Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jjj

What's The Difference From Wicki And Hayden Layout?

Recommended Posts

Thank you Boney,

Those are both C-system. You can tell by the angle of the diagonals.
I had no clue on what to see it. I thought you might see it on his fingering. These chaps got lots of YouTube takes and some of them have slowly played passages.

Beside, Roland's V-Accordion (digital accordion) can switch to several layouts, such as to C- & B- system. I don't think it can switch to W/H layout, though. Maybe it can even remap it's keyboard? Do you know more about it?

Edited by jjj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was told that "there isn't a thing, such as the easiest to learn & play keyboard layout". Is that true or are those, who say that, merely ignorant about the facts?

The fact that good Richard Morse recommended the W/H layout and the Thummer and Jammer people using the same layout gave me some kind of certainty, because my music theory isn't good enough to scientifically verify, which of all the layouts offers the attributes I'm after. On the other hand, I imagine that it must be possible to ascertain. Once that has been established it's then left to individual preference with how much less one is willing to put up. ;)

 

Maybe it depends on what kind of melodies one aims to play? In my case it will be just about everything that sounds great and has an interesting melody.

From what I can see the W/H allows a greater hand span than the C/B-system. The W/H has also a more logical layout, because the incidentals are nicely put aside, yet easily reachable, whereas the C/B- system layout's incidentals are also easily reachable, yet introduce an element of irregularity into its layout. Thus, my type of innovative (Klavarskribo-like) notation would be impossible to implement.

Of course any button keyboard is still easier to learn & play (than the zebra piano layout), because of it's keyboard's uniformity. Seen in this context one could say, the W/H is the keyboard layout with the most uniformity!! Isn't that good enough to call it "the best layout of them all"?

Edited by jjj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... you should be thanking Brian Hayden
It's hard to do, because Kaspar created the same layout in last century and Brian this century.

 

It is not so hard to thank Brian! As has been said before, Brian did produce his design independently and without knowledge of an earlier system, despite extensive searches in pre-internet days. Any similar system in the previous century was not developed and therefore lost. The concertina world should be thankful to Brian for his efforts.

 

- John Wild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please delete... this dbl posting! Thx

Edited by jjj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please delete... this dbl posting! Thx

Edited by jjj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please delete... this dbl posting! Thx

Edited by jjj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed Wicki and Hayden deserve a great >> T H A N K - Y O U << from me, too! That's much easier to do than to develop this great layout.

 

But, I'm still confused*) about which button keyboard has technically the best (or scientifically proven) the superior layout of them all! I'm sure that you music theorists are able to gather all positive and negative points and so, arrive at the conclusion, which cannot be refuted. If its done correctly it only needs to be established once and for all.

 

That doesn't mean we all have conform the best layout or no right to personal preferences. It's just interesting to ascertain. To me it would mean I'll waste less time on learning it and have more time for more meaningful practice.

 

*) ...because another musician told me that "there's no such thing as the easiest to learn & play keyboard of them all !" I like to have solid proof that the W/H is it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed Wicki and Hayden deserve a great >> T H A N K - Y O U << from me, too! That's much easier to do than to develop this great layout.

It's easier to really thank Brian Hayden because, unlike Kaspar Wicki, he is alive and well and reads this Forum once a week ;) And I'm sure he would appreciate it. WIthout him, WIcki's idea would have lain in the dusty patent office files.

But, I'm still confused*) about which button keyboard has technically the best (or scientifically proven) the superior layout of them all! I'm sure that you music theorists are able to gather all positive and negative points and so, arrive at the conclusion, which cannot be refuted. If its done correctly it only needs to be established once and for all.

Unforch, theory and science can only suggest which keyboard may be better. The real proof requires the experience of many musicians, practiticng and performing hard at work for a few years, to find out if a new keyboard design is really better. Humans don't always follow theory :P

 

Don't take that to mean the "zebra" conventional keyboard is the best. But we have to build a lot of W/H keyboards and flog them hard before we know they're better.

That doesn't mean we all have conform the best layout or no right to personal preferences. It's just interesting to ascertain. To me it would mean I'll waste less time on learning it and have more time for more meaningful practice.

Do acquire or build a W/H keyboard, and let us know how it works out for you.

