DIY digital piano: The Janko Layout

RIP

Interesting. If it wasnt for the fact I got into 3D printing (and CAD design, and some firmware + electronics…) at work to the point I got a 3D printer and started playing around with it at home I would have likely dropped the Janko layout a year ago after finding out that getting one isnt really possible on a commercial level (and no, searching e-bay for a 'chromatone' keyboard doesnt really count).

Ive been kind of binge listening to Phil Best's "teaching and learning fluent piano skills" playlist as I work on the piano (so around 5 hours of listening), and while its a rather interesting take on things with much greater focus on 'just keep improvising and dont focus too much on the theory' kind of learning (that in some way sounds more like a meditation session/lesson than one talking about learning piano - 'breathe in, breathe out, just let go)… I cant find anything specific to the classical piano layout that wouldnt also apply to a Janko layout or really any layout (or heck - any instrument) in general. There is talk about picking a tonal block and playing around with it, improvising with those notes and getting familiar with them, but nothing linking that to the classical piano layout.

The closest was his mention about how 'beautiful' the classical piano layout is. If I was to be asked what he meant by that I might say it has something to do with him stating that the basic tonal blocks are the 12 major, 12 minor, 2 whole-tone, 3 diminished - in which case 24 of them fit 'naturally' to the diatonic key placement of the piano, but thats just me putting words in his mouth.

But there isnt anything specific. He advocates for playing different tonal groups (sort of like chords but not quite) and getting familiar with them, learning how they interact and trying to involve them within a sort of 'natural' progression of music with a heavy focus on getting 'fluent' such that you 'speak' the song instead of trying to make sense of it as you play.

But once again - nothing of this is specific to the classical piano layout, or even the piano in general. In the end I dont see anything in his style of teaching that would go against an isomorphic keyboard. Perhaps that part is in the paid section or within the one-on-one lessons?

PS: wow apparently there is a very hot topic about piano keys / pashkuli that I didnt notice that started 6 days ago and doesnt seem to be stopping. Think I will read up on that post and see if it helps out.

From there, you mentioned how due to the split of the keyboard into two groups (2B+3W || 3B+4W) leads it symmetry and brings the number of scales/arpeggios from 24 to 3. Could you expand on that?

Mike Filip Think I will read up on that post and see if it helps out.

Not as close to the topic of isomorphic layouts vs classical layout as I would have liked. I think the closest it came was your comment about the symmetry of the classical layout and the way it can bring the number of scales/apeggios from 24 to 3.

Also - a very good example in terms of using the backs of the black keys to orient on the keyboard. Is that what you meant about the classical layout allowing you to intuitively know where you are? Are you 'mentally' splitting the keyboard into two groups based on the two black keys and three black keys, and then navigating by placing your hands between the black keys?

Imagine if you're with blindfolds on, and you put your hands on the keyboard somewhere:

1. On Janko keyboard, you have no way to tell which notes your fingers are on, only the intervals between them.
2. On traditional piano, black keys adjacent to your fingers enable you to (uniquely?) locate where you are within the scale.
   Not only do they enable you to locate where you are, on diatonic layout, it is of utmost importance to know where you are, as depending on the location within the scale you will have to adjust to different "geometric shapes" to play the chord or a series of intervals you intend.

From a certain point of view, it matters less on a Janko keyboard where you are, because the geometric shapes you have to play won't change to play the same music.

Those tactile bumps and textures as found on Daskin Janko MIDI controller (for which they have a patent which has already expired) probably address this (shortcoming?) - ie. they let you know where each finger is within the scale at all times.

DavisB

Ok - I will agree with you here. Having the keys not be an ordered set does allow one to 'locate' themselves on the keyboard better if they are not capable of looking at the keyboard (ex: sight reading). I am not sure how important this is, but this is a positive on the side of the classical keyboard.

