Generalised Keyboards

Would that be the Erv Wilson variant of the Bosanqet?

In which case this is merely a slanted version of the Janko, if one looks
closely at it: right rising, with 'whole tone scales' offset by 'half-
steps'.

The generalised layout is for one thing very good, but is still suffers
from one defect - very few classically trained pianists are willing to
relearn their technique for a generalised layout. If on the other hand, if
a WB arrangement can be found for your scale, and it isn't too weird, then
a pianist (even one used only to the standard repertoire) will at least
feel reasonably at home. I've tried with ordinary musicians (and I mean
ordinary), and this is the best way for them.

If microtonal music is to get more than a fringe foothold, it is important
to innovate by degrees. Wiping the slate clean is ostensibly the best path
to take (Partch), but reinventing notation for each new instrument, and
reinventing the whole technique of a pianist is just plain impossible.

I am conservative in this, I know, but what irks me more than any other
thing in microtonality is that it will remain a fringe phenomenon unless it
makes itself easier for standard instrumental technique. A Tabula Rasa is
good, but we cannot sweep *all* of the boards clean.

If a customisable keayboard is to made at all, why not provide the blacks
and whites in a bag like play bricks; the 'board' can receive these in any
consistent order, and the keys can be tuned individually, or via some midi
control. The microzone/uath I have seen is good to look at, but to me it is
unlikely to catch on. I have also seen a very strange midi controller with
two hand prints on it, full of sensors and other controls; I am not sure
how this could be used for 'keyboard technique' but it could be used for a
dramtically new way of manipulating sound. And that is so new it could
described as being a new instrument.

Mark

>>>>
I would counsel those who would design keyboards for microtonal
scales not to make them single-purpose (i.e., one for 19-ET, another
for 22-ET, another for 31-ET, another for 72-ET, etc.), but to use a
generalized arrangement that will accommodate multiple tunings with
the same fingering patterns in all keys. A custom keyboard is
probably the most expensive component in an electronic instrument,
and you will get much more for your money if it is able to
accommodate at least several different tunings in this way.

hi Mark,

> From: "Mark Gould" <mark.gould@argonet.co.uk>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 11:48 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Generalised Keyboards
>
>
> The generalised layout is for one thing very good, but is still suffers
> from one defect - very few classically trained pianists are willing to
> relearn their technique for a generalised layout. If on the other hand, if
> a WB arrangement can be found for your scale, and it isn't too weird, then
> a pianist (even one used only to the standard repertoire) will at least
> feel reasonably at home. I've tried with ordinary musicians (and I mean
> ordinary), and this is the best way for them.

would "WB" be referring to "Wilson-Bosanquet"?

> If a customisable keayboard is to made at all, why not provide the blacks
> and whites in a bag like play bricks; the 'board' can receive these in any
> consistent order, and the keys can be tuned individually, or via some midi
> control. The microzone/uath I have seen is good to look at, but to me it
is
> unlikely to catch on. I have also seen a very strange midi controller with
> two hand prints on it, full of sensors and other controls; I am not sure
> how this could be used for 'keyboard technique' but it could be used for a
> dramtically new way of manipulating sound. And that is so new it could
> described as being a new instrument.

in fact, the microzone/uath *does* allow the user to put colored keytops
on in any desired pattern.

but in my opinion, Harvey Starr has invented another instrument which is
very amenable to microtonal keyboard mappings, and it's much less expensive
and already much more popular to boot: the Ztar.

i have suggestions for mapping 72edo and Blackjack to the Ztar at
the bottoms of these pages:

/tuning/files/dict/72edo.htm
/tuning/files/monzo/blackjack/blackjack.htm

and in the tuning list archives there's a diagram of a mapping
of the Canasta scale to the Ztar, which i think works very well.

-monz
"all roads lead to n^0"

Mark Gould wrote:
> Would that be the Erv Wilson variant of the Bosanqet?

It's a good question, Mark. Why is the Halberstadt not
"generalized"? By generalized, we mean able to accept a
range of tunings. Or do we mean the property of
transpositional invariance over a single tuning? Can
these exist independently?

It would be interesting to look at various conditions of
geometric symmetry and see what they mean for keyboarding.
My first thought is that "generalized" should be reserved
for keyboards whose digitals form a regular tiling.
Wilson's design meets this requirement. Bosanquet's design
violates it in 3-D, but a cross-section meets it...

