11 ms·

Where are the pianists for nonstandard keyboards? The traditional layout is terrible for so many more reasons than size. In order to become a proficient pianis

Where are the pianists for nonstandard keyboards? The traditional layout is terrible for so many more reasons than size. In order to become a proficient pianist, you must learn (create muscle memory for) every scale and chord 11 unnecessary times. 1 pattern for C, 1 for C#/Db, one for D, and so on. If we dropped the "white keys are for C Ionian and black keys are for 'accidentals'" layout for a chromatic one, a pianist would only need to learn every scale and chord once, and playing in a different key would involve nothing more than moving their hands. The same goes for notation and theory verbiage. It's like we're stuck in a codebase that was started centuries ago, and everyone is too afraid to commit a bugfix, let alone a major refactor.

snowmaker 6y ago
That's an interesting idea. Does a chromatic keyboard layout exist?
- _ks3e 6y ago
  Yes, but it's very uncommon on pianos these days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jankó_keyboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jankó_keyboard Most button accordions and modern electronic instruments (Linnstrument, Soundplane, Eigenharp) are have chromatic layouts... I wonder if you could hook up one of these devices up to a player piano without too much latency.
  - gnud 6y ago
    You'd lose the physical dimension of playing the keys. For the accordion you adjust the force of the air, so you don't have to use different forces on the buttons. It's OK that you find them with only your fingertips. That's less OK when the force hitting the key is directly transferred to the string making the sound. You need a dynamic range. It seems to me most of the people here are forgetting that. Such a layout could probably be used on an organ. But I think keyboard size is less of a problem for organs?
    - bluGill 6y ago
      Organs are a smaller key size by tradition dating to before the piano. They are also less keys.
    - edhebert 6y ago
      The Linnstrument captures the dynamic range of strike and release velocity, as well as pressure and aftertouch direction; translated to MPE (MIDI Polyphonic Expression). As someone with relatively small hands for piano, I have been enjoying the wider range of intervals with one hand provided by the Linnstrument's layout.
- WalterSear 6y ago
  IMHO, there's a much better one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_table_note_layout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_table_note_layout I have never been able to manage a piano. The hexagonal layout looks daunting at first glance: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rScBRKlTdoE/Shc8M8VM4SI/AAAAAAAASQA/DjXs2cRrl2Y/s1600-h/DSC00113.JPG https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rScBRKlTdoE/Shc8M8VM4SI/AAAAAAAAS... But I have found it much more straightforward. Over and above not needing to memorize every pattern twelve times, the layout is so intuitive, I'll frequently find myself reaching out blindly for notes in my head and landing them correctly. Unfortunately, the manufacturer of the above keyboard is no more, but there a recent successful kickstarter for one: https://www.lumatone.io/ https://www.lumatone.io/
adrusi 6y ago
The tactile difference between black and white keys is quite helpful for being able to feel where within the octave your hand is. There are surely other ways, some which may be better, but it is far from trivial to figure out what form of tactile feedback would be best. But mostly I'm skeptical such a keyboard would succeed in the market because it would be useless for for experienced pianists and would run the risk of becoming associated with novices and signal incompetence.
- xwdv 6y ago
  As usual, a revolutionary trend like this would first be carried by people who do not give a fuck, not the experienced pianists. Everyone else would eventually follow.
  - adrusi 6y ago
    Survivorship bias
    - xwdv 6y ago
      Everything is either a survivor or victim in the end.
      - KingOfCoders 6y ago
        I'd say in the end everyone is dead.
  - analog31 6y ago
    This happens all the time. It's a continual process. Within the past century, there have been at least three or four major revolutions in the instrumentation and techniques for producing popular music. Everybody else doesn't follow, not because we're old fashioned, but because we're following our own enjoyment amidst the huge diversity within the world of music. I perform regularly on an instrument that is a couple of revolutions removed from its contemporary analogue.
  - 6y ago
analog31 6y ago
It would be much better, if it was playable at all. I think there's a difference between musical instruments and notation, and for instance programming languages and code bases. Reading and playing are expected to happen in real time, and the physical / mental skill to do those things is typically developed when people are fairly young. It's not impossible, but learning a new kind of instrument or a new notation system gets exponentially more difficult with age. With either instruments or notation, introducing something "better" requires people to make a serious commitment to starting practically from scratch and sucking for a long, long time, before being able to do anything productive. It's not fear, it's reality of knowing the limits of our brains and our bodies. If you're a composer or arranger, you have to write in a standard notation in order for anybody to play your stuff. Developing a new notation system to the point of finding out if it's actually workable for reading sophisticated music in a performance setting would be a staggering undertaking. Likewise for an experimental keyboard layout. One reason why pianists like the crooked layout is that it provides visual and tactile guidance as to where things are. You can find your way around the keyboard, drunk and blindfolded. The fact that each key has its own personality becomes a feature, not a bug, in the hands of a good player. But despite these challenges, there is extensive exploration of novel instrument layouts and designs, often conducted in an academic setting. Music is not as static as one might think. A pianist at the University of Wisconsin has developed a piano with a smaller keyboard. https://madison.com/wsj/entertainment/music/a-smaller-piano-for-bigger-artistry/article_38b80090-be0f-5050-9862-32c3c36c6930.html https://madison.com/wsj/entertainment/music/a-smaller-piano-...
