Pashkuli Keyboards: discussion + demos

[Pashkuli]

Or does the 6 in your description indicate my guess of wholetone rows, ie row 1 = [C D E F# G# A#] and row 2 = [C# D# F G A B]?

Correct, that is the layout - simple chromatic or "wholetone" (wrong name btw). The rows are an illusion.

Changing layout (as in: which physical key generates which midi note nr) should be simple. If done in software instead of hardware...

Yes, it is. There are many tweaks one could do in software, but I am not skilful enough in that field. For now I am learning all such things on my own (the others usually involved also have kids, jobs, daily routines, etc.).

[EvilDragon]

I highly doubt Great Balls Of Fire can be played properly on this keyboard. It doesn't need a fully chromatic glissando at all, it just needs a white keys glissando. I don't see how that would be easier to play on this thing rather than on actual piano keys.

[Pashkuli]

I highly doubt Great Balls Of Fire can be played properly on this keyboard. It doesn't need a fully chromatic glissando at all, it just needs a white keys glissando. I don't see how that would be easier to play on this thing rather than on actual piano keys.

Ok. I got it. You can not slide over the C natural major scale on Pashkuli. I give up and tossed the keyboard in the bin already, deleted all the design files, withdrew my design patent application... because people would not be able to play a glissando sweep over the special case of a C natural major scale for "The Great Balls of Fire". (they would not be able to do it if they had to play the song in any other root key on the standard piano as well, but hey... that is why there is a transpose button, right!).
No one would ever notice a difference if chromatic glissando (true glissando) was used anyway... but who am I to tell, I can't even play a keyboard instrument.

Anyway... If someone is interested in "open source" project to improve the standard keyboard, when I was in my early 20s at Uni, I designed some fancy standard piano keys*, which can be used for personal projects. If used commercially, then I have to be involved as well mainly because I do not want you to screw up the design, although am open for any suggestions, improvements and alike!
*just ignore the uniform layout, it is just a side feature I made back in the days
*the pair of pink circles suggest where you could play a true glissando
*the single big pink circle marks a wide area for the fingertips between "black keys" at the front (although I think at that spot should have been a concave bump as well)

standard-improved.jpg

[Niowiad]

Although you previously said it's too early to explain the symbols, I saw you made much more extensive presentations on other forums (REAPER's forum and much more detailed on Gearslutz weeks ago).
I still think the layout could be very good for wide chords and transposition... I'm pretty much sold on that.
But I'm also under the impression that changing note names and symbols (if we're still going to use the 12 semitones anyway) is potentially only scaring people away.
People either already know their triads and scales and intervals by standard note names, or they're learning them on manuals written for the standard system.
You're obviously not going to agree on this (as you felt the necessity of creating your own nomenclature) but simply leaving "black keys black" and "white keys white" would make it much clearer and appealing to musicians, in my opinion.

Changing the layout is already a big challenge... one thing at a time

[JCJR]

It would require profound understanding of music theory to even change a tiny piece. Sure some of it seems contradictory but it all dovetails together and everybody "in the biz" knows what somebody else "in the biz" is talking about.

About everything has this historical baggage we will never be rid of. For example there are multiple entirely valid calculus notations and it does no good to shake one's head and wish for only one standard calculus notation.

Good luck getting horn players, fiddle players, guitarists, etc to rename the notes they use.

[JCJR]

For example interval numbers are based on major scale (2, 9, 11 whatever).

To invent new chromatic interval numbers, just as a minor side-effect we have invalidated the entire chord naming convention that about everybody uses.

In the "new improved system" a 9 interval is now some other number and all the 9 chord names have to change.

Maybe C#9 turns into R15 or whatever. Or maybe the chord would be R14 if you want to count intervals starting from zero rather than one.

Good luck selling that.

[BertKoor]

The two closest relatives are Janko and Dreschke keyboards, but Pashkuli surpasses them at least twofold. Because I solved their flaws with some basic understanding about shape and design in general.

Apparently you dare to quantify it, but two-fold of what? It's very vague what exactly your improvements are.

[Pashkuli]

Two-fold is just a quick expression... it is manifold.

• Keys are in one plain.

• Keys have an upward slope (crucial even if you round off the edges), from front to back - all of them (for all the three shapes).

• Keys have rounded oblong hexagonal/pentagonal footprint and dome-like tops.

