To put it simply, they are what they are.
When one spends time reading about isomorphic keyboard layouts on the Internet, one begins to notice certain themes. Two big ones are
- evangelism
and
- resistance
The evangelists have spent some time geeking out over the concept of isomorphic keyboards and they're convinced of the theoretical advantages of their chosen layout. Maybe they actually sell their chosen layout as a product. They spend a lot of time explaining those advantages to others. This is not a bad thing---I certainly fit this description---but where things go wrong is that comparisons to established instruments (most often the piano) end up being raised. This may be the easiest way to explain the advantages of another keyboard layout, but inevitably....
The resistance gets defensive. They are not necessarily pianists, but anyone who plays a more traditional instrument and either a) gets rightfully offended that their time-tested instrument is being called inferior to some design that has existed for a century and still hasn't caught on, b) find the suggested alternative layout to be over complicated and/or unintuitive, or c) both.
Both points of view have merit.
However, I can't help but think that nobody ever discusses the relative merits of a guitar's fretboard vs a piano's keyboard or a clarinet's orientation vs a flute's. They are what they are. As far as I'm concerned, different keyboard layouts are the same way. Yeah, there are some very real advantages, but there are also disadvantages. It doesn't really matter; every instrument has advantages and disadvantages. What makes them worthwhile is how you work around the disadvantages and how you play to the instrument's strengths.
No comments:
Post a Comment