MIDI Controller Designs: the Best Options for Performing Live Digital Music by Joey Earnest Research Procedures in Music Dr
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Earnest 1 MIDI Controller Designs: The Best Options for Performing Live Digital Music By Joey Earnest Research Procedures in Music Dr. Brown Fall, 2013 Earnest 2 The sound of music has been shaped by mechanics, culture, and biology. Modern technology has changed the way in which music is physically performed and composed. In the world of digital music, tools like midi-controllers give performers control over a wide array of musical parameters, in real time. Highly refined computer programs can make this process even more streamlined. Traditionally, piano keyboard styled midi and synthesizer controllers have been the standard note input devices for production and performance purposes. Considering that the actual design of the piano keyboard must accommodate physical sound-making mechanisms, such as strings and chimes, one can see its legitimacy as an acoustic “controller.” However, a digital platform, such as an isomorphic keyboard, eliminates the need for the controller to be laid out over several feet. The traditional piano keyboard, although ergonomic in many respects, does display limitations. For example, the piano-keyboard only utilizes left to right and to a limited degree, up and down, while humans have the ability to move their hands in many directions along three axes, including up and down, left to right, forward and back. The only reason piano keyboards are still relevant as midi controllers is because of the traditionalism within various musical communities that require a piano style keyboard to reproduce a specific idiom, or have been trained in that method. Isomorphic midi-controllers and other accelerometer or sensor based controllers that utilize all three spatial dimensions, are superior in design to traditional piano style controllers for the transmission of digital music data. Theoretically, all of the same music of the piano can also be played on an isomorphic keyboard. This begs the question: if a musician wants to make exclusively electronic music, what benefit would learning the piano have? Gustav Mahler would say, “Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire” (Mahler, Earnest 3 1860-1911). Frank Zappa, on the other hand said, “Progress is not possible without deviation” (Zappa VPRO interview Netherlands, 1971). These perspectives are at the heart of this inquiry, and pose the question, what are the advantages and disadvantages of using newer isomorphic styled controllers as opposed to traditional piano keyboard controllers? This inquiry will find both advantages and disadvantages of the piano keyboard and isomorphic keyboards in contemporary music by focusing on their mechanical, cultural, and biological contexts. The musicologist, Bart Hopkin, provides insightful information on building all kinds of instruments. Understanding the history and mechanics of instrument design is a foundational aspect to the argument of the piano keyboard being a subpar device to transmit midi-data. In his book, Musical Instrument Design: Practical Information for Music Making, Bart Hopkin provides a brief history of the development of musical keyboards in Europe: The layout of the standard keyboard - the familiar pattern on five raised black keys and seven white keys to the octave - was never invented or planned in any clear sense. It came into being in an evolutionary process spanning several centuries. The earliest keyboard-like mechanisms were sets of broad, flat sliders protruding from the fronts of organs of Greek antiquity. By the Middle Ages, the norm was a set of seven sliders or levers comprising the diatonic octave, lying in a single even row. Beginning around the thirteenth century, progressively more levers appeared to accommodate chromatic tones, with the the additional keys distinguished from the original diatonics by their placement in a second row above. By the fifteenth century, an arrangement much like the present one had become widespread, with the seven below and five above- but still, at that time, in the form of rows of levers. In the course of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries this evolved into the bed of ivory and ebony that we see today (Hopkin & Scoville, 2010). Traditionally, the developments of the keyboard mirrors the developments in music theory, such as the understanding of the harmonic series, key changes, polyphony, equal temperament, and chromaticism. Contemporary isomorphic keyboard designs may eventually open up new creative possibilities for changing between a multitude of newer tonal systems, including microtonal Earnest 4 systems, mid performance. Hopkin mentions that many contemporary keyboard designs “depart more radically from the existing standard” (Hopkin & Scoville, 2010). A variety of hexagonal shaped layouts, including Erv Wilson’s Bosanquet Keyboard design, exemplify this shift. Hopkin says, “One important idea has been to use two-dimensional arrays. This brings more keys into a smaller area, allowing the player to reach more tones with less stretch. It also allows a more sophisticated approach to pitch relationships, since one can work with vertical and diagonal spatial parameters as well as horizontal” (Hopkin & Scoville, 2010). When these newer tessellating isomorphic keyboard designs are used in a digital context, the creative potential increases dramatically. When the keyboard is comprised of a grid of buttons or touch sensitive pads triggering digital signals, as opposed to a series of levers and hammers hitting large metal strings, it becomes easier to design small compact keyboards with more notes. It also means the integrity and efficacy of the keyboard layout does not need to be compromised by the inherent physical limitations of acoustic instrument design. The digitization of keyboards only adds to the relevance of this idea. Since the cumbersome, large mechanical systems necessary for acoustic instruments to make sound are no longer a significant factor in the design of MIDI keyboards, it raises the question, why aren’t isomorphic MIDI keyboards more popular than piano-style MIDI keyboards for playing polyphonic passages of music? The Hexagonal design makes horizontal and diagonal moment more fluid; vertical leaps conveniently shift octaves. The “Hex Keyboard” is a good substitute for the piano keyboard because it can also easily reproduce idiomatic piano passages. Isomorphically designed keyboards can be far superior at transmitting MIDI data than traditional piano keyboards for several reasons. Most importantly, the learning curve is faster on Earnest 5 an isomorphic keyboard because musical patterns and note groups can be replicated in multiple transpositions without altering the physical shape of the group. Another important reason is space and efficiency. Isomorphic keyboards are compact and can fit many notes into a tight grid rather than sprawling out several feet. There are also the ergonomic issues surrounding keyboard design. Isomorphic keyboards have less potential to cause physical performance injury than piano keyboards. The physical nuances of the piano keyboard have affected the literature. Although many composers certainly push the boundaries of what is possible on any given instrument, the physical limitations of each instrument inevitably shape the literature. Many of the greatest piano pieces ever written, can be played with ease and comfort by competent piano players. The largest advantage to playing on a traditional keyboard is to reproduce traditional idiomatic literature. However, clinging to the piano keyboard (as a midi controller) for reasons of comfort and familiarity can potentially slow the process of innovation in a constantly evolving digital music world. The Computer Music Journal presents research out of MIT suggesting that there are specific advantages to using isomorphic style keyboards in comparison to traditional keyboards. One such article discusses various designs or layouts of the keyboards, as well as the way in which we identify intervals in music. “This article answers this question by presenting examples of two related tuning continua (parameterized families of tunings where each specific tuning corresponds to a particular value of the parameter) that exhibit tuning invariance (where, on an appropriate instrument, all intervals and chords within a specified set have the same geometric shape in all of the tunings of the continuum)” (Milne, Sethares, & Plamondon, 2007). The article states “Microtonality presents interesting challenges, not only for the design of new instruments Earnest 6 (and, of course, for performers of traditional instruments), but also for notation. Composers have adopted different, often idiosyncratic, conventions for naming the pitches of nonstandard tuning systems and displaying them on the page” (Milne, Sethares, & Plamondon, 2007). The article discusses the mathematical relationships of different frequencies and harmonics in various tuning systems and temperaments. It also talks about geometry and symmetry and how it relates to isomorphic keyboards. The research presented by the MIT study concludes that “isomorphic keyboards can be coupled with appropriate computer technology to provide the deeper benefits of tuning invariance and dynamic tuning” (Milne, Sethares, & Plamondon, 2007). In addition: Music education, performance, and composition can benefit from the transpositional and tuning invariance provided by isomorphic button fields. The piano-style keyboard is incapable of achieving the advantages of an isomorphic keyboard for three reasons.