- thomastjeffery 6y ago
  > With either instruments or notation, introducing something "better" requires people to make a serious commitment to starting practically from scratch and sucking for a long, long time, before being able to do anything productive. That's really not true in practice. A person who is proficient at playing one instrument is much better equipped to learn another than one who has no experience at all. Sure, it's easier to develop the skill as a child, but there are millions of adults who learn their first instrument and become proficient within a reasonable time-frame. > Developing a new notation system to the point of finding out if it's actually workable for reading sophisticated music in a performance setting would be a staggering undertaking. Likewise for an experimental keyboard layout. The latter has been done by experts and hobbyists alike. It's not just a naturally difficult thing to promote nonstandard notation: the professional music community is extremely averse to the idea. It's nothing short of blasphemy. Musical notation is not that hard. You have 12 notes, fractional rhythms, and various accents to embellish them. There are several glaring obfuscations that make the traditional notation system unnecessarily complicated: Keys multiply the amount of notes by 12, and each Clef multiplies the entire set of keys once more. From those two factors alone, a proficient reader must learn to recognize each of the 12 modes written 24 different ways. All of the sudden, 12 scales have become 288! It's also interesting to me that this hasn't been solved already by software. Notation is nothing more than formatting. We have dozens of competing data interchange formats, and it's pretty trivial to convert between them. > One reason why pianists like the crooked layout is that it provides visual and tactile guidance as to where things are. The fact that each key has its own personality becomes a feature, not a bug, in the hands of a good player. That's true to a point, but not as necessary as it sounds. Consider for example, Gymnopedie No.1 by Eric Satie: The left hand moves more than an octave every measure. Does a proficient pianist feel around for the unique-feeling D key? Not usually. In a general sense, a fixed seated position is more than enough positional information for a practiced pianist. Most can fall back on sight for the rest. Even if this feature were desired, it could be implemented. Keys can be given a different feel from one another without changing their relative shape and size. > But despite these challenges, there is extensive exploration of novel instrument layouts and designs, often conducted in an academic setting. Music is not as static as one might think. A pianist at the University of Wisconsin has developed a piano with a smaller keyboard. The fact that you shared an article about a professor creating a piano with such a subtle change like it was news speaks volumes to this problem. Imagine reading an article about a guitarist making a shorter neck guitar, then promoting a literal organization that petitions for variable-length necks! As for actual exploration on the topic, you can read about the Jammer Keyboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammer_keyboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammer_keyboard
jazzyjackson 6y ago
The fact that a D major is a different hand-shape than a C major lets me recognize where on the keys I should have my hand to play them -- like the ridges on the F/J keys on a qwerty give you the home row, the uneven placement of black keys makes the middle C obvious by sight and by feel. And this next part is just conjecture but I think the uniqueness of each chord aides in muscle memory, that is, it's a feature not a bug that a b minor feels different in my hand than an a minor, makes it easier to recall that specific hand arrangement. Makes it easier to look over one's shoulder and know exactly what chord they're playing too!
- thomastjeffery 6y ago
  It's not without its benefits, but I think it's also important to recognize the faults. Frankly, I think the problem of knowing "where" is less important than it seems. There are plenty of pieces that demand the player move their hand pretty far without much opportunity to feel for placement. Eric Satie's Gymnopedie No.1 comes to mind. I find that fixed seating tends to make this a non-issue. Even so, we could add nubs. There isn't a law against it. > it's a feature not a bug that a b minor feels different in my hand than an a minor But should it? After all, they are both the same Aeolian mode. They sound the same, excepting only that they are in different keys. Shouldn't they feel that way, too? > Makes it easier to look over one's shoulder and know exactly what chord they're playing too! Does it? It's pretty trivial to tell what chord a guitar player is playing, even if it's a bar. I don't see any reason it would be more difficult with a homogeneous piano/keyboard layout.
  - veridies 6y ago
    There are about 40 different barre chords you would commonly play, not including minors and thinking only of the two most common hand shapes. On the piano, there would be roughly 80, and you wouldn't be able to get some guidance based on shape like you could with those 44.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    If a and b minor sound the same you need a better tuner who understands that tuning is a compromise and making everything the same is unmusical. Down with equal temperament!
travbrack 6y ago
Chromatic button accordion layout addresses these concerns
sporkologist 6y ago
If you're not a lazy musician, you'll just learn all your scales. No professional player would take you seriously. Sorry.
- thomastjeffery 6y ago