*) ...because another musician told me that "there's no such thing as the easiest to learn & play keyboard of them all !" I like to have solid proof that the W/H is it.

My opinion is that the Hayden layout, being two-dimensional, is the best for a constrained hand, that can't move much sideways, such as in a concertina. For a prone keyboard, the advantage is less. However, I am in the process of designing and building a prone Hayden 'board. Details to follow if/when I get it finished. --Mike K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, we all feel obliged to thank Wicki, Janko, Brian and all experienced concertina players for disclosing their wisdom.

 

With scientific proof I meant (as mentioned) to actually apply music theory the practical way by comparison. For that one requires a fair amount of music theory knowledge and playing experience. If I'm not wrong, many of you have got what it takes. Also, I think it would be very interesting to see the result, don't you think so?

 

I cannot imagine that it is all that hard for experts in cooperation.

Just make up a chart where the C-system, the B-system (and other concertina layouts) are filed and mark the advantages by inserting a reference figure/number into its column, which details why this point is an advantage or disadvantage compared to other layouts.

Something like that would be great. Ultimately the layout with the greatest number of advantages wins!

Once such a chart has been established it then can be amended any time. This way we all know where we stand. :)

--------------------------------------------------------------

These two W/H advantages I already discovered:

1) The W/H allows a greater hand span than the C/B-system.

2) The W/H incidentals are cleverly placed, whereas C/B- system's incidentals introduces an element of irregularity into its layout.

Edited by jjj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JJ, I think you're expecting too much from "music theory." The expression is used to describe how musical notes relate to each other, how to use them in composition or improvisation, what expectations they set up, how consonances and dissonances are used to cause and relieve musical stress. I've never heard the words "music theory" used to mean anything that would inform the design or playing technique of musical instruments.

 

I think what you're looking for is ergonomics, and I think it is pretty clear that there are very few (if any) experts on that here. What we have in common here is that we play an instrument that is infamous for its poor ergonomic design.

 

The one guy in this forum who ever really seemed to understand that and propose a solution was Goran Rahm, and he very quickly wore out his welcome here years ago. See his video on youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmEPTosZ44g.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What we have in common here is that we play an instrument that is infamous for its poor ergonomic design. The one guy in this forum who ever really seemed to understand that and propose a solution was Goran Rahm, and he very quickly wore out his welcome here years ago.

Huh??!! Infamous? "Poor"? Aside from self-styled "expert" Göran Rahm, what sources do you give for such a claim? Göran made/makes a number of claims that contradict my personal experience (including maintaining that various things I do as a matter of course are "impossible").

 

And I, for one, find English-made concertinas -- and especially English-system concertinas -- to be examples of excellent ergonomic design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JJ, I think you're expecting too much from "music theory." The expression is used to describe how musical notes relate to each other, how to use them in composition or improvisation, what expectations they set up, how consonances and dissonances are used to cause and relieve musical stress. I've never heard the words "music theory" used to mean anything that would inform the design or playing technique of musical instruments.
To asses and compare various layouts correctly knowledge of music theory is vital. Example:

Albeit I'm bad at music theory, I am able to work out the following two comparisons between four diverse layouts:

1) The W/H allows a hand span of 4 to 5 octave; i.e. a greater hand span than the C/B-system and zebra piano keyboard.

2) The W/H incidentals are cleverly placed, whereas C/B- system's incidentals introduces an element of irregularity into its layout; making it harder to learn, whereas the zebra piano is totally irregular in its layout.

Thus, I'm certain that experts will able to spot many more such discrepancies between diverse layouts.

Maybe this kind of "advantage/ disadvantage chart" could be established in cooperation.

As mentioned, just make up a chart where the C-system, the B-system (and other concertina layouts) are filed and mark the advantages by inserting a reference figure/number into its column, which details why this point is an advantage or disadvantage compared to other layouts.

Something like that would be great. Ultimately the layout with the greatest number of advantages can be called "the best layout"!