>The generalised layout is for one thing very good, but is
>still suffers from one defect - very few classically
>trained pianists are willing to relearn their technique
>for a generalised layout.

This is largely irrelevant to microtonal use, since the
music would be different in other ways, too.

Regardless of what people say or are not willing to do, it
remains that any music which could be called "microtonal
keyboard music" in the sense we now say "classical keyboard
music", will require a radically different layout and
technique.

You can't make an omelate without breaking some eggs.

>If microtonal music is to get more than a fringe foothold, it
>is important to innovate by degrees. Wiping the slate clean
>is ostensibly the best path to take (Partch), but reinventing
>notation for each new instrument, and reinventing the whole
>technique of a pianist is just plain impossible.

We'll see about that!

Actually, there are already at least three people currently
living on this miserable hunk of rock who can play both the
Halberstadt and Janko keyboards with facility.

I believe Monz has already addressed your point about lego
keys (the uath's are adhesive). I agree they are highly
desirable.

-Carl

In-Reply-To: <ao0qgh+o6do@eGroups.com>
Carl Lumma wrote:

> It's a good question, Mark. Why is the Halberstadt not
> "generalized"? By generalized, we mean able to accept a
> range of tunings. Or do we mean the property of
> transpositional invariance over a single tuning? Can
> these exist independently?

Usually "generalized keyboards" seem to be things like Bosanquet rather
than things like Halberstadt. It's not so much a range of tunings as a
range of kinds of tunings. Halberstadt can take any tuning of meantone.

Bosanquet's original design is only for fifth-based scales anyway, so all
you gain is more keys and transpositional invariance. There are mappings
at The Wilson Archive for a hexagonal keyboard that don't follow this
pattern. Are they still for a Bosanquet keyboard? Hexagonal arrays had
been used on the accordion family for a long time.

Don't know if you've seen <http://www.ragzpol.com/> but it has
transpositional invariance while being most suited to 12-equal.

> It would be interesting to look at various conditions of
> geometric symmetry and see what they mean for keyboarding.
> My first thought is that "generalized" should be reserved
> for keyboards whose digitals form a regular tiling.
> Wilson's design meets this requirement. Bosanquet's design
> violates it in 3-D, but a cross-section meets it...

A Bosanquet layout has a regular tiling, but the physical keyboard loses
some of the symmetry. A Halberstadt keyboard has a regular mapping to
12-equal if you ignore the keys being different shapes.

Mark:
> >The generalised layout is for one thing very good, but is
> >still suffers from one defect - very few classically
> >trained pianists are willing to relearn their technique
> >for a generalised layout.

I don't like this idea of something being defective because it's different
to something more popular. It's reality that's at fault here, not the
generalized layout.

Carl:
> This is largely irrelevant to microtonal use, since the
> music would be different in other ways, too.

You could use existing notation as a tablature for a retuned keyboard.
The performer can use the same training and hand-eye coordination as for
normal music, but expect the pitches to be different.

> Regardless of what people say or are not willing to do, it
> remains that any music which could be called "microtonal
> keyboard music" in the sense we now say "classical keyboard
> music", will require a radically different layout and
> technique.
>
> You can't make an omelate without breaking some eggs.

The latest fashions in economic theory are on our side here. At least
according to last week's Capitalist. I've got a link here

<http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1352924>

which I think you can get at without a subscription. The upshot is:

"""
Name a plainly superior technology that society has set aside not because
of private cost or self-incompatibility, but because wide adoption was a
precondition for its success. Not easy. Network effects do exist, and in
principle they could work as the advocates of strong lock-in say, but in
practice they have turned out to be far milder than e-commerce zealots
supposed�in case after case, too weak to suppress plainly superior
products.
"""

So, if a generalized keyboard is plainly superior for microtonal music it
can't be suppressed!

> >If microtonal music is to get more than a fringe foothold, it
> >is important to innovate by degrees. Wiping the slate clean
> >is ostensibly the best path to take (Partch), but reinventing
> >notation for each new instrument, and reinventing the whole
> >technique of a pianist is just plain impossible.
>
> We'll see about that!

If the microtonal fringe produces great music, it won't stay a fringe for
long. If it doesn't, how fortunate we didn't pollute the mainstream with
our new keyboards!

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., "Mark Gould" <mark.gould@a...> wrote:
> Would that be the Erv Wilson variant of the Bosanqet?
>
> In which case this is merely a slanted version of the Janko, if one
looks
> closely at it: right rising, with 'whole tone scales' offset
by 'half-
> steps'.

