Perfect Layout

[John the Savage]

"you like to play all the same notes in different tunings just to see how it feels", because all the same notes are going to sound exactly the same regardless.

... no, sorry I was'nt clear enough, with 'all the same notes' I mean the *fingering* not the actual musical notes.
So with the same muscle memory pattern you can explore many different musical patterns.
Especially when with the press of a button you can have every tuning you want.
And nobody prevents you from changing the tuning every second if you like

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, I misread that. I can see how that would be fun. I'm certainly not trying to discourage these kinds of exploratory exercises, and I agree that the reward is often in the journey.

However, making such arbitrary choices doesn't really instill any new musical knowledge, nor does it do anything to improve your chops. That is to say, regardless of whatever mode you've unwittingly created by playing the same pattern over a different tuning scheme, it's of little use to you if you don't understand it; and sooner or later you will have to step outside of it, at which point you're going to need to know where you're going and why. To that end, the "perfect layout" is one that you thoroughly understand and have become proficient at. Otherwise, at least as far as the music is concerned, you're just making lateral moves.

To be clear, I say this in praise of Roger's design concept. On traditional instruments, the arrangement of the notes and the techniques required to navigate them proficiently is informed by the physical demands and limitations imposed by the instrument's design, which in turn is predetermined by the nature of the instrument and the materials required to actually build it and make it work: i.e. a cello has to look like a cello, a saxophone has to look like a saxophone, etc., and they must be played accordingly. The LinnStrument, on the other hand, is not at the mercy of acoustic properties, so Roger was able to build the ideal musical interface. The result is a linear, uniform, virtually frictionless playing surface, for which almost any tuning scheme will suffice. So it comes down to personal taste, rather than necessity. Hence my advice to shit-or-get-off-the-pot when it comes to picking the "perfect layout".

The "guitar" tuning, for example, is "perfect" for me because I already know where all the notes are. Granted, one could argue that it's unnecessarily complicated in comparison to the more isomorphic layout of using all fourths; but again, that becomes a moot point once you surpass a certain level of proficiency, because the playing surface presents equal challenges no matter which layout you choose. At the end of the day, when the proverbial rubber meets the road, it's your knowledge and your ability to perform on the instrument that will make or break the music. I don't care if your only reason for choosing a particular layout is that you like the pattern the lights make, my advice remains the same: pick one, learn it inside-out, and it will serve you well (wink).

Cheers!

P.S. Great conversation by the way, very interesting...

[Tj Shredder]

I agree. Its a bit like these different guitar tunings which exist. The majority of learning resources will concentrate on the standard tuning, but there exists also for example the tuning Robert Fripp prefers with its own advantages and disadvantages. The advantages will only shine if you train your muscle memory for it, the disadvantage is mostly the incompatibility with the rest of guitar players...; - )
But it will lead to different styles of playing and to a greater diversity of music made...

[dr_loop]

However, making such arbitrary choices doesn't really instill any new musical knowledge, nor does it do anything to improve your chops.

... yeah, I agree, but it allows to apply existing musical knowledge to new context. And for me it's all about the Joy of Music, not about improving any chops

That is to say, regardless of whatever mode you've unwittingly created by playing the same pattern over a different tuning scheme, it's of little use to you if you don't understand it

... now, what's hard to understand about it?
It's exactly like you say in your 'praise of Roger's design concept'. It's as easy to understand as it gets.

...The majority of learning resources will concentrate on the standard tuning, but there exists also for example the tuning Robert Fripp prefers

... now that's an interesting turn. Actually I started playing guitar as a lazy boy, playing in a open E-minor tuning for years because of its simplicity.
It was only in a workshop with Robert Fripp and his League of Crafty Guitarists many decades ago, that I explored his preferred tuning. But after a while I fell back, but not back into the Open-tuning but into the standard tuning of guitars. I thank him for that up to this day! And I think, it is only because of this workshop, that I consider the tuning of an intrument as a resource to be used like any other.

[John the Savage]

That is to say, regardless of whatever mode you've unwittingly created by playing the same pattern over a different tuning scheme, it's of little use to you if you don't understand it...

... now, what's hard to understand about it?
It's exactly like you say in your 'praise of Roger's design concept'. It's as easy to understand as it gets.

Well, when you simply play the same pattern over a different tuning, you effectively end up with a different mode or scale, but you haven't necessarily learned anything about the composition of that new scale. So, if you want to apply it in a broader musical context, you will eventually need to learn the theory behind it: i.e. what notes it's comprised of, what the intervals are, what chords can be derived from it, what key it's in, etc. It's one thing to have found your way there by accident — I mean, don't get me wrong, if you're content to just tinker around, I guess that's fine — but if you consider yourself a musician (or aspire to be one), a deeper understanding is needed about the arrangements you stumble upon and why they work; especially if you wish to convey your ideas to other musicians.