  > If you're not a lazy musician, you'll just learn all your scales. No professional player would take you seriously. Sorry. This is the heart of the problem. Wanting to factor out unnecessary work isn't lazy. Refusing to change a system, even when that change is a clear improvement is lazy. It's pretty clear that neither you nor the average "professional player" is actually sorry about it. By definition, "professional players" have gone through the effort of learning muscle memory to play 144 scales. By definition, they are not motivated to promote a system where only learning 12 is required. Defining someone who would like to see or implement an improved system as "lazy" is an effective way to stifle diversity. Do you take Jimi Hendrix seriously? Is Jazz serious? This attitude that worships tradition is stifling innovation. I would much rather we stopped taking it seriously.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - sporkologist 6y ago
    Being a professional musician takes tens of thousands of hours of work. If you don't put in the work, it is obvious to the listener. You have to learn all the theory and technique regardless of instrument or key layout. You can reduce the load when you're a beginner by using a ABCDEF keyboard instead of a QWERTY keyboard, but there is no way around learning the basics.
    - thomastjeffery 6y ago
      And at no point was I arguing that. What you don't have to learn is different muscle memory for 11 different keys. That's a lot of work, and the only reason anyone does it is because keyboards are made that way. Becoming an expert takes thousands of hours of work, yes, but why does that mean it should take thousands of hours to become a novice? Just because I have spent thousands of hours learning music does not mean I should demand it be difficult for beginners.
dehrmann 6y ago
> "white keys are for C Ionian and black keys are for 'accidentals'" As a guitar player, I find this choice somewhat arbitrary and bizarre. It really only makes sense for playing songs in C major and its relative minor. Fun fact: C is the second most popular key for songs, probably because it's the easiest on piano and easy on guitar. I guess it's also easy on violin and a few more string instruments. https://io9.gizmodo.com/a-chart-of-the-most-commonly-used-keys-shows-our-actual-1703086174 https://io9.gizmodo.com/a-chart-of-the-most-commonly-used-ke...
adrianmonk 6y ago
Right now there are two rows (black and white), so more keys fit within the hand's span than if there were one row. Would a chromatic keyboard have two rows? If it does have two rows, then you must learn every scale twice, not once as you said. If it has only one row, then either you won't be able to reach as far or you will have to make the keys much narrower and it will be easier to hit wrong notes.
- Closi 6y ago
  I mean what if you used something more similar to a keyboard layout to get the 88 keys way smaller. As most keyboards are digital, you could even have some sort of modifier keys.
dharma1 6y ago
There are other layouts, like Janko. Manufacturing pianos is expensive, so these are mostly created as 3d printed overlays by hobbyists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jank%C3%B3_keyboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jank%C3%B3_keyboard https://www.facebook.com/groups/janko.piano https://www.facebook.com/groups/janko.piano Bill Wesley also has the Array system which is somewhat related, but haven't seen that for piano. https://www.arraymbira.com/the-array-system/ https://www.arraymbira.com/the-array-system/
- thomastjeffery 6y ago
  I wasn't aware of the overlays. I'll have to print myself one.
sporkologist 6y ago
> The same goes for notation and theory verbiage. It's like we're stuck in a codebase that was started centuries ago, and everyone is too afraid to commit a bugfix, let alone a major refactor. There is no simple way of saying Gbmin7/B. It's just complex. It takes years of learning. The syntax is as efficient as it can be, it's not like millions of musicians aren't thinking about this stuff. It's complex, because simple music is for children. Music has its jargon, as does medicine, geology, or programming, and you should stop thinking about it like it's a secret language meant to keep you pesky programmers out of it.
- silicon2401 6y ago
  > you should stop thinking about it like it's a secret language meant to keep you pesky programmers out of it. I find it's rarely a constructive thing when someone tells others how they "should" think. You're not really offering any evidence to counter the other user, you're essentially just saying "you're wrong, just stop questioning things and get in line." Your argument is like saying Mandarin must always be written in traditional characters because it's just complex, it's as efficient as it can be. Yet China went from traditional to simplified characters, and Vietnam abandoned characters altogether and uses an alphabet, despite having one more tone than Mandarin. You're allowed to say you just personally aren't interested in new notation or theory verbiage. But you need some pretty strong evidence if you want to claim that the current methods are as efficient as they can be when human history shows that most times, lack of innovation is due to cultural and political factors rather than lack of opportunity for improvement.
  - sporkologist 6y ago
    >> you should stop thinking about it like it's a secret language meant to keep you pesky programmers out of it. > I find it's rarely a constructive thing when someone tells others how they "should" think. You're not really offering any evidence to counter the other user, you're essentially just saying "you're wrong, just stop questioning things and get in line." OP is making all kinds of claims about how current keyboards, music theory, and notation ("verbiage" -- jargon?) are overdue for a "refactoring" to the "codebase". My evidence is: the current state of the art of music theory and practice in Western civilization. OP's evidence is hand-waving conjecture not backed by anything. But you want me to defend my side? > get in line If that means "learn your scales like every other grown-up musician" then yes I will be kind of harsh about it. That's the barrier to entry, because no one wants to hear a musician who doesn't know what they're doing. > Your argument is like saying Mandarin must always be written in traditional characters because it's just complex, it's as efficient as it can be. Yet China went from traditional to simplified characters, and Vietnam abandoned characters altogether and uses an alphabet, despite having one more tone