Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning My generalized keyboard

Hi Chris!

I'm the designer that's working on Johnny's keyboard... I'm very
interested in hearing more of your feedback on the Starr Labs keyboard.
Can you tell me more about it? Be as verbose as you like, the more info
the better! I wanted to get my hands on one, but no one who owned one
lives anywhere near Toronto. If you don't mind sharing, can I ask how
much you paid for it?

I just joined the "tuning" yahoo group, so I will monitor the messages
about it.

Best regards,

- Dylan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Mohr [mailto:fromtherealmoftheshadow@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 11:11 AM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] My generalized keyboard
>
>
> Hi everyone,
> People have been asking about a microtonal-friendly
> keyboard, and like everyone else I eagerly await
> Johnny's instrument. In the meantime, if you check out
> www.Starrlabs.com and click keyboards, you'll see the Wilson
> Generalized keyboard, with Erv Wilson's 900 hexagonal keys
> arranged in a honeycomb pattern. It's very easy to set it up
> to play up to 72 notes to the octave. It's like six piano
> keyboards on a single tray. It had its glitches when I first
> bought it (mine was one of the very first to be created) but
> it's working OK for me, now that my computer and its programs
> are finally working too. My biggest complaint is that it is
> very difficult to play expressively on the keyboard. Weighted
> keys they ain't, but it's been fantastic as a tool for
> learning my microtonal theory. Does anyone else have
> experience with this instrument? Chris Mohr
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one of
these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.

Yahoo! Groups Links

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <paul@stretch-music.com>

Hi Dylan!

Great to have you here! I'm very interested in the work you and
Johnny are doing. Though I have electric guitars (not-so-great) and
fretless bass (awesome) designed for 22-equal and 31-equal, I've been
forced to use conventional keyboards (well, I suppose I could try the
slight modification that Kalle and Steve used to get the 22-equal
keyboard arrangement I proposed, but that wouldn't address the
painful stretching . . .) with either a limited number of notes of
the tuning or else painful stretches to reach common intervals. If
you've been following the tuning-math list, you'll know I'm very
interested in other scales in unequal temperaments, as those I've
been making horagrams for lately, etc.

Thanks to an incredible bonus I just received at work, and incredible
responses to some of my music (essentially 12-equal and JI, alas),
I'm planning to go all out and spring for a computer of my own,
possibly your keyboard, and probably some important playback and
recording accessories. So I'm very interested. What is the state of
the project at the moment, and what details can you share?

Thanks,
Paul

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dylan Horvath" <dhorvath@c...> wrote:
> Hi Chris!
>
> I'm the designer that's working on Johnny's keyboard... I'm very
> interested in hearing more of your feedback on the Starr Labs
keyboard.
> Can you tell me more about it? Be as verbose as you like, the more
info
> the better! I wanted to get my hands on one, but no one who owned
one
> lives anywhere near Toronto. If you don't mind sharing, can I ask
how
> much you paid for it?
>
> I just joined the "tuning" yahoo group, so I will monitor the
messages
> about it.
>
> Best regards,
>
> - Dylan
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Mohr [mailto:fromtherealmoftheshadow@y...]
> > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 11:11 AM
> > To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [tuning] My generalized keyboard
> >
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> > People have been asking about a microtonal-friendly
> > keyboard, and like everyone else I eagerly await
> > Johnny's instrument. In the meantime, if you check out
> > www.Starrlabs.com and click keyboards, you'll see the Wilson
> > Generalized keyboard, with Erv Wilson's 900 hexagonal keys
> > arranged in a honeycomb pattern. It's very easy to set it up
> > to play up to 72 notes to the octave. It's like six piano
> > keyboards on a single tray. It had its glitches when I first
> > bought it (mine was one of the very first to be created) but
> > it's working OK for me, now that my computer and its programs
> > are finally working too. My biggest complaint is that it is
> > very difficult to play expressively on the keyboard. Weighted
> > keys they ain't, but it's been fantastic as a tool for
> > learning my microtonal theory. Does anyone else have
> > experience with this instrument? Chris Mohr
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
>
>
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to
one of
> these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual
emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

Hi Dylan and Chris,

Nice to hear from people on a keyboard thread. Chris, I wrote
you in August at foothillschapel.com, which was the last address
John had for you at the time.