Again, I say this under the assumption that the pursuit of the "perfect layout" is more than just an exercise in musical semantics. So, to that end, it's better to commit to a single tuning scheme (whatever works for you), and actually learn the different patterns and fingerings for each new scale and mode as you discover them.

Cheers!

[John the Savage]

I agree. Its a bit like these different guitar tunings which exist. The majority of learning resources will concentrate on the standard tuning, but there exists also for example the tuning Robert Fripp prefers with its own advantages and disadvantages. The advantages will only shine if you train your muscle memory for it, the disadvantage is mostly the incompatibility with the rest of guitar players...; - )
But it will lead to different styles of playing and to a greater diversity of music made...

Yes, precisely!

Going back to my point about the design of traditional instruments: "standard" guitar tuning came about as a result of the physical challenges presented by the guitar's form factor (which can be modified only so much before it ceases to be a guitar at all). Whereas "alternate" tunings generally only exist to overcome very particular paradoxes: i.e. like a note being out of reach, or the dissonance of ringing strings when playing with a slide, etc. And proper guitar technique is in turn informed by these limitations, and is necessary to cope with the physicality of playing the instrument; otherwise you might actually injure yourself (repetitive strain, tendonitis, and whatnot).

In the world of controllerism, on the other hand, the rules change. With no acoustic properties to worry about, the design can effectively be whatever you want. As such, it's my opinion that a well-designed playing surface is one that simply stays out of your way, and is ultimately configurable in order to accommodate the personal preferences (even handicaps) of the individual playing it. Of course, it must also be able to control any given sound in whatever way necessary. This is where the LinnStrument shines over, say, the Seaboard or Continuum, which are designed primarily with their proprietary software in mind and aren't nearly as flexible.

At the end of the day, I honestly don't think we'll see the birth of a new "perfect layout", but rather a new standard in customizable controllers instead.

Cheers!

[dr_loop]

.... you effectively end up with a different mode or scale, but you haven't necessarily learned anything about the composition of that new scale.

.... Say what?? The composition of that new scale (and the chords and all), is just plain obvious!

...if you're content to just tinker around, I guess that's fine — but if you consider yourself a musician (or aspire to be one), a deeper understanding is needed about the arrangements you stumble upon and why they work

... no need to be condescending!

But back to topic:
After 'tinkering around' with different layouts for a while I think the best is still the default one with all fourths.
The Guitar tuning is'nt all that usefull because you cannot play the LinnStrument like a guitar really.
Usefull ones IMHO are also 'all minor thirds' (dense symmetries) and just 'plain octaves'.
What I also like is the 'Channel per Row'-mode (i.e. instrument per row) with a layout of various octaves

YMMV of course

[John the Savage]

I can't tell if you're joking or not, and it's not really clear to me what your level of musicianship is or how much music theory you possess, so I'm going to err on the side of caution and bow out now before I accidentally offend someone. I can assure you though, I did not intend to condescend to you. My apologies if I misspoke or otherwise misread your words.

Anyway... I've said all that I have to say on this topic.

Cheers!

[spunkytoofers]

I’m not sure if there is a perfect layout for me. I played guitar for a little while in college. The kinds of sounds that interested me at the time were musicians like Joni Mitchell, Nick Drake, and John Fahey. They were known for using alternate tunings. Rather than than learn to play guitar, I experimented with alternate tunings and let the possibilities guide my ear. Lately, I’ve landed on Diminished Fifths for the Linnstrument.

Here is a little piece that is part of a bigger piece I’m working on with this particular tuning.

https://youtu.be/txBMczlz7-4

[stuwyatt]

I seem to be sticking a lot with the +6 offset setting, as it's really easy to jump up and down octaves. You simply have to move your fingers 2 rows up or down to switch. I'm not much of a chord person, preferring to play single notes at a time when building up loops, so I don't have problems with fingers getting in the way of other fingers.

[tapper mike]

When I was playing the ztar I would occassionally stray the path with tunings. What was nice is that you could access 8 presets at a time via a display screen / soft keys. Those soft keys were stiff. I usually would just set up a few splits for some songs and that was that.

