Carlos keyboard in color

All;

I was reading wendycarlos.com, and it's really come a long
way since the early days. Lots of great material there.

Including an interview, in which it's mentioned that the
original color graphic of Ms. Carlos' keyboard from her
Computer Music Journal article is on the extended materials
section of the East Side Digital Beauty in the Beast cd.
For those of you who don't have the cd, I've gone ahead
and posted the image here...

http://lumma.org/tuning/carlos-keyboard.jpg

The old link (png file) has been REMOVED.

Here is the CMJ citation...

Wendy Carlos, "Tuning: at the crossroads",
*Computer Music Journal*, Spring 1987, pp. 29-43.

-Carl

From the interview:

>When you do your microtunings like on Beauty in the Beast, and you
>have perhaps 34 notes in an octave (when you do have an octave) what
>kind of keyboard would you use for that?
>
>Wendy: I've tried to build a fancy keyboard for that. Several times.
>You can see a perspective drawing of one if you look in Beauty in
>the Beast's enhanced CD files. Open up the article I wrote for
>Computer Music Journal called "Tuning at the Crossroads." I've tried
>to build one of these keyboards three times in my life. And I've
>never had the money and assistance to complete it. There are other
>versions, but they look unwieldy to me, like typewriter keys. I can't
>imagine using typewriter keys to perform music. Anyway, a generalized
>multiphonic keyboard is the way it should be done. Lacking that, I
>have to use the keyboards I have here, which means you use two or
>three of them, and tune them in various ways, mark them with stickers
>and try to remember what key will make what pitch. Perhaps middle C
>will be the only right-on pitch. All other keys on the various
>keyboards will be redefined. It might take three octaves of keyboard
>to make what you'd expect to be one octave.

-C.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> All;
>
> I was reading wendycarlos.com, and it's really come a long
> way since the early days. Lots of great material there.
>
> Including an interview, in which it's mentioned that the
> original color graphic of Ms. Carlos' keyboard from her
> Computer Music Journal article is on the extended materials
> section of the East Side Digital Beauty in the Beast cd.
> For those of you who don't have the cd, I've gone ahead
> and posted the image here...
>
> http://lumma.org/tuning/carlos-keyboard.jpg
>
> The old link (png file) has been REMOVED.
>
> Here is the CMJ citation...
>
> Wendy Carlos, "Tuning: at the crossroads",
> *Computer Music Journal*, Spring 1987, pp. 29-43.
>
> -Carl

The graphic depicts a "generalized keyboard" that is essentially the
same as the keyboard of the same name invented by R.H.M. Bosanquet
around 1875. Even the shape of the keys is very similar, the chief
difference being that Bosanquet rounded the key corners.

I believe that Erv Wilson's hexagonal key shape is a significant
improvement over both of these, because it uses space more
efficiently by providing a wider key surface without increasing the
octave distance.

On the Motorola Scalatron of the 1970s, the generalized keyboard had
elliptical keys which were a variation of Erv's design. Because
these keys were all in a single plane, a glissando could be executed
easily in any direction (unlike the Bosanquet and Carlos design).

--George

>The graphic depicts a "generalized keyboard" that is essentially
>the same as the keyboard of the same name invented by R.H.M.
>Bosanquet around 1875.

Yep. She says so in the article.

>Even the shape of the keys is very similar, the chief
>difference being that Bosanquet rounded the key corners.

I believe these keys are much smaller -- 1/2 x 1/2 x 1-3/4".
Also here there are no gaps anywhere in the surface. Bosanquet's
keys look like levers hung in an open space. So here one can
feel around without getting trapped under things.

>I believe that Erv Wilson's hexagonal key shape is a significant
>improvement over both of these, because it uses space more
>efficiently by providing a wider key surface without increasing
>the octave distance.

I don't see how this is true. Carlos' keyboard is still a
hexagonal tiling, it's just that the keys don't have pointed
ends.

While I've never played Carlos' keyboard and have *very* limited
experience with Wilson's, Michael Zarkey and I agree that the
ability to access a key over a range of positions closer or
farther from the player is a good thing. Such a property is
crucial to piano technique, anyway. Fingers aren't all the
same length.

Rectangular keys help here, since keys from adjacent ranks don't
cut keys from the current rank short. For example, on Carlos'
keybord...

http://lumma.org/tuning/carlos-keyboard.jpg

...we can play C-E-G with fingers 1-3-5, with our middle finger
in a more natural position, since D# and E# do not cut E short.

Maybe, however, Wilson's design suggests alternate fingerings.
I don't want to make the mistake of pushing piano technique on
a new keyboard.

>Because these keys were all in a single plane, a glissando could
>be executed easily in any direction (unlike the Bosanquet and
>Carlos design).

I'm at a loss to explain the emphasis on glissandi. The Starr
Labs keyboard has gone to extraordinary lengths here, incluing
reducing key travel to less than .008"! Glissandi are cool, but
they don't play that much of a role in my music.

I suspect the 3rd dimensiion helps with locating and moving
around the keyboard -- thoughts on that?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >The graphic depicts a "generalized keyboard" that is essentially
> >the same as the keyboard of the same name invented by R.H.M.
> >Bosanquet around 1875.
>
> Yep. She says so in the article.
>
> >Even the shape of the keys is very similar, the chief
> >difference being that Bosanquet rounded the key corners.
>
> I believe these keys are much smaller -- 1/2 x 1/2 x 1-3/4".

Measure the width of the black keys on a piano -- they're 1/2 inch,
about the same as on Bosanquet's keyboard. The portion of the white
keys between the black keys is also approximately the same width.

> Also here there are no gaps anywhere in the surface. Bosanquet's
> keys look like levers hung in an open space. So here one can
> feel around without getting trapped under things.

Okay.

> >I believe that Erv Wilson's hexagonal key shape is a significant
> >improvement over both of these, because it uses space more
> >efficiently by providing a wider key surface without increasing
> >the octave distance.
>
> I don't see how this is true. Carlos' keyboard is still a
> hexagonal tiling, it's just that the keys don't have pointed
> ends.

Adjacent Scalaton generalized keys are approximately 3/4-inch wide
(and slightly more than 7/8-inch apart, measuring laterally -- about
the same spacing as the white keys on a piano). This is about 3/2
the width of the Bosanquet and Carlos keys. They are also ~1.06
inches long in the y-axis direction, or about 2/3 the length of the
Carlos keys. So the surface area is comparable, but as I explain
below, the difficulty in utilizing all of that surface area is what
makes the Bosanquet and Carlos keyboard less efficient and thereby
more difficult to play.

> While I've never played Carlos' keyboard and have *very* limited
> experience with Wilson's, Michael Zarkey and I agree that the
> ability to access a key over a range of positions closer or
> farther from the player is a good thing. Such a property is
> crucial to piano technique, anyway. Fingers aren't all the
> same length.
>
> Rectangular keys help here, since keys from adjacent ranks don't
> cut keys from the current rank short. For example, on Carlos'
> keybord...
>
> http://lumma.org/tuning/carlos-keyboard.jpg
>
> ...we can play C-E-G with fingers 1-3-5, with our middle finger
> in a more natural position, since D# and E# do not cut E short.