One very significant diference between the Janko and the
Wilson/Bosanquet is that the slanting rows of the latter put the
octaves in different rows. In the Janko (or 6+6) keyboard the
octaves occur in the same row, and only a *duplicate* of the octave
is two rows removed. This results in different fingering patterns
being employed on the two. With the Wilson/Bosanquet keyboard you
can play a C major scale with the right hand using the conventional
fingering (thumbs on C and F), but with the Janko keyboard the
fingering must be different (thumbs on F and B).

> If microtonal music is to get more than a fringe foothold, it is
important
> to innovate by degrees. Wiping the slate clean is ostensibly the
best path
> to take (Partch), but reinventing notation for each new instrument,
and
> reinventing the whole technique of a pianist is just plain
impossible.

Dave Keenan and I have been working on what might be described as
a "generalized" notation (having little to do with the keyboard)
which you'll be hearing more about soon if you stay tuned.

--George

>It's not so much a range of tunings as a range of kinds of
>tunings.

Can you give a precise definition?

>Don't know if you've seen <http://www.ragzpol.com/> but it has
>transpositional invariance while being most suited to 12-equal.

I hadn't seen that!

>>This is largely irrelevant to microtonal use, since the
>>music would be different in other ways, too.
>
>You could use existing notation as a tablature for a retuned
>keyboard. The performer can use the same training and hand-eye
>coordination as for normal music, but expect the pitches to be
>different.

As I say, this doesn't count:
>>Regardless of what people say or are not willing to do, it
>>remains that any music which could be called "microtonal
>>keyboard music" in the sense we now say "classical keyboard
>>music", will require a radically different layout and
>>technique.

>The latest fashions in economic theory are on our side here.
>At least according to last week's Capitalist. I've got a
>link here
>
> <http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1352924>

You call it the Capitalist? (A quip?) It's quite popular here
in the Bay Area.

I think it's better to leave space on either side of the
brackets, < link >, since Yahoo seems to want to include
the close-bracket in the URL.

Leibowitz! He co-authored a damning paper on Dvorak/QWERTY.
Seems it's something of his life's mission to prove that
network effects aren't important. I posted yesterday to the
altkeyboards yahoo group on this:

/altkeyboards/topicId_unknown.html#1051

>Name a plainly superior technology that society has set
>aside not because of private cost or self-incompatibility,
>but because wide adoption was a precondition for its
>success. Not easy.

It's not easy because it's hard to prove a total lack of
other factors -- doesn't mean Network effects aren't
important in almost everything. I keep a list of things
for which I'm willing to argue network effects were the
only important factor:

keyboard layout QWERTY Dvorak
retina design vertebrate cephalopod
laundry machines upright front-loading
disposable cup lids snap-on puncture-anywhere adhesive film

Incidentally, I do agree that network effects were far over-
estimated by the .coms. I was even saying this in '99.

>So, if a generalized keyboard is plainly superior for microtonal
>music it can't be suppressed!

Yeah, that sounds like Leibowitz.

-Carl

> If a customisable keayboard is to made at all, why not provide the
blacks
> and whites in a bag like play bricks; the 'board' can receive these
in any
> consistent order, and the keys can be tuned individually, or via
some midi

It would also be possible to put one or more LEDs inside each key,
lightening the key from inside to make them change color by software
commands.

> I would counsel those who would design keyboards for microtonal
> scales not to make them single-purpose (i.e., one for 19-ET, another
> for 22-ET, another for 31-ET, another for 72-ET, etc.), but to use a
> generalized arrangement that will accommodate multiple tunings with
> the same fingering patterns in all keys. A custom keyboard is

The generalized hexagonal keyboard looks promising on paper. Any equal
or linear temperament can be mapped to its two defining intervals,
sure (a more complex just tuning makes for an irregular pattern and is
thus not truly generalized). But the resulting patterns are totally
different.

31-TET, or 1/4 comma meantone when mapped in a "diatonic" way to the
hexagonal keyboard gives an octave of 6 horisontal steps and 1
vertical step. If the keyboard were to be made to support this, the
keys would not be in straight rows, but slanted by 1/6 so that octaves
of one pitch-class are in the same vertical position.
,
Using the same keyboard for 24-TET would be much more complicated, no
matter what intervals one decides to use for the mapping. 19,22-tone
scales...yet another displacement for each of them.

