5 ms·

I'm coming from a place where I do know the jargon. That doesn't mean I have to like it. There is obvious room for improvement. The syntax is not nearly as eff

I'm coming from a place where I do know the jargon. That doesn't mean I have to like it. There is obvious room for improvement. The syntax is not nearly as efficient as it could be. Everything is made more arbitrarily complicated when it's represented by its departure from the Ionian mode. It would be much more efficient to use the chromatic scale as a base instead. > It's complex, because simple music is for children. Oh, I'm a child now? I'm talking about "simple" music? Get of your high horse. I wish I could say that your attitude was rare in music. Unfortunately, it represents the majority in professional circles. The status quo is protected by this vain professionalism at a heavy cost.

sporkologist 6y ago
> Everything is made more arbitrarily complicated when it's represented by its departure from the Ionian mode. It would be much more efficient to use the chromatic scale as a base instead. Your approach is simply not feasible. Let me demonstrate. Here are some options: The newly chromatic keyboard is all white/black/white/black alternated keys, WBWBWBWBWBWB for one octave. How do you look at that and figure out where C is? Likewise, a new keyboard can be all white keys. WWWWWWWWWWWW How do you know where anything is? We need some patterns in order for our brains to be oriented to the instrument. The pattern of WBWBWWBWBWBW (standard 12-note sequence on keyboards), is a well-understood one that makes it practical for keyboardists to make music. If there exists a 3rd option which makes orientability and fast muscle memory easier than it is, it needs to be innovated. You seem to think that making the keyboard more symmetrical, or more uniform, or different somehow, makes it easier to learn. It doesn't work that way. However if you in fact have an improvement not obvious to those in the industry, many players would be thankful for your work. The field of music and music instrument technology is alive and well and waiting for your invention. Now to address your mode concept..... Your presumption that everything is just Ionian mode transposed is absolutely incorrect. Each different mode (Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian and Locrian (those are all modes of just the major scale)) has its own identity. I'm surprised that you as a musician are unaware/blind to this, or consider it "needless complexity imposed by the vain professional musician community". Also, altered dominants and the various minor modes, in addition to the major scale modes I mentioned. Yes that adds up to probably 300 or 400 scales. Which takes a lot of work, regardless of whether you have a standard keyboard or a WWWWWWWWWWWW keyboard.
- thomastjeffery 6y ago
  > How do you look at that and figure out where C is? The same way you know which C is "middle C". Alternatively, color the keys differently. Alternatively, shape the keys differently, or add a distinguishing part to some, like the nubs most computer keyboards put on f and j keys. > We need some patterns in order for our brains to be oriented to the instrument. Yes, but they don't need to be messy ones. Consider a guitar: excluding the two thinnest strings, each string is tuned exactly 5 semitones up from the last. Each fret is one half-step up. Guitar players don't get lost! > You seem to think that making the keyboard more symmetrical, or more uniform, or different somehow, makes it easier to learn. Yes, and for good reason. It means the student can skip learning 11/12ths of the required muscle memory. That's a very significant, and very measurable gain. > The field of music and music instrument technology is alive and well and waiting for your invention. That remains to be seen. In fact, the very article we are discussing shows how difficult it is to make the world-changing introduction of a piano with slightly smaller keys. > Also, altered dominants and the various minor modes, in addition to the major scale modes I mentioned. Yes that adds up to probably 300 or 400 scales. Which takes a lot of work, regardless of whether you have a standard keyboard or a WWWWWWWWWWWW keyboard. And then you multiply that 400 by twelve, and you learn just how much muscle memory is required to play the piano. Since you seem to think this is such an impossible task, note that it has already been accomplished: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK4REjqGc9w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK4REjqGc9w The only way Janko's keyboard is not fundamentally superior is that it isn't widely available.
  - sporkologist 6y ago
    > Guitar players don't get lost! What an extraordinary claim. > Yes, and for good reason. It means the student can skip learning 11/12ths of the required muscle memory. That's a very significant, and very measurable gain. That seems to make sense. Unfortunately you can't provide any proof or evidence. I could claim that my one-key keyboard with 88 transposition buttons was superior, but I don't, because it's not.
    - thomastjeffery 6y ago
sporkologist 6y ago
> The status quo is protected by this vain professionalism at a heavy cost. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I see nothing here but a naïve attitude about the nature of music and musicians. I invite one citation as to the veracity of this claim.
sporkologist 6y ago
> There is obvious room for improvement. The syntax is not nearly as efficient as it could be. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your baseless assertion sounds confident but is backed by nothing.
sporkologist 6y ago
> > It's complex, because simple music is for children. > Oh, I'm a child now? Are you making simple music? You tell me.
sporkologist 6y ago
> I'm coming from a place where I do know the jargon. That doesn't mean I have to like it. What about a hepatologist who doesn't like using "-ase" for enzyme names? What does that even mean? It's important to learn things as they are before confidently offering improvements. Else you will be called out by someone who knows what you don't. I will leave you with one of my favorite quotes: ".... In mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them." --Jon von Neumann
- thomastjeffery 6y ago
  I'm not talking about heptology. I'm talking about music. I don't like using the word "piano" for quiet, "forte" for loud, "retardando" for slow down, etc. I don't like using 7 letters and sharps/flats/naturals to describe 12 notes. I don't like using keys and clefs to obfuscate notation. I don't like demanding everything be Ionian-mode centric. I offer the following improvements: Replace historic words like "allegro" with sensible replacements like "faster". Replace the 12 different Ionian-mode centric keys and "accidentals" with a single chromatic notation. Make a notation that expresses a wider range without relying on ledger lines, and ditch clefs all together. And above all, stop rejecting every change that diverges from the status quo out of hand. Actually consider real changes, instead of worshiping the 17th century system we use today as if it's the epitome of perfection.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - sporkologist 6y ago
    You like children's notation and theory. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
  - sporkologist 6y ago
    > I'm not talking about heptology. I'm talking about music. It's called an analogy. It was about terminology and jargon. I'll try to be more non-abstract going forward. > stop rejecting every change that diverges from the status quo out of hand. Actually consider real changes, instead of worshiping the 17th century system we use today as if it's the epitome of perfection. Such outrage! Much lazy!
sporkologist 6y ago
> There is obvious room for improvement. No one believes that. Please provide evidence.
sporkologist 6y ago
> I wish I could say that your attitude was rare in music. Unfortunately, it represents the majority in professional circles. The attitude of needing to know your scales? I too have found that to be the prevailing attitude in professional circles. It's a quite useful attitude to have actually, when one finds themselves in musical territory.
sporkologist 6y ago
> I'm coming from a place where I do know the jargon. That doesn't mean I have to like it. Why does the jargon matter? It all describes the same stuff.