The most glaring feature of the Microzone is probably its .008"
key travel, coupled with polyphonic aftertouch (!). [Chris, was
poly aftertouch working for your board?]

Starr has a secret sensor technology that gives him "more
aftertouch data [dynamic range] than anything else out there".
It looks like a rubber plug. I believe the keys are attached
with adhesive, making them re-arrangeable. Chris, can you
confirm? The tops come in black and white... are any other
colors available?

One of Erv's design goals was easy glissando, which the short
action travel certainly helps.

Also of interest was the MIDI mapping tool. I know Starrlabs
was working on Windows software to do this, with Kurzweil
K25xx gear as the primary output device. What are you playing
through, Chris? Did the software ever ship? How do you control
the midi configuration?

Dylan, I'm sure we'd all love to hear about your project, which
has seen far less discussion here than the Microzone (check the
archives).

-Carl

🔗Dylan Horvath <dhorvath@cortex-design.com>

Hi Paul!

I don't have permission to share *too* much about the keyboard, but I
can tell you things are moving fast now and we're eager to get a
one-octave prototype into the hands of as many people as possible to
give feedback for a full keyboard. The key travel will be longer
(~0.100") and smoother, the whole goal being to produce a more playable
keyboard than the Microzone.

Anyone want to suggest a good name for it?

- Dylan

-----Original Message-----
From: wallyesterpaulrus [mailto:paul@stretch-music.com]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 4:44 PM
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tuning] Re: My generalized keyboard

Hi Dylan!

Thanks,
Paul

You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.

_____

Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
/tuning/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

🔗Alexandros Papadopoulos <Alexmoog@otenet.gr>

🔗Dylan Horvath <dhorvath@cortex-design.com>

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

Hi Dylan,

I've been taking a break from the tuning list for a while, because I
haven't had the time to follow it lately (so I'm not really here). I
had to look up something in the archives today, and I just happened
to see this thread.

Since it looks as if you're (wisely) seeking input from others who
have had experience with microtonal keyboards, I think that you might
be able to benefit from my observations. I was co-designer (along
with Erv Wilson and Dick Harasek) of the generalized keyboard that
was used on the Motorola Scalatron in the 1970s, and I think you
might be able to benefit from reading about the things we considered
in its design and in my years of experience using the keyboard.
(Since you're in contact with Joel Mandelbaum, I imagine that you
have already had a chance to see the Scalatron that was acquired by
Queens College.)

I've already discussed most of these things here on the tuning list,
which you can read in these messages:

/tuning/topicId_39323.html#39407
/tuning/topicId_39323.html#39446
/tuning/topicId_39385.html#39447
/tuning/topicId_39323.html#39605
/tuning/topicId_39833.html#39833
/tuning/topicId_46176.html#46244
/tuning/topicId_46176.html#46321

In order to see the files in any of the keyboard diagrams referenced
in the above messages (some of which may no longer exist, having been
replaced with the following links), you would need to join the tuning-
math group. Diagrams (labeled and unlabeled) of the Scalatron
generalized keyboard are here:

/tuning-
math/files/secor/kbds/KbScal31.gif
/tuning-
math/files/secor/kbds/KbScal5C.gif

For a variation on the key shape, here's my design for a generalized
button keyboard for the treble (right-hand) side of an accordion:
/tuning-
math/files/secor/kbds/KbAc19p3.gif

In designing a keyboard, we learned that it helps to pay attention to
as many details as possible, and it's quite possible that there will
be something important discussed in the above messages that you might
otherwise overlook.