Here's what Erv Wilson observed about why the Bosanquet (and thus
also the Carlos) designs do not use the space efficiently. Go to a
piano and play an E-flat major triad in root position (with either
hand). The 3rd finger depresses the narrowest part of the G key,
cramming it down in between the black keys. This is more difficult
than playing a C or E major triad on the piano, since using this
portion of the key requires the player to be extremely accurate in
the lateral finger placement so as not to press either black key by
accident. Erv realized that since 50% of the surface area of the
Bosanquet (and Carlos) keyboards is located between higher-level
adjacent keys, players would be likely to avoid using this difficult
portion whenever possible; for example, imagine where you would put
your thumb. Surface area that is not often used is wasted space.

Regardless of the shape of the keys, the technique required for
playing a two-dimensional keyboard involves making adjustments in the
curvature of the fingers in order to depress the desired keys, a
technique that has been used for many, many years by accordionists
who play button keyboards (for either or both the right and left
hands). It's a somewhat different technique from what pianists are
accustomed to, but it's not something radically new, just an
inevitable part of what's required to play a new, 2-dimensional
keyboard.

> Maybe, however, Wilson's design suggests alternate fingerings.
> I don't want to make the mistake of pushing piano technique on
> a new keyboard.

Alternate fingerings may involve crossing the thumb under to play the
middle note of a microtonal triad or, if the tuning permits, may
involve using duplicate keys that sound the same pitch. Either of
these alleviate the problem posed by shorter keys without having to
resort to using narrower keys.

> >Because these keys were all in a single plane, a glissando could
> >be executed easily in any direction (unlike the Bosanquet and
> >Carlos design).
>
> I'm at a loss to explain the emphasis on glissandi.

It's just an observation, not an emphasis.

> The Starr
> Labs keyboard has gone to extraordinary lengths here, incluing
> reducing key travel to less than .008"!

On the Scalatron generalized keyboard the glissando is simplified by
the fact that the keys were made with convex rather than flat
surfaces. The specific reason for doing this was that, upon
depressing a key, the player would be able to tell by the angle of
the portion of the key surface that is in contact with the finger
whether the finger is centered on the key or closer to one edge (and
approximately how close).

I elaborated on many of the details in an earlier posting:

/tuning/topicId_39323.html#39407

We put a lot of thought into that keyboard, and after having used it
for many years, I can't think of a single thing that we should have
done differently (except perhaps giving it a 6-octave range).

> Glissandi are cool, but
> they don't play that much of a role in my music.

Maybe that would change if you wrote something for the harp or the
bell tree. ;-) Some techniques are so natural for certain
instruments that they come to be regarded almost as defining
characteristics of those instruments. Perhaps glissandi are
infrequently employed in piano music because they are a bit rough on
the hands. A microtonal glissando just might be one of those
features that could popularize alternative-tuning synthesizers. (Who
knows what the commercial market might take a liking to?)

> I suspect the 3rd dimensiion helps with locating and moving
> around the keyboard -- thoughts on that?

The GK Scalatron keys are all in a single plane (another factor that
simplifies the glissando), and I have never felt that this presented
any problem with establishing one's orientation. The convex key
surfaces give a 3-dimensional feel that is more than adequate. If
you have any doubts, go the above link and read the part in my
message about my ability to find my way around on the instrument even
when it was completely covered by a bedsheet.

--George

Here's my very first posting to the tuning list:

/tuning/topicId_27128.html#27128

Paul replied that this is the design used by Vicentino and Fokker. Is
that correct? It still strikes me as being the way to go for this
sort of thing--is there an objection to it?

>>While I've never played Carlos' keyboard and have *very* limited
>>experience with Wilson's, Michael Zarkey and I agree that the
>>ability to access a key over a range of positions closer or
>>farther from the player is a good thing. Such a property is
>>crucial to piano technique, anyway. Fingers aren't all the
>>same length.
>>
>>Rectangular keys help here, since keys from adjacent ranks don't
>>cut keys from the current rank short. For example, on Carlos'
>>keybord...
>>
>>http://lumma.org/tuning/carlos-keyboard.jpg
>>
>>...we can play C-E-G with fingers 1-3-5, with our middle finger
>>in a more natural position, since D# and E# do not cut E short.
>
>Here's what Erv Wilson observed about why the Bosanquet (and thus
>also the Carlos) designs do not use the space efficiently. Go to a
>piano and play an E-flat major triad in root position (with either
>hand). The 3rd finger depresses the narrowest part of the G key,
>cramming it down in between the black keys. This is more difficult
>than playing a C or E major triad on the piano, since using this
>portion of the key requires the player to be extremely accurate in
>the lateral finger placement so as not to press either black key by
>accident. Erv realized that since 50% of the surface area of the
>Bosanquet (and Carlos) keyboards is located between higher-level
>adjacent keys, players would be likely to avoid using this difficult
>portion whenever possible;

There's room to make the keys wider than 1/2" if we want, without
the octaves exceeding the width of octaves on a piano. I'm not
convinced the the space between the keys isn't useful.

>for example, imagine where you would put your thumb.

My thumb's 'contact patch' is no wider than those of my other
fingers.

>Regardless of the shape of the keys, the technique required for
>playing a two-dimensional keyboard involves making adjustments in
>the curvature of the fingers in order to depress the desired keys,
>a technique that has been used for many, many years by
>accordionists who play button keyboards (for either or both the
>right and left hands).

Well, the demands of the left hand are very different. But RH
button-accordion technique interests me greatly!

I know we've discussed this before, but I can't find it now!
How do you finger C-Eb-G in root position on your keyboard?

>> Maybe, however, Wilson's design suggests alternate fingerings.
>> I don't want to make the mistake of pushing piano technique on
>> a new keyboard.
>
>Alternate fingerings may involve crossing the thumb under to play the
>middle note of a microtonal triad or, if the tuning permits, may
>involve using duplicate keys that sound the same pitch. Either of
>these alleviate the problem posed by shorter keys without having to
>resort to using narrower keys.

The Janko keyboard provides the best fingerings I've ever seen, but
it does this by way of duplicate pitches on different ranks, so
that the hand litterally fits into chords.

>> I'm at a loss to explain the emphasis on glissandi.
>
>It's just an observation, not an emphasis.

OTOH, Martin Braun might be interested!

>On the Scalatron generalized keyboard the glissando is simplified by
>the fact that the keys were made with convex rather than flat
>surfaces. The specific reason for doing this was that, upon
>depressing a key, the player would be able to tell by the angle of
>the portion of the key surface that is in contact with the finger
>whether the finger is centered on the key or closer to one edge (and
>approximately how close).

Nice.

>I elaborated on many of the details in an earlier posting:
>
>/tuning/topicId_39323.html#39407
>
>We put a lot of thought into that keyboard, and after having used
>it for many years, I can't think of a single thing that we should
>have done differently (except perhaps giving it a 6-octave range).

Wait, I've got one: You Shouldn't Have Stopped Making It!

>> I suspect the 3rd dimensiion helps with locating and moving
>> around the keyboard -- thoughts on that?
>
>The GK Scalatron keys are all in a single plane (another factor that
>simplifies the glissando), and I have never felt that this presented
>any problem with establishing one's orientation. The convex key
>surfaces give a 3-dimensional feel that is more than adequate. If
>you have any doubts, go the above link and read the part in my
>message about my ability to find my way around on the instrument
>even when it was completely covered by a bedsheet.