sporkologist 6y ago

> Everything is made more arbitrarily complicated when it's represented by its departure from the Ionian mode. It would be much more efficient to use the chromatic scale as a base instead. Your approach is simply not feasible. Let me demonstrate. Here are some options: The newly chromatic keyboard is all white/black/white/black alternated keys, WBWBWBWBWBWB for one octave. How do you look at that and figure out where C is? Likewise, a new keyboard can be all white keys. WWWWWWWWWWWW How do you know where anything is? We need some patterns in order for our brains to be oriented to the instrument. The pattern of WBWBWWBWBWBW (standard 12-note sequence on keyboards), is a well-understood one that makes it practical for keyboardists to make music. If there exists a 3rd option which makes orientability and fast muscle memory easier than it is, it needs to be innovated. You seem to think that making the keyboard more symmetrical, or more uniform, or different somehow, makes it easier to learn. It doesn't work that way. However if you in fact have an improvement not obvious to those in the industry, many players would be thankful for your work. The field of music and music instrument technology is alive and well and waiting for your invention. Now to address your mode concept..... Your presumption that everything is just Ionian mode transposed is absolutely incorrect. Each different mode (Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian and Locrian (those are all modes of just the major scale)) has its own identity. I'm surprised that you as a musician are unaware/blind to this, or consider it "needless complexity imposed by the vain professional musician community". Also, altered dominants and the various minor modes, in addition to the major scale modes I mentioned. Yes that adds up to probably 300 or 400 scales. Which takes a lot of work, regardless of whether you have a standard keyboard or a WWWWWWWWWWWW keyboard.