than Mandarin. Nothing of the sort. The complexity of language is baked in there. Whether it's one character that says 47 different things depending on the inflection, or 47 characters that describe one thing not depending on inflection, the complexity is going to be there. OP wants to make an improvement to the music system to ostensibly reduce complexity, which while appearing admirable, seems to be based more on his frustration that the "vain professional musicians" are making things too hard for him. Which is misguided energy in my opinion. > You're allowed to say you just personally aren't interested in new notation or theory verbiage. But you need some pretty strong evidence if you want to claim that the current methods are as efficient as they can be when human history shows that most times, lack of innovation is due to cultural and political factors rather than lack of opportunity for improvement. As efficient as theoretically possible, ever, for the rest of time? Probably not. As efficient as is practicable by today's professional musicians? Yes for sure. But improvements are always welcome. > cultural factors There is no way to separate cultural factors from music, which innately involves culture. It's not like music exists in an ethereal vacuum and if it wasn't for politics and culture, music would be better. Music is part of the fabric of culture.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
anjc 6y ago
>Where are the pianists for nonstandard keyboards? > If we dropped the "white keys are for C Ionian and black keys are for 'accidentals'" layout for a chromatic one, a pianist would only need to learn every scale and chord once, and playing in a different key would involve nothing more than moving their hands. You're asking for a different instrument, which would reduce hand spans to half their size when compared to an orthodox keyboard. This would change completely the tonality of the instrument such that it would be barely recognisable. If you really want this, you're free to do it on any digital by reassigning their key value, and only using white keys. Or you could play a guitar. But I imagine you'll then be frustrated that each open string increases key by an arbitrary amount, which is done to address the tonality issue I mention. > The same goes for notation and theory verbiage. It's like we're stuck in a codebase that was started centuries ago, and everyone is too afraid to commit a bugfix, let alone a major refactor. You need NO theory or notation to become highly proficient. This is no excuse.
- thomastjeffery 6y ago
  > You're asking for a different instrument, which would reduce hand spans to half their size when compared to an orthodox keyboard. This would change completely the tonality of the instrument such that it would be barely recognisable. Nonsense. This is a "different instrument" "barely recognizable" from the traditional piano? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK4REjqGc9w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK4REjqGc9w Having a different interface does not make something a totally different instrument. It's still an assortment of keys that are pressed to swing hammers at an assortment of strings. We change the shape of the string assortment all the time, yet no one complains that an upright isn't a piano because it's "barely recognizable" when compared to a grand. This also stretches well outside the realm of the piano. Everything from synthesizers to xylophones take on the traditional piano keyboard shape. > You need NO theory or notation to become highly proficient. This is no excuse. I wasn't presenting an "excuse". I both know musical theory and am proficient. This isn't about me. I was presenting the similar inefficiencies that exist in piano keyboards and western notation. This is about every person who wants to learn a piano. They are all confronted with an antiquated and inefficient interface for no reason outside tradition.
silicon2401 6y ago
> It's like we're stuck in a codebase that was started centuries ago, and everyone is too afraid to commit a bugfix, let alone a major refactor. This describes everything about the classical music world. They're still playing the same old pieces by the same old composers, on the same old instruments. There's nothing wrong with doing old things, but it's somewhat baffling. As a home guitar player and producer, I can trivially get pedals and amps that practically let me make any sound I want with my guitar, as well as equipment for alternative techniques like the E-bow. If you jump over to the MIDI/DAW world, there's pretty much no limit to what you can do. Some stuff is already coming out that lets you translate humming into MIDI in real-time. Yet people trip over themselves to tell you why there shouldn't be pianos of different sizes, let alone (god forbid) pianos with different keyboard layouts. I can only imagine the reaction of the average classical performer if you were to suggest making a major overhaul to the design or performance of an instrument itself, if not adding in new instruments altogether. As an engineer, I've been doubly baffled by the adherence to doing things traditionally just because that's how it's always been done. The attitude I've perceived from people in the classical world that I know is that they pretty much don't believe there could be a better notation, technique, etc. Meanwhile in the software world, it feels like we have a new coding language every year and 10 different frameworks for each of them. Even if language A and language B can do the same thing, they could each offer engineer X and Y more comfortable or preferred solutions for doing that same thing. Music isn't that different; in the end you're just creating an evolving soundscape with different pitches and timbres, so why not try a new design that offers the same sound, or a new sound that can play the same role in the soundscape? It's unfortunate because I have immense respect for the skill that classical performers have. I just wish we could see what they could do if they applied their talents towards performing new music and instruments. The people who do innovate in this respect produce some incredible stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvUU8joBb1Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvUU8joBb1Q.

