ 432Hz
reference. This may seem like nonsense , but it's been my experience
that anyone who is not possessed of 'perfect pitch' who has any
inclination to play out of 12t-ET, has already committed themselves
to a radical transformation of how they perceive 'scales', unless of
course they have made themselves 'for hire' to reconsider how they
perceive 'scales', in which case it is very unlikely they will
reconsider at all, I think. At best, they will try to adapt what
they know to what you are presenting them as new, or different
knowledge.

The only hope, as I see it, is complete reconsideration of what you
thought you knew, to accept a new perspective.

F is not F, C is not B-flat, A-is-G, etc...

The reference you establish is not to comfort the player that what
they are doing is normal, but to alleviate their suffering as they
come to terms with the fact that what they are doing is _not_ normal,
eg 12e-ET, is it not?

You, as the composer, expect yourself to transpose and read in
different clefs, etc. Right? I don't know what else to suggest
right now except what I was told was Joe Zawinul's method at the
beginning of Weather Report's most commercial period: invert the
keyboard, retrograde (or whatever) everything! (I'm not a math-guy,
so please forgive me!).

If Joni Mitchell can do it, anyone can, in any tuning they can
conceive. Retune every string, and reconsider every fingering, or
fretting.
If the song is good, anyone can sing it, I believe.

If there's a reference to be determined--and I think A=440 is
fallacious--for reasons I think are mysterious, the standard should
be determined by the composer _and_ his performers, on the basis of
what they find is intuitively most musical, not what they have been
trained to 'ape', if you'll pardon the expression.

My point is that I think the absolute pitch references should be
questioned, because the relative pitch sense of any musician can
depend on his or her sensitivity to the reference pitch itself.

What keys do you sing best in? for example. Depends on the song,
doesn't it?

So to me a 'standard' becomes an unethical question; What are we
_not_ going to tell the performer about what he or she will be doing?

Obviously not sure,

Pete

--- In tuning@y..., ambassadorbob@y... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_29387.html#30826
>
> JP!
>

>
> The reference you establish is not to comfort the player that what
> they are doing is normal, but to alleviate their suffering as they
> come to terms with the fact that what they are doing is _not_
normal,
> eg 12e-ET, is it not?
>
>
> If there's a reference to be determined--and I think A=440 is
> fallacious--for reasons I think are mysterious, the standard should
> be determined by the composer _and_ his performers, on the basis of
> what they find is intuitively most musical, not what they have been
> trained to 'ape', if you'll pardon the expression.
>
> My point is that I think the absolute pitch references should be
> questioned, because the relative pitch sense of any musician can
> depend on his or her sensitivity to the reference pitch itself.
>

Hello Pete... well, I suppose your point is well taken about the
necessary "flexibility" of pitch. What happens, though, when more
than one instrumentalists are playing together? What happens if one
of them has an instrument that is at a "set" pitch, like Alison on
our list has??

So, eventually *something* has to be standardized. In one way,
that's why I applaud Dave Keenan's efforts, although admittedly he
gets a little "extremist" sometimes. :) (Hi Dave!)

For some reason, I really *like* middle-C on middle-C. Silly?
Possibly, since it's only one note... but since all the others have
changed, anyway, I could hardly be considered
overly "conservative..." :)

Thanks for the input!

JP

Bob,

Some very good points you bring up, most of a fairly significant
philosophical stance. However, my observations are that even when
people are involved in 'microtonal' music, and proclaim to be wanting
to work outside of the standard, accepted tuning regime, they are
still far, far from radical, and will very likely take a path of
least resistance. Most of what you ask to do would be too difficult
to accept.

Just my $.02.

One caveat, and it's an important one, is the division of choice
between working with others indirectly, and forming a performing
group/collective. For instance, Joseph Pehrson is/will be composing
music to be performed (and published) and it makes emminent sense for
him to include 'biases' that will make his music performable for
others, possibly without direct input from him. Therefore, points of
reference (middle C?), notation choices, etc, are important
decisions, directly affecting quality and numbers of performances.

Yet another member, Alison Monteith, is constructing an ensemble of
string and percussion instruments, all to a new tuning, to be used
with instrumentalists and singers. Alison is working in a like
tuning, but may make different choices and, since it is a self-
contained ensemble, could easily choose to buck any convention at
will without affecting the end result, since Alison will be
devoloping the music/performers as a collective (I believe).
Different scenario altogether.

--- In tuning@y..., ambassadorbob@y... wrote:
> You, as the composer, expect yourself to transpose and read in
> different clefs, etc. Right? I don't know what else to suggest
> right now except what I was told was Joe Zawinul's method at the
> beginning of Weather Report's most commercial period: invert the
> keyboard, retrograde (or whatever) everything!

True. I forget which board it was, probably his Mini-moog, but it
could be set up with the kbd inverted, so the scale went from high to
low as you played from left to right. Apparently he came up with some
unusual licks by turning himself (metaphorically) on his head. Not
many people like to be that adventuresome...

Cheers,
Jon (who asks, mildly, if maybe you could trim your replies in the
future, to save bandwidth? :) )