Wishing you and Johnny the utmost success with your project,

--George Secor

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 2/20/04 9:25 PM, voxdig <kkb@breathsense.com> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dylan Horvath" <dhorvath@c...> wrote:
> Hi Paul!
>
> I don't have permission to share *too* much about the keyboard, but I can tell
> you things are moving fast now and we're eager to get a one-octave prototype
> into the hands of as many people as possible to give feedback for a full
> keyboard. The key travel will be longer (~0.100") and smoother, the whole goal
> being to produce a more playable keyboard than the Microzone.

You were not exactly asking for more design input, and perhaps it is too
late anyway, but I took this as an invitation anyway, so here goes...

One of the problems with MIDI keyboards for some expressive purposes is that
MIDI does not track key position dynamically. There is polyphonic
aftertouch, which is rare enough, but I have heard it has the problem that
it arpegiates--when a lot of keys are moving it is not possible for the MIDI
banwidth to keep up with it all resulting in jumpy responses to individual
key aftertouch changes. I have never played a keyboard with poly
aftertouch, but the problem is clear given MIDI bandwidth limitations.
However, I don't think polyphonic aftertouch is quite equivalent to
reporting key position dynamically, correct me if I'm wrong.

So basically what I'm hoping for is to finally have a keyboard that will
report dynamic position of all keys smoothly, using an interface standard
that is capable of the required bandwidth. Perhaps MIDI over USB or mLan is
cabable of this. If it is necessary to report this as "aftertouch" it
should be position sensitive to the full key range, not operating only in an
extra-pressure-after-key-fully-pressed mode. If aftertouch is limited to
keys that are "on" (I don't know whether it is) then it would be important
to be able to configure keys to be "on" immediately after the slightest
movement downward. I hope I managed to make that clear.

Gulbransen for example has an optical-based piano retrofit which measures
key position dynamically, however it converts this to a sophisticated
(presumably improved over the normal) measurement of key velocity. People
at CNMAT have retrofitted this Gulbransen interface so that it *does*
transmit full key position information which is important for so many
expressive uses. They use their own custom ethernet-based interfaces for
transmitting this information to the host computer.

Thanks,
Kurt Bigler

🔗Chris Mohr <fromtherealmoftheshadow@yahoo.com>

Hi George,

You may have dealt with this question before, but
Johnny Reinhard recently told me the keyboard you are
designing has 55 notes to the octave. I can make that
work with my 53-equal tuning, but 60 notes to the
octave (5 12-note keyboards) is what I use now. In
additon, several people are doing
72-note-to-the-octave music. Is it too late to
reconsider and have a keyboard with 72 notes (6
12-note keyboards) per octave?
Chris Mohr

