Pianos (keys) are badly designed!

PASHKULI

Hello, PianoTell members and readers!

TL; DR (please scroll down for the links to my 'Google Drive' repository and my YouTube channel)

I design pianos (as a hobby) as you can see on the photos. My journey started when I was 14 years old when I saw a real acoustic grand piano in my home town's local theatre.

Of course, I had seen pianos on the TV, but never up-close and under my hands. I opened that grand piano and its details, especially the keys, almost immediately grabbed my attention.

I got extremely puzzled about the discrepancies that big piano and its keyboard had. I tried to "play" something (I had no idea how to play piano as I started to take drums lessons in the same theatre – that is how I had the chance to come close to that grand piano) and it was obvious to me something was not quite right…

The re-Design of the Standard Piano Keyboard

In the following years I had a schoolmate who had an upright piano she had started learning to play at age 5 (I found that a bit shocking to be honest). We spent hours and hours every week when she practised for competitions and stage performances so I had a chance to look at her hand movements and take measures and observe. Overall, I started to search for answers to the questions emerging in my head.

• the discomfort of the proportions in standard piano keys •

I could not grasp the reasons for such unpleasant discrepancies and overall discomfort when touching the keys ('blacks' on a elevated level up)… especially when Pianos were considered to be a luxury music instrument (more or less).

I developed some ideas about re-designing the piano keyboard but never spoke to anyone about it (besides sharing my thoughts with my piano player schoolmate) at that time till I graduated and went to Uni. Internet gave me access to many sources of info so the re-design began. I wanted to somehow make the 'equalised' (equally tempered design… if you'd like the pun) piano keyboard. So I did my solution:

• equally tempered standard piano keyboard •

On one hand, all respective widths are equal, and on the other – the keyboard could be made narrower for smaller hands! Everyone involved in such measurements knows that usually piano keys get divided in two groups: [C to E] and [F to B]

It leads to a deviation between the narrow areas juxtaposed to the front\wider areas between the keys [E] and [F] – the gap is not dead straight. My redesign 'splits that difference' sharing it between the two vertical gaps, namely between [В] and [C] and the already mentioned [E] and [F]. We are talking about a fraction of a mm (millimetre) depending on the chosen overall width\span of the hand (small or big "octave" span).

That was one of the main reasons. The next reason was the uncomfortable separation of elevation between both type of keys 'black' and 'white'. If you know the history of how early pianos were constructed as a set of levers and that there were no 'black' keys (who knows why called "accidentals" – no such thing in Pythagoras time) and how the 'black' pentatonic set of keys were added… by the way it is one of the reason in Germany the key [В] is known as [H] but that could be discussed later. So, I fixed that as well.

• the re-Design of the Standard piano keyboard •

• some of the consideration about such a re-Design •

• …what can I say •

• a simple concept as a real grand piano keyboard •

The re-Design of the Uniform Piano Keyboard

• such keyboards are known as Jankó and Dreschke type of piano keyboards •

Well, we could include the Bayan accordion keyboard here as well but Bayans can have different interval layout structure between the rows of keys.

Generally, those uniform layout keyboards are known as 'Janko' because Paul von Janko managed to build a few of such keyboards, whilst Dreschke did not built any. I had seen Bayan keyboards of course, they are not a novelty but info about Jankó (1882) I first read on the Internet in 2010. His keyboard was definitely similar to the earlier Dreschke (1846) and Bayan (1830).

Jankó, being a Hungarian, as his friend and world renown pianist and composer Liszt, showed his keyboard to Liszt who got really impressed and wanted to have another piano playing career using that keyboard.

During the 20th century there were some few attempts at reviving Jankó but I found them to be a step back… or aside from the right direction. So, I did my re-Design of the Dreschke not so much Jankó but all inspired probably by the Bayan more or less. Not going to delve deep into the technical differences between Dreschke-Janko-Bayan as they are obvious for those interested in the subject. Here is my solution:

• an overall view of the Uniform re-Design compared to its Standard piano counterpart •

• it is all about the comfort of the human hand
• just put your calm hand on it and you got a chord as shown! •
• renova ("octave") span is _130mm

