New invention: Tri-Chromatic Keyboard

[Roy Pertchik]

Hi folks, shameless promotion here :-)  I’ve invented a new musical keyboard and note naming system, and I’m trying to get feedback.  If you’re interested have a look at a brief description on YouTube:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXmPzspJWI

Thanks in advance!  Roy

 

 

[john saylor]

hey

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Roy Pertchik <roype...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I’ve invented a new musical keyboard
> and note naming system, and I’m trying to get feedback.

a few comments
- i don't think symmetrical organizations of the 12 tone octave are
that significant in the music people listen to [chromatic, whole tone,
diminished (yours), augmented triad]: people generally prefer to hear
tonal centers, and those come out of non-symmetrical arrangements
- i think the reason the keyboard design of groups of 2 and 3 flats
and sharps opposed to the 'natural notes' has stayed around so long is
that it makes it easy to determine which pitch of the 12 you have
chosen at a glance, the color thing you propose works similarly, but
takes more thought to parse: the patterns are more subtle, making them
more difficult [slower] to differentiate. maybe with training, this
would not be a problem, but still i think putting the scale in 'black
and white' is quicker to orient yourself
- i do not wish to disparage any music made using symmetric scales
[messaien, debussy, ...], but i think it is more common to use other
ones

my perspective on this issue is the 80/20 issue: find something that
will work for 80% of the musicians to make the music that they want to
make. i guess i think you are on the 20% side ...

but if you're just making the instruments for yourself [and friends]
and the music that you guys [and gals] want to make- then go ahead.

and i don't know what you think about computers making music, but this
kind of more abstract music making is perfect for them.

good luck!
--
\js [ - . . . ]

[RoyP]

Hi John,

Thanks for the very thoughtful reply. Lot's of good insight. I'd
like to point out that the music I play is completely harmonic,
tonally centered, jazz standards, like the examples I played in my
youtube video (did you have a chance to listen to that?) I'm not so
much looking to reinvent more abstract music, or play twelvetone
uncentered stuff. I want to understand traditional harmony better,
and after some 20 years trying to play normal jazz vibes, I switched
to this symetrical keyboard 5 years ago, and things really smoothed
out. To me, it's like a Copernican reformulation of the solar
system. I'm not trying to change the planets orbits, just put the sun
in the center, het rid of epicycles, and see how smooth the ellipses
really are.

I understand the 80/20 idea, and in a way, the piano layout is a
little like a harmonica, but not quite so severly structured. But
most harmonica players like a half dozen harmonicas in different keys,
and they can play the same blow draw blues licks in any of those
keys. Then a few players, like Toots Thieleman play way more
interesting stuff on chromatic harmonica. So, the piano keyboard is
ot as restrictive as a single keyed harmonica, but I think it's a
valid analogy. My keyboard makes it easier to understand NORMAL
harmony and theory.

I suppose you are right that some of the abstract computer musicians
may find use for it too.

Anyway, do listen to what I play on my video, I'm curious if what I'm
saying is clear to you...(Your post was so insightful, I'm very
curious about what you are into...)

Roy

On Oct 7, 1:02 pm, john saylor <js0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hey
>

[Dan Hermes]

Roy,

I heard your performance earlier this year at Axiom Gallery and was
intrigued by your approach.

I think it's important to acknowledge that the piano was shaped by market
forces as much as by musicians and music. After Cristofori invented it, the
piano, like most popular instruments, entered a stormy period of evolution
which at one point involved as many as a dozen pedals. Though I haven't
seen studies on piano sales in the late 19th century, history books indicate
that the piano market was much like today's home entertainment market. That
is, most of the buyers were aficionados and amateur musicians rather than
trained experts. Though we now have an array of keyboards in addition to
pianos and piano hybrids, I contend that that hasn't changed much in the
21st century.

If I'm right about that, the aforementioned 80/20 rule contains an
assumption - that the keyboard buyer is a dedicated musician. Perhaps
you've already considered this but here's another proposed breakdown of
keyboard buyers: 80% amateur musicians, and 20% musicians. You'll have to
do some market research to get better numbers, but I think these are not far
off. If we place advanced amateurs in that 20% we get your players with
some understanding of music theory. The piano developed in the market to be
easy to play by that 80%, and to look nice as furniture - thus all the
smooth white keys. Remember when the black keys seemed daunting? I'm sure
you know that's because most keyboard owners never get around to needing or
using them very much, while to a dedicated keyboardist, learning to play in
Db is the pinnacle of key mastery. Your approach seems to me like a Dvorak
vs. Qwerty keyboard bid, which still gets the short shrift even in today's
mobile phones. This is a good case study for you, I think.

I think you're creating an instrument for musicians, specialists, experts,
which comprise a small percentage of keyboard users. If this is true, you
can focus on your market and develop just for them.

Hope that's helpful.

Best,
Dan

P.S. I write about Market Forces in music on this blog post.(
http://danhermes.blogspot.com/2008/02/markets-make-music.html) It touches
on the "Shaping Forces" that Ernst Toch skipped. I have some experience
with the adaptation of new methodologies, technologies, and products for
current music and art markets, having created a curriculum I taught at
Boston Conservatory, and a new art medium/product awarded by the hospitality
design market.