With your hands on top of, or underneath the sheet?

Thanks for the pointer to the above post.

Are you and Kraig playing a gig somewhere in the near future?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> Here's my very first posting to the tuning list:
>
> /tuning/topicId_27128.html#27128
>
> Paul replied that this is the design used by Vicentino and Fokker.

no, i mentioned them in reference to the tuning, and for their own
variations on the keyboard design theme.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> Here's my very first posting to the tuning list:
>
> /tuning/topicId_27128.html#27128
>
> Paul replied that this is the design used by Vicentino and Fokker.
Is
> that correct?

This description, which is excerpted from your message, is similar to
Vicentino's keyboard:

<< Suppose we had something like an ordinary keyboard, only with
three
rows of white keys and two rows of black keys. The tuning would be
1/4 comma mean tone, so that for instance B# major is not the same as
C major. ... >>

The Fokker keyboard is different in that the pitch ascends by a major
second (5 degrees of 31-ET) moving rightward along any row of keys,
with all keys being the same size and shape so that they may be
arranged in a two-dimensional grid. You would encounter an upper
octave of your starting tone only after moving rightward (or
leftward) 31 keys. Keys for tones an octave apart are therefore in
different rows (the upper octave being two rows farther from the
player). The great advantage is that intervals are played using
vector-like patterns that are alike in all keys.

> It still strikes me as being the way to go for this
> sort of thing--is there an objection to it?

It's fine if you like to spend a lot of time practicing your scales
and chords. Conventional pianists learn to play major scales 24
different ways (12 ways with each hand, once for each of 12 keys),
likewise for each minor scale (harmonic & melodic versions) and for
each inversion of each chord. With the Fokker keyboard you need to
learn each scale or chord only twice (once for each hand) to be able
to play it in 31 different keys. The keyboard also permits a player
to transpose music at sight with ease.

The Bosanquet generalized keyboard is similar to the Fokker keyboard
in that it also has homogeneous fingering patterns and tones rising
by major seconds in its lateral rows. Apart from the size and shape
of the keys, it differs from the Fokker keyboard in three important
ways:

1) The rows are arranged in reverse order, so that the octave of any
key is located two rows closer to the player.

2) The rows are slanted (rising to the right) so that any two keys
an octave apart are laterally aligned.

3) It was designed for (and implemented) on instruments with
multiple-tuning capability (even in 1875!), whereas the Fokker
keyboard was intended only for 31-ET. It will accommodate any tuning
in which the tones may be arranged in a single sequence or circle of
fifths, which would include the meantone temperament (or any of its
variants).

This is a diagram of the Bosanquet geometry as it was used on the
Scalatron (here labeled for 31-ET):

/tuning-
math/files/secor/kbds/KBScal31.gif

The naturals and sharps resemble a conventional 7-white-5-black
arrangement. The flats are red.

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:

> << Suppose we had something like an ordinary keyboard, only with
> three
> rows of white keys and two rows of black keys. The tuning would be
> 1/4 comma mean tone, so that for instance B# major is not the same
as
> C major. ... >>
>
> The Fokker keyboard is different in that the pitch ascends by a
major
> second (5 degrees of 31-ET) moving rightward along any row of keys,
> with all keys being the same size and shape so that they may be
> arranged in a two-dimensional grid.

Which is very logical, and the kind of thing one tends to think of
first, but I wonder how easy it is for a keyboardist to relearn what
needs to be relearned.

> > It still strikes me as being the way to go for this
> > sort of thing--is there an objection to it?
>
> It's fine if you like to spend a lot of time practicing your scales
> and chords.

My idea was to make things as much like the usual 7+5 arrangement as
possible, so that keyboard learning would be most easily transferred;
it seems to me a 7+5+7+5+7 layout should be relatively easy to
transfer learning to.

Conventional pianists learn to play major scales 24
> different ways (12 ways with each hand, once for each of 12 keys),
> likewise for each minor scale (harmonic & melodic versions) and for
> each inversion of each chord.

But they *do* learn. We are faced with the question of whether it is
better to adapt their learning, or toss it out and start over.

>But they *do* learn. We are faced with the question of whether it
>is better to adapt their learning, or toss it out and start over.

Gene,

Why don't you draw a picture of what you have in mind?

For now, I don't suspect you can support scales like 31-tET and
break less learning than Carlos/Wilson do.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >But they *do* learn. We are faced with the question of whether it
> >is better to adapt their learning, or toss it out and start over.
>
> Gene,
>
> Why don't you draw a picture of what you have in mind?

I don't really know how to draw a picture; I just now tried to draw
an octave of a standard keyboard and utterly failed. Isn't my
description clear?

> For now, I don't suspect you can support scales like 31-tET and
> break less learning than Carlos/Wilson do.

What is the basis for your suspicion? It seems to me I am obviously
closer to what people are used to, and that makes a strong _a priori_
case that my keyboard layout would break less learning.

>I don't really know how to draw a picture; I just now tried to
>draw an octave of a standard keyboard and utterly failed. Isn't
>my description clear?

Unfortunately not.

>Suppose we had something like an ordinary keyboard, only with
>three rows of white keys and two rows of black keys.

Where are the rows? How do you play chords that span them?

>> For now, I don't suspect you can support scales like 31-tET and
>> break less learning than Carlos/Wilson do.
>
>What is the basis for your suspicion? It seems to me I am obviously
>closer to what people are used to, and that makes a strong _a priori_
>case that my keyboard layout would break less learning.

Learning doesn't work like that, at least not motor learning.
If the change is too small the new skill can compete for the same
resources as the old skill, even to the point of extinction. For
example, I lost my ability to type QWERTY when I switched to Dvorak.
And it took me longer to learn Dvorak than it did QWERTY, despite
the fact that total beginners learn Dvorak faster.

Meanwhile, if you look at lumma.org/tuning/carlos-keyboard.jpg, you
should see that the 7-5 pattern is preserved, and in fact from your
description above this could very well be a picture your keyboard.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> >Suppose we had something like an ordinary keyboard, only with
> >three rows of white keys and two rows of black keys.
>
> Where are the rows? How do you play chords that span them?

Where are the rows in a standard keyboard? There are two, five black
keys above and between seven white keys in each octave. How do you
play chords? With your fingers. I'm not sure what you are asking here.

The answers are similar for my design. We have seven white keys,
above and between which are five black keys. Directly above the seven
white keys are seven more white keys, and directly above the five
black keys are five more black keys. We top it off with seven more
white keys directly above the two previous sets of white keys.

> Learning doesn't work like that, at least not motor learning.
> If the change is too small the new skill can compete for the same
> resources as the old skill, even to the point of extinction. For
> example, I lost my ability to type QWERTY when I switched to Dvorak.
> And it took me longer to learn Dvorak than it did QWERTY, despite
> the fact that total beginners learn Dvorak faster.

I'm not talking about so major a change as Qwerty to Dvorak; I'm
talking about a change small enough to make the learning
transferrence feasible--or so I hope. Obviously, it would not be with
Dvorak/Qwerty, so this is not an apt comparison.