--- "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dylan Horvath"
> <dhorvath@c...> wrote:
> > Hi Chris!
> >
> > I'm the designer that's working on Johnny's
> keyboard... I'm very
> > interested in hearing more of your feedback on the
> Starr Labs
> keyboard.
> > Can you tell me more about it? Be as verbose as
> you like, the more
> info
> > the better! I wanted to get my hands on one, but
> no one who owned
> one
> > lives anywhere near Toronto. If you don't mind
> sharing, can I ask
> how
> > much you paid for it?
> >
> > I just joined the "tuning" yahoo group, so I will
> monitor the
> messages
> > about it.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > - Dylan
>
> Hi Dylan,
>
> I've been taking a break from the tuning list for a
> while, because I
> haven't had the time to follow it lately (so I'm not
> really here). I
> had to look up something in the archives today, and
> I just happened
> to see this thread.
>
> Since it looks as if you're (wisely) seeking input
> from others who
> have had experience with microtonal keyboards, I
> think that you might
> be able to benefit from my observations. I was
> co-designer (along
> with Erv Wilson and Dick Harasek) of the generalized
> keyboard that
> was used on the Motorola Scalatron in the 1970s, and
> I think you
> might be able to benefit from reading about the
> things we considered
> in its design and in my years of experience using
> the keyboard.
> (Since you're in contact with Joel Mandelbaum, I
> imagine that you
> have already had a chance to see the Scalatron that
> was acquired by
> Queens College.)
>
> I've already discussed most of these things here on
> the tuning list,
> which you can read in these messages:
>
>
/tuning/topicId_39323.html#39407
>
/tuning/topicId_39323.html#39446
>
/tuning/topicId_39385.html#39447
>
/tuning/topicId_39323.html#39605
>
/tuning/topicId_39833.html#39833
>
/tuning/topicId_46176.html#46244
>
/tuning/topicId_46176.html#46321
>
> In order to see the files in any of the keyboard
> diagrams referenced
> in the above messages (some of which may no longer
> exist, having been
> replaced with the following links), you would need
> to join the tuning-
> math group. Diagrams (labeled and unlabeled) of the
> Scalatron
> generalized keyboard are here:
>
> /tuning-
> math/files/secor/kbds/KbScal31.gif
> /tuning-
> math/files/secor/kbds/KbScal5C.gif
>
> For a variation on the key shape, here's my design
> for a generalized
> button keyboard for the treble (right-hand) side of
> an accordion:
> /tuning-
> math/files/secor/kbds/KbAc19p3.gif
>
> In designing a keyboard, we learned that it helps to
> pay attention to
> as many details as possible, and it's quite possible
> that there will
> be something important discussed in the above
> messages that you might
> otherwise overlook.
>
> Wishing you and Johnny the utmost success with your
> project,
>
> --George Secor
>
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Domains � Claim yours for only $14.70/year
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Mohr
<fromtherealmoftheshadow@y...> wrote:
> Hi George,
>
> You may have dealt with this question before, but
> Johnny Reinhard recently told me the keyboard you are
> designing has 55 notes to the octave. I can make that
> work with my 53-equal tuning, but 60 notes to the
> octave (5 12-note keyboards) is what I use now. In
> additon, several people are doing
> 72-note-to-the-octave music. Is it too late to
> reconsider and have a keyboard with 72 notes (6
> 12-note keyboards) per octave?
> Chris Mohr
>
> --- "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dylan Horvath" <dhorvath@c...>
wrote:
> > > Hi Chris!
> > >
> > > I'm the designer that's working on Johnny's keyboard...

Chris,

Please note that your question should be directed to Dylan Horvath,
to whom I was addressing my comments (except that I don't know if
he's presently reading the messages). However, I will also respond
to your question.

My experience with the Scalatron generalized keyboard, with the key
layout generated by a chain of fifths (as in both Bosanquet's
original design and Johnny Reinhard's current project), has led to my
conclusion that there is not much to be gained in having more than
about 55 keys per octave, and that the money required for additional
key-switches would be better spent on locating those switches at the
left and right ends of the keyboard to extend the range of pitch,
especially if there is a provision to split the keyboard, with
separate timbres for the left and right halves.

The Bosanquet keyboard geometry is not particularly suited to
divisions of the octave that are multiples of 12, since these have
multiple (non-intersecting) chains of fifths. While it would still
be possible to assign keys to pitches in groups of 12, fingering
patterns within these divisions would not be homogeneous on this
keyboard, thereby negating the whole point in having it in the first
place.

However, composers using Miracle-tuning scale subsets of 72-ET would
still be able to benefit from this keyboard, since Blackjack or
Canasta can be mapped very easily to a 31-tone octave (or even Stud-
loco as a 41-tone mapping), which will work nicely on this keyboard,
since all of the tones of the 31 and 41 divisions occur in a single
chain of fifths.

No single keyboard geometry will be well suited for everything, but
the Bosanquet geometry has proved to be the one that accommodates the
widest range of the most popular alternate tunings.