Once such a chart has been established it then can be amended any time. This way we all know where we stand. smile.gif

I think what you're looking for is ergonomics...
Sorry, it's not what I'm after this time. I'm rather keen on finding out, which keyboard layout has (scientifically viewed) the smartest or logically most correct layout design, which necessarily will be the one with the most advantages over other keyboard layouts.
The one guy in this forum who ever really seemed to understand that and propose a solution was Goran Rahm, and he very quickly wore out his welcome here years ago. See his video on youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmEPTosZ44g.
I think Goran is a wise guy; he would be an asset to his forum. Please be so kind to call him back!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I, for one, find English-made concertinas -- and especially English-system concertinas -- to be examples of excellent ergonomic design.

You are unfair, Jim.

I find Goran's playing to be more energetic and with more (audible) control, than yours, and it's what he claims his handle does. So whoever wants softer playing, may never feel the need for improvement, but I do. His jazz example on Youtube is very impressive. A rare style and with presence. Your playing, as demonstrated on tune page, is solid, elegant, but without the presence that I seek. The pinkey rest is not the best solution, constrained wrists in Anglo is also doubtful ideal.

There are some Russian Bayan players, who still insist on 4 finger playing, with thumb tucked underneath the keyboard and disdain 5 row keyboard and free bass. They are top notch professionals, but their time is over. Just look at the young players of new school on Youtube!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot imagine that it is all that hard for experts in cooperation.

Just make up a chart where the C-system, the B-system (and other concertina layouts) are filed and mark the advantages by inserting a reference figure/number into its column, which details why this point is an advantage or disadvantage compared to other layouts.

Something like that would be great. Ultimately the layout with the greatest number of advantages wins!

It would be an interesting exercise, but nothing more. Such detailed comparisons have been made for generations among religions, economic systems, and forms of government. And guess what? We still have Muslims and CHristians, socialists and capitalists, democracies versus sheikdoms -- and each is passionately defended by its adherents.

 

More ot the point, each person's religion, each country's govt, etc., may well be the *right one for them*.

 

So, yes, a chart can be made up that just might prove that the W/H keyboard is superior overall. ANd that may bring in some new users (I'd love to see more Hayden concertina players), But don't expect to convert anyone else, like away from the "zebra" keyboard.

--------------------------------------------------------------

These two W/H advantages I already discovered:

1) The W/H allows a greater hand span than the C/B-system.

True. All Duet systems use the vertical dimension to cram more note range under the hand. Zebra, Janko, and even C/B are linear, one-dimensional, but suitable for a prone keyboard.

2) The W/H incidentals are cleverly placed, whereas C/B- system's incidentals introduces an element of irregularity into its layout.

You keep repeating this. I'm not sure what it means -- on a CBA, a note's sharp or flat is right next to it. Maybe you mean that sometimes the next note is back down two rows, and whenever an accidental breaks over that zigzag, it causes trouble. SOrt of how Hayden accidental notes sometimes wrap around. Is that what you meant? --Mike K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These two W/H advantages I already discovered:

2) The W/H incidentals are cleverly placed, whereas C/B- system's incidentals introduces an element of irregularity into its layout.

You keep repeating this. I'm not sure what it means -- on a CBA, a note's sharp or flat is right next to it. Maybe you mean that sometimes the next note is back down two rows, and whenever an accidental breaks over that zigzag, it causes trouble. SOrt of how Hayden accidental notes sometimes wrap around. Is that what you meant?

I took jjj's meaning to be that the W/H accidentals are out-of-the-way but yet located in places that are regular and make sense. IOW, when tunes are played, how often do you use accidentals? Maybe 2 or 3% of the time? I just checked a bunch of trad tunes to find out that the average tune is less than 1% accidentals. I Also just checked some Joplin rags which I think are very accidental heavy, and they came in around 8% accidentals (but I didn't count the octave-paired bass accidentals twice). So it makes sense to me that a system which makes diatonic playing easy by NOT having the accidentals strewn amongst the diatonic notes would be more advantageous.

 

-- Rich --

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...it makes sense to me that a system which makes diatonic playing easy by NOT having the accidentals strewn amongst the diatonic notes would be more advantageous.

It "makes sense", but is it true?

 

In my mucking about with a variety of "duet" keyboards (as well as English and anglo), I've found it advantageous if successive notes of a phrase (which quite often are successive notes of a scale) are not in a closely-spaced line, but occur in some sort of "alternating" pattern, because the alternation provides a natural mechanism for repositioning the hand "on the fly".