snowmaker 6y ago

That's an interesting idea. Does a chromatic keyboard layout exist?

_ks3e 6y ago
Yes, but it's very uncommon on pianos these days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jankó_keyboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jankó_keyboard Most button accordions and modern electronic instruments (Linnstrument, Soundplane, Eigenharp) are have chromatic layouts... I wonder if you could hook up one of these devices up to a player piano without too much latency.
- gnud 6y ago
  You'd lose the physical dimension of playing the keys. For the accordion you adjust the force of the air, so you don't have to use different forces on the buttons. It's OK that you find them with only your fingertips. That's less OK when the force hitting the key is directly transferred to the string making the sound. You need a dynamic range. It seems to me most of the people here are forgetting that. Such a layout could probably be used on an organ. But I think keyboard size is less of a problem for organs?
  - bluGill 6y ago
    Organs are a smaller key size by tradition dating to before the piano. They are also less keys.
  - edhebert 6y ago
    The Linnstrument captures the dynamic range of strike and release velocity, as well as pressure and aftertouch direction; translated to MPE (MIDI Polyphonic Expression). As someone with relatively small hands for piano, I have been enjoying the wider range of intervals with one hand provided by the Linnstrument's layout.
WalterSear 6y ago
IMHO, there's a much better one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_table_note_layout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_table_note_layout I have never been able to manage a piano. The hexagonal layout looks daunting at first glance: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rScBRKlTdoE/Shc8M8VM4SI/AAAAAAAASQA/DjXs2cRrl2Y/s1600-h/DSC00113.JPG https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rScBRKlTdoE/Shc8M8VM4SI/AAAAAAAAS... But I have found it much more straightforward. Over and above not needing to memorize every pattern twelve times, the layout is so intuitive, I'll frequently find myself reaching out blindly for notes in my head and landing them correctly. Unfortunately, the manufacturer of the above keyboard is no more, but there a recent successful kickstarter for one: https://www.lumatone.io/ https://www.lumatone.io/

adrusi 6y ago

The tactile difference between black and white keys is quite helpful for being able to feel where within the octave your hand is. There are surely other ways, some which may be better, but it is far from trivial to figure out what form of tactile feedback would be best. But mostly I'm skeptical such a keyboard would succeed in the market because it would be useless for for experienced pianists and would run the risk of becoming associated with novices and signal incompetence.

xwdv 6y ago
As usual, a revolutionary trend like this would first be carried by people who do not give a fuck, not the experienced pianists. Everyone else would eventually follow.
- adrusi 6y ago
  Survivorship bias
  - xwdv 6y ago
    Everything is either a survivor or victim in the end.
    - KingOfCoders 6y ago
      I'd say in the end everyone is dead.
- analog31 6y ago
  This happens all the time. It's a continual process. Within the past century, there have been at least three or four major revolutions in the instrumentation and techniques for producing popular music. Everybody else doesn't follow, not because we're old fashioned, but because we're following our own enjoyment amidst the huge diversity within the world of music. I perform regularly on an instrument that is a couple of revolutions removed from its contemporary analogue.
- 6y ago

analog31 6y ago

It would be much better, if it was playable at all. I think there's a difference between musical instruments and notation, and for instance programming languages and code bases. Reading and playing are expected to happen in real time, and the physical / mental skill to do those things is typically developed when people are fairly young. It's not impossible, but learning a new kind of instrument or a new notation system gets exponentially more difficult with age. With either instruments or notation, introducing something "better" requires people to make a serious commitment to starting practically from scratch and sucking for a long, long time, before being able to do anything productive. It's not fear, it's reality of knowing the limits of our brains and our bodies. If you're a composer or arranger, you have to write in a standard notation in order for anybody to play your stuff. Developing a new notation system to the point of finding out if it's actually workable for reading sophisticated music in a performance setting would be a staggering undertaking. Likewise for an experimental keyboard layout. One reason why pianists like the crooked layout is that it provides visual and tactile guidance as to where things are. You can find your way around the keyboard, drunk and blindfolded. The fact that each key has its own personality becomes a feature, not a bug, in the hands of a good player. But despite these challenges, there is extensive exploration of novel instrument layouts and designs, often conducted in an academic setting. Music is not as static as one might think. A pianist at the University of Wisconsin has developed a piano with a smaller keyboard. https://madison.com/wsj/entertainment/music/a-smaller-piano-for-bigger-artistry/article_38b80090-be0f-5050-9862-32c3c36c6930.html https://madison.com/wsj/entertainment/music/a-smaller-piano-...