> Meanwhile, if you look at lumma.org/tuning/carlos-keyboard.jpg, you
> should see that the 7-5 pattern is preserved, and in fact from your
> description above this could very well be a picture your keyboard.

I don't see how. I'm not talking about a 3d keyboard, and to the
extent I can make any sense out of the picture without getting out a
magnifying glass, it doesn't seem similar.

on 8/7/03 10:47 PM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
>>> Suppose we had something like an ordinary keyboard, only with
>>> three rows of white keys and two rows of black keys.
>>
>> Where are the rows? How do you play chords that span them?
>
> Where are the rows in a standard keyboard? There are two, five black
> keys above and between seven white keys in each octave. How do you
> play chords? With your fingers. I'm not sure what you are asking here.

What about chords that span more than 2 rows?

> The answers are similar for my design. We have seven white keys,
> above and between which are five black keys. Directly above the seven
> white keys are seven more white keys, and directly above the five
> black keys are five more black keys. We top it off with seven more
> white keys directly above the two previous sets of white keys.

Is this almost like 2 keyboards, very close and set back from each other,
like on an organ, but particularly like on a hammond with no overhang?

-Kurt

>
> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
>
> My idea was to make things as much like the usual 7+5 arrangement as
> possible, so that keyboard learning would be most easily transferred;
> it seems to me a 7+5+7+5+7 layout should be relatively easy to
> transfer learning to.

see page 3 of http://www.anaphoria.com/Patent2.PDF

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:

> I don't see how. I'm not talking about a 3d keyboard, and to the
> extent I can make any sense out of the picture without getting out
a
> magnifying glass, it doesn't seem similar.

perhaps the fokker keyboard, though essentially the same, is
clearer, due to its coloring. it would be incredibly easy to learn
for an already-trained keyboardist, since the fingering pattern for
any major scale is not going to be unfamiliar, the keying pattern is
just a little offset from the familiar c major or b major, and is of
course the same for every key. however, i see gene's proposal as
perfectly valid too, and if i'm not mistaken it's similar to the
31-tone keyboard mozart supposedly got to try out once. both systems
will cause the greatest unfamiliarity in the fact that the black
keys *above* the whites, which used to function as both sharps *and*
flats, can now fulfill only one of those roles.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:

> > Where are the rows in a standard keyboard? There are two, five
black
> > keys above and between seven white keys in each octave. How do you
> > play chords? With your fingers. I'm not sure what you are asking
here.
>
> What about chords that span more than 2 rows?

Making the keys smaller should help.

> > The answers are similar for my design. We have seven white keys,
> > above and between which are five black keys. Directly above the
seven
> > white keys are seven more white keys, and directly above the five
> > black keys are five more black keys. We top it off with seven more
> > white keys directly above the two previous sets of white keys.
>
> Is this almost like 2 keyboards, very close and set back from each
other,
> like on an organ, but particularly like on a hammond with no
overhang?

More like two keyboards, plus an extra row of white keys, laid out
flat. Another way to say it would be that the white keys are split in
three, and the black keys in two.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> >
> > From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> >
> > My idea was to make things as much like the usual 7+5 arrangement
as
> > possible, so that keyboard learning would be most easily
transferred;
> > it seems to me a 7+5+7+5+7 layout should be relatively easy to
> > transfer learning to.
>
> see page 3 of http://www.anaphoria.com/Patent2.PDF

This is my proposal, except I put the D double flat on top and the B
sharp on bottom. I hope Erv did not patent the keyboard as such, or
if he did he had a good reason such preventing anyone else from
mucking things up.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> This is my proposal, except I put the D double flat on top and the
B
> sharp on bottom. I hope Erv did not patent the keyboard as such, or
> if he did he had a good reason such preventing anyone else from
> mucking things up.

I checked and Erv did patent the keyboard concept, which I find
deplorable unless he had a good reason for doing so. However, the
patent seems to be expired by now, which could actually be helpful.

>How do you play chords? With your fingers. I'm not sure what you
>are asking here.

What are some fingerings for common chords/voicings?

>The answers are similar for my design. We have seven white keys,
>above and between which are five black keys. Directly above the seven
>white keys are seven more white keys, and directly above the five
>black keys are five more black keys. We top it off with seven more
>white keys directly above the two previous sets of white keys.

Will all the keys still be standard length? If so, reaching
certain things might be difficult.

>> Learning doesn't work like that, at least not motor learning.
>> If the change is too small the new skill can compete for the same
>> resources as the old skill, even to the point of extinction. For
>> example, I lost my ability to type QWERTY when I switched to Dvorak.
>> And it took me longer to learn Dvorak than it did QWERTY, despite
>> the fact that total beginners learn Dvorak faster.
>
>I'm not talking about so major a change as Qwerty to Dvorak; I'm
>talking about a change small enough to make the learning
>transferrence feasible--or so I hope. Obviously, it would not be with
>Dvorak/Qwerty, so this is not an apt comparison.

How is it "obvious"?

>> Meanwhile, if you look at lumma.org/tuning/carlos-keyboard.jpg, you
>> should see that the 7-5 pattern is preserved, and in fact from your
>> description above this could very well be a picture your keyboard.
>
>I don't see how. I'm not talking about a 3d keyboard, and to the
>extent I can make any sense out of the picture without getting out a
>magnifying glass, it doesn't seem similar.

When's the last time you upgraded your prescription? Can you find
the 7-5 pattern? It's the same as your keyboard, except things are
a little more interleaved. It isn't obvious to me which way is
better, without seeing a picture of your keyboard.

In fact the investment to test such a question (maybe into several
generations) is usually far greater than the difference between
any one of them, once the technique is established.

-Carl

>More like two keyboards, plus an extra row of white keys, laid out
>flat. Another way to say it would be that the white keys are split in
>three, and the black keys in two.

Laid out flat? So by "directly above" you meant "directly behind"?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >More like two keyboards, plus an extra row of white keys, laid out
> >flat. Another way to say it would be that the white keys are split
in
> >three, and the black keys in two.
>
> Laid out flat? So by "directly above" you meant "directly behind"?

Right.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> When's the last time you upgraded your prescription?

Long time no see.

Can you find
> the 7-5 pattern? It's the same as your keyboard, except things are
> a little more interleaved. It isn't obvious to me which way is
> better, without seeing a picture of your keyboard.

Try the picture in the pdf Kraig posted.

>> see page 3 of http://www.anaphoria.com/Patent2.PDF
>
>This is my proposal, except I put the D double flat on top and
>the B sharp on bottom.

Really? You want the blacks all by themselves? This is supposed
to be more similar to the Halberstadt than Carlos' design??

This might be suitable for a metallophone, but I don't see how it
can be taken seriously as a keyboard design. I wonder if Erv had
found Bosanquet by this point...

