4 ms·
> There is no way around it I have just presented a way. Were you willing to listen? No, it's not a "conspiracy". How condescending. It is, on the other hand,
by thomastjeffery 6y ago
> There is no way around it
I have just presented a way. Were you willing to listen?
No, it's not a "conspiracy". How condescending. It is, on the other hand, a real problem. Maybe reconsider your persecution complex.
> The keyboard as it is is laid out for efficiency.
How many times to I need to explain that is not the case? The keyboard is extremely inefficient. It was not designed for efficiency. It was designed to look like the Ionian mode, with accidentals on a separate row.
- sporkologist 6y ago> > There is no way around it > I have just presented a way. Were you willing to listen? I didn't see any practical way if you presented it, just a lot of wishful thinking. Are you saying you have an improved method for a keyboard layout?
- sporkologist 6y ago> The keyboard is extremely inefficient. It was not designed for efficiency. It was designed to look like the Ionian mode, with accidentals on a separate row. If you are offering the Janko keyboard as any kind of alternative, I would have to politely disagree. The video with the guy playing stride piano from 1912 was not really that compelling given music especially since 1920. But, like Coltrane brought back the soprano sax from relative obscurity (Sidney Bechet was an early exponent of the instrument from 3 decades previous), there may very well be a new player of the Janko keyboard who brings it from the past into the present. How efficient does one need a keyboard to be? What is the millisecond improvement of a Janko kbd over standard? Why is 10 fingers at a time on a Janko keyboard better than 10 fingers at a time on a standard keyboard? What kind of musical situation demands 10 simultaneous notes from the keyboard player? Why do you say the current standard keyboard is "extremely inefficient"?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]