thomastjeffery 6y ago
> With either instruments or notation, introducing something "better" requires people to make a serious commitment to starting practically from scratch and sucking for a long, long time, before being able to do anything productive. That's really not true in practice. A person who is proficient at playing one instrument is much better equipped to learn another than one who has no experience at all. Sure, it's easier to develop the skill as a child, but there are millions of adults who learn their first instrument and become proficient within a reasonable time-frame. > Developing a new notation system to the point of finding out if it's actually workable for reading sophisticated music in a performance setting would be a staggering undertaking. Likewise for an experimental keyboard layout. The latter has been done by experts and hobbyists alike. It's not just a naturally difficult thing to promote nonstandard notation: the professional music community is extremely averse to the idea. It's nothing short of blasphemy. Musical notation is not that hard. You have 12 notes, fractional rhythms, and various accents to embellish them. There are several glaring obfuscations that make the traditional notation system unnecessarily complicated: Keys multiply the amount of notes by 12, and each Clef multiplies the entire set of keys once more. From those two factors alone, a proficient reader must learn to recognize each of the 12 modes written 24 different ways. All of the sudden, 12 scales have become 288! It's also interesting to me that this hasn't been solved already by software. Notation is nothing more than formatting. We have dozens of competing data interchange formats, and it's pretty trivial to convert between them. > One reason why pianists like the crooked layout is that it provides visual and tactile guidance as to where things are. The fact that each key has its own personality becomes a feature, not a bug, in the hands of a good player. That's true to a point, but not as necessary as it sounds. Consider for example, Gymnopedie No.1 by Eric Satie: The left hand moves more than an octave every measure. Does a proficient pianist feel around for the unique-feeling D key? Not usually. In a general sense, a fixed seated position is more than enough positional information for a practiced pianist. Most can fall back on sight for the rest. Even if this feature were desired, it could be implemented. Keys can be given a different feel from one another without changing their relative shape and size. > But despite these challenges, there is extensive exploration of novel instrument layouts and designs, often conducted in an academic setting. Music is not as static as one might think. A pianist at the University of Wisconsin has developed a piano with a smaller keyboard. The fact that you shared an article about a professor creating a piano with such a subtle change like it was news speaks volumes to this problem. Imagine reading an article about a guitarist making a shorter neck guitar, then promoting a literal organization that petitions for variable-length necks! As for actual exploration on the topic, you can read about the Jammer Keyboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammer_keyboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammer_keyboard

jazzyjackson 6y ago

The fact that a D major is a different hand-shape than a C major lets me recognize where on the keys I should have my hand to play them -- like the ridges on the F/J keys on a qwerty give you the home row, the uneven placement of black keys makes the middle C obvious by sight and by feel. And this next part is just conjecture but I think the uniqueness of each chord aides in muscle memory, that is, it's a feature not a bug that a b minor feels different in my hand than an a minor, makes it easier to recall that specific hand arrangement. Makes it easier to look over one's shoulder and know exactly what chord they're playing too!

thomastjeffery 6y ago
It's not without its benefits, but I think it's also important to recognize the faults. Frankly, I think the problem of knowing "where" is less important than it seems. There are plenty of pieces that demand the player move their hand pretty far without much opportunity to feel for placement. Eric Satie's Gymnopedie No.1 comes to mind. I find that fixed seating tends to make this a non-issue. Even so, we could add nubs. There isn't a law against it. > it's a feature not a bug that a b minor feels different in my hand than an a minor But should it? After all, they are both the same Aeolian mode. They sound the same, excepting only that they are in different keys. Shouldn't they feel that way, too? > Makes it easier to look over one's shoulder and know exactly what chord they're playing too! Does it? It's pretty trivial to tell what chord a guitar player is playing, even if it's a bar. I don't see any reason it would be more difficult with a homogeneous piano/keyboard layout.
- veridies 6y ago
  There are about 40 different barre chords you would commonly play, not including minors and thinking only of the two most common hand shapes. On the piano, there would be roughly 80, and you wouldn't be able to get some guidance based on shape like you could with those 44.
- bluGill 6y ago
  If a and b minor sound the same you need a better tuner who understands that tuning is a compromise and making everything the same is unmusical. Down with equal temperament!

travbrack 6y ago

Chromatic button accordion layout addresses these concerns

sporkologist 6y ago

If you're not a lazy musician, you'll just learn all your scales. No professional player would take you seriously. Sorry.