-Carl

hello Carl!
At that point, even though a keyboard was what he wanted, metallophones were what was being built aand being
played .Emil was playing on alot of these at the time.
Page 4 does have a design

>
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 02:33:03 -0700
> From: Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>
> Subject: Re: Re: Meantone keyboards
>
>
>
> This might be suitable for a metallophone, but I don't see how it
> can be taken seriously as a keyboard design. I wonder if Erv had
> found Bosanquet by this point...
>
> -Carl
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >>While I've never played Carlos' keyboard and have *very* limited
> >>experience with Wilson's, Michael Zarkey and I agree that the
> >>ability to access a key over a range of positions closer or
> >>farther from the player is a good thing. Such a property is
> >>crucial to piano technique, anyway. Fingers aren't all the
> >>same length.
> >>
> >>Rectangular keys help here, since keys from adjacent ranks don't
> >>cut keys from the current rank short. For example, on Carlos'
> >>keybord...
> >>
> >>http://lumma.org/tuning/carlos-keyboard.jpg
> >>
> >>...we can play C-E-G with fingers 1-3-5, with our middle finger
> >>in a more natural position, since D# and E# do not cut E short.
> >
> >Here's what Erv Wilson observed about why the Bosanquet (and thus
> >also the Carlos) designs do not use the space efficiently. Go to
a
> >piano and play an E-flat major triad in root position (with either
> >hand). The 3rd finger depresses the narrowest part of the G key,
> >cramming it down in between the black keys. This is more
difficult
> >than playing a C or E major triad on the piano, since using this
> >portion of the key requires the player to be extremely accurate in
> >the lateral finger placement so as not to press either black key
by
> >accident. Erv realized that since 50% of the surface area of the
> >Bosanquet (and Carlos) keyboards is located between higher-level
> >adjacent keys, players would be likely to avoid using this
difficult
> >portion whenever possible;
>
> There's room to make the keys wider than 1/2" if we want, without
> the octaves exceeding the width of octaves on a piano.

But only if you use something like Erv Wilson's hexagons and then
either:
1) Make the keys shorter along the Y-axis (as Erv did); or
2) Retain the ~1.5-inch key length, which both increases the key size
(desirable) and elongates the keyboard in the Y-direction
(undesirable, since it increases the center-to-center distance
between keys in that direction).

But if you think otherwise, you'll have to make a drawing to convince
me.

> I'm not
> convinced the the space between the keys isn't useful.
>
> >for example, imagine where you would put your thumb.
>
> My thumb's 'contact patch' is no wider than those of my other
> fingers.

But on a 2-dimensional keyboard you would have to be careful to
orient your thumb at the proper angle to get between those keys.
I've always found it inconvenient to get my fingers between the black
keys. My 2nd and 3rd fingers are about 20 mm wide at the base of
the fingernail, which is a bit more than 1/2-inch, so I'm quite happy
that squeezing between keys is eliminated on the GK Scalatron
keyboard.

> >Regardless of the shape of the keys, the technique required for
> >playing a two-dimensional keyboard involves making adjustments in
> >the curvature of the fingers in order to depress the desired keys,
> >a technique that has been used for many, many years by
> >accordionists who play button keyboards (for either or both the
> >right and left hands).
>
> Well, the demands of the left hand are very different.

Yes, the buttons are very close together, and it takes more practice
to play fast passages cleanly than for the right hand (unless the
latter has passages that involve squeezing between black keys). One
thing that helps considerably (particularly with my free-bass
Moschino-system instrument) is that the fingering patterns are the
same in every key, which greatly reduces the amount of practice over
what would be required with a heterogeneous arrangement of buttons.
(Gene, take note!)

If I seem to be contradicting myself by advocating a left-hand button
system that involves squeezing my fingers between the buttons, let me
quickly point out that this is only because I know of no good
alternative. In a situation where it is not practical to use the
thumb (due to the position of the hand imposed by the wrist strap),
small buttons are the only way to keep everything reasonably within
reach.

> But RH
> button-accordion technique interests me greatly!
>
> I know we've discussed this before, but I can't find it now!
> How do you finger C-Eb-G in root position on your keyboard?

Same fingers as C-E-G, except that the middle finger is bent more.
But perhaps this is not what you were thinking of; see this message,
where I describe how to play a major triad in a schismic temperament:

/tuning/topicId_39323.html#39446

> >> Maybe, however, Wilson's design suggests alternate fingerings.
> >> I don't want to make the mistake of pushing piano technique on
> >> a new keyboard.
> >
> >Alternate fingerings may involve crossing the thumb under to play
the
> >middle note of a microtonal triad or, if the tuning permits, may
> >involve using duplicate keys that sound the same pitch. Either of
> >these alleviate the problem posed by shorter keys without having
to
> >resort to using narrower keys.
>
> The Janko keyboard provides the best fingerings I've ever seen, but
> it does this by way of duplicate pitches on different ranks, so
> that the hand litterally fits into chords.

On the GK Scalatron, 12, 17, and 19-tone tunings are every bit as
good as what you describe, because the duplicate keys are within easy
reach. A 22-tone tuning is a little more complicated, but only
because the tonal relationships are so different, but the key
locations for 5-limit triads in 22 happen to be very thumb-friendly.

> >> I'm at a loss to explain the emphasis on glissandi.
> >
> >It's just an observation, not an emphasis.
>
> OTOH, Martin Braun might be interested!
>
> >On the Scalatron generalized keyboard the glissando is simplified
by
> >the fact that the keys were made with convex rather than flat
> >surfaces. The specific reason for doing this was that, upon
> >depressing a key, the player would be able to tell by the angle of
> >the portion of the key surface that is in contact with the finger
> >whether the finger is centered on the key or closer to one edge
(and
> >approximately how close).
>
> Nice.
>
> >I elaborated on many of the details in an earlier posting:
> >
> >/tuning/topicId_39323.html#39407
> >
> >We put a lot of thought into that keyboard, and after having used
> >it for many years, I can't think of a single thing that we should
> >have done differently (except perhaps giving it a 6-octave range).
>
> Wait, I've got one: You Shouldn't Have Stopped Making It!

Unfortunately, I didn't have any say in the decision. :-(

> >> I suspect the 3rd dimensiion helps with locating and moving
> >> around the keyboard -- thoughts on that?
> >
> >The GK Scalatron keys are all in a single plane (another factor
that
> >simplifies the glissando), and I have never felt that this
presented
> >any problem with establishing one's orientation. The convex key
> >surfaces give a 3-dimensional feel that is more than adequate. If
> >you have any doubts, go the above link and read the part in my
> >message about my ability to find my way around on the instrument
> >even when it was completely covered by a bedsheet.
>
> With your hands on top of, or underneath the sheet?

On top. It's possible to feel the convex surfaces and the touch
coding on the black and red keys (sharps and flats) even through the
sheet.

> Thanks for the pointer to the above post.
>
> Are you and Kraig playing a gig somewhere in the near future?

Not very likely. Kraig lives on the other side of the river (the
Mississippi, that is), so I haven't seen him for at least 15 years.

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> wrote:
>
> > << Suppose we had something like an ordinary keyboard, only with
three
> > rows of white keys and two rows of black keys. The tuning would
be
> > 1/4 comma mean tone, so that for instance B# major is not the
same as
> > C major. ... >>
> >
> > The Fokker keyboard is different in that the pitch ascends by a
major
> > second (5 degrees of 31-ET) moving rightward along any row of
keys,
> > with all keys being the same size and shape so that they may be
> > arranged in a two-dimensional grid.
>
> Which is very logical, and the kind of thing one tends to think of
> first, but I wonder how easy it is for a keyboardist to relearn
what
> needs to be relearned.

