Dave Keenan's Blackjack keyboard

Well, finally, I have Dave Keenan's "standard" Blackjack key and
keyboard up and running!

Actually, it's quite nice, and the colorings make a *lot* of sense...
the chains of secors, etc.

And, it *is* true that each extra "natural" is a real gem. It really
*does* make a difference to have *FOUR* of them, since they
really "add up" on the keyboard...

I'm hoping to *keep* this system for a while this way! :)

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> Well, finally, I have Dave Keenan's "standard" Blackjack key and
> keyboard up and running!

I guess you're talking about this one:
http://dkeenan.com/<usic/Miracle/BlackjackHalberstadt21C2.doc

> Actually, it's quite nice, and the colorings make a *lot* of
sense...
> the chains of secors, etc.

I'm glad, but note that the standard key isn't "mine". It was a
collaborative effort by a lot of people. And the only thing about the
keyboard that is "mine" is the colouring.

It wasn't my idea to use 21 keys to the octave (although I think it is
a good idea now) and I don't agree with having the middle-C pitch on
the middle-C key. Putting an F#v on the middle-C key puts more
naturals on white keys, more otonal 7-limit tetrads on white keys and
more otonal 9-limit pentads on white keys.

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
http://dkeenan.com/<usic/Miracle/BlackjackHalberstadt21C2.doc

Sorry about the typo. That should have been.

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

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_32945.html#32952

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > Well, finally, I have Dave Keenan's "standard" Blackjack key and
> > keyboard up and running!
>
> I guess you're talking about this one:
>
http://dkeenan.com/<usic/Miracle/BlackjackHalberstadt21C2.doc
>

****Actually, Dave, that link doesn't work, but I found the files
anyway in your "Blackjack directory..."

> > Actually, it's quite nice, and the colorings make a *lot* of
> sense...
> > the chains of secors, etc.
>
> I'm glad, but note that the standard key isn't "mine". It was a
> collaborative effort by a lot of people. And the only thing about
the keyboard that is "mine" is the colouring.
>

****Sure...

> It wasn't my idea to use 21 keys to the octave (although I think it
is a good idea now) and I don't agree with having the middle-C pitch
on the middle-C key. Putting an F#v on the middle-C key puts more
> naturals on white keys, more otonal 7-limit tetrads on white keys
and more otonal 9-limit pentads on white keys.

****Hi Dave.

Maybe so, but it also makes the keyboard *too high in pitch* for a
practicing composer. Having "middle C" where it "should" be is just
about right. I don't need to have everything on "white notes" all
the time, but I have to admit I *do* like having *four* rather than
*three* naturals in the C-G-D-A key.

I *do* have a question, though, about the coloration. Obviously the
chains of secors on the traditional keyboard are a "whole-toney" kind
of thing, proceeding by major seconds. They're easy to remember that
way.

Why, though, do they *break* and change colors again? Is that the
beginning of a different *cycle* of secors?

In any case, that seems like an "academic" distinction, no? since
there doesn't seem to be any difference in the sound when one goes to
the next color. It's still the "larger" 83 cent interval of
Blackjack...

Since it's nothing that one *hears,* is the change in color there to
indicate a different "cycling through" the system??

Thanks Dave....

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_32945.html#32953

> --- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
>
http://dkeenan.com/<usic/Miracle/BlackjackHalberstadt21C2.doc
>
> Sorry about the typo. That should have been.
>
>
http://dkeenan.com/Music/Miracle/BlackjackHalberstadt21C2.doc

****Hi Dave.

Yes, thanks, this is the one. However, this is a *later* version
than the one that *I* was using. I was using the one where the
*keys* themselves are colored.

This one seems a bit clearer and more elegant, and I believe it
answers partially my question about the "chains of secors" that I
posted above.

However, I'm still unclear about one thing. Why are there 21 notes
in the secor chain? I thought that Blackjack had chains of 10
notes... decimal, or am I just getting confused again??

In any case, there is no way that I can show these colored chains on
my keyboard. I only have room for two rows of color stickies, so I
guess I'll have to go with the color system we had before and not
show the "three decending levels" of chains...

This looks great, though...

best,

Joseph

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> However, I'm still unclear about one thing. Why are there 21 notes
> in the secor chain?

Blackjack is a chain of 20 secors (21 notes), just like the diatonic
scale is a chain of 6 fifths (7 notes).

> I thought that Blackjack had chains of 10
> notes... decimal, or am I just getting confused again??

Decimal is a chain of 9 secors (10 notes). Blackjack is a chain of 20
secors (21 notes).

> In any case, there is no way that I can show these colored chains
on
> my keyboard. I only have room for two rows of color stickies, so I
> guess I'll have to go with the color system we had before and not
> show the "three decending levels" of chains...

Cut your stickers in half.