 

A side-to-side alternation seems to be one of the bases of the Maccann layout. On the English it's an alternation between the ends of the instrument. In the Crane layout, I feel that the effect is there, though weaker, in the over-two jump of each third note of the diatonic scale, but also in a vertical form due to the arc or chevron shape of each row. I don't count the push-pull alternation of the bellows on the anglo, since its physical/physiological effect is quite different, but I'll frequently try alternate fingerings to get such an effect.

 

The effect on you may be different, but that's how it seems to work for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only ever considered the W/H, the C-System (easier than Bayan) and Janko to replace the

awkward zebra piano layout. Thanks to m3838 for drawing attention to the difficulty

of playing four note chords. Even when my keyboard is going to have 20 mm in diameter

buttons, it will be pretty hard learn the fingering patterns of 4 note chords.

In fact the W/H fingering is even more complicated than the C-system's fingering.

In this regard the lousy zebra piano is ergonomically far better off.

These facts force me to reconsider the Janko, for it has both worlds:

the advantage of layout uniformity and ergonomic comfort, albeit

Janko's disadvantage is its hand span of only 1 1/2 octave. The

zebra piano has even less hand span and sounds O.K., too.

At last I'm able to start getting the facts right:

--------------------------------------------------------------

W/H:

1) Hard to learn the fingering patterns of 4 note chords.

2) I have to learn from the whole system from "0"

3) Easy to implement Klavarskribo type notation

4) 4 to 5 octave hand span!

===================

C-System:

1) Button fingering easier than W/H

2) I have to learn from the whole system from "0"

3) Very difficult to implement Klavarskribo type notation

4) Nearly 2 octave hand span!

5) Harder to learn than W/H (more irregular)

===================

Janko:

1) Key fingering ergonomically ideal

2) Faster to learn, for I already play the piano accordion

3) Ideal to implement Klavarskribo type notation

4) Main disadvantage: hand span of only 1 1/2 octave!

5) Easy to adapt to any Synth (no electronics involved)

===================

 

It would be nice if you great experts could scrutinize, enrich or amend my gathered facts. Thx jjj

Note: Below the Wicki/Hayden layout is the C-system layout.

 

best004yt7.jpg

Edited by jjj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find Goran's playing to be more energetic and with more (audible) control, than yours,...

His jazz example on Youtube is very impressive. A rare style and with presence.

I presume you mean

, since it not only fits your description, it's the only example I could find of his playing. Very nice playing. And thanks for directing my attention to it. For years I've been wanting to hear Göran actually play. Have you heard him do anything else? I'd love to hear more.

 

So whoever wants softer playing, may never feel the need for improvement, but I do. Your playing, as demonstrated on tune page, is solid, elegant, but without the presence that I seek.

Thanks for the reminder... that I really need to do some new recordings. Those are the first recordings I ever made with my computer, more than 3 years ago. I was uncomfortable, and the mike was a tiny thing that came with the computer, with very poor dynamic response. Those recordings are weak, though as I listen to them again, I find they're not as weak as I "remembered" them.

 

Also, none of those RTLP recordings of me uses chords as rich as what Göran does in his video. It's not something I normally try to do. Maybe I should try that style and see how you like it? :unsure:

 

But I don't want to make excuses or say, "Really I'm better, but you'll have to take my word for it." If and when I get around to putting up some new recordings, you (and others, if they like) are welcome to comment. Until then, people are welcome to form their own opinions from what is available for them to hear. I have no intention of getting into a contest with Göran, nor anyone else.

 

But with regard to the claimed benefit of his handle design, I don't believe that that alone is responsible for the difference in our recordings. Two other persons I've heard play in a somewhat similar style -- with rich jazz chords and excellent control -- are Pietro Valente and Rainer Süßmilch, neither with enhancements to help them hold their concertinas, and in fact both playing while standing. Unfortunately, I don't know of any recordings of either on the internet.

 

P.S. If this discussion is to continue (I would be happy if it didn't), it should probably be given its own Topic... maybe in the Ergonomics sub-Forum? A bit of thread drift is usually OK with me, but this is a very distant sidetrack from the main topic that jjj started and which is still going strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×