--George

🔗kraig grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

Hello George!
As someone who has actual experience working with different keyboards,
you opinion will and should always be considered one of the most informed.
I do differ in my thoughts on the extent at which a keyboard should be
built. One advantage of taking it beyond say 72 is that being that the
keyboard layout is merely a blueprint for possible mappings. such things as
Hanson's design is placable over such a thing but also one could also on
could place a diamond and or lambdoma one to it . Even in using a lesser
number of notes one could stack the same tuning above or below to allow for
different timbre and or instruments. It is for this reason that i know that
The Starr keyboard extends to where it does.
I for one would like to have a hebdomekontany which best is mapped to 72
and the euler genus to the 13th harmonic which one needs 64.
Every new innovation in turn we must recognize is also a potential wall
to future development and i for one would set my site slightly beyond what
i conceive as my furthest point. When i first started working with the
eikosany this seemed like the limit, yet at this point I feel i have a
very good grasp of it and feel like i have really not find many borders
that i have not touched upon in some way.

"George D. Secor" wrote:

> Chris,
>
> Please note that your question should be directed to Dylan Horvath,
> to whom I was addressing my comments (except that I don't know if
> he's presently reading the messages). However, I will also respond
> to your question.
>
> My experience with the Scalatron generalized keyboard, with the key
> layout generated by a chain of fifths (as in both Bosanquet's
> original design and Johnny Reinhard's current project), has led to my
> conclusion that there is not much to be gained in having more than
> about 55 keys per octave, and that the money required for additional
> key-switches would be better spent on locating those switches at the
> left and right ends of the keyboard to extend the range of pitch,
> especially if there is a provision to split the keyboard, with
> separate timbres for the left and right halves.
>
> The Bosanquet keyboard geometry is not particularly suited to
> divisions of the octave that are multiples of 12, since these have
> multiple (non-intersecting) chains of fifths. While it would still
> be possible to assign keys to pitches in groups of 12, fingering
> patterns within these divisions would not be homogeneous on this
> keyboard, thereby negating the whole point in having it in the first
> place.
>
> However, composers using Miracle-tuning scale subsets of 72-ET would
> still be able to benefit from this keyboard, since Blackjack or
> Canasta can be mapped very easily to a 31-tone octave (or even Stud-
> loco as a 41-tone mapping), which will work nicely on this keyboard,
> since all of the tones of the 31 and 41 divisions occur in a single
> chain of fifths.
>
> No single keyboard geometry will be well suited for everything, but
> the Bosanquet geometry has proved to be the one that accommodates the
> widest range of the most popular alternate tunings.
>
> --George

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

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> Hello George!
> As someone who has actual experience working with different
keyboards,
> you opinion will and should always be considered one of the most
informed.
> I do differ in my thoughts on the extent at which a keyboard should
be
> built. One advantage of taking it beyond say 72 is that being that
the
> keyboard layout is merely a blueprint for possible mappings. such
things as
> Hanson's design is placable over such a thing but also one could
also on
> could place a diamond and or lambdoma one to it .

Okay.

> Even in using a lesser
> number of notes one could stack the same tuning above or below to
allow for
> different timbre and or instruments. It is for this reason that i
know that
> The Starr keyboard extends to where it does.

Yes, that makes sense. However, in the generalized-keyboard
Scalatron the key switches were probably the single item-category
having the greatest cost, and I imagine that the same is probably
true for the Starr keyboard. There is not much point in having all
of those keys if nobody can afford to buy the product.

On the other hand, I think their 4-octave version offers too little.
I believe that a 6-octave keyboard with ~55 keys/octave capable of
being split into two ~3-octave halves (with an adjustable boundary)
would have the broadest appeal and would certainly offer more bang
per buck. (I hope Johnny is reading this.)