In learning the Scalatron GK keyboard, the only significant problem I
had involved breaking the habit of using the sharp keys (in the next
farther row) to play flats, but this is something that one has to
deal with on any keyboard that has separate keys for sharps and
flats. Everything else seemed easy enough.

> > > It still strikes me as being the way to go for this
> > > sort of thing--is there an objection to it?
> >
> > It's fine if you like to spend a lot of time practicing your
scales
> > and chords.
>
> My idea was to make things as much like the usual 7+5 arrangement
as
> possible, so that keyboard learning would be most easily
transferred;
> it seems to me a 7+5+7+5+7 layout should be relatively easy to
> transfer learning to.

If the usual 7+5 arrangement is all that great, then why have there
been proposals such as the Janko keyboard?

> Conventional pianists learn to play major scales 24
> > different ways (12 ways with each hand, once for each of 12
keys),
> > likewise for each minor scale (harmonic & melodic versions) and
for
> > each inversion of each chord.
>
> But they *do* learn. We are faced with the question of whether it
is
> better to adapt their learning, or toss it out and start over.

With your proposal players are still going to have to relearn a whole
bunch of scales and chords that they already use, because of the
separate keys for sharps and flats. And whenever they move back and
forth between your proposed keyboard idea and the conventional
keyboard, they are going to have to switch between new and old
fingering habits. I think that this might be more difficult if the
keyboards are too much alike, and I know from firsthand experience
that having a new keyboard with new key shapes and dimensions
effectively keeps this problem from occurring.

To rephrase something I learned in school, "When in doubt, toss it
out!" (Also works when housecleaning. :-)

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
> perhaps the fokker keyboard, though essentially the same, is
> clearer, due to its coloring. it would be incredibly easy to learn
> for an already-trained keyboardist, since the fingering pattern for
> any major scale is not going to be unfamiliar, the keying pattern
is
> just a little offset from the familiar c major or b major, and is
of
> course the same for every key.

You bring up an point that is also significant when one considers the
order of the rows in the Fokker (flats farther away from the player)
vs. the Bosanquet (right-rising, sharps farther away) keyboards. If
you compare these, you will discover that the finger sequence for
major scales for the Fokker keyboard is less similar to the sequence
for the conventional keyboard -- Fokker requires the thumbs on the
3rd and 7th scale degrees (for either hand), whereas Bosanquet has
the thumbs on the 1st and 4th degrees. (And the Janko keyboard would
have them on the 4th and 7th degrees.) So if we consider it
desirable to retain conventional fingering patterns as much as
possible in a new keyboard, I think that the choice is pretty obvious.

> however, i see gene's proposal as
> perfectly valid too, and if i'm not mistaken it's similar to the
> 31-tone keyboard mozart supposedly got to try out once. both
systems
> will cause the greatest unfamiliarity in the fact that the black
> keys *above* the whites, which used to function as both sharps
*and*
> flats, can now fulfill only one of those roles.

Yes, as I also indicated in my response to Gene. And since the
player is going to have to relearn either the sharp or flat scale
fingerings anyway, wouldn't it be easier if all of the new fingerings
were alike?

--George

>> There's room to make the keys wider than 1/2" if we want, without
>> the octaves exceeding the width of octaves on a piano.
>
>But only if you use something like Erv Wilson's hexagons and then
>either:
>1) Make the keys shorter along the Y-axis (as Erv did); or
>2) Retain the ~1.5-inch key length, which both increases the key size
>(desirable) and elongates the keyboard in the Y-direction
>(undesirable, since it increases the center-to-center distance
>between keys in that direction).
>
>But if you think otherwise, you'll have to make a drawing to convince
>me.

Sorry, on Carlos' keyboard there are 12 rows to an octave. At 1/2"
each, octaves are 6" = only 1/2" shorter than on my piano. So I was
wrong, there isn't room to make the keys wider. But I don't follow
what you wrote there.

>> My thumb's 'contact patch' is no wider than those of my other
>> fingers.
>
>But on a 2-dimensional keyboard you would have to be careful to
>orient your thumb at the proper angle to get between those keys.

Ah, right, I keep thinking piano. Looks like a 'ulnar deviation'
coming my way (ouch!).

>I've always found it inconvenient to get my fingers between the black
>keys.

I got over this in my first year of playing, but I have small hands.

>> I know we've discussed this before, but I can't find it now!
>> How do you finger C-Eb-G in root position on your keyboard?
>
>Same fingers as C-E-G, except that the middle finger is bent more.
>But perhaps this is not what you were thinking of; see this message,
>where I describe how to play a major triad in a schismic temperament:
>
>/tuning/topicId_39323.html#39446

K.

>> Thanks for the pointer to the above post.
>>
>> Are you and Kraig playing a gig somewhere in the near future?
>
>Not very likely. Kraig lives on the other side of the river (the
>Mississippi, that is), so I haven't seen him for at least 15 years.

Where you at? Are you playing any gigs at all? Making recordings?

-Carl

>With your proposal players are still going to have to relearn a whole
>bunch of scales and chords that they already use, because of the
>separate keys for sharps and flats. And whenever they move back and
>forth between your proposed keyboard idea and the conventional
>keyboard, they are going to have to switch between new and old
>fingering habits. I think that this might be more difficult if the
>keyboards are too much alike, and I know from firsthand experience
>that having a new keyboard with new key shapes and dimensions
>effectively keeps this problem from occurring.

If I understood Gene correctly, his design is much farther from the
standard keyboard than anything we're talking about, and indeed
seems much harder to play even in 12 than the standard keyboard!

-Carl

A more conventional, but more limited technique, is to use a regular
keyboard with a rocker control pedal. Load at least 12 meantone
style scales (in 31tet) into presets, with the chain of fifths
starting from some extreme such as Cx through A, and going from
there, loading the next most similar scale, such as Fx-D, then B#-G,
E#-C, A#-F, D#-Bb, G#-Eb, C#-Ab, F#-Db, B-Gb, E-Cb, A-Fb, etc. That
should be enough for some purposes, but people have invented names
enough for 31.

Divide the range of the midi controller pedal into enough segments,
and use it to shift across the range of your preset scales. A
movement from one segment to another retunes a single step of the
scale by the 31st root of 2, in a cycle of fifths. You probably
need a visual readout to know which one you're on. Or program a
midi pedalboard to do the same, with discrete control. Then change
C# to Db at will, as long as you've already changed G# to Ab.

This is more limited than a generalized keyboard, because you only
have 12 tones at a time, and always in the meantone paradigm. So
you can't do a stack of two augmented seconds (e.g., Bb-C#-Dx), or a
single increment of 31tet, or a variety of other nonsense. However,
such a solution may have satisfied Vicentino's intended customers,
who were mostly interested in modulating in an orderly fashion while
retaining the virtues of meantone. I think that's what they
wanted, and I think they failed because of technical limitations
(despite their craftmanship), and performance difficulties (despite
their virtuosity). But since split accidentals were so consistently
popular, we might have been able to sell a pedal scale-shifting
mechanism adapted to the old meantone keyboard.