I am going to hold out that visually, the fact that the Janko layout keeps the diatonic coloring of the notes (7 white and 5 black keys in the C major pattern) it provides as good as a classical piano layout for orientation (though once again - only visually).

One thing that you mentioned in the previous thread that we cant overlook though is the 'back of the black keys' being used for alignment - to the point that removing them along the backs of the keys is detrimental.

This is a very good point and something I went to my piano and tested just now - played a few pieces and just focused on how I place my fingers. So… yea - I use the sides of the black keys to sort of lean or perhaps hold my fingers against in order to help with alignment on the keys. How much of a detriment not having the ability (or necessity?) of playing between the keys (white between black) on a Janko piano is to be seen.

I went back to look at photos and videos of the acoustic Janko pianos and a few of them had very dome-like keys (more like a cylinder dropped on its side, with the axis facing forward). I did round out the corners of the keys of my DIY piano, so maybe that would help with alignment; if not I can also try a fully rounded keys more akin to the original Janko piano, but it might turn out that having that option / necessity of playing between the black keys is actually a boon for the classical piano instead of a disadvantage I initially saw it as (ie: there are a couple passages in the pieces I play which are a bit uncomfortable due to playing mostly on the whites between blacks)

On the other hand, playing on the Janko keys should feel more akin to playing with only the black keys on the classical piano - there is no 'alignment' to be done outside of 'feeling' that you are centered on the key. Guess only trying it out will solve this question.

Too much for me to digest during a business day. I'll try to get back to this next weekend, but I think we have exhausted each other points and reached the full understanding of each other to the final "agree to disagree" view.

Mike Filip But there isnt anything specific.

True because

Mike Filip Perhaps that part is in the paid section or within the one-on-one lessons?

Yes, his YT videos are not lessons nor descriptions of his course. Rather they are very tiny tidbits of things that can be applied / used outside of his framework. In fact

Mike Filip nothing of this is specific to the classical piano layout, or even the piano in general.

True, he also teaches voice (singing) which is arguably the most different instrument from piano. I think he once mentioned that he was teaching somebody with some other instrument (clarinet?) but don't quote me on that.

Yet for piano he does use the "keyboard map" very strongly to teach one always knowing where they are, what they are doing, what nearby notes are part of the chord that one is playing in that instant (and what role each of those note has), what nearby notes are part of the diatonic "scale" that one is playing in that instant, what nearby notes are part of the chromatic "scale" that one is playing in that instant. So improvising is not passively playing a random lick (sort of "human Mellotron"), but rather making conscious choices among this completely clear palette of sound at your disposal. With extremely simple harmonic progressions I can already do this. It's liberating, illuminating and exhilarating! With an isomorphic keyboard it would be extremely more complicated because the three/four groups I mentioned above (chord/role-within-the-chord, diatonic and chromatic) are only "virtual" and not physical.

Mike Filip From there, you mentioned how due to the split of the keyboard into two groups (2B+3W || 3B+4W) leads it symmetry and brings the number of scales/arpeggios from 24 to 3. Could you expand on that?

No but I can give you a (very small and incomplete) clue. Start with chords. Loop over all the 24 chords. Look only on the 2B 5-note group and ignore all the rest. Maybe make a graph of that. Repeat with the 3B 7-node group ignoring the rest. See the pattern?

Mike Filip This is a very good point and something I went to my piano and tested just now - played a few pieces and just focused on how I place my fingers. So… yea - I use the sides of the black keys to sort of lean or perhaps hold my fingers against in order to help with alignment on the keys.

Alright, so this is a glimpse of what I meant, reinforcing my initial claim that we now "full understand each other" -- other than I'm learning piano with Phil Best of course, so you can't fully understand that unless you also are taking lesson with him

Mike Filip
Whether the concern regarding "finding your way around piano" (ie. finding where you are within the scale from tactile feedback) turns out to be a valid issue, or a complete non-issue or just a minor one that can be addressed with textured patterns - I think it's almost impossible to give an accurate and fair assessment of, not without having your hands on a complete Janko piano and spending weeks or months playing it.

