Thummer?

[MusicScienceGuy]

Those Eubie Blake 10ths are going to be a piece of cake....

-- Rich --

This is also a good layout. Since my key-caps are moveable, I may tweak the layout.

Also, the key-mapping is in a table, and I will, once it get the option programmed, be able to switch layouts.

One option would be to switch to Janko layout to show people the intermediate step.

 

Note that the keys in the commercial design will be closer together. I was constrained by the source material.

Ken.

[m3838]

Those Eubie Blake 10ths are going to be a piece of cake....

-- Rich --

This is also a good layout. Since my key-caps are moveable, I may tweak the layout.

Also, the key-mapping is in a table, and I will, once it get the option programmed, be able to switch layouts.

One option would be to switch to Janko layout to show people the intermediate step.

 

Note that the keys in the commercial design will be closer together. I was constrained by the source material.

Ken.

 

How can you combine the columns of white buttons horizontally? What's the idea then?

Wouldn't it look like you have several vertical columns of the same pitch?

So each of your hands can play separately, but why would you want cross over?

And how many hands do you have?

 

-Gb Ab Bb C D E ? F# G# A# C D E ? F# G# A# C D E ? F# G# A#

Cb Db Eb F G A B C# D# E# F G A B C# D# E# F G A B C# D# E#

-Gb Ab Bb C D E ? F# G# A# C D E ? F# G# A# C D E ? F# G# A#

Cb Db Eb F G A B C# D# E# F G A B C# D# E# F G A B C# D# E#

-Gb Ab Bb C D E ? F# G# A# C D E ? F# G# A# C D E ? F# G# A#

Cb Db Eb F G A B C# D# E# F G A B C# D# E# F G A B C# D# E#

-Gb Ab Bb C D E ? F# G# A# C D E ? F# G# A# C D E ? F# G# A#

Cb Db Eb F G A B C# D# E# F G A B C# D# E# F G A B C# D# E#

-Gb Ab Bb C D E ? F# G# A# C D E ? F# G# A# C D E ? F# G# A#

Cb Db Eb F G A B C# D# E# F G A B C# D# E# F G A B C# D# E#

 

Mapping layouts is great idea for choosing one that is best for the player. But then the player must stick to it, otherwise he will never get anywhere beyond playing toys. And natural question of anyone trying will be: "OK, I like this layout, where can I get acoustic instrument with this?"

[JimLucas]

Oops! Something went wrong here, and what should have been an edit turned into a reply.

So I'm deleting the original text here, and the correct version is the following post.

Edited January 19, 2008 by JimLucas

[JimLucas]

Mapping layouts is great idea for choosing one that is best for the player. But then the player must stick to it, otherwise he will never get anywhere beyond playing toys.

So any guitarist or banjo player who uses more than one tuning is merely "playing toys"?

 

In fact, I don't see any fundamental difference between using different layouts/tunings and playing different instruments. So by your argument, anyone who plays more than one type of instrument is only "playing toys".

 

I suspect I'm not the only one who disagrees with that opinion. (A fact it is not.)

 

1.You're not talking serious "instrument", but serious electronic "keyboard".

I don't see that it needs to be electronic. Even the proposed octave-shift activators are done mechanically on old reed organs.

Any indication that this instrument is not going to be electric? Ever?

And natural question of anyone trying will be: "OK, I like this layout, where can I get acoustic instrument with this?"

By claiming that there will be a demand for an acoustic version, you seem to have answered your own question.

 

Edited to correct a typo.

[Boney]

But then the player must stick to it, otherwise he will never get anywhere beyond playing toys.

So by your argument, anyone who plays more than one type of instrument is only "playing toys".

I suspect what he's saying is that it's fun to play with alternate layouts, but it's easy to get caught up in devising theoretically logical systems, and never do the work of learning to play anything. It actually fits with your example -- someone who plays more than one instrument must "stick to" each one long enough to get enough facility on it to get beyond the "playing with a toy" stage, just like with different keyboard layouts.

 

Anyway, I was wondering what a good-sized Wicki field would actually look like, so I made a color-coded 4x4 octave graphic. It uses 192 buttons for a range of essentially 7 octaves (84 notes). I used the proportions of Brian Hayden's suggested spacing for a concertina, although I'd guess a free-standing keyboard would probably be scaled a bit larger than 16mm x 9mm between columns and rows.

 

 

By the way, I've been playing the Hayden system concertina for a while now (you may have noticed my new avatar), and a review of my Wim Wakker Hayden is upcoming, maybe in a few more weeks. I'd love to play with a free-standing Wicki keyboard, synthesizer or not. But I admit I find acoustic instruments much more interesting, and the concertina is more charming than a free-standing keyboard to me, not to mention the play-anywhere portability.