And i know that on Adrian Fokker's original keyboard designs, and some
others that has been shown here, the octaves are indeed all over the
place. Can anybody here report on if this complicates performance and
learning?

/Ö

In-Reply-To: <ao1t9s+ic8b@eGroups.com>
Carl Lumma wrote:

> >It's not so much a range of tunings as a range of kinds of
> >tunings.
>
> Can you give a precise definition?

I meant 1/4 comma meantone as a tuning, but meantone in general as a kind
of tuning. Halberstadt works okay for meantone, but not so well for
schismic (not enough notes) or miracle or a randomly chosen equal
temperament.

> You call it the Capitalist? (A quip?) It's quite popular here
> in the Bay Area.

I don't want to align myself too closely with it, although I do read it
every week. I don't know of any better papers (obviously, or I'd read
one of them instead). I also thought I'd reinforce that it is biased on
this issue.

> I think it's better to leave space on either side of the
> brackets, < link >, since Yahoo seems to want to include
> the close-bracket in the URL.

Or leave the <> out if that's the case. It used to be the safest way of
including URLs.

> Leibowitz! He co-authored a damning paper on Dvorak/QWERTY.
> Seems it's something of his life's mission to prove that
> network effects aren't important. I posted yesterday to the
> altkeyboards yahoo group on this:
>
> /altkeyboards/topicId_unknown.html#1051

Yes, he opposes network effects as they contradict the perfect operation
of the free market. Well, you seem to disagree, although without any
evidence to refute this 10 year old paper. I assumed you brought up
qwerty as an example of a technology that got locked in for arbitrary
reasons. Do you really think Dvorak is plainly superior?

> It's not easy because it's hard to prove a total lack of
> other factors -- doesn't mean Network effects aren't
> important in almost everything. I keep a list of things
> for which I'm willing to argue network effects were the
> only important factor:

If a plainly superior technology failed, it should be easy to prove.

> keyboard layout QWERTY Dvorak
> retina design vertebrate cephalopod

That's direct inheritance. The early vertebrates weren't looking around
at other vertebrates to see if they chose the same kind of retina. Well,
obviously, because they didn't have eyes then. But network effects are
surely irrelevant????

> laundry machines upright front-loading

Aren't the front-loading ones that succeeded supposed to be better? I
don't get the argument on this one at all.

> disposable cup lids snap-on puncture-anywhere adhesive film

And this is completely new to me.

> Incidentally, I do agree that network effects were far over-
> estimated by the .coms. I was even saying this in '99.

So what about Halberstadt?

> >So, if a generalized keyboard is plainly superior for microtonal
> >music it can't be suppressed!
>
> Yeah, that sounds like Leibowitz.

It's the doctrinaire free market position, which is all I ever said it
was.

Graham

[Graham wrote...]
>>/altkeyboards/topicId_unknown.html#1051
>
>Yes, he opposes network effects as they contradict the perfect
>operation of the free market. Well, you seem to disagree,
>although without any evidence to refute this 10 year old paper.
>I assumed you brought up qwerty as an example of a technology
>that got locked in for arbitrary reasons. Do you really think
>Dvorak is plainly superior?

Yes, and I thought the message referenced above would be enough
to convince anyone of that. We should take this over to
altkeyboards if you don't agree.

>>It's not easy because it's hard to prove a total lack of
>>other factors -- doesn't mean Network effects aren't
>>important in almost everything. I keep a list of things
>>for which I'm willing to argue network effects were the
>>only important factor:
>
>If a plainly superior technology failed, it should be easy to
>prove.

What's plainly superior? Having used both for years, I can
tell you that I believe the only possible advantage of VHS over
Beta was longer tapes. And considering that Beta tapes could
play as long as a DVD, I think this advantage was not
significant. In fact, I think the shorter tapes were better,
because the tapes were smaller. But how can I prove it?

>>keyboard layout QWERTY Dvorak
>>retina design vertebrate cephalopod
>
>That's direct inheritance. The early vertebrates weren't looking
>around at other vertebrates to see if they chose the same kind of
>retina. Well, obviously, because they didn't have eyes then. But
>network effects are surely irrelevant????

The vertebrate retina works well enough that the cost of evolving
a new one isn't justified. Yet, the cephalopod design appears to
be plainly superior. Call it what you will. I see Gell-Mann's
"frozen accident" as the best general term for the phenomenon.