thomastjeffery 6y ago
> If you're not a lazy musician, you'll just learn all your scales. No professional player would take you seriously. Sorry. This is the heart of the problem. Wanting to factor out unnecessary work isn't lazy. Refusing to change a system, even when that change is a clear improvement is lazy. It's pretty clear that neither you nor the average "professional player" is actually sorry about it. By definition, "professional players" have gone through the effort of learning muscle memory to play 144 scales. By definition, they are not motivated to promote a system where only learning 12 is required. Defining someone who would like to see or implement an improved system as "lazy" is an effective way to stifle diversity. Do you take Jimi Hendrix seriously? Is Jazz serious? This attitude that worships tradition is stifling innovation. I would much rather we stopped taking it seriously.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sporkologist 6y ago
  Being a professional musician takes tens of thousands of hours of work. If you don't put in the work, it is obvious to the listener. You have to learn all the theory and technique regardless of instrument or key layout. You can reduce the load when you're a beginner by using a ABCDEF keyboard instead of a QWERTY keyboard, but there is no way around learning the basics.
  - thomastjeffery 6y ago
    And at no point was I arguing that. What you don't have to learn is different muscle memory for 11 different keys. That's a lot of work, and the only reason anyone does it is because keyboards are made that way. Becoming an expert takes thousands of hours of work, yes, but why does that mean it should take thousands of hours to become a novice? Just because I have spent thousands of hours learning music does not mean I should demand it be difficult for beginners.

dehrmann 6y ago

> "white keys are for C Ionian and black keys are for 'accidentals'" As a guitar player, I find this choice somewhat arbitrary and bizarre. It really only makes sense for playing songs in C major and its relative minor. Fun fact: C is the second most popular key for songs, probably because it's the easiest on piano and easy on guitar. I guess it's also easy on violin and a few more string instruments. https://io9.gizmodo.com/a-chart-of-the-most-commonly-used-keys-shows-our-actual-1703086174 https://io9.gizmodo.com/a-chart-of-the-most-commonly-used-ke...

adrianmonk 6y ago

Right now there are two rows (black and white), so more keys fit within the hand's span than if there were one row. Would a chromatic keyboard have two rows? If it does have two rows, then you must learn every scale twice, not once as you said. If it has only one row, then either you won't be able to reach as far or you will have to make the keys much narrower and it will be easier to hit wrong notes.

Closi 6y ago
I mean what if you used something more similar to a keyboard layout to get the 88 keys way smaller. As most keyboards are digital, you could even have some sort of modifier keys.

dharma1 6y ago

There are other layouts, like Janko. Manufacturing pianos is expensive, so these are mostly created as 3d printed overlays by hobbyists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jank%C3%B3_keyboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jank%C3%B3_keyboard https://www.facebook.com/groups/janko.piano https://www.facebook.com/groups/janko.piano Bill Wesley also has the Array system which is somewhat related, but haven't seen that for piano. https://www.arraymbira.com/the-array-system/ https://www.arraymbira.com/the-array-system/

thomastjeffery 6y ago
I wasn't aware of the overlays. I'll have to print myself one.

sporkologist 6y ago

> The same goes for notation and theory verbiage. It's like we're stuck in a codebase that was started centuries ago, and everyone is too afraid to commit a bugfix, let alone a major refactor. There is no simple way of saying Gbmin7/B. It's just complex. It takes years of learning. The syntax is as efficient as it can be, it's not like millions of musicians aren't thinking about this stuff. It's complex, because simple music is for children. Music has its jargon, as does medicine, geology, or programming, and you should stop thinking about it like it's a secret language meant to keep you pesky programmers out of it.

silicon2401 6y ago
> you should stop thinking about it like it's a secret language meant to keep you pesky programmers out of it. I find it's rarely a constructive thing when someone tells others how they "should" think. You're not really offering any evidence to counter the other user, you're essentially just saying "you're wrong, just stop questioning things and get in line." Your argument is like saying Mandarin must always be written in traditional characters because it's just complex, it's as efficient as it can be. Yet China went from traditional to simplified characters, and Vietnam abandoned characters altogether and uses an alphabet, despite having one more tone than Mandarin. You're allowed to say you just personally aren't interested in new notation or theory verbiage. But you need some pretty strong evidence if you want to claim that the current methods are as efficient as they can be when human history shows that most times, lack of innovation is due to cultural and political factors rather than lack of opportunity for improvement.
- sporkologist 6y ago
  >> you should stop thinking about it like it's a secret language meant to keep you pesky programmers out of it. > I find it's rarely a constructive thing when someone tells others how they "should" think. You're not really offering any evidence to counter the other user, you're essentially just saying "you're wrong, just stop questioning things and get in line." OP is making all kinds of claims about how current keyboards, music theory, and notation ("verbiage" -- jargon?) are overdue for a "refactoring" to the "codebase". My evidence is: the current state of the art of music theory and practice in Western civilization. OP's evidence is hand-waving conjecture not backed by anything. But you want me to defend my side? > get in line If that means "learn your scales like every other grown-up musician" then yes I will be kind of harsh about it. That's the barrier to entry, because no one wants to hear a musician who doesn't know what they're doing. > Your argument is like saying Mandarin must always be written in traditional characters because it's just complex, it's as efficient as it can be. Yet China went from traditional to simplified characters, and Vietnam abandoned characters altogether and uses an alphabet, despite having one more tone than Mandarin. Nothing of the sort. The complexity of language is baked in there. Whether it's one character that says 47 different things depending on the inflection, or 47 characters that describe one thing not depending on inflection, the complexity is going to be there. OP wants to make an improvement to the music system to ostensibly reduce complexity, which while appearing admirable, seems to be based more on his frustration that the "vain professional musicians" are making things too hard for him. Which is misguided energy in my opinion. > You're allowed to say you just personally aren't interested in new notation or theory verbiage. But you need some pretty strong evidence if you want to claim that the current methods are as efficient as they can be when human history shows that most times, lack of innovation is due to cultural and political factors rather than lack of opportunity for improvement. As efficient as theoretically possible, ever, for the rest of time? Probably not. As efficient as is practicable by today's professional musicians? Yes for sure. But improvements are always welcome. > cultural factors There is no way to separate cultural factors from music, which innately involves culture. It's not like music exists in an ethereal vacuum and if it wasn't for politics and culture, music would be better. Music is part of the fabric of culture.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