• ok, maybe a few technical info won't hurt… •

• side view of the PASHKULI Uniform piano keyboard •

This is an obscure topic and only intended as an introduction post to this forum. History of the piano as a musical instrument is huge as well. I hope this topic at least raised your curiosity in the subject and give you an idea what has been missed or left unsolved in the past few centuries. Not that it matters – many players are clueless about the reasons and state of the art. After all Mozart did not invent the Pianoforte. Bartolomeo Cristofori did. Chopin did not invent the 'escapement lever', Erard did. But piano players have the right to know about their instruments and eventually to have a choice when make informative decisions. At least a choice. We would like to accommodate the piano to the player as we all have different hand size (even when growing up). Certainly, piano (acoustic) is not a cheap musical instrument, but with its digital alternatives we have the advantage to make a choice.

And we have not even talked about the Music notation… although there is not a forum section about it as it is not about the piano, although its origin has been tightly connected to the piano.

But that is a completely separate discussion (you can find some of it in my 'Google Drive' in the links bellow). If you are interested and the admins allow it, I can start a topic about Music Notation. It is a great joy for me to discuss such problems with other musicians.

presentations (.pdf) work in progress

images (photos)

videos (not needed, watch my Youtube channel videos)

PASHKULI (YouTube channel)

Animisha

Very interesting Pashkuli! I would love to try to play on your piano (not the Jankó and Dreschke type, because that would require so much relearning, but the Bösendorfer above), especially pieces that were written for male hands, and that I need to adapt so they don't hurt my hands. It would be interesting to see if they don't hurt my hands without my adaptations on your piano.

PASHKULI And we have not even talked about the Music notation

I have spent quite some time ~~thinking~~ feeling irritated about the impracticality of the music notation system we have now, but I have accepted it. Still,

PASHKULI If you are interested and the admins allow it, I can start a topic about Music Notation.

I am sure the admins will allow it! Why wouldn't they?

PASHKULI

Animisha I am sure the admins will allow it! Why wouldn't they?

Hi, Animisha
There is no section for such topics on the forum. And the subject is highly controversial, because many musicians have no idea how the current music notation system got invented, then imposed and indoctrinated since the Medieval times as The Church in Europe dominated every aspect of education (the Dark ages). During the Renaissance other arts began to detach from such infuence such as fine art, sculpture, theatre and literature, science (I think it is an art) especially Astronomy, Biology and Chemistry, but Music left that clumsy inheritance ever since… up untill the 20th century but without much progress.

iternabe

IMHO, whether or not the modern staff music notation or the piano has some flawed design is beyond the point. I learn them because the huge amount of music written in them and performed on them. Do they have flaws? Maybe. My own experience is so limited I am really not qualified to say. However, if anyone else want to claim they invented a better system, I won't be convinced until they re-write and re-perform the majority of the existing repertoire successfully on their new system and new instrument.

It's just like the English language, or many other widely used languages. All of them have significant flaws. But we use them because most of whom we communicate with use them, too. There is in fact an invented language, Esperanto, that is supposedly designed for universal communication. Do you know anyone who speaks Esperanto?

hebele

iternabe natural languages and writing systems are full of inconsistencies. But this is expected because they evolve. Useful bits tend to survive. Same with western music notation, not perfect but a useful convention. It's also not that hard, even for a beginner. Recently I've tried follow a youtube piano tutorial and immediately looked for the sheet music. Because following the video was too slow. So for certain things, sheet music seems to be best we have. An alternative "nicely designed" notation not only would need to meet all current complexities but also evolve consistently. That's not going to happen with the diversity of cultures/music we have.

PASHKULI

iternabe However, if anyone else want to claim they invented a better system, I won't be convinced until they re-write and re-perform the majority of the existing repertoire successfully on their new system and new instrument.

This is a collasal task for a single person… unless… I had a "church" behind for support. But I am not an authority on humans' spiritual and intellectual development.

Esperanto was a Latin\Roman based language more or less (minimal inclusion of Russian\Polish but only for its words not the writting). Its alphabet was cumbersome, basically a bit less terrible than Polish. English is germanic with Romanised\Latin mixes. It got popularised because… collonialism and slavery. Sad but true. Similarly to how the church operated (so that in America, Central and South, the Spanish is also dominant… I wonder why… did I hear 'Hely Inquisition' and missioneries?). No from the mid 20th centuries and computers… you get the idea why English.