>>laundry machines upright front-loading
>
>Aren't the front-loading ones that succeeded supposed to be
>better? I don't get the argument on this one at all.

They are better, in every way. They still haven't succeeded,
though it appears they will soon. But it took too long. Since
we don't know the future... if Dvorak takes over tomorrow it
won't change the fact that QWERTY was a frozen accident.

>>disposable cup lids | snap-on | puncture-anywhere adhesive film
>
>And this is completely new to me.

I just found out about it. In the States, if you go to fast food,
your drink comes in a wax-paper cup with a snap-on lid with an "x"
cut in it for the straw. This setup is notorious for leaking
sticky soda all over creation. The other day I went to a Thai
tapioca-drink franchise. They just slap adhesive film on the top,
and the straw is sharp on one end. Less waste, less expensive,
no spills, more sanitary to apply the lid.

>>Incidentally, I do agree that network effects were far over-
>>estimated by the .coms. I was even saying this in '99.
>
>So what about Halberstadt?

I obviously feel that the case for its frozen accidentness has
been understated. This doesn't mean I think the keyboard is no
good, but I do suspect it is plainly inferior to some sort of
generalized keyboard. But I don't have a gen. kybd. yet to test
this on.

>>>So, if a generalized keyboard is plainly superior for microtonal
>>>music it can't be suppressed!
>>
>>Yeah, that sounds like Leibowitz.
>
>It's the doctrinaire free market position, which is all I ever
>said it was.

I'm not accusing you of anything.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., Mats Öljare <oljare@h...> wrote:
>
> And i know that on Adrian Fokker's original keyboard designs, and
some
> others that has been shown here, the octaves are indeed all over the
> place. Can anybody here report on if this complicates performance
and
> learning?

If the octaves of a pitch are not lateral (or nearly so), then the
player's arms are likely to be extended at different distances for
most of the time. For example, on the Fokker keyboard the octaves
(and indeed the entire diatonic scale) go along a right-rising
diagonal, so the right hand will be reaching farther than the left
hand much of the time. A player might tend to turn the body and/or
shoulders leftward to compensate for this, a potential cause of
strain and muscle fatigue.

So I consider having all of the octaves of a tone at the same
distance from the player to be an ergonomically wise decision.

--George

On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 11:48 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Actually, there are already at least three people currently
> living on this miserable hunk of rock who can play both the
> Halberstadt and Janko keyboards with facility.
>
>

> Where can one find a Janko keyboard???

Alexandros Papadopoulos wrote:

>Where can one find a Janko keyboard???

In the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, where I made
a photo which you can see in the photo section of this group.

Manuel

As far as electronic keyboards go , I think that the best keyboard scheme is the "fretless" keyboard.
And by fretless I mean the old Trautonium (http://www.obsolete.com/120_years/machines/trautonium/index.html)
and its modern siblings (the Continuum fingerboard , and the yet to be released , Doepfer Trautonium manual).
These instruments will be familiar to already trained pianists due to the linear , horizontal disposition of the notes.
As for the objection that some will have : How can I play a xxET without visual feedback?
I say that a tuning is good if only one can hear and sing the pitches without an instrument.
I wish there was a similar solution for acoustic keyboards
So , what do you think?

Along these lines there is also the Analogue Systems "French Connection"
(http://www.analoguesystems.co.uk/index2.htm, select controllers, scroll
to the bottom) which has a continuous pitch controller like an ondes
martenot. However, this will be very difficult to achieve accurate
pitches when the distance for 100 cents is less than an inch.
John Loffink
jloffink@austin.rr.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandros Papadopoulos [mailto:Alexmoog@otenet.gr]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 4:11 AM
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tuning] Generalised Keyboards

As far as electronic keyboards go , I think that the best keyboard
scheme is the "fretless" keyboard.
And by fretless I mean the old Trautonium
(http://www.obsolete.com/120_years/machines/trautonium/index.html)
and its modern siblings (the Continuum fingerboard , and the yet to be
released , Doepfer Trautonium manual).
These instruments will be familiar to already trained pianists due to
the linear , horizontal disposition of the notes.
As for the objection that some will have : How can I play a xxET
without visual feedback?
I say that a tuning is good if only one can hear and sing the pitches
without an instrument.
I wish there was a similar solution for acoustic keyboards
So , what do you think?