There's one fundamental issue that most alternative isomorphic keyboards tend to have - velocity sensitivity.
Keyboards like lumatone and similar technically speaking are velocity sensitive, but from every demo video i've seen, it does seem like velocity sensitivity has a very limited resolution (or the dynamic range is hard to control). In some videos it's almost as if somebody's playing on computer keyboard with a MIDI mapper on!

It's not an inherent quality of isomorphic layouts per-se, just how such instruments often tend to manifest themselves.
Your Janko piano seems to have an exceptionally well designed action (especially for a DIY project), so I'll assume it's a non issue. That clears a massive, major hurdle that most other isometric keyboards would already fail at. That's very, very rare!

Intuitively it seems like it should be better for improvisation and enables faster learning speed, as it has one less "layer of indirection", one less intermediary translation step and a direct mapping between shape and sound. Plus, Janko was designed from the get go with an explicit goal to be suited for regular human hand, and not oversized XXL by default.

So technically speaking it - in theory, on paper, it should be a much better instrument. It needs the experiment however!

I love your work and I hope you don't get discouraged! It's such a fascinating and largely unexplored territory!

RIP No but I can give you a (very small and incomplete) clue. Start with chords. Loop over all the 24 chords. Look only on the 2B 5-note group and ignore all the rest. Maybe make a graph of that. Repeat with the 3B 7-node group ignoring the rest. See the pattern?

I mean… I could break up the board into into groups of 5/7 based on the black key positions and say that for major and minor chords (or as you call them - tonal blocks: aka all notes on the piano that 'fit' the 3 from a chord?) form patterns;

• the third note is always on the same row as the first (and have the same 'span' that you feel)… as long as its not A#, B
• the middle note is on the same row as the first (major) or different row (minor) if it lands in the same 'group' of 5/7 as the first note, and is on the different row (major) or same row (minor) otherwise.
• the last note is played 'sort of' on the same key as the first note if you 'ignore' the first 2 notes of the 7 group… again - as long as its not A# or B

Which like - yes, that makes sense. You can also say that the second note 'should' be on the same row as the first, but if there is a 'missing' black key between the two notes, then its on a different row. The third note 'should' be on a different row as the first, but if there is a 'missing' black key between the notes then its on the same row; and if there are 2 'missing' black keys between the notes then its once again on a different row.

You can probably find other similar patterns (such as the spacing between the middle and first note, or middle and last note based on their position relative to each other in the 5/7 blocks)… but in the end its just the relationship between the setup of the chord (1st note, skip 3, 2nd note, skip 2, 3rd note) and the way the keyboard is laid out.

RIP I'm learning piano with Phil Best of course, so you can't fully understand that unless you also are taking lesson with him

I guess this is why you cant share the 24 to 3 pattern explanation - because its kept behind the lock-and-key of the course? If so, could you tell me which section I need to buy to become initiated in it? I assume it would be under the "step 3 - introduction to keyboard mapping"?

I guess its just I dont see the 'positive' from having different chord shapes (and yes, I come back to that like a broken record).

Why would C major to G major be a simple shift of the C and E note one down to B and G, but a similar perfect fifth progression from G major to D major involve shifting B to A (one note down again), but G to F# (diagonally to a black key)? Why should the fact that I started the first 'song' from C before making a I->V jump not feel the same way as if I started the song at G? And more importantly - what benefit does having these two progressions not feel the same provide?

well, im off to grab the 15 step guide and the keyboard mapping 'lesson plan' from play piano fluently. Hope that clears some things up.

DavisB

Thanks!

Thinking back on it now I probably should have started with a simpler glue-on converter for classical piano -> Janko just so I could at least get my feet wet and get familiar with the layout before diving fully into the full-custom-piano… but nothing I can do about it now.