Music in my opinion deserves its own 'language' not based on any culture or preferences and predilections on alphabet, lyrics (text) and specific scale as a reference point. Unfortunatelly, that is not the case and has not been since the 10th_11th century CE. Again, the reason is obvious.

Think of it as being sort of a 'geocentric' model. So, there is a bit more accurate and independent 'heliocentric' model that I propose. That is all.

Animisha

Inventing a music notation system that facilitates learning to read music would absolutely be worth it. I have one important request. The same note in the right hand should be notated exactly as it is in the left hand.

iternabe MHO, whether or not the modern staff music notation or the piano has some flawed design is beyond the point. I learn them because the huge amount of music written in them and performed on them.

If somebody would invent a music notation system that is easier to learn and read, soon enough there would be an app that reads the old music notation and changes it into the new one.

PASHKULI

hebele That's not going to happen with the diversity of cultures/music we have.

The thing is with modern info tech. and communication it can happen quite successfully. Of course it won't be "viral" or "on the news": teachers would have the most important role in such endeavour. The first thind is realisation, understanding, knowing… then comes transition, adaptation, transformation\translation.
The help of a software tool would be crucial as well. No one has ever done such thing. There were some Music notation in the 20th century and one even way, way back proposed by non other than Jean‑Jacques Rousseau (the swiss philosopher and composer) and quite similar to the Chinese JianPu numerical notation.
That is a mistake. Numericals are way, waaaay too common and familiar to people in representing quantaties and positions. In Music this is ok for intervals and quite innappropriate for notes and rhythm.

PASHKULI

Animisha I have one important request. The same note in the right hand should be notated exactly as it is in the left hand.

Oh, they are! And not only that – "octaves" have same note, no matter for what hand and so on.
And if that is not enough, the composer can make any note notated for either hand… both on the score and as a text message over the phone!

Yes, I am trying to get a programmer (I am really below basic in this field) who would be willing to get on board and help me develop such an app. Yes, I am aware computer programmers are not cheap and many are not interested in usless free Music app.
This Notation also can function as a general TAB (tabulature) notation for any instrument (icnl. drum kits).

Hint: the presentation is in the links (.pdf) in the first post above

MRC

Here's an excellent video on alternate music notation systems:

(You can skip the first 10 minutes if you're not interested in chess)

PASHKULI

MRC Here's an excellent video on alternate music notation systems:

Not much there in the video. There was a website with much more info on it regarding this topic.
Music Notation Project

hebele

MRC ah.. I was ignoring that one just because of its clickbait title. But it was much more informative than an average YT video. Thanks for posting it here.

iternabe

MRC Excellent video indeed!

Now I know the dotted notes are the perfect ones. And if one day my small hands meets some truly insurmountable music, I shall consider Musitude since I am already a pretty good touch typist 😉

By the way the guy made that video is the lead developer of Musescore 4. He really knows his stuff.

iternabe

MRC BTW The video briefly touched on JianPu. That word is phonetic translation of Chinese word 简谱. Literal translation of the word 简谱 is "Simplified [Music] Notation".

Animisha

PASHKULI Oh, they are! And not only that – "octaves" have same note, no matter for what hand and so on.

That would be great! I am a fan already. 😊

MRC

PASHKULI Not much there in the video. There was a website with much more info on it regarding this topic.
Music Notation Project

That site presents many variants of chromatic notation systems, which remove the difference between flats and sharps and give each of the 12 notes of a chromatic scale its own line or space. These are discussed in the video I posted, starting at 31:57. I agree with Tantacrul in the video: the chromatic staves replace a short term complexity problem (learning the meanings of sharps and flats) with a much more permanent complexity problem (quickly recognising tonal intervals like 5th or 6ths, which take up more space on a chromatic staff).

A good argument can be made for using chromatic notation systems for 12 tone music (Schoenberg and his followers), but they are not well adapted for representing the vast majority of tonal music, be it Bach, Beethoven, Bacharach, the Beatles or Beyoncé. Conventional notation doesn't just tell you which notes to play when, it gives you essential information about tonality and harmony, information that is lacking in chromatic systems.