However, I understand that 31tet is bigger than meantone, and has
its own literature. I am too old to learn another keyboard. If I
were 20, I'd try to play Lippold Haken's Continuum Fingerboard, a
non discrete solution. I would sew threads on the surface so I
could feel the steps of 31-equal. The handshapes are kind of sort
of reminiscent of playing in F# on the black keys. I confess to an
opinion that a small uncertainty of intonation is an important
attention getter in music. The listeners are engaged to help the
performer or singer, since they know where the notes should go as
well. Compare Asian string instruments with their deep frets and
bridges, developed in a partnership with the languages, where
intonation is phonemic. As a keyboardist, I love listening to the
clavichord, where intonation depends subtly on finger pressure.

PS: I've been trying to make a link to my vanity page "Bach
Retuned", but don't know how to underline it, make it a link in the
on line message editor. Any help?

www.dslnorthwest.net/~jolliff

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> see page 3 of http://www.anaphoria.com/Patent2.PDF
> >
> >This is my proposal, except I put the D double flat on top and
> >the B sharp on bottom.
>
> Really? You want the blacks all by themselves?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

This is supposed
> to be more similar to the Halberstadt than Carlos' design??

Of course it is.

>>>This is my proposal, except I put the D double flat on top
>>>and the B sharp on bottom.
>>
>> Really? You want the blacks all by themselves?
>
>I have no idea what you are talking about.

In Wilson's diagram on pg. 3 the blacks are in their own rows,
not on top of any whites.

>> This is supposed to be more similar to the Halberstadt than
>> Carlos' design??
>
>Of course it is.

Either I'm not tracking you, or you need to go back to square
one and try again.

-Carl

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

> > My idea was to make things as much like the usual 7+5 arrangement
> as
> > possible, so that keyboard learning would be most easily
> transferred;
> > it seems to me a 7+5+7+5+7 layout should be relatively easy to
> > transfer learning to.
>
> If the usual 7+5 arrangement is all that great, then why have there
> been proposals such as the Janko keyboard?

The point isn't whether it is great or not. It's what we use, and a
keyboard with something of the same look and feel should make it
easier for a trained keyboardist to learn. Besides, you might be able
to build one cheaply by stacking three Halberstats on top of each
other (or two, for 19 tone) and making the obvious duplicate keys.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> If I understood Gene correctly...

I don't think you do. How would you describe my proposal?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >>>This is my proposal, except I put the D double flat on top
> >>>and the B sharp on bottom.
> >>
> >> Really? You want the blacks all by themselves?
> >
> >I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> In Wilson's diagram on pg. 3 the blacks are in their own rows,
> not on top of any whites.

That's Wilson's proposal, not mine.

> >> This is supposed to be more similar to the Halberstadt than
> >> Carlos' design??
> >
> >Of course it is.
>
> Either I'm not tracking you, or you need to go back to square
> one and try again.

I don't know what to do other than to describe it, and I've done that.

on 8/8/03 1:52 PM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>>>>> This is my proposal, except I put the D double flat on top
>>>>> and the B sharp on bottom.
>>>>
>>>> Really? You want the blacks all by themselves?
>>>
>>> I have no idea what you are talking about.
>>
>> In Wilson's diagram on pg. 3 the blacks are in their own rows,
>> not on top of any whites.
>
> That's Wilson's proposal, not mine.
>
>>>> This is supposed to be more similar to the Halberstadt than
>>>> Carlos' design??
>>>
>>> Of course it is.
>>
>> Either I'm not tracking you, or you need to go back to square
>> one and try again.
>
> I don't know what to do other than to describe it, and I've done that.

So here's one more guess in this keyboard riddle. Are the black keys
divided in basically the same way that black keys have been traditionally
divided on meantone keyboards? Are the white keys also divided in a similar
way? So that from the distance if you don't see the divisions it looks
exactly like an ordinary keyboard?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:

> So here's one more guess in this keyboard riddle. Are the black
keys
> divided in basically the same way that black keys have been
traditionally
> divided on meantone keyboards? Are the white keys also divided in
a similar
> way? So that from the distance if you don't see the divisions it
looks
> exactly like an ordinary keyboard?

No, the two black keys are stacked, as are the three white keys. In
fact, if you add a top row of black keys you could try to fake it by
stacking three standard keyboards. I'm not sure how well that would
work, but at least it would be cheap.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
>
> > > My idea was to make things as much like the usual 7+5
arrangement as
> > > possible, so that keyboard learning would be most easily
transferred;
> > > it seems to me a 7+5+7+5+7 layout should be relatively easy to
> > > transfer learning to.
> >
> > If the usual 7+5 arrangement is all that great, then why have
there
> > been proposals such as the Janko keyboard?
>
> The point isn't whether it is great or not.

That's your point, not mine. I would want a new keyboard to be as
good as one could possibly make it, so if I conclude that the
existing one isn't all that great, why should I (or anyone else) want
a new one that follows suit?

> It's what we use, and a
> keyboard with something of the same look and feel should make it
> easier for a trained keyboardist to learn. Besides, you might be
able
> to build one cheaply

Aha! Its only advantage!

> by stacking three Halberstats on top of each
> other (or two, for 19 tone) and making the obvious duplicate keys.

Two keyboards stacked -- sounds like the original Scalatron -- fine
for experimenting, but please, take my word for it: It was very
clumsy for performing anything with more than 12 tones/octave and
required a virtuoso technique to play anything on two keyboards at
once in a fast tempo. The greatly improved fingering facility
allowed by the generalized keyboard made it "no contest."

--George

>> >> Really? You want the blacks all by themselves?
>> >
>> >I have no idea what you are talking about.
>>
>> In Wilson's diagram on pg. 3 the blacks are in their own rows,
>> not on top of any whites.
>
>That's Wilson's proposal, not mine.

""
>> see page 3 of http://www.anaphoria.com/Patent2.PDF
>
>This is my proposal, except I put the D double flat on top and
>the B sharp on bottom.
""

Wanna start from the top with your proposal? Since nobody
here has the slightest clue what you're talking about.

>I don't know what to do other than to describe it, and I've done
>that.

Ignoring the note names, considering only the shape and proportion
of the digitals, is this...

http://lumma.org/tuning/gene.png

...your proposal when...

(a) All white keys are on level 1, and all blacks are on level 2,
where level n+1 is higher than level n?

...or...

(b) The row of whites closest to the player are on level 1 and
going away from the player each new row, black or white goes to
level 2, 3, ...

...or...

(c) ?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> (b) The row of whites closest to the player are on level 1 and
> going away from the player each new row, black or white goes to
> level 2, 3, ...
>
> ...or...

Whites on level 1, blacks on level 2, whites on level 3, blacks on
level 4, whites on level 5, arranged like a fat Halberstat. I've been
saying the same thing from the start. :)

>Whites on level 1, blacks on level 2, whites on level 3, blacks on
>level 4, whites on level 5, arranged like a fat Halberstat. I've
>been saying the same thing from the start. :)

Except for the point where you said Wilson's pg. 3 matched your
design. :)

Ok, so we understand one another. In response to my chord
question, you've already said you'd shorten the keys. As soon as
you do this, you radically alter things from the point of view of
the classically-trained pianist.