> I for one would like to have a hebdomekontany which best is mapped
to 72
> and the euler genus to the 13th harmonic which one needs 64.
> Every new innovation in turn we must recognize is also a
potential wall
> to future development and i for one would set my site slightly
beyond what
> i conceive as my furthest point. When i first started working with
the
> eikosany this seemed like the limit, yet at this point I feel i
have a
> very good grasp of it and feel like i have really not find many
borders
> that i have not touched upon in some way.

But will you generally require *all* of those dozens of tones in a
single movement or section of a composition? Couldn't you make do
with a mapping of around 4 dozen tones at a time and then instantly
recall other previously stored mappings on the fly, as required?
(Johnny, I *really* hope you're reading this.) For centuries
composers have had to deal with the limitations of acoustic
instruments, so what I'm suggesting is much the same: a reality check
re the ideal vs. the more practical.

One of the great advantages of JI is that, since not all tones are
created equal, some will be more useful than others. It wasn't
practical for Partch to have all 43 tones of his scale available on
many of his instruments, but that didn't stop him from making and
using those instruments effectively. The bank-switching that I've
suggested above is not nearly as limiting as what one has to face
with fixed-pitch acoustic instruments, and I'm confident that you'll
be resourceful enough to be able to achieve your goals in spite of
the limitations.

--George

🔗kraig grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

"George D. Secor" wrote:

>
>
> Yes, that makes sense. However, in the generalized-keyboard
> Scalatron the key switches were probably the single item-category
> having the greatest cost, and I imagine that the same is probably
> true for the Starr keyboard. There is not much point in having all
> of those keys if nobody can afford to buy the product.

The biggest cost with the starr keyboard is that the keys are velocity
sensitive for volume. This is a feature i could live without

>
>
> On the other hand, I think their 4-octave version offers too little.
> I believe that a 6-octave keyboard with ~55 keys/octave capable of
> being split into two ~3-octave halves (with an adjustable boundary)
> would have the broadest appeal and would certainly offer more bang
> per buck. (I hope Johnny is reading this.)

Here one could put one above the other i guess, it would be nice if they
could fit together both side to side and up and down.

>
>
>
> But will you generally require *all* of those dozens of tones in a
> single movement or section of a composition? Couldn't you make do
> with a mapping of around 4 dozen tones at a time and then instantly
> recall other previously stored mappings on the fly, as required?
> (Johnny, I *really* hope you're reading this.) For centuries
> composers have had to deal with the limitations of acoustic
> instruments, so what I'm suggesting is much the same: a reality check
> re the ideal vs. the more practical.

Yes one would tend to use a smaller amount of tones (for now).
I tend to keep to acoustic instruments but if electronics can really open
some area far beyond these, then i can see dipping into this this pie too.
But i would really want to take it as far as possible and if i wanted to
experiment with a tuning i really want them all there. I have acoustic
instruments that only can get a subset of my tunings and more often than
not , i find i use them less cause i always feel trapped. a worse
instruments with more notes is often better , since i work at an
instrument, i like al my options there.

>
>
> One of the great advantages of JI is that, since not all tones are
> created equal, some will be more useful than others. It wasn't
> practical for Partch to have all 43 tones of his scale available on
> many of his instruments, but that didn't stop him from making and
> using those instruments effectively.

On the other hand it has made these instruments unusable by others as they
are so eccentric in the e way the pitches are laid out that it is
impossible to use them without outlining his own material

> The bank-switching that I've
> suggested above is not nearly as limiting as what one has to face
> with fixed-pitch acoustic instruments, and I'm confident that you'll
> be resourceful enough to be able to achieve your goals in spite of
> the limitations.

If one was going to go this route a foot switch would be good.