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

/tuning/topicId_32945.html#32960

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > However, I'm still unclear about one thing. Why are there 21
notes in the secor chain?
>
> Blackjack is a chain of 20 secors (21 notes), just like the
diatonic scale is a chain of 6 fifths (7 notes).
>
> > I thought that Blackjack had chains of 10
> > notes... decimal, or am I just getting confused again??
>
> Decimal is a chain of 9 secors (10 notes). Blackjack is a chain of
20 secors (21 notes).
>

Thanks Paul! Of course, I remember this now... I just "forgot"
momentarily that Blackjack was *twice* around the secor chain! But
certainly that makes sense with the "little" Blackjack intervals
falling only 33 cents from the "original" ones.

Thanks for the compliment on the "award." It's still not definite
that I will be on the recording, but the encouraging news is that
trombonists would find the Blackjack piece interesting enough
to "single it out..."

best,

Joseph

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> > It wasn't my idea to use 21 keys to the octave (although I think
it
> is a good idea now) and I don't agree with having the middle-C pitch
> on the middle-C key. Putting an F#v on the middle-C key puts more
> > naturals on white keys, more otonal 7-limit tetrads on white keys
> and more otonal 9-limit pentads on white keys.
>
> ****Hi Dave.
>
> Maybe so, but it also makes the keyboard *too high in pitch* for a
> practicing composer.

If you used an F#v an octave lower would the keyboard then be too low
in pitch (even with 88 keys)?

> I *do* have a question, though, about the coloration. Obviously the
> chains of secors on the traditional keyboard are a "whole-toney"
kind
> of thing, proceeding by major seconds. They're easy to remember
that
> way.
>
> Why, though, do they *break* and change colors again? Is that the
> beginning of a different *cycle* of secors?

Not a cycle (a closed loop) but a chain (open ended).

> In any case, that seems like an "academic" distinction, no? since
> there doesn't seem to be any difference in the sound when one goes
to
> the next color. It's still the "larger" 83 cent interval of
> Blackjack...
>
> Since it's nothing that one *hears,* is the change in color there to
> indicate a different "cycling through" the system??

Uh oh! If you play a "chromatic scale" on the keyboard and don't
_hear_ what happens when a new colour comes in, then something is
very wrong.

Totally ignoring chains of secors, from a purely melodic point of view
the colours tell you where the 33c steps and 83c steps are. If the
step goes _up_ the rainbow (e.g. yellow to green) then it will be a
33c step. If it goes down the rainbow it will be an 83c step. In every
octave of Blackjack there is one place where there are two 33c steps
in succesion, so we are forced to introduce a new colour at those
points.

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> In any case, there is no way that I can show these colored chains on
> my keyboard. I only have room for two rows of color stickies, so I
> guess I'll have to go with the color system we had before and not
> show the "three decending levels" of chains...

I hope you don't mean the system where you are using a colour per
chord. That may be useful for a single piece, where you use a
small number of chords, but it's doomed in general.

You don't have to use the sloping lines. You can just put all the
coloured dots I've shown in one straight line if you want. But better
if you slope them a little. There's only ever one dot per key (not
really three rows). So you just choose the max slope that lets a line
of 21 dots fit in the available space. Use a straight edge and mark
the lines in pencil first.

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_32945.html#32980

> > ****Hi Dave.
> >
> > Maybe so, but it also makes the keyboard *too high in pitch* for
a practicing composer.
>
> If you used an F#v an octave lower would the keyboard then be too
low in pitch (even with 88 keys)?

****I think so, Dave. Besides, I really like the idea that I have
the "four big" naturals on my C-keys. Certainly writing for cello
this provides a "point of reference." And, I really like "middle-C"
on "middle-C" as you know, aside from the fact that the Scala "tune
up" is easier that way...

The keyboard layout is a bit immaterial by comparison with the change
from the F-C-G to the C-G-D-A Blackjack on the overall, though, don't
you agree??

At least we're on the "same page" on that standard now, so to speak.

Now what to do about George Secor! :)

> Uh oh! If you play a "chromatic scale" on the keyboard and don't
> _hear_ what happens when a new colour comes in, then something is
> very wrong.
>

****No, fortunately, whew, everything is OK.

I have the three 33-cent steps on:

Bb^, B[, Bv

in each octave... so that's the way it *should* be, I believe. And,
yes, the color changes there... All the other keys alternate between
the large 83 cent interval and the small 33 cent...

Thanks!

Joseph

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_32945.html#32981

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > In any case, there is no way that I can show these colored chains
on
> > my keyboard. I only have room for two rows of color stickies, so
I
> > guess I'll have to go with the color system we had before and not
> > show the "three decending levels" of chains...
>
> I hope you don't mean the system where you are using a colour per
> chord. That may be useful for a single piece, where you use a
> small number of chords, but it's doomed in general.
>

****Ummm, that's the way I had it *before* the "Keenan
improvement..." This is *much* better organized!

> You don't have to use the sloping lines. You can just put all the
> coloured dots I've shown in one straight line if you want.

****Well, they're actually in *two* lines, but when I use your
companion chart in addition to this, I can see what's going on....

They're just the right size, with the pitches written on them, to use
*practically.* It's working well...

And now, *hopefully* we have a "standard" not that we are "over the
hump" with the elephants, so to speak...

Joseph