Conventional notation isn't perfect, it's a compromise arrived at over centuries. It may not seem the easiest system to learn at first, but once you've learnt it, it is incredibly powerful and versatile. It copes with a vast amount of diverse styles, from the simplest to the most complex, it can be used for all musical instruments, in all situations: solo piano, choir, jazz trio, rock group, full orchestra, opera, you name it... It's a wonderful way of connecting people of different cultures, who speak different languages. It's also a wonderful way of connecting us to our past.

All alternate notation systems are also compromises. There's always a trade-off, and very often the creator of the alternate system can't see this. Making one thing easier makes another thing harder, and in the worst cases the proposed system can only cope with a small subset of the music we currently play.

PASHKULI

MRC That site presents many variants of chromatic notation systems, which remove the difference between flats and sharps and give each of the 12 notes of a chromatic scale its own line or space.

To understand the current Musical notation (please note, that understanding it is completely different from learning it!) one should first know how it came to be, its origin and what it represents. What makes (or had to be made) the need for distinguishing certain 7 notes from 5 at least in 12 TET (12 tone equal temperament).

Is it a special case? Yes, it is.

Can it (flat\sharps) seen clearly seen anywhere? Yes, it can – on a Halberstadt ("standard" piano keyboard).
• the 'black' keys are representing such "accidentals"
• so, there must be a correlation… and there is!
• so why call them "accidentals"… well, those keys were not present there and when they were introduced they were used quite "accidentally" as a 'chromatic' colorising mode (see, ancient hellenic genera from Pythagoras\Aristoxenus and Alypius times)
• but not every musician is a pianist, therefore it is yet another special case
• at the very beginning of creating the "standard" music notation (year 1017) B (♮) and B♭ (♭) were both considered accidentals for the Roman church (catholic) chants. That was not the case in other parts of Europe and certainly not in folk music!

Does it lead to ambiguity? Yes, it does.
• a 'black' key can have two accidental sufixes or prefixes (♭ or ♯) depending on the chosen modal structure (already included notes as written symbols); same is valid for yet another special cases of double alterations to escape structiral ambiguity… and that is the irony of it!
• this all originates from the special case of naming only 7 of the notes (originaly only 6 as explained about ♮ and ♭) as the eraly church chants were strictly modal or diatonic (to use the hellenic terminology)

Similarly, at the very origins staff had 4 lines, later a 5th was added. Then the introduction of clefs made each staff lines and spaces between lines represent different notes (mismatch).

Some modern (pianolla roll and MIDI) type of 'chromatic' staves eliminated such problem (mismatch). The problem is they would take enormous space.

The typical stave with 5 lines sacrifices 42% of that space (as 5 notes are not represented vertically!) but if we take into consideration the 'double accidentals' and 'octave' designations this % goes to 50% and a bit more.
So, no… The "standard" music notation does not give us a correct interval structure vertically but a special case one.

Introducing key signatures makes it even worse as they have to be imprinted and shown but usually learned. Then there are rules for an alterated note within a bar which would be valid for any note on same line but not 'octaves' of same note till the end of the bar. Then it has to be written again (otherwise it stops affecting the notes).

Such problems are inherited by the special cases mentioned above.

But all those chromatic notations, besides taking up much more vertical space (MIDI roll is not good for human reading from paper anyway!) and paper or screen estate (turning of pages), they also are either bound to the piano layout (Klavarskribo and Clairnote, Muto and others) or using quite a lot of ledger lines – which does not make them any more good than the typical music staff.

All those require pre‑rendered or pre-engraved staff lines – special paper (score paper). Bach used to draw his staff lines with a 5 pointed rastrum (special pen-like instrument) before the printing machine and engraving tablets for Music application got implemented across its country of origin Germany and subsequently in Europe.

The key separation and accidentals are sort of a 'geocentric' model view on Music.
MIDI‑roll is a modern tool and its Music notation based derivatives (Dodeka and ) but it only suits computers, not humans. Print out a MIDI‑roll and you'll understand what I mean.

Both Music notes as letters and names also originated from special cases – the Latin alphabet (A, B, C…) despitе the fact its original creators (church clerks and monks) actually used a few hellenic (greek) letters especially the first note Г and for the notenames (Ut\Do, Re, Mi, Fa…) they used the lyrics of a well known psalm at that time which had its first 6 notes matching those exact sylables from the lyrics.

This has been 1000 years of… indoctrination. Learning without understanding.