>
>
> --George

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

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> "George D. Secor" wrote:
>
> > But will you generally require *all* of those dozens of tones in a
> > single movement or section of a composition? Couldn't you make do
> > with a mapping of around 4 dozen tones at a time and then
instantly
> > recall other previously stored mappings on the fly, as required?
> > (Johnny, I *really* hope you're reading this.) For centuries
> > composers have had to deal with the limitations of acoustic
> > instruments, so what I'm suggesting is much the same: a reality
check
> > re the ideal vs. the more practical.
>
> Yes one would tend to use a smaller amount of tones (for now).
> I tend to keep to acoustic instruments but if electronics can
really open
> some area far beyond these, then i can see dipping into this this
pie too.
> But i would really want to take it as far as possible and if i
wanted to
> experiment with a tuning i really want them all there. I have
acoustic
> instruments that only can get a subset of my tunings and more often
than
> not , i find i use them less cause i always feel trapped. a worse
> instruments with more notes is often better , since i work at an
> instrument, i like al my options there.

Yes, I understand. We do the best we can with what we have, but it's
nice to dream about these things. However, even if you could have
this keyboard of your dreams, I think that you would soon encounter
frustration of another sort in that simultaneously pressing keys
widely separated in the Y-direction would be rather difficult or
clumsy, as would occur with the number of tones you're considering.
That's another reason I recommend ~55 keys/octave as a maximum for
the Bosanquet geometry.

If you wanted to map tones to 41 or 72, I think that the decimal
keyboard (which uses the Miracle geometry) would be a better choice,
but now that's a keyboard we can only dream about at present.

> > One of the great advantages of JI is that, since not all tones are
> > created equal, some will be more useful than others. It wasn't
> > practical for Partch to have all 43 tones of his scale available
on
> > many of his instruments, but that didn't stop him from making and
> > using those instruments effectively.
>
> On the other hand it has made these instruments unusable by others
as they
> are so eccentric in the e way the pitches are laid out that it is
> impossible to use them without outlining his own material

Yes, but I was thinking that with JI you have the option of making
your own instruments, choosing subsets of pitches according to your
own needs or eccentricities. ;-)

> > The bank-switching that I've
> > suggested above is not nearly as limiting as what one has to face
> > with fixed-pitch acoustic instruments, and I'm confident that
you'll
> > be resourceful enough to be able to achieve your goals in spite of
> > the limitations.
>
> If one was going to go this route a foot switch would be good.

Yes, and that was done with the generalized-keyboard Scalatron that
Paul Rapoport acquired for McMaster University in Ontario, Canada.
Paul wanted 41 and 53-ET, so the instrument was provided with 56
keys/octave, which is about the maximum that would fit. Since
certain tonalities might take you close to one or the other edges of
the keyboard, and since there were not very many keys that played
duplicate pitches (to allow homogeneous fingering patterns), I
suggested that a foot switch be provided that would move the pitch
down by 2 degrees, so that the pitches that were played by keys near
the edges of the keyboard were relocated to keys much farther from
the edges. Another press of the switch restored the pitch 2 degrees
back up. The pitch programming for those ETs was hard-wired, but
there it was also possible to program your own tunings (by means of
banks of very small switches) that could be alternated using the foot
switch. So the suggestion I made to you is not new, but was actually
implemented some 25 years ago.

--George

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 5/26/04 1:27 AM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
>
>> One of the great advantages of JI is that, since not all tones are
>> created equal, some will be more useful than others.
>
> Isn't that usually cited as one of its disadvantages?

Its funny I think you could look at it any way, even:

One of the great advantages of JI is that, since not all tones are created
equal, there is an incredibly useful variety available, if you can find a
way to use it.

For me, in 12-tone just scales, this is very much a draw, and I look for
ways to "contrive" to steer an improvisation in ways that can make use of
the oddball intervals. This is of course anything but freedom, yet music
has for a long time been working with limitations and limitations always
teach something: because in our desire for freedom we tend to neglect the
power of what is available to us in our present limitation. Indeed the
limitation is in some cases the only thing that would inhibit our
unconscious outward striving within which often nothing changes at all.
Given a limitation I sometimes become very appreciative when I discover
something I would not have had the patience to find in the context of
"freedom".