 

For perspective, here's my 46-key layout superimposed on the field (if the lime-green C is middle C):

 

Edited January 19, 2008 by Boney

[JimLucas]

Anyway, I was wondering what a good-sized Wicki field would actually look like, so I made a color-coded 4x4 octave graphic. It uses 192 buttons for a range of essentially 7 octaves (84 notes).

Lots of duplication, but I wouldn't say that's a bad thing. The same is true of the left-hand side of a standard 120-bass accordion, and of the right-hand side of a 5-row CBA. Maybe an acoustic version of your layout could use a similar mechanism? For better or worse, one thing a piano keyboard lacks is alternate note locations.

 

...the concertina is more charming than a free-standing keyboard to me, not to mention the play-anywhere portability.

Play almost anywhere, I'd say. (How about calling it "manywhere"?) In the shower isn't a good idea. But then, one wouldn't normally play a piano in the shower, either.

[Richard Morse]

How can you combine the columns of white buttons horizontally?

I think you just did in your post?

Wouldn't it look like you have several vertical columns of the same pitch?

Yes there'd be a lot of duplication - which can be a good thing. For the duplications I think Boney did a great job of depicting which octaves are where.

So each of your hands can play separately, but why would you want cross over?

If by "cross over" you mean play higher pitched notes with the left than is played by the right (and vv), then because there are times when it's appropriate to play higher notes with one's left hand... such as when playing duets, cannons, rounds, etc. when the independent voices overlap and go beyond the other part's range. And it certainly is easy and you don't even have to "cross" your hands. Just play further away from you with your left hand than your right.

And how many hands do you have?

I only have two, but I've got a friend I like playing duets with which is okay when we're both on the same piano - but much better when on two pianos. If we played on the same horizontal Hayden/Wicki we'd be able to play in the same ranges (without mangling our fingers or crossing our arms)! The left person could be even be playing higher than the right person at times. You easily get 3 people on such a keyboard without problem... 6 hands!

 

-- Rich --

[David Barnert]

For perspective, here's my 46-key layout superimposed on the field (if the lime-green C is middle C):

 

Nice. I really like looking at it this way. But you may want to correct your drawing to include the Bb in the left hand (aquamarine octave).

[Boney]

Nice. I really like looking at it this way. But you may want to correct your drawing to include the Bb in the left hand

Oops, done. I tweaked the colors a bit too.

[m3838]

I don't understand.

If Hayden's nucleus is a group of "white" buttons, zigzagging upward, repeated in each octave, surrounded by two semi-identical groups of "black" buttons, similarly zig-zagging upwards, it allows to play diatonic melody with similar fingering in every key.

So you can either have one such assembly to play all kinds of music with two hands, inconviniently stacked one obove the other, or split the keyboard between two hands and have more convinient keyboard.

Since we have only two hands, splitting the keyboard in two halves seems natural, but why add stacks?

Unless you are desperate to play the same keyboard with other people, there seems to be no need for such keyboard extended horizontally. If each next stack is an octave (or more) up, it doesn't make Hayden layout easier to play. It also deletes(sp?) one group of accidentals from it's main "white" core.

It seems that the only way to extend Hayden horizontally would be this:

-------F-----f-----f'

----C-----c-----c'

--------G-----g-----g'

------D-----d-----c'

----------A-----a-----a'

--------E-----e-----e'

------------B-----b-----b' --------------------> etc

But it's inconvinient, unless you offset the CDEB... buttons even more diagonally. It seems though that 5 row Chromatic keaboards have taken this niche already and do better job, as they are more compact and easier to finger.

Either me or everybody else is missing the point.

Edited January 22, 2008 by m3838

[Richard Morse]

If Hayden's nucleus is a group of "white" buttons, zigzagging upward, repeated in each octave, surrounded by two semi-identical groups of "black" buttons, similarly zig-zagging upwards, it allows to play diatonic melody with similar fingering in every key.

You've got me a bit confused here. The Hayden system has no "nucleus", there aren't any "groupings" and everything is identical (not "semi-identical" nor "similar").... though I can see how some people may get confused when seeing a truncated version of the system.

 

I think of the Hayden as a system based on ascending whole tones (the piano is ascending half-tones, the chromatic accordions are ascending 1 1/2 tones...). As a result, a piano needs only one row of keys for all the tones, a Hayden needs two rows of keys and chromatic accordions need three.

 

Next comes the question of row *offset*. Most "chromatic" systems (of which these all are - and I note that there are some systems which are NOT offset!), have multiple rows which are offset 1/2 key. The Janko is a whole-tone two-row system which is offset by a half-tone. IOW, the key immediately above and to the right of any key is 1/2 tone higher (and the key above and to the left is 1/2 tone lower). The chromatic B system also goes up to the right in half-tones but goes to the left in whole tones lower. The C chromatic goes up to the right in whole tones and up to the left in half-tones lower....