A friend of mine went hog wild and he'd have three to four tunings per song I think it was more about "because I can" rather than "because I need it"

[timohsu1022]

Hi All

very excited found linnstrument and this place.
i'm ready to purchase a large one,i have some questions and draw a basic pic for my idea.
my purpose is live performance on street,so i need change settings any time very quick.
i'm a kontakt user and need the features as attached picture.fig 1

1.can it customize to my requirement?
2.is there any editor let me edit preset on pc?

maybe this layout not smart,hope get some suggestion from you.
not very well in english,hope you guys can understand,very appreciate!

fig.2 is my imagine to next gen of linnstrument

[Tj Shredder]

The layout you show in your design might not be ideal. There is an option of an octave distance (octaves directly above each other). You should first see how it would fit your hands. I don‘t think that any LinnStrument player is using the octave layout regularly, as the size of hands is limited...
You can split the linnstrument and have a part which just controls whatever with note events...
My advice would be try out what is there first, to get an idea how to play the LinnStrument. Your design would only be possible with a firmware hack, which is possible, as all is open source. But you would have to program it yourself...
The idea to enhance the outer frame isn‘t bad at all and not too difficult if you have those maker genes...

[Roger_Linn]

Hi timohsu1022,

LinnStrument's settings will not permit what you want to do. It is best to think of LinnStrument as a MIDI keyboard with its notes arranged as a stringed instrument, and with left and right keyboard splits. Though it has some customization, it is not a general-purpose MIDI sound controller that permits every note pad to be configured exactly as you wish, but rather has settings focused on the type of musical play that you see in the videos. All details of operation are on my web site. The Panel Settings page is the best place to find those details because it explains every panel function, and it can be found on the LinnStrument Support page.

LinnStrument does permit additional customization in the following ways:

1) LinnStrument sends standard MIDI, so external software can interpret each MIDI note number however you wish. However, the rows always send consecutive semitones, so you cannot configure each note pad's MIDI messages individually. Regarding the lights, you can send MIDI commands to LinnStrument to light each pad exactly as you wish.

2) There is a User Firmware mode that converts LinnStrument into a "dumb terminal" so that your external software can make it do a more custom configuration. For example, you could have the 8 control buttons do whatever you wish in your external software.

3) The software is open source, so you can rewrite it to do anything you want.

I think you may find your idea to be impractical because your note buttons are next to your control buttons, so it would be easy to accidentally press a control button while playing.

Regarding a PC editor, there is no such editor. However, all settings are easily accessible and printed on the front panel, though some functions require holding a button to access additional detail settings. This is all explained in the Panel Settings page.

Regarding your idea for an external frame with handles, LinnStrument's wood sides are easily removed, exposing the rectangular metal chassis. So you can create a frame for it and attach it to the same 3 screw holes per side. There are also 2 screw holes on each end, intended for attaching the included guitar strap buttons but which can be used to attach whatever you wish. The screw holes are standard metric M4 size. However, your pictured frame would block the connectors on the right side, so you should leave the right end open. Also, your picture does not show the margin around the playing surface, which cannot be removed.

I suggest that you play a LinnStrument before buying, so that you can better understand what it does and what it is intended for. You can email me at support[at]rogerlinndesign.com with your location, and I can tell you if a LinnStrument owner in your area exists and is willing to show you his.

[griotspeak]

timohsu1022, do you have any experience with MaxMSP? That chart puts you something like a third of the way to making a little utility that would accept input from the Linnstrument and turn it into what you've diagrammed. It isn't exactly trivial but it is certainly doable and you *might* be able to accomplish it within the 30 day trial window. I am not sure what latency would be introduced by such a translation but I can't imagine that it would be too bad.

[Tj Shredder]

I just want to point @Reckon104's video he posted here:
viewtopic.php?f=263&t=443595&start=255
Try to play his method with the +6 tuning and I think its obvious where the benefits are. He pointed out that I should use my thumb, which until now I did almost never. But the octave is so natural to play with thumb and index finger, adding the third with the ring finger is right there for major or minor, then if you want to stretch it you could even add the pinky for the fifth and a second octave with the middle finger without stretching your hand too much (don't try that with a piano...; - )
The right hand playing he suggests is natural as well. The 3 fourths stacking are a diagonal to the left, easy if you take pinky to middle finger, and 3 fifths stacking a diagonal to the right index to ring finger. All these shapes leave your hands in a natural position without the need of any twists.
The big advantage of this is also, that the limitations of the LinnStrument he is mentioning, not being able to stack 4 fourths or playing square shapes, practically just don't happen.
That all these harmonies are visually more clear I mentioned already in earlier posts...
Before I saw this video I always tried to play complete chords with one hand and learn their shapes, but splitting chords to two hands is such an easy way to play complete harmonies...