Once again, it isn't "obvious" that trained musicians would have
it easier learning microtonal music on this keyboard vs. Secor's.
Meanwhile, it does seem obvious that Secor's is easier for the
total beginner.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >Whites on level 1, blacks on level 2, whites on level 3, blacks on
> >level 4, whites on level 5, arranged like a fat Halberstat. I've
> >been saying the same thing from the start. :)
>
> Except for the point where you said Wilson's pg. 3 matched your
> design. :)

You wanted a picture; that was the closest I could find.

> Once again, it isn't "obvious" that trained musicians would have
> it easier learning microtonal music on this keyboard vs. Secor's.
> Meanwhile, it does seem obvious that Secor's is easier for the
> total beginner.

What's most obvious of all is that it would be nice for some sort of
keyboard to be available.

>>Once again, it isn't "obvious" that trained musicians would
>>have it easier learning microtonal music on this keyboard vs.
>>Secor's. Meanwhile, it does seem obvious that Secor's is
>>easier for the total beginner.
>
>What's most obvious of all is that it would be nice for some
>sort of keyboard to be available.

George, what happened to the molds, schematics, etc., for the
generalized-keyboard Scalatron?

Meanwhile, there's the Starr Labs Microzone controller.

-Carl

> From: Carl Lumma [mailto:ekin@lumma.org]
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 7:47 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Meantone keyboards
>
>
> >>Once again, it isn't "obvious" that trained musicians would
> >>have it easier learning microtonal music on this keyboard vs.
> >>Secor's. Meanwhile, it does seem obvious that Secor's is
> >>easier for the total beginner.
> >
> >What's most obvious of all is that it would be nice for some
> >sort of keyboard to be available.
>
> George, what happened to the molds, schematics, etc., for the
> generalized-keyboard Scalatron?
>
> Meanwhile, there's the Starr Labs Microzone controller.
>
> -Carl

for those who don't know:

http://www.starrlabs.com/keyboards.html

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >>Once again, it isn't "obvious" that trained musicians would
> >>have it easier learning microtonal music on this keyboard vs.
> >>Secor's. Meanwhile, it does seem obvious that Secor's is
> >>easier for the total beginner.
> >
[Gene Ward Smith:]
> >What's most obvious of all is that it would be nice for some
> >sort of keyboard to be available.
>
> George, what happened to the molds, schematics, etc., for the
> generalized-keyboard Scalatron?

I have copies of all of the electronic schematic diagrams for the
Scalatron (for both conventional and generalized keyboard versions),
as well as the Scalatron tuner.

The key switches used in the generalized keyboard were supplied, as
best as I can remember, by a company called Veetronix (or something
close to that) located somewhere in Nebraska. A quick web search
turned up the following link:

http://www.techexpo.com/firms/veetronx.html

The mention there of "hermetically sealed dry-reed switches" sounds
very much like the key switches that were used for the keyboard.
They came with a round, easily removable keycap, which Motorola had
them replace with a custom-made two-piece elliptical keycap.
Assuming that this is the same company, they may still have the mold
for the custom keycaps.

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Are you and Kraig playing a gig somewhere in the near future?
> >
> >Not very likely. Kraig lives on the other side of the river (the
> >Mississippi, that is), so I haven't seen him for at least 15 years.
>
> Where you at?

I left California in 1987 to escape all the noise and congestion to a
place that one might describe as "Mount Olympus" -- a quiet place
where I could get away from it all and enjoy more of nature and the
changing seasons.

> Are you playing any gigs at all?

Nothing either microtonal or for money.

> Making recordings?

I started doing some composing earlier this year in a couple of my
favorite "middle path" alternate tunings. I'm using the Scalatron to
develop ideas and producing midi files with Cakewalk.

--George

>The mention there of "hermetically sealed dry-reed switches" sounds
>very much like the key switches that were used for the keyboard.
>They came with a round, easily removable keycap, which Motorola had
>them replace with a custom-made two-piece elliptical keycap.
>Assuming that this is the same company, they may still have the
>mold for the custom keycaps.

Molds can be expensive. So can engineering diagrams. I wonder
how much it would cost to make a shell of a g-k scalatron? No
guts. Then one could quite cheaply add midi in his basement,
hook it up to the synth(s) of choice, and be running!

-Carl

>I started doing some composing earlier this year in a couple of my
>favorite "middle path" alternate tunings. I'm using the Scalatron to
>develop ideas and producing midi files with Cakewalk.

Sweet.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
[GS:]
> >The mention there of "hermetically sealed dry-reed switches"
sounds
> >very much like the key switches that were used for the keyboard.
> >They came with a round, easily removable keycap, which Motorola
had
> >them replace with a custom-made two-piece elliptical keycap.
> >Assuming that this is the same company, they may still have the
> >mold for the custom keycaps.
>
> Molds can be expensive. So can engineering diagrams. I wonder
> how much it would cost to make a shell of a g-k scalatron? No
> guts. Then one could quite cheaply add midi in his basement,
> hook it up to the synth(s) of choice, and be running!

Here's the home page of the Veetronix website:

http://www.veetronix.com/index.html

I'm certain that this is the company that made the GK Scalatron key
switches. The shorter of the two gray switches in the picture look
just the switch used in the Scalatron. The one labeled "06" on this
page looks like the best candidate for a GK keyboard (due to 2
characteristics mentioned: "lower cost" and "momentary"):

http://www.veetronix.com/page5.html

I'll have to look at one of the key switches on my instrument to see
if there is a part number on it. (There is even a provision for
illuminating the switches, so it would be possible to have all key
tops white or transparent and have illuminated patterns that would
change with the tuning.)

The biggest expense in making a generalized keyboard is 1) the cost
of the switches, and 2) getting a mold made for the keytops. I
probably should contact them to see if they still have the Scalatron
mold and, if so, ask them to hang on to it for the sake of any
microtonalists who might want to build their own. It looks like they
still have all of the stock colors for keytops available that were
used on the Scalatron (black, white, red, aqua, and green):

http://www.veetronix.com/page7.html

Assuming that they have a mold, it's not very expensive to have them
make as many keycaps as you need in whatever color you want.

The switches would need to be mounted in a rigid panel provided with
holes of the desired size in the proper spacing. A metal panel
(probably aluminum, but possibly steel -- one more thing that I need
to check) was used for the Scalatron. This was covered with contact
paper having a simulated wood grain. A punch press was used to make
the holes, but a do-it-yourselfer could purchase a greenlee
(spelling?) punch of the proper size (which would be slower, but
clean and accurate). Mount this panel in a cabinet so that it slopes
upward at a 17-degree angle, moving away from the player.

That covers only the physical construction. The do-it-yourselfer
would then have to figure out how to add the electronics to make a
midi controller with programmable pitch bending.

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Olliff" <jolliff@d...> wrote:

> However, I understand that 31tet is bigger than meantone,

bigger? in what sense?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_46176.html#46281

> But they *do* learn. We are faced with the question of whether it
is better to adapt their learning, or toss it out and start over.

***Personally, I think it's much better to adapt the learning
that "reinvent the wheel" if one is hoping for a wide acceptance of
these new things. That stands to reason.

I keep telling the story about going into the Metropolitan museum and
seeing the wooden Halberstadt from 500 years ago: 12 notes. It was
a little spooky to see how far back this design could be found!

J. Pehrson