Keyboards and lock-in

In-Reply-To: <3773.194.203.13.66.1034238907.squirrel@email.argonet.co.uk>
Mark Gould wrote:

> I still think that we must work with what we have. We cannot re-educate
> genrations of pianists/keyboard players. Reality may be at fault, but I
> do
> not subscribe to utopian views.

You can't avoid reality, but call a spade a spade.

> But, we all use VHS,

I don't. I have some old tapes, but no player. I use DVD, which to me is
plainly superior.

VHS vs Betamax is the other example that fills the literature. The best
rebuttal I can find is this /. story:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/08/27/1610252&mode=nested&tid=137

sorry I can't do better, but I'm obviously not an expert.

> we nearly all use Microsoft,

And it's difficult to show that a competing product is plainly superior
using relevant criteria. The operating system itself is the most obvious.
And the courts have ruled that Windows gives Microsoft an uncompetitive
advantage. But they've also ruled that Microsoft used illegal tactics to
maintain their monopoly. So it goes beyond simple network effects.

Possibly BeOS had a clear advantage at one point, as another poster
suggested. It's the best advantage I can think of, but hey, what do I
know?

I can see many reasons why network affects are more important for computer
operating systems than musical instruments. Operating systems really are
useless without compatible software. Instruments are useless without
music, but it's much easier to adapt existing music than software. I
heard Stravinsky played on two accordions not long ago. A generalised
keyboard shouldn't be a problem. To port software to a new operating
system you first need to port the programming language. I don't see any
parallel with musical instruments.

There are network effects holding back new tunings. You really do need
new music before new instruments become useful. But plenty of us are
getting microtonal music to work with existing instruments -- which may be
what you're arguing for. There have been big advances in the past 50
years. If alternative tunings do offer a plainly superior way of making
music (and I wouldn't be here if I didn't think that) they should catch
on. Then the keyboards will have to adapt.

> we all use standard
> railway gauge,

Not everybody does. Russia and India for example, a few others from a
Google search. But no evidence that any other gauge is plainly superior.
Brunel thought trains could run faster along 7 foot (2134 mm) gauge.
Interestingly, even where broad gauge is in use today I can't find any
examples where it's *that* broad! Also nothing to say that rail journeys
were faster south of Gloucester before the GWR made the switch.

This beastie:

http://www.o-keating.com/hsr/ave.htm

runs on both standard and broad (1674 mm) gauge, and is considerably
faster on standard gauge.

http://microsoftgamesinsider.com/TrainSimulator/NewsAndFeatures/What_Makes
_Standard_Gauge_Standard.htm

says why broad gauge was plainly inferior in the early days:

"""
Most Maine and Colorado railroads opted for narrower 24" and 36" gauge for
economic reasons. Put simply, narrow-gauge tracks use less wood for ties,
which were one of the more expensive components at the time the lines were
built. Also, narrow-gauge equipment negotiates tighter curves like those
needed in the mountains of Colorado. In New Mexico and Colorado there are
still operating examples of the once-extensive Denver & Rio Grande Western
narrow gauge system.
"""

(24" is 610 mm, 36" is 914 mm. Standard gauge is 1435 mm.)

> and English is an awful language, yet it is slowly
> killing
> off languages around the world.

English has many features that make it easy to learn as a second language.
Most obvious that few words carry genders around with them.

> Todays pet econobabble doesn't erase the
> past.

Then can you provide a counter example?

> If nobody can play the great music then the great music will remain in
> the
> fringe. Even great music written in conventional ways with conventional
> instruments remains in the fringe.

We have machines now that can play anything you can describe. Nancarrow
wrote music for machines that most people thought was unplayable, until
other people started playing it.

Music you like may be on the fringe, but that's probably because you have
fringe tastes. Pretty much everything that even a fringe considers to be
great is getting performances and recordings these days. So if the
mainstream audience like it, it has every chance of joining the
mainstream. That assumes popular appeal is part of greatness, but I
didn't define it before. So there.

> My view is to write great music with instruments which can be adapted
> for
> the purpose, without disturbing too greatly the technique of the
> performer.
> Then, if these performers can then see how much easier it could be
> played
> on the 'new instruments', the new instruments will take off.

It's the "write great music" bit I'm having difficulty with now. If I can
write it, I can play it, or at least program it in. But I agree it's best
to decouple the music from the instruments.

> You just can't shove a generalised keyboard in front of my (ordinary -
> NB!)
> musician, and expect them to adjust. You've got to make them *want* to
> play
> the new keyboards, new instruments.

That's a clear example of Liebowitz's weak lock-in. Everybody knows it
exists, but it doesn't hold back plainly superior alternatives. Yes, they
won't play the new instruments if they don't want to. There are all kinds
of marginal instruments that attract first rate performers. Generalized
keyboards could do the same.

> There are some who are always willing to experiment, but these are in
> the
> minority. But at least the minority is growing.

Communications (cheap recording, electronic instruments, air freight, the
internet(!)) have improved to the point that minorities don't have to
worry about being minorities any more.

Graham