Talk:KISS notation - Revision history

VectorGraphics: VectorGraphics moved page Talk:Mike Battaglia's KISS notation to Talk:KISS notation over redirect

2025-06-30T23:32:37Z

VectorGraphics moved page Talk:Mike Battaglia's KISS notation to Talk:KISS notation over redirect

← Older revision	Revision as of 23:32, 30 June 2025
(No difference)

Mike Battaglia: Mike Battaglia moved page Talk:KISS notation to Talk:Mike Battaglia's KISS notation: This was just my idea, it isn't like an "official proposal," and I'd rather not defend it, so I've moved it

2020-07-12T17:35:29Z

Mike Battaglia moved page Talk:KISS notation to Talk:Mike Battaglia's KISS notation: This was just my idea, it isn't like an "official proposal," and I'd rather not defend it, so I've moved it

← Older revision	Revision as of 17:35, 12 July 2020
(No difference)

Bozu at 16:54, 10 June 2020

2020-06-10T16:54:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:54, 10 June 2020
Line 101:		Line 101:
	:::: I'm sorry if that was offending. I failed to predict this conversation could get so long. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 03:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)		:::: I'm sorry if that was offending. I failed to predict this conversation could get so long. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 03:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

	:::: Sorry. I just wanted some clarification, and maybe to open up a discussion. I guess the topic is closed for discussion. Thanks for taking the time to respond. --[[User:Bozu\|Bozu]] ([[User talk:Bozu\|talk]]) 16:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)		:::: Sorry. I just wanted some clarification, and maybe to open up a discussion. I guess the topic is closed for discussion. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Feel free to clean all of this up if you want. --[[User:Bozu\|Bozu]] ([[User talk:Bozu\|talk]]) 16:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Bozu at 16:49, 10 June 2020

2020-06-10T16:49:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:49, 10 June 2020
Line 100:		Line 100:

	:::: I'm sorry if that was offending. I failed to predict this conversation could get so long. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 03:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)		:::: I'm sorry if that was offending. I failed to predict this conversation could get so long. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 03:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

			:::: Sorry. I just wanted some clarification, and maybe to open up a discussion. I guess the topic is closed for discussion. Thanks for taking the time to respond. --[[User:Bozu\|Bozu]] ([[User talk:Bozu\|talk]]) 16:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

FloraC at 03:58, 10 June 2020

2020-06-10T03:58:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:58, 10 June 2020
Line 98:		Line 98:

	::: There is way too much for me to even begin to respond to above, and frankly I think some of the people in this comment section need to calm down. I do advocate for a "middle note = 261.6 pitch standard" for various reasons, and I already have a 1000-word section in the document on absolute pitch standardization regarding why I think it's a good idea. Beyond that, my thought is, tune to whatever pitch standard you want. [[User:Mike Battaglia\|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Mike Battaglia\|talk]]) 02:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)		::: There is way too much for me to even begin to respond to above, and frankly I think some of the people in this comment section need to calm down. I do advocate for a "middle note = 261.6 pitch standard" for various reasons, and I already have a 1000-word section in the document on absolute pitch standardization regarding why I think it's a good idea. Beyond that, my thought is, tune to whatever pitch standard you want. [[User:Mike Battaglia\|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Mike Battaglia\|talk]]) 02:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

			:::: I'm sorry if that was offending. I failed to predict this conversation could get so long. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 03:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Mike Battaglia at 02:47, 10 June 2020

2020-06-10T02:47:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:47, 10 June 2020
Line 97:		Line 97:
	:: ... or we ask the author of the notation system, [[User:Mike Battaglia\|Mike Battaglia]], to shed some more light on the reasons for his choice. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 21:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)		:: ... or we ask the author of the notation system, [[User:Mike Battaglia\|Mike Battaglia]], to shed some more light on the reasons for his choice. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 21:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

	::: I do advocate for a "middle note = 261.6 pitch standard" for various reasons, and I already have a 1000-word section in the document on absolute pitch standardization regarding why I think it's a good idea. Beyond that, my thought is, tune to whatever pitch standard you want~~. There is way too much for me to even try to respond to above, and frankly I think some of you people need to calm down~~. [[User:Mike Battaglia\|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Mike Battaglia\|talk]]) 02:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)		::: There is way too much for me to even begin to respond to above, and frankly I think some of the people in this comment section need to calm down. I do advocate for a "middle note = 261.6 pitch standard" for various reasons, and I already have a 1000-word section in the document on absolute pitch standardization regarding why I think it's a good idea. Beyond that, my thought is, tune to whatever pitch standard you want. [[User:Mike Battaglia\|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Mike Battaglia\|talk]]) 02:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Mike Battaglia: response to middle C stuff

2020-06-10T02:46:30Z

response to middle C stuff

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:46, 10 June 2020
Line 96:		Line 96:

	:: ... or we ask the author of the notation system, [[User:Mike Battaglia\|Mike Battaglia]], to shed some more light on the reasons for his choice. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 21:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)		:: ... or we ask the author of the notation system, [[User:Mike Battaglia\|Mike Battaglia]], to shed some more light on the reasons for his choice. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 21:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

			::: I do advocate for a "middle note = 261.6 pitch standard" for various reasons, and I already have a 1000-word section in the document on absolute pitch standardization regarding why I think it's a good idea. Beyond that, my thought is, tune to whatever pitch standard you want. There is way too much for me to even try to respond to above, and frankly I think some of you people need to calm down. [[User:Mike Battaglia\|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Mike Battaglia\|talk]]) 02:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Xenwolf: added toc for easier linking

2020-06-09T19:59:08Z

added toc for easier linking

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:59, 9 June 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
			__TOC__
	== Middle C ==		== Middle C ==
	Your reasoning for choosing C4 as a standard pitch seems to imply that A=440 Hz both forces two reference pitch standards and has some sort of intrinsic disadvantage for people with absolute pitch.		Your reasoning for choosing C4 as a standard pitch seems to imply that A=440 Hz both forces two reference pitch standards and has some sort of intrinsic disadvantage for people with absolute pitch.

FloraC: re

2020-06-06T06:04:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:04, 6 June 2020
Line 77:		Line 77:

	:::::::::: Say that two microtonal musicians wish to collaborate on a song over the miracle of the internet. Musician A chooses to perform in Orwell[9] in A in 53-edo at A4=440 Hz. Musician B can pretty easily set up to accommodate that. If Musician A instead chooses a reference pitch of E^4 = 334.33 Hz. Musician B can still figure this out, but it's a pain, because the reference pitch given is communicated in a weird way. Now, I'm sure we can agree