Modifying a Keyboard

Hi Folks!

Inspired by the Balanced Keyboard Website I just modified my Roland
PC-180A Keyboard Controller into a decatonic keyboard. It wasn't even
hard to do! I did some modification experiments about a year ago so I
knew it could be done. That inspiration came from Graham's website.

I didn't use the symmetric pattern of 5 black keys which you can see
on Paul's papers (TTTTTT and Forms of Tonality). Instead I arranged
the black keys into groups of 4 and 6 so I can play the Standard
Pentachordal Scales in the black keys. What do you think of this,
Paul? Would your arrangement be somehow better after all?

Kalle

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho <kalleaho@m...>"
<kalleaho@m...> wrote:
> Hi Folks!
>
> Inspired by the Balanced Keyboard Website I just modified my Roland
> PC-180A Keyboard Controller into a decatonic keyboard. It wasn't
even
> hard to do! I did some modification experiments about a year ago so
I
> knew it could be done. That inspiration came from Graham's website.
>
> I didn't use the symmetric pattern of 5 black keys which you can
see
> on Paul's papers (TTTTTT and Forms of Tonality). Instead I arranged
> the black keys into groups of 4 and 6 so I can play the Standard
> Pentachordal Scales in the black keys. What do you think of this,
> Paul? Would your arrangement be somehow better after all?
>
> Kalle

hi kalle,

do you mean that you literally rearranged the keys on your keyboard
in such a way? i'll assume you did . . .

i originally used the standard pentachordal scale to define
the "naturals". one of my first assignments was to work out the
entire set of key signatures. well, they look quite bizarre. i
encourage you to reproduce this work.

so i think the 5+5 arrangement is a lot easier to get around in,
since the key signatures form an intuitive, simple pattern. but the
different modulatory "biases" of the 4+6 arrangement might be
musically more fruitful for you. play around and let me know!

happy 22-toning,
paul

In a message dated 2/3/03 1:53:32 PM Central Standard Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> do you mean that you literally rearranged the keys on your keyboard
> in such a way? i'll assume you did . . .
>
It woudl be easier to play in JI/JT in some keys if there were a white # key
between E-F and B-C, providing the keyboard was built that way. To rearrange
the keys on an already-bult keyboard to do this would lengthen the octave.
And one would need another keyboard to supply all the notes needed. And would
need to paint some black ones white. If a keyboard were laid out and
originally built with seven narrow keys, all the keys would be evenly spaced.

With such a keyboard Db I, IV and V would be played on all black keys.
Lesser-used II would still have a white G key.

Pauline

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
>
> hi kalle,
>
> do you mean that you literally rearranged the keys on your keyboard
> in such a way? i'll assume you did . . .

Yes I did. The original arrangement of the keyboard had 49 keys so I
managed to get about two octaves of 22.

> i originally used the standard pentachordal scale to define
> the "naturals". one of my first assignments was to work out the
> entire set of key signatures. well, they look quite bizarre. i
> encourage you to reproduce this work.

That's very interesting. I'll look at this.

> so i think the 5+5 arrangement is a lot easier to get around in,
> since the key signatures form an intuitive, simple pattern. but the
> different modulatory "biases" of the 4+6 arrangement might be
> musically more fruitful for you. play around and let me know!

I'll do that!

Kalle

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:

> i originally used the standard pentachordal scale to define
> the "naturals". one of my first assignments was to work out the
> entire set of key signatures. well, they look quite bizarre. i
> encourage you to reproduce this work.

Well, I did this. What a headache! I understand now what you mean by
bizarre. :)

> so i think the 5+5 arrangement is a lot easier to get around in,
> since the key signatures form an intuitive, simple pattern. but the
> different modulatory "biases" of the 4+6 arrangement might be
> musically more fruitful for you. play around and let me know!

Maybe I should be a good decatonicist and switch to 5+5. I'm not sure
what you mean by these modulatory biases. Can you elaborate?

Kalle

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho <kalleaho@m...>"
<kalleaho@m...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
>
> > i originally used the standard pentachordal scale to define
> > the "naturals". one of my first assignments was to work out the
> > entire set of key signatures. well, they look quite bizarre. i
> > encourage you to reproduce this work.
>
> Well, I did this. What a headache! I understand now what you mean
by
> bizarre. :)

"bizarre" was actually the word that ramon satyendra, my advisor,
used for them in 1993.

> > so i think the 5+5 arrangement is a lot easier to get around in,
> > since the key signatures form an intuitive, simple pattern. but
the
> > different modulatory "biases" of the 4+6 arrangement might be
> > musically more fruitful for you. play around and let me know!
>
> Maybe I should be a good decatonicist and switch to 5+5. I'm not
sure
> what you mean by these modulatory biases. Can you elaborate?
>
> Kalle

well, since the pentachordal scale is based on the presence of two
identical 4:3-spanning cells, separated by either a 4:3 or a 3:2 in
each octave species, i'm guessing that basing your notation around it
will make it easier to conceptualize modulating by 4:3 and by 3:2,
but harder to conceptualize modulating by 2/22 oct. or 11/22
oct . . . .