 

The Hayden is a whole-tone two row system that goes up to the right in 5ths and up to the left in 4ths. This conveniently places the octave of each tone directly above but for one row. What is so nice about this is that he hand hardly has to move position at all to play. So many other keyboards systems forces the hand to crawl horizontally which makes fingering problematic at times.

 

So there is just a "sea" of tones. No "core". All tones are tones. Certainly we can truncate the keyboard due to space constraints (as the concertina format does), but that is at the expense fingering keys identically. The typical small truncated "sea" enables 6 identically-fingered keys, the "center" of which ("core" doesn't really seem quite right to me) for concertinas is usually the key of G, not C.

So you can either have one such assembly to play all kinds of music with two hands, inconviniently stacked one obove the other,

The horizontal layouts shown here allow the hands to be played beside each other.

or split the keyboard between two hands and have more convinient keyboard.

The problem with that is that you'd have extra, unnecessary duplicated keys, limited fingering options, and unless you had very wide ranges on both hands - you wouldn't be able to play in all keys identically.

but why add stacks?

So that you can play in several octaves with each hand without lateral movement. You *could* have a Hayden system with only two rows of keys but then you'd *have* to continuously play laterally (like a piano forces one to).

If each next stack is an octave (or more) up, it doesn't make Hayden layout easier to play.

I think that it is easier to play a tune (scale, arpeggio, whatever) when my hand doesn't have to move much. For instance on a piano to play a scale most people do T, I, M, (cross under with the) T, I, M, R (cross under with the) T. And this pattern only works for the keys of C and Am. The others are similar though the step spacing is different and non-linear. With the Hayden a scale can be played I, M, R, I, M, R, P, I without any crossed fingers or lateral hand movement. And you can use the same pattern (exactly!) in every key. Even minor ones - and *every* mode! The only difference in the modes is on which finger one starts the scale on.

It also deletes(sp?) one group of accidentals from it's main "white" core.

Look again. It doesn't.

It seems though that 5 row Chromatic keaboards have taken this niche already and do better job, as they are more compact and easier to finger.

They do have this "niche", and are even available in

too though I don't think they are as easy to play as a Hayden would be. The Hayden system would have the same compact layout as a Chromatone (or C or B-griff chromatic accordion) has.

 

-- Rich --

[JimLucas]

I don't understand.

If Hayden's nucleus is a group of "white" buttons, zigzagging upward, repeated in each octave, surrounded by two semi-identical groups of "black" buttons, similarly zig-zagging upwards, it allows to play diatonic melody with similar fingering in every key.

But Misha, what you've described is not the core concept behind the Hayden layout, even though you can view it that way, just a with many optical "illusions" that can be perceived in more than one way. What you seem not to understand is that the pattern is neither based on nor restricted to only vertical extension. Limited horizontal extension has already been described many times in the context of insuring identical fingering for all 12 keys of the chromatic scale, but it's not restricted to duplicating accidentals. As Boney has demonstrated with his diagrams, the pattern can be extended with complete regularity and without limit both vertically and horizontally. The pattern is simple and unequivocal:

In a horizontal line, each note is one full step higher than the note immediately to its left. That's why the horizontal row does not form a

diatonic

C scale, because the diatonic scale includes two

half

-steps.

 

F is not immediately to the right of E, because it's a

half

-step higher; a

whole

step higher is

F#

. And this is why the basic unit of the Wicki/Hayden layout consists of

two

rows. In the same row as middle C will be found F-naturals, but not the F-naturals immediately above or below middle C. Those are found in the adjacent horizontal row(s), which contains all those notes in between the notes of the first row (and vice versa).

 

This would be easiest to see -- and some might therefore think that it would make more sense -- if the two rows were aligned so that the C# was just above and to the right of C-natural. But easy-to-see doesn't necessarily make it easier or better for playing music. By shifting the "upper" row three keys leftward from the alignment I've just described, one gets the Hayden layout, where one can play an entire diatonic scale without shifting the hand sideways. That's a considerable advantage for diatonic music if the keyboard is on a concertina, but it's also

not

a disadvantage in a flat single-keyboard layout. And the 2-dimensional extension with duplication as in Boney's diagram has many advantages

for playing

(construction is a separate issue), some of which Rich has already mentioned.

So the Hayden/Wicki layout is based on two principles, one major and one minor.

• Major - Adjacent notes in a row are separated by the musical interval of a whole step. Note that the presence of a second row is a necessary consequence of this principle, not a separate principle.
  
• Minor - The relative alignment of the two rows is chosen not to minimize the physical proximity of musically adjacent half steps, but so that the diatonic scale forms a spatially compact arrangement. I consider this principle to be of lesser importance, because the alignment could have been chosen differently without having any effect on the first principle.
  