These are useful so:
~ you could make it as a touch-sensitive surface instrument (expensive but not that difficult to make)
~ you can press any two adjacent* keys with one finger
*(min. second - for maj7 inversions; or second interval - min7 inversions and dominants inversions) + plenty of other inversions
~ you can glide the chord shapes without having to raise the hand on the next row, or for the adjacent* root note.. with some training you can even do that for min3rd jumps and with minimal jump for maj3rd jumps (transpositions)
~ kids with small hands (4~5 year old) can start without problems playing the basic narrow shapes of chords from any root note, anywhere on the keyboard

Here is a render (probably 15 years old) regarding the standard piano keyboard in the previous posts:

a.jpg

e.jpg

[Pashkuli]

Maybe C#9 turns into R15 or whatever. Or maybe the chord would be R14 if you want to count intervals starting from zero rather than one.
Good luck selling that.

Not clear... what is C♯9 standing for? According to the following online source, it is one of these:
Plenty of Chords - click for C♯9

Cxdom9.jpg

Which one of those 4 would you like? (this was to show the first ambiguity of the standard notation)
So, let's assume it is the first one (root inversion). Then you would have:

Dmrvg.jpg

If you are wondering why those numbers, start from the red key of that root inversion, count the steps consequentially key by key (there is no such thing as half-step/whole-step... you've been led to believe a nonsense, a "special case"...) and see what number you get when you step on a green key.

And to visualise it completely:

Cxdom9-Pashkuli.jpg

Notice, that with this system you can even write precisely extremely wide chords (inversions), that would be impossible using the standard.

[EvilDragon]

Yeah that's definitely not gonna sell

[Pashkuli]

It is not about selling or acceptance - it is about writing music ideas precisely, tightly and correct, avoiding the now present ambiguity.

I could ask the same, so for example, what does even mean, and which one of them inversions is: C♯m11♭5♭9

[JCJR]

In many cases the exact inversion doesn't matter and if your ear is so bad to pick completely inappropriate voicings then I'll ask you to try something else.

Just play a damn C#9 that fits the rest of what's happening right there in the song dude.

But don't get boring and lay on the exact same inversion every time the chord comes around, unless it's supposed to be a hook.

Change it around within reason. Too much repetition is bad and too much variation is bad. Develop yer taste buds.

And of course C#9 doesn't always mean "exactly C#9 and nothing else". Sometimes it means "play something in the ballpark of a C#9 whatever sounds good along with everything else."

If I have to tell you every little thing to play then I might as well have played it myself and avoided the hassle. Next time I'll hire a sideman who knows what the hell he's doing!

[The above is like what a young guy might hear from a crusty old band leader if he asks too many dumb questions. The info is accurate but I'm kinda channelling the sparkling personality of some band leaders I've known over the years.]

[Pashkuli]

Well, OK. Are we talking now about genres and styles in Music or shall I start assuming inversions in Bach compositions, through Mozart, Chopin, Debussy... I am not sure about that, at all.
That is why those things are called "voicing a chord", because they matter. Thus, we should be able to write them down as they were intended by the composer even without referring to the Staff (which by itself is another badly designed system)
Once the voicing has been written correctly - the player can always play by "free will" the "interpretation" of the prescribed original inversion by the composer.

Like with everything in this life, none of us have been born knowing how to speak, write, play music instrument, have other skills. It all requires time and dedication... and above all - to be interested in the subject! If there is a will, there is a way.

[JCJR]

In classical (so far as I know) a composer writes down every desired note. A musician is not expected to interpret "ambiguous" chord symbols

But that doesn't mean that the classical musician is a mere musical typist.

They have to know a vast specialized lore about turning the notes into living breathing music.

Conductors can become legendary ill-tempered if you don't know how to do your job. It is a lot of "learn by doing" in all genres.

Surely you don't expect classical musicians will convert to a "new improved scheme"? They might be the least likely genre.

I know it is hopelesa to convince you, but inversions are rarely important in chord naming discussions.

Musicians who communicate in chord names know all about inversions and they expect other musicians to know all about it. Often viewed as a trivial implementation detail. Many combinations of inversions potentially sound good.

If I were to hire a guitarist to record some tracks then my hope is that he knows his job better than I know his job. That makes him valuable if he can read my chord chart and interpret it better than I can tell him how to play it. The session is already going purt sour if he is so far out that I have to start dictating what chord voicings to use. Respectful directions might be like, "Would that sound better lower on the neck?" or whatever.

It would be like hiring a doctor and then telling the doctor what treatment to use. Hopefully the doctor knows his job better than I know the doctor's job.

Here is a cute simple little video about music theory. They never mention inversions. Inversions are irrelevant to the discussion. Tis doubtdul that John Coltrane had to tell the pianist, "Make sure to use third inversion on bar 45."

[Pashkuli]

Jazz is just a niche style of Music. Inversions are not irrelevant. They are what makes Music interesting in all three stages:
· composing/creating
· playing/performing
· interpreting/covering