thomastjeffery 6y ago
> How do you look at that and figure out where C is? The same way you know which C is "middle C". Alternatively, color the keys differently. Alternatively, shape the keys differently, or add a distinguishing part to some, like the nubs most computer keyboards put on f and j keys. > We need some patterns in order for our brains to be oriented to the instrument. Yes, but they don't need to be messy ones. Consider a guitar: excluding the two thinnest strings, each string is tuned exactly 5 semitones up from the last. Each fret is one half-step up. Guitar players don't get lost! > You seem to think that making the keyboard more symmetrical, or more uniform, or different somehow, makes it easier to learn. Yes, and for good reason. It means the student can skip learning 11/12ths of the required muscle memory. That's a very significant, and very measurable gain. > The field of music and music instrument technology is alive and well and waiting for your invention. That remains to be seen. In fact, the very article we are discussing shows how difficult it is to make the world-changing introduction of a piano with slightly smaller keys. > Also, altered dominants and the various minor modes, in addition to the major scale modes I mentioned. Yes that adds up to probably 300 or 400 scales. Which takes a lot of work, regardless of whether you have a standard keyboard or a WWWWWWWWWWWW keyboard. And then you multiply that 400 by twelve, and you learn just how much muscle memory is required to play the piano. Since you seem to think this is such an impossible task, note that it has already been accomplished: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK4REjqGc9w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK4REjqGc9w The only way Janko's keyboard is not fundamentally superior is that it isn't widely available.
- sporkologist 6y ago
  > Guitar players don't get lost! What an extraordinary claim. > Yes, and for good reason. It means the student can skip learning 11/12ths of the required muscle memory. That's a very significant, and very measurable gain. That seems to make sense. Unfortunately you can't provide any proof or evidence. I could claim that my one-key keyboard with 88 transposition buttons was superior, but I don't, because it's not.
  - thomastjeffery 6y ago

sporkologist 6y ago

> The status quo is protected by this vain professionalism at a heavy cost. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I see nothing here but a naïve attitude about the nature of music and musicians. I invite one citation as to the veracity of this claim.

sporkologist 6y ago

> There is obvious room for improvement. The syntax is not nearly as efficient as it could be. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your baseless assertion sounds confident but is backed by nothing.

sporkologist 6y ago

> > It's complex, because simple music is for children. > Oh, I'm a child now? Are you making simple music? You tell me.

sporkologist 6y ago

> I'm coming from a place where I do know the jargon. That doesn't mean I have to like it. What about a hepatologist who doesn't like using "-ase" for enzyme names? What does that even mean? It's important to learn things as they are before confidently offering improvements. Else you will be called out by someone who knows what you don't. I will leave you with one of my favorite quotes: ".... In mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them." --Jon von Neumann

thomastjeffery 6y ago
I'm not talking about heptology. I'm talking about music. I don't like using the word "piano" for quiet, "forte" for loud, "retardando" for slow down, etc. I don't like using 7 letters and sharps/flats/naturals to describe 12 notes. I don't like using keys and clefs to obfuscate notation. I don't like demanding everything be Ionian-mode centric. I offer the following improvements: Replace historic words like "allegro" with sensible replacements like "faster". Replace the 12 different Ionian-mode centric keys and "accidentals" with a single chromatic notation. Make a notation that expresses a wider range without relying on ledger lines, and ditch clefs all together. And above all, stop rejecting every change that diverges from the status quo out of hand. Actually consider real changes, instead of worshiping the 17th century system we use today as if it's the epitome of perfection.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sporkologist 6y ago
  You like children's notation and theory. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
- sporkologist 6y ago
  > I'm not talking about heptology. I'm talking about music. It's called an analogy. It was about terminology and jargon. I'll try to be more non-abstract going forward. > stop rejecting every change that diverges from the status quo out of hand. Actually consider real changes, instead of worshiping the 17th century system we use today as if it's the epitome of perfection. Such outrage! Much lazy!

sporkologist 6y ago

> There is obvious room for improvement. No one believes that. Please provide evidence.

sporkologist 6y ago

> I wish I could say that your attitude was rare in music. Unfortunately, it represents the majority in professional circles. The attitude of needing to know your scales? I too have found that to be the prevailing attitude in professional circles. It's a quite useful attitude to have actually, when one finds themselves in musical territory.

sporkologist 6y ago

> I'm coming from a place where I do know the jargon. That doesn't mean I have to like it. Why does the jargon matter? It all describes the same stuff.