Same in life. Freedom isn't all its cut out to be, and is itself a kind of
limitation.

Mind you I'm not at all suggesting that new freedoms should not be explored
and that very important things don't come from this. Rather, both freedom
and limitation are important. Perhaps it is a "good rhythm" that relates
the two, and a consciousness of the tension (and release) that is involved.

-Kurt

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗kraig grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 5/26/04 1:44 PM, wallyesterpaulrus <paul@stretch-music.com> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
>> on 5/26/04 1:27 AM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" wrote:
>>>
>>>> One of the great advantages of JI is that, since not all tones
>>>> are created equal, some will be more useful than others.
>>>
>>> Isn't that usually cited as one of its disadvantages?
>>
>> Its funny I think you could look at it any way, even:
>>
>> One of the great advantages of JI is that, since not all tones are
>> created equal, there is an incredibly useful variety available, if
>> you can find a way to use it.
>
> *If*. A randomly generated scale will have a great deal more variety
> still, also incredibly useful "if you can find a way to use it". So
> I'm not impressed by this supposed "advantage".

Oh, woe is me! ;)

Well, if nothing else, a randomly generated scale will not have a bunch of
good (simple ratio) just intervals. That's the kind of variety I meant.
Some great intervals, some less good, and some perhaps not obviously just at
all. All in one scale.

Although on that last point I wonder whether even the worst intervals in a
"typical" (whatever that is) just scale don't end up beating somewhat less
than a "random" interval, resulting in more of a certain kind of clarity
than you would find in a typical tempered interval.

However, my original comment may have been too big of a generalization from
too little experience. So how about something specific: one of the
experiences that led me to say what I said. This tuning which I put on 2
ranks of my pipe organ:

C C# D Eb E F F# G G# A Bb B C
1 25/24 9/8 7/6 5/4 4/3 11/8 3/2 25/16 5/3 7/4 15/8 2

Part of the design of this scale is the presence of the 8:9:10:11 at
C:D:E:F#. However, what happens with a D root was not by design, and I
would call D:F#:A (27:33:40) an "oddball" chord. The D:F# is 9:11, which is
not that oddball perhaps, but still 9:11 with 9 as the root is not the
"reason" for the 11 being present in the scale. The 11 is there for the C
root. And the D:A is definitely pretty oddball. Yet the overall beating of
this chord is not so bad, and it has (to me) a certain clarity that
surprised me when I first heard it.

So maybe you might have in mind an example of oddball intervals in a just
scale that really offer *no* audible benefit as compared to say a tempered
scale? I have no doubt these exist but probably you have better examples
off the top of your head than I could come up with quickly. In fact I
haven't yet closely examined all the possibilities of the scale I gave
above, to find the worst ones, and I will try to get around to that.

-Kurt

🔗kraig grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

High Kurt!
triads with 11/9 are not to be avoided just because the number isn't a
multiple of 2. With meta meantone and related tunings instead of 27/33/40 one
ends up with taking the two other tones and using the mean interval which
sounds even smoother. 54/67/80 evenly beating. The 40/27 is a great interval by
itself and the persians use it to resolve to a 4/3. I particularly like the
80/27 where the third harmonic beats against the higher tone. great for
sustained tension where you don't want to give away where you are going to go
next.

Kurt Bigler wrote:

>
>
> Part of the design of this scale is the presence of the 8:9:10:11 at
> C:D:E:F#. However, what happens with a D root was not by design, and I
> would call D:F#:A (27:33:40) an "oddball" chord. The D:F# is 9:11, which is
> not that oddball perhaps, but still 9:11 with 9 as the root is not the
> "reason" for the 11 being present in the scale. The 11 is there for the C
> root. And the D:A is definitely pretty oddball. Yet the overall beating of
> this chord is not so bad, and it has (to me) a certain clarity that
> surprised me when I first heard it.
>
>

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