anjc 6y ago

>Where are the pianists for nonstandard keyboards? > If we dropped the "white keys are for C Ionian and black keys are for 'accidentals'" layout for a chromatic one, a pianist would only need to learn every scale and chord once, and playing in a different key would involve nothing more than moving their hands. You're asking for a different instrument, which would reduce hand spans to half their size when compared to an orthodox keyboard. This would change completely the tonality of the instrument such that it would be barely recognisable. If you really want this, you're free to do it on any digital by reassigning their key value, and only using white keys. Or you could play a guitar. But I imagine you'll then be frustrated that each open string increases key by an arbitrary amount, which is done to address the tonality issue I mention. > The same goes for notation and theory verbiage. It's like we're stuck in a codebase that was started centuries ago, and everyone is too afraid to commit a bugfix, let alone a major refactor. You need NO theory or notation to become highly proficient. This is no excuse.

thomastjeffery 6y ago
> You're asking for a different instrument, which would reduce hand spans to half their size when compared to an orthodox keyboard. This would change completely the tonality of the instrument such that it would be barely recognisable. Nonsense. This is a "different instrument" "barely recognizable" from the traditional piano? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK4REjqGc9w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK4REjqGc9w Having a different interface does not make something a totally different instrument. It's still an assortment of keys that are pressed to swing hammers at an assortment of strings. We change the shape of the string assortment all the time, yet no one complains that an upright isn't a piano because it's "barely recognizable" when compared to a grand. This also stretches well outside the realm of the piano. Everything from synthesizers to xylophones take on the traditional piano keyboard shape. > You need NO theory or notation to become highly proficient. This is no excuse. I wasn't presenting an "excuse". I both know musical theory and am proficient. This isn't about me. I was presenting the similar inefficiencies that exist in piano keyboards and western notation. This is about every person who wants to learn a piano. They are all confronted with an antiquated and inefficient interface for no reason outside tradition.

silicon2401 6y ago

> It's like we're stuck in a codebase that was started centuries ago, and everyone is too afraid to commit a bugfix, let alone a major refactor. This describes everything about the classical music world. They're still playing the same old pieces by the same old composers, on the same old instruments. There's nothing wrong with doing old things, but it's somewhat baffling. As a home guitar player and producer, I can trivially get pedals and amps that practically let me make any sound I want with my guitar, as well as equipment for alternative techniques like the E-bow. If you jump over to the MIDI/DAW world, there's pretty much no limit to what you can do. Some stuff is already coming out that lets you translate humming into MIDI in real-time. Yet people trip over themselves to tell you why there shouldn't be pianos of different sizes, let alone (god forbid) pianos with different keyboard layouts. I can only imagine the reaction of the average classical performer if you were to suggest making a major overhaul to the design or performance of an instrument itself, if not adding in new instruments altogether. As an engineer, I've been doubly baffled by the adherence to doing things traditionally just because that's how it's always been done. The attitude I've perceived from people in the classical world that I know is that they pretty much don't believe there could be a better notation, technique, etc. Meanwhile in the software world, it feels like we have a new coding language every year and 10 different frameworks for each of them. Even if language A and language B can do the same thing, they could each offer engineer X and Y more comfortable or preferred solutions for doing that same thing. Music isn't that different; in the end you're just creating an evolving soundscape with different pitches and timbres, so why not try a new design that offers the same sound, or a new sound that can play the same role in the soundscape? It's unfortunate because I have immense respect for the skill that classical performers have. I just wish we could see what they could do if they applied their talents towards performing new music and instruments. The people who do innovate in this respect produce some incredible stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvUU8joBb1Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvUU8joBb1Q.