Dan Hermes
audiovisual artist
781.526.0738
www.danhermes.com

[Ian Katz]

It looks intuitive, and the video was very entertaining.

One thought that I have is that your system could very easily be
expanded to allow quarter tones by adding 2 more rows of keys!

-Ian

--
Ian Katz
Research Engineer, MIT Sea Grant AUV Laboratory
ij...@mit.edu / 617 253 9312

[RoyP]

Yes on all counts, Dan :-) However, I would note that my purpose is
not commercially focused. I am pretty sure I will never make a dime
off of this, and I'm already in the hole many thousands of dollars and
thousands of hours! Rather, I am in search of a better understanding
of harmony and music theory, and this keyboard design has been a
complete success for me in that regard. Yet, as powerful a tool as I
know this is, I am certain I am just a guppy in a little pond, while
somewhere out there is a sea of whales with other knowledge... I
would love to learn some more from other musicians about how they
organize theory in their understanding of harmony. So, I'm fishing on
the web... :-)

> P.S.  I write about Market Forces in music on this blog post.(http://danhermes.blogspot.com/2008/02/markets-make-music.html)  It touches

[RoyP]

Yes, Ian, I'd be interested in seeing that, too.

On Oct 8, 2:02 pm, Ian Katz <ifreeca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It looks intuitive, and the video was very entertaining.
>
> One thought that I have is that your system could very easily be
> expanded to allow quarter tones by adding 2 more rows of keys!
>
> -Ian
>

> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Roy Pertchik <roypertc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi folks, shameless promotion here :-)  I’ve invented a new musical keyboard
> > and note naming system, and I’m trying to get feedback.  If you’re
> > interested have a look at a brief description on YouTube:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXmPzspJWI
>
> > Thanks in advance!  Roy
>
> --
> Ian Katz
> Research Engineer, MIT Sea Grant AUV Laboratory

> i...@mit.edu / 617 253 9312

[Dan Hermes]

Hi Roy,

> Yes on all counts, Dan :-) However, I would note that my purpose is not
commercially focused.

Oops, sorry for the entrepreneur product market analysis then!

Music theory then, though I'm not certain how on-topic this is for this
group....

If I'm understanding your approach, it seems you're stepping back from the
well-tempered tuning approach and discarding commonly-held, since around
Bach's time, pitch and key associations on the keyboard in favor of an
approach that is visually symmetrical as opposed to acoustically
symmetrical. The liberties you're taking with the pitches and their tunings
is a sacrifice you're willing to make to permit an visually organized
approach to the keyboard. Will anyone notice the sound difference who does
not have perfect pitch? Even then? Perhaps not. Your instruments sound
beautiful and harmonious to me.

I imagine many of us studying music theory and composition find a way to do
this in our heads - organize the scales and keys in a contiguous,
mathematically symmetrical manner, even though the piano keys, their shapes
and colors, often work against this endeavor. We realize that the keys were
designed for fingers and hands first and foremost, and keys and tunings came
later - the fact I sense you are trying to correct.

For me it was Pythagoras' acoustics and Rameau's "Treatise on Harmony" that
put all of tonal theory into context for me as the science behind harmony
and counterpoint. Overtone resonance explains all tonal Western music from
900-2009 A.D. to my satisfaction, including jazz. It also suggests why most
people may never get "used to" 20th century and/or 12-tone music.

I am glad to hear your instrument has brought you closer to Music!

Best,
Dan

[RoyP]

Good morning Dan,

I hope the group members with interest in this topic stay "tuned" into
this thread (ar, ar, ar. :-)

Re: Tuning, in the not distant future, I do have plans with my brother
in law, who has done a lot of thinking on it already, to work with
natural tunings. For now, I have embraced the opposite assumption:
precise tempered tuning. This is because I am interested in the
greatest opportunity for symmetry and congruences in the 12 tone
scale, and this is achieved with strict tempering, where all similar
intervals are the same size (all half steps the same, all whole steps
the same, etc.) This is the industry default for tuning commercially
available synthesizers and so forth, and as you note, is quite
commonly accepted as "in tune" by the public. It is also true that
when the public has the good fortune to hear a human brass section, or
chorus, or string section play, all of which will adopt more natural
tuning in real time, the sensation is almost universally acclaimed as
exhilarating. But for now, I'm working with pure equal temperament.
(So many hours in the day!)

As for organizing the symmetry in our heads, yes, this feat is what is
commonly done by some trained musicians. But have you ever noticed
how the very steep learning curve needed to be overcome to get to that
point, discourages aspiring new musicians? (People seem to think
music is too hard, even though many can sing intuitively in any key
without thinking at all.) Well, it's possible the "harmonica" like
advantage of the traditional piano makes initial entry into music
easier for some (just sit down and play white notes and you've got
music with a tonal center in C), but it also prevents many people from
ever understanding key changes. That's what I'm trying to address, of
course.