MRC

PASHKULI To understand the current Musical notation (please note, that understanding it is completely different from learning it!) one should first know how it came to be, its origin and what it represents.

Having studied the history of current musical notation, I well understand how it has developed. Having used it constantly for the best part of my life, I understand how it is adapted to conveying accurately a host of musical styles, from medieval times to the present day and across multiple continents.

In particular I understand the necessity in tonal music for key signatures and different accidentals. When playing baroque music, maybe with strings and harpsichord, you will look at the keys of the pieces being performed, and possible modulations within these pieces, to decide what temperament to tune to. As a harpsichordist, you might for instance tune the G#s to create perfect major thirds with the Es, because there are pieces in A major and E major. You have to know that, in this case, you can't use a G# for Ab in an F minor chord: it will sound ghastly. If there is an F minor chord somewhere, you leave the Ab to the strings, who can adapt their tuning to the harmonies.

But even when playing on a modern piano, tuned in equal temperament, it's important to remember that this temperament is a compromise, a wonderful one indeed, but still a compromise that cannot reproduce the nuances of tuning possible for an orchestra or a string quartet. The harmonic information contained in the system of keys and accidentals helps you understand this compromise, and gives you an insight into the structure of tonal pieces. When a composer has used a D# rather than an Eb, or an E# rather than an F, it has to do with harmonic or melodic function. When you understand why the composer has chosen this particular notation, it may well affect the way you play the passage.

PASHKULI This has been 1000 years of… indoctrination. Learning without understanding.

There's no indoctrination here. Our notation system has not been dictated by some sort of high church. It has evolved over centuries, with different countries bringing different ideas that have converged, until we have arrived at a consensus, a system very rich in information that indeed needs to be understood, not just learned.

PASHKULI

MRC When a composer has used a D# rather than an Eb

That is a special case yet again!
The system has no starting note, therefore if you use whatever root note upon which you will define the 'best sounding ones' in terms of 'exact 3rds' and so on it will be only valid from that root note. And the 'octeves' won't match.
People often get confused by the mathematical "consonant" ratios. Yes, on paper they work. They also work for a specific set of notes based on a single note within an 'octave' range and that's it (maybe a four note chord).
That was not the reason why ♭ or ♯ and ♮ exist, they exist on the basis of misunderstanding (done by the Medieval church clerks) of the meaning of ratios to build a sequence of notes. It has nothing to do with good harmony.
Otherwise Bach would not write the "Well tempered klavier" (Das Wohltemperirte Clavier). I want to emphasise on the word 'well'. It translates to 'Well tuned keyboard'. It was not tuned to the modern 12TET as back then they relied mostly on ears to tune thus favouring one intervals from the TET as more pleaant, for exampele the 4th (which you call "major third"). Such modified by ear tunning were most likely used when writing "Well tempered klavier".

Because if they had to used the word 'perfectly' (perfectly tuned keyboard) then they would have needed a keyboard with at least 576 keys (notes), meaning for each of 12 notes × 4 'octaves' (avarage total range, aech having ×12 notes). And that is an optimal minimum (minunm would be 2 'octaves' but for each of the 12 keys! = 12notes × 24 = 288 keys). But we have to adjust for the 'octave' intervals. So it gets even more complicated to construct such 'perfectly' tuned instrument – it is physically impossible (size will be huge).

Once they got the spreading of the method to calculate with irrational Nth roots (around Bach's time) for lengths of pipes they should have completely revamped the notation from the Medieval times. But they didin't… actually they couldn't as it was already too much boundt to the Halberstadt keyboard (organs and then harpsichords, etc.) layout.

Please, let's be clear that what has remained as notated music was not the whole music.
Illiterate plebs continued playing music like they did for millennia before the Church took over the power over education. They knew very well what tuning adjustments worked and what did not by ear, without the need to be able to explain it mathematically as otherwise Zhu Zaiyu did in China – proving mathematically the 12‑TET.

The church clerks quite literally ruined the work of Boethius, Alypius and Aristoxenus. Reading their correspondence is the proof they had no understanding on the subject. They just had learned some methods to divide a monochord's string into proportions they thought fit the best for the music they used – very simple church chants of 6 notes.
They had no idea why the ratios would not match but used the division by 9 after every next shortened length (they called it 'fast method' but had to skip some of the divisions as they did not sound good).
That is why they found ♭ and ♮ yet they had B note already from the second division but they could not explain why.