Edited to add: It looks like Rich and I were working on our replies at the same time. I think we've said pretty much the same thing, though in different ways. Yes, Rich?

Edited January 22, 2008 by JimLucas

[m3838]

In other words, I didn't seem to notice, that if you move horizontally on Hayden, every next note is the whole step up, without any octave jumps. But since our scale is not based on all whole steps, vast horizontal expansion still doesn't make any sense to me. I don't have time to look at diagrams carefully right now, so I'll let it rest for awhile, then make another attempt.

Thanks.

[MusicScienceGuy]

A general response to the many notes on this tread.

 

Thanks guys for the feedback and information.

Regarding fingerings, from what I’ve gleaned from the interesting notes posted here in concertina.net especially in the learning section, I gather that there are two fingerings basically.

1. The middle finger on the root of major (for relative minor the ring finger on the root), and
   
2. the index finger on the root (for minor the middle finger on the root). I prefer the first, especially since I’ve thus far found the accidentals tend to be to the minor side and can be reached easily by the index finger.
   

See Jammer basic fingering here and note assignments here . Experimentally, I’ve found the mirror-imaged Hayden layout works well for learning. To your thought that it’s nice to be able to put the hands together, I hope that my keyboard’s ability (when I get around to programming it) to independently octave-shift each hand will compensate & I’ll be instead able to play contrapuntal themes in the same octave, one with each hand.

 

Also see: ZipEx split

 

Thanks, Ken.

[MusicScienceGuy]

In other words, I didn't seem to notice, that if you move horizontally on Hayden, every next note is the whole step up, without any octave jumps. But since our scale is not based on all whole steps, vast horizontal expansion still doesn't make any sense to me. I don't have time to look at diagrams carefully right now, so I'll let it rest for awhile, then make another attempt.

Thanks.

See Easier to play?

Ken.

[MusicScienceGuy]

In other words, I didn't seem to notice, that if you move horizontally on Hayden, every next note is the whole step up, without any octave jumps. But since our scale is not based on all whole steps, vast horizontal expansion still doesn't make any sense to me. I don't have time to look at diagrams carefully right now, so I'll let it rest for awhile, then make another attempt.

Thanks.

See Easier to play?

Ken.

[m3838]

In other words, I didn't seem to notice, that if you move horizontally on Hayden, every next note is the whole step up, without any octave jumps. But since our scale is not based on all whole steps, vast horizontal expansion still doesn't make any sense to me. I don't have time to look at diagrams carefully right now, so I'll let it rest for awhile, then make another attempt.

Thanks.

See Easier to play?

Ken.

Unless you are talking about bandoneons, easier to learn and play is not an issue, as been stressed many times. You seem to believe that just because it's logical and has repeated patterns, it's somehow easier.

I too, thought so, untill I hit a hard wall with my "simple" diatonic accordion, then with my "simple to transpose" 5 row B system. All these "simple" ideas are just BS, excuse me.

I have seen your demos on Youtube, very cool indeed. You need to work on ergonomics, but you know that without me saying it. I fail to understand, why you just keep on missing a ripe and pretty large market of Duet Concertina players, who would snap your MIDI Hayden away, if it was in a shape of Concertina, with the chance of upgrading to acoustic one in the future. It could have been a great base for the expansion of market, esp. when it doesn't look rozy and people will hold on to their money. So far you are making a musical toy in the times of financial restrain.

Another cool idea would be to make a bass only emulator, in the shape of an electric bass stick, something like this, perhaps:

So lots of youth, who would like to play bass, can take it up, look totally cool and have working "bass" in two octaves at least, with all accidentals, possibly extending another few octaves, inventing their ways to play etc. I just don't see any reason for coming up with plastic box of doubtful appeal, a totally new instrument out of blue. I would imagine going step by step to be more wise. And personally I feel like my seen my multy-voice silent practice Hayden Concertina/bandoneon at, yet again, dim distance.

[JimLucas]

In other words, I didn't seem to notice, that if you move horizontally on Hayden, every next note is the whole step up, without any octave jumps. But since our scale is not based on all whole steps, vast horizontal expansion still doesn't make any sense to me. I don't have time to look at diagrams carefully right now, so I'll let it rest for awhile, then make another attempt.

Thanks.

See Easier to play?

Ken.

 

In other words, I didn't seem to notice, that if you move horizontally on Hayden, every next note is the whole step up, without any octave jumps. But since our scale is not based on all whole steps, vast horizontal expansion still doesn't make any sense to me. I don't have time to look at diagrams carefully right now, so I'll let it rest for awhile, then make another attempt.

Thanks.

See Easier to play?

Ken.

Two identical posts.

Shouldn't one of them have been mirror-imaged?