--- In tuning@y..., Alexandros Papadopoulos <Alexmoog@o...> wrote:
> Where can one find a Janko keyboard???

One can't, yet. But there are similar options...

http://www.chromatic-keyboard.com/
http://www.starrlabs.com/keyboards.html

Snail mail to this fellow bounces...

http://www.electronic-mall.com/heavenbound/

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., Alexandros Papadopoulos <Alexmoog@o...> wrote:
>As far as electronic keyboards go, I think that the best keyboard
>scheme is the "fretless" keyboard.

I suspect that acurate independent control of the intonation
would just be too hard on top of the difficulty of playing
the keyboard.

>the yet to be released, Doepfer Trautonium manual

Cool news. Doepfer is a cool company.

There was also an attempt by John Allen, the Notebender...

http://www.bikexprt.com/music/notebend2.htm

...he says his prototype proved the concept workable. Notice
that his keys physically move in and out. This strikes me as
much better than a surface which maps to absolute pitch since:

() It's self-centering to 12-equal. This could be done
electronically (ie, consider the location of a figure on
the surface ground zero at each note on), but...

() It gives resistive mechanical feedback.

>I say that a tuning is good if only one can hear and sing the
>pitches without an instrument.

Again, I have to question this. With ear training, is not
the piano invaluable? I tend to think that before instruments
came along, human music was just a lot of chanting and wailing
and beating on drums. Just more of my assertion that
instruments school in some deep sense the music that comes out
of them.

>I wish there was a similar solution for acoustic keyboards

Well, the clavichord permits some mechanically-resistive pitch
bending that self-centers on 12-tone. But:

() The bend-control direction is the same as the note-on
direction, and the two interfere. Allen's Notebender keys
bend fore to aft.

() The decay of the clavichord is so rapid, one doesn't have
time to bend anything.

-Carl

[I wrote...]
> One can't, yet. But there are similar options...
>
> http://www.chromatic-keyboard.com/

As discussed before on this list, this keyboard uses
physically-tied 12-tone duplicates, which severely
restricts its microtonal use.

However, y'all should probably still get a kick out
of the video of it being played, which I've taken
the liberty of placing here:

http://lumma.org/stuff/01.ram

(RealVideo 2megs -- save to your local disk and then play.)

-Carl

hey Carl,

> From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@yahoo.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:52 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Generalised Keyboards
>
>
> [I wrote...]
> > One can't, yet. But there are similar options...
> >
> > http://www.chromatic-keyboard.com/
>
> As discussed before on this list, this keyboard uses
> physically-tied 12-tone duplicates, which severely
> restricts its microtonal use.
>
> However, y'all should probably still get a kick out
> of the video of it being played, which I've taken
> the liberty of placing here:
>
> http://lumma.org/stuff/01.ram
>
> (RealVideo 2megs -- save to your local disk and then play.)

this is a blast!

-monz

--- In tuning@y..., Alexandros Papadopoulos <Alexmoog@o...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_39385.html#39483

> As far as electronic keyboards go , I think that the best keyboard
> scheme is the "fretless" keyboard.
> And by fretless I mean the old Trautonium
> (http://www.obsolete.com/120_years/machines/trautonium/index.html)
> and its modern siblings (the Continuum fingerboard , and the yet to
be
> released , Doepfer Trautonium manual).

***Isn't the *Ondes Martinot* a bit like this, too?? I know there's
a wire going across. But it has *keys* too??

Anybody know how they work together??

Thanks!

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_39385.html#39500

> [I wrote...]
> > One can't, yet. But there are similar options...
> >
> > http://www.chromatic-keyboard.com/
>
> As discussed before on this list, this keyboard uses
> physically-tied 12-tone duplicates, which severely
> restricts its microtonal use.
>
> However, y'all should probably still get a kick out
> of the video of it being played, which I've taken
> the liberty of placing here:
>
> http://lumma.org/stuff/01.ram
>
> (RealVideo 2megs -- save to your local disk and then play.)
>
> -Carl

***Hey, everybody. Get a load of *this!* Don't miss it. (Would I
steer you wrong??)

He's also pretty good at playing "Whhhhooolle Tooonnne!"

J. Pehrson

> > http://lumma.org/stuff/01.ram
> >
> > (RealVideo 2megs -- save to your local disk and then play.)
> >
> > -Carl
>
>
> ***Hey, everybody. Get a load of *this!* Don't miss it. (Would I
> steer you wrong??)
>
> He's also pretty good at playing "Whhhhooolle Tooonnne!"