DavisB Intuitively it seems like it should be better for improvisation and enables faster learning speed, as it has one less "layer of indirection", one less intermediary translation step and a direct mapping between shape and sound.

This is pretty much my stance on the Janko vs Classical layout. In both cases you need to practice enough to become so familiar with the keyboard that you stop thinking about which key to press for which note (or chord or whatever) and instead start thinking / feeling with just the music, being able to play wherever the flow takes you instead of being taken out of it when you have to think about the shape this particular chord needs to take.

@RIP is of the opposite opinion - that the inherent diatonic nature of the classical layout lends itself better to understanding the way music transitions/flows between chords/tonal-groups, to the point that on a chromatic layout (such as the Janko) you would get lost - thus breaking you out of the flow when you need to think about where you are, and what you need/want to play next.

Mike Filip If so, could you tell me which section I need to buy to become initiated in it?

I think I wrote that above, didn't I?

Mike Filip what benefit does having these two progressions not feel the same provide?

Knowing where you are. Like being in a city where every corner looks like every other corner (I've been there, and it's an eerie sense of being lost), rather than every corner being its own. Important when you start doing modulation and/or complex "far" harmonies when from the starting key signature to move off to somewhere else (as it's done in some styles of Jazz, such as by Chick Corea). If when you move to a different key signature it "feels" exactly like before just "a bit to the right", I think it'd be extremely hard to keep track of what you're doing.

Maybe this example is clearer than the ones I gave before.

Mike Filip @Del Vento is of the opposite opinion

Yes, you got it.

For the sake of the casual reader of this thread (I think you, Mike, understand this pretty well), let me just stress that (like everything I say) this is simply my opinion, which I formed with experience and I strongly believe in. But if you feel my opinion is crap and doesn't worth a penny, that's fine, I won't get offended and I'm totally cool with your disagreement. In fact I wish you all the best with your (musical) endeavor. If it feels like in this thread I'm repeating my opinion in different ways that's only because you are pressing me to do so for the sake of the argument and to understand each other better. Also (as you know) I'm happy to collaborate with you on other aspects (such as the Hickman action which would work fine for both Janko and traditional layout).

RIP
I was never able to try it. (Jankò layout)
Knowing where you are.

To be able to assess any new instrument tool or even information (such as instructional manual) one needs to spend time doing it. Let alone to get good at it!

Del Vento, how many amount of time have you spent on a "normal" piano?
Count from the first day you had it under your fingers to the day you could play… let's say… 8 bars of an etude or maybe "Fur elise" using both hands confidently and acknowledged by a second listener (socond opinion, not yours only)?

Let me guess… at least a month. Or a few days if done by ear from hands on instructions by another pianist without the immediate necessity to read (learn) from a score (which would require much more time).

Unless you are willing to invest that time with a new instrument then your opinion is superficial, biased and one sided.
You admit you've never tried it so it is quite self explanatory.

To make it clear, because you might become defensive of your opinion:
• Jankó contsruction is not great (especially the staircase\waterfal rows of keys)
• the above means Drischke's layout is a bit better, but… it has 'flat surface' keys, where Janko's are rounded (crowned)

All Jankó derivatives I have seen online dismissed this rounded shapes (which Janko probably have taken from some of Renaissance organs and portatives)! And that was a big mistake. The same mistake Drechske made with his keys (before Janko), but he never build a keyboard so it is understandable.

And let's face it: for the Halberstadt ("standard") keyboard and layout there are hundreds of thousands works written and still being written to this day. I have seen only instructional material on how to play Jankó\Dreschke and not a single work (original) for it! Adapted piaces have been made by Daskin (Paul Vandervoort) and Muto (Wataru Ohkawa) on their YouTube and Facebook channels but that's it really.

No one can teach you really. And that is why your opinion is a bit inconclusive to say the least.

PASHKULI No one can teach you really. And that is why your opinion is a bit inconclusive to say the least.

You are far more pathetic than I ever thought...