They called it 'b' and 'the other b' (literally) so 'the other b' they wrote it as 'squared' which looked more like an h.
They named the "same" notes in the upper (second) 'octave' with hellenic (greek) letters completely messing up Boeithus' naming of intervals and Alipius' naming of notes.

Thus the A, B, C, D… ♭, ♮, ♯, … was born. It was a work of ignorance.

MRC

No, that isn't a special case, no, the work of Boethius and the others was not ruined, and no, our notation system is not a work of ignorance. I won't spend a lot of time explaining why; I'd prefer to look at some practical examples.

For starters, here's the beginning of Ravel's Sonatine for piano (from the original Durand edition, 1905):

Would you be so kind as to show how this would be notated with an alternate system that you consider to be better than the traditional one used in the printed edition? You choose the notation system, be it your own creation or one of the many that have been proposed over the years.

PASHKULI

MRC
MRC, I can try to translate it (find some suitable MIDI or maybe ORC it) to my PMN system.
This is not a matter of better or worse. You still have to learn it once being understood and comprehended.
It is a matter of simplifying (not as to learn it faster, although it might happen so). For example, the 'geocentric' model is great if you are on Earth (special case). But if you expand your perspective and see the elements – the structure does not change – but it gets more simple to comprehend.

We can start from writting a single music note on a blank sheet of paper and you won't know which one is it untill I place it on the score (five lines). But then again you wont be able to recognise it unless I write the clef… yet again it might need a key signature and then you could tell which note it is. You will be 'lucky' if no keysignature is shown and the clef does not change (position or character\symbol).

If we agree to use 12TET then naming only 7 notes out of 12 is by definition a special case, refering at specific scale structure – or big\'white' piano keys) – the latter is meaningless on let's say violin or oboe, guitar… (it is ok for vibraphone or xylophone). Those are special cases. Now following alphabetic sequence to assign to the 7 out of 12 notes (Latin in this case) is the most (worst) "special" of them all. It works for simple, diatonic music but hardly ever for folk music even across Europe, let alone Eastern\Aian, African etc. Oh, but you have accidentals for such "exotic" scales and modes. Or should remember the key signature (so you do not have to write them in the bars).
Ok, good – yet, another special case.

Example: what if the monks followed Pythagoras\Aristoxenus\Boethius division of monochord and name the notes:
½ is A, ⅔ is B, ¾ is C, etc. esentially what you call "octave", "fifth" and "fourth" respectively.
A → A
today's E would have been assigned the letter B
today's D would have been assigned the letter C

Only at the very end we find the ratio ⁸/₉ (for what we call 'major second' interval), so today's B would be G or maybe H.
The monks used this ⁸/₉ for every next shorter length and assigned the letters of Latin alphabet that way.
It is a joke (ignorance really) as they will not get the full 7 notes. And they skipped the 'augment4 | dim5' for it sounded… bad when combined with the actual string of the monochord! It was not the 6th from 12TET (=0.707106). It was ⁸/₉×⁸/₉×⁸/₉ = 0.70233.
600mm string × 0.707106 = 424mm
600mm string × 0.702331 = 421mm
3mm difference. Imagine your guitar fret at that position moved 3mm to the nut. A "blissful" tone!
They completely dismissed the chromatic genera, yet got so confused by the enharmonic differences. The problem is they had to include chromatic notes such as ♭ and ♮ but they had no idea why that happened from the divisions.
Why there was B (from the second division ⁸/₉→ A then ⁸/₉×A → B) but up the ratios they encountered ♭ and the enharmonic ♮ to B (albeit much higher as a note).
They simply wanted to get some tone references for their special six notes (usually for singing) to tune.

Just to remind you: it is much, much harder to divide in 9 parts any string rather than just in 3 or 4. Also, leads to more errors in precision (considering state of the art around years 980 ~ 1020).

Even if you speak and write as a native in Spanish, it will take time till you learn Portugese (very similar to Spanish, yet different). People expect to comprehend a new perspective or method at a glance. Imagine it took 1800 for people to accept the Earth is round like a ball (yet, many do not think it is, maybe a flat disk at best) and another 200 year that it is not the centre of the Universe\Space\Creation.

This music notation has been here for 800 years and going.