Yes, i'm usually annoyed by Japanese and other incorrect use and
pronunciation, but this example was horribly amusing. I'm not very
impressed by the keyboard though, maybe because it sounds almost
exactly like my first ever MIDI file...

/Ö

--- In tuning@y..., Mats Öljare <oljare@h...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_39385.html#39543

>
> > > http://lumma.org/stuff/01.ram
> > >
> > > (RealVideo 2megs -- save to your local disk and then play.)
> > >
> > > -Carl
> >
> >
> > ***Hey, everybody. Get a load of *this!* Don't miss it. (Would
I
> > steer you wrong??)
> >
> > He's also pretty good at playing "Whhhhooolle Tooonnne!"
>
> Yes, i'm usually annoyed by Japanese and other incorrect use and
> pronunciation, but this example was horribly amusing. I'm not very
> impressed by the keyboard though, maybe because it sounds almost
> exactly like my first ever MIDI file...
>
> /Ö

***Hi Mats!

Well, the *real* question, for some of us doubting skeptics, was
whether the sounds were really coming from that keyboard being
played, or it was overdubbed with somebody playing jazz on a
conventional *Halberstadt* MIDI keyboard... :)

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>>
> ***Hi Mats!
>
> Well, the *real* question, for some of us doubting skeptics, was
> whether the sounds were really coming from that keyboard being
> played, or it was overdubbed with somebody playing jazz on a
> conventional *Halberstadt* MIDI keyboard... :)
>
> J. Pehrson

***Actually, after looking at the video carefully again, I'm pretty
sure they actually *are* playing it... looking at the key/chord
structure and so forth. Lots of *parallel* jazz activity going on,
so that's not so hard...even on an unconventional keyboard...

JP

Gentlemen,

--- In tuning@y..., Mats Öljare <oljare@h...> wrote:
>
> > > http://lumma.org/stuff/01.ram
> I'm not very
> impressed by the keyboard though, maybe because it sounds almost
> exactly like my first ever MIDI file...

Yeah, well, it is even wierder than that: I decided to take a look/listen, =
and while charmed it was the last couple of seconds that caught my attention=
. Just as the gliss is starting down, I heard some very recognizable stab ch=
ords on a synth with rhythm section on the hits as well. I thought I knew, b=
ut I took out an old tape to make sure.

The end of the tune is the end of the last tune on the very first Chick Cor=
ea "Electrik" band (Corea/Pattitucci/Weckl) album/CD. It is a complete lift,=
not even a recreation, and they just noodled on the 'keyboard' over the ban=
d at that point. On the rest of the playing the fidelity and mix are such th=
at I can't tell much about the backing, but this much is clear: the end of t=
he piece is a complete rip-off/sample!!

If you want to compare, I put the final 25 seconds or so of the original up=
at the microtonal site:

http://www.microtonal.org/mp3/elek.mp3

Too much!

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_39385.html#39548

> Gentlemen,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Mats Öljare <oljare@h...> wrote:
> >
> > > > http://lumma.org/stuff/01.ram
> > I'm not very
> > impressed by the keyboard though, maybe because it sounds almost
> > exactly like my first ever MIDI file...
>
> Yeah, well, it is even wierder than that: I decided to take a
look/listen, =
> and while charmed it was the last couple of seconds that caught my
attention=
> . Just as the gliss is starting down, I heard some very
recognizable stab ch=
> ords on a synth with rhythm section on the hits as well. I thought
I knew, b=
> ut I took out an old tape to make sure.
>
> The end of the tune is the end of the last tune on the very first
Chick Cor=
> ea "Electrik" band (Corea/Pattitucci/Weckl) album/CD. It is a
complete lift,=
> not even a recreation, and they just noodled on the 'keyboard'
over the ban=
> d at that point. On the rest of the playing the fidelity and mix
are such th=
> at I can't tell much about the backing, but this much is clear: the
end of t=
> he piece is a complete rip-off/sample!!
>
> If you want to compare, I put the final 25 seconds or so of the
original up=
> at the microtonal site:
>
> http://www.microtonal.org/mp3/elek.mp3
>
> Too much!
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

***Great detective work, Jon! You get the microtonal Sherlock Holmes
award...

I'm sorry to see that my initial skepticism was confirmed...

Whoooolllle Toooonnnnne! So!

Joe