<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<title type="html"><![CDATA[Modartt user forum - Kremsegg "missing" keys (feature request)]]></title>
	<link rel="self" href="https://forum.modartt.com/extern.php?action=feed&amp;tid=5616&amp;type=atom"/>
	<updated>2018-03-20T02:53:03Z</updated>
	<generator>PunBB</generator>
	<id>https://forum.modartt.com/viewtopic.php?id=5616</id>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Kremsegg "missing" keys (feature request)]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://forum.modartt.com/viewtopic.php?pid=953355#p953355"/>
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>The study of history (strictly speaking, of historical writing) is called &quot;historiography.&quot;</p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[dingo]]></name>
				<uri>https://forum.modartt.com/profile.php?id=2509</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2018-03-20T02:53:03Z</updated>
			<id>https://forum.modartt.com/viewtopic.php?pid=953355#p953355</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Kremsegg "missing" keys (feature request)]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://forum.modartt.com/viewtopic.php?pid=953352#p953352"/>
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<div class="quotebox"><cite>Xain wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Hello everyone,</p><p>I just wanted to vent out something that regularly bothers me. I really love Kremsegg Erard, it does have a special and round sound that I find perfect for most genres. However, the real instrument happens to have 86 keys, and PTQ developers faithfully reported this limitation in the program - which is perfectly understandable for philological reasons.</p><p>However, PTQ does already give the option to artificially extend existing instruments - should I cite the 108 keys &quot;Steinway D&quot;? - and I think that not everyone has philological reasons to use a certain piano. Why shouldn&#039;t the Erard have the right of having a virtual B and a virtual C, so that most written music can finally be played on it ?</p></blockquote></div><br /><p>i don&#039;t know how you happened upon this usage, but it seems that you&#039;re confusing &quot;philology&quot; (the study of <em>language</em> and its historical origins) with <em>&quot;history&quot;</em> (and its study thereof). <br /> English, lingua horribila that it is, tends to be admittedly a little murky in this regard (the study of history being conflated with history itself... one i suppose could employ &quot;historiology&quot;, but ugh it&#039;s a horrible word and, for good reason, not commonly used... &quot;i&#039;m a historiologist&quot;!? i don&#039;t think so...) <br />so i can&#039;t really think of any properly <em>philological</em> reasons for using a certain piano (in what way is a piano concerned with the origins &amp; evolution of language? while an interesting question, is rather far afield from the schwerpunkt), but i can certainly think of tons of good <em>historic</em> reasons to do so!&nbsp; (ie not that the reasons themselves are of historic value—though that may certainly also be true—but rather that they stand in consideration of history... |historic| doing double duty here)... <i class="far fa-smile-wink smiley"></i></p><p>to your point though, as Arkanda mentions, this has been discussed before.&nbsp; my personal take on it however (coming from a historically-informed perspective here) is that if you want to play repertoire that uses more notes than a particular instrument has available you need to either a) tweak the music you&#039;r playing to meet the instrument (we see, for instance, Beethoven &amp; Schubert doing this all the time in their compositions with dropped octave doublings and octave transpositions of material simply because the instrument they were using didn&#039;t allow for those &quot;extra&quot; notes), or b) pick a more suitable instrument for the repertoire you&#039;d like to play...</p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[_DJ_]]></name>
				<uri>https://forum.modartt.com/profile.php?id=4653</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2018-03-20T01:24:15Z</updated>
			<id>https://forum.modartt.com/viewtopic.php?pid=953352#p953352</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Kremsegg "missing" keys (feature request)]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://forum.modartt.com/viewtopic.php?pid=953350#p953350"/>
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>This was already discussed. But for now, I cannot find that thread either.<br />As far as I remember, many of the historical instruments already have an extended range indeed<br />(compared to their real world models). And the problem of a further extension would be, I think,<br />you then could hardly discern any different pitch any more, due to the character of the instrument.<br />Likewise, take a small uprigth with 88 keys and play the highest two notes, you need a trained<br />ear to really hear the base note, it disappears within the fraction of a second, only a number of overtones left.<br />So I guess it could be extended on PTQ, but would not be of any practical (= audible) use.</p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[Arkanda]]></name>
				<uri>https://forum.modartt.com/profile.php?id=5022</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2018-03-19T18:05:10Z</updated>
			<id>https://forum.modartt.com/viewtopic.php?pid=953350#p953350</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Kremsegg "missing" keys (feature request)]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://forum.modartt.com/viewtopic.php?pid=953349#p953349"/>
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>Hello everyone,</p><p>I just wanted to vent out something that regularly bothers me. I really love Kremsegg Erard, it does have a special and round sound that I find perfect for most genres. However, the real instrument happens to have 86 keys, and PTQ developers faithfully reported this limitation in the program - which is perfectly understandable for philological reasons.</p><p>However, PTQ does already give the option to artificially extend existing instruments - should I cite the 108 keys &quot;Steinway D&quot;? - and I think that not everyone has philological reasons to use a certain piano. Why shouldn&#039;t the Erard have the right of having a virtual B and a virtual C, so that most written music can finally be played on it ?</p><p>Tell me what you think (or if you know of any workaround that I wasn&#039;t aware of),</p><p>Andrea</p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[Xain]]></name>
				<uri>https://forum.modartt.com/profile.php?id=3948</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2018-03-19T17:19:27Z</updated>
			<id>https://forum.modartt.com/viewtopic.php?pid=953349#p953349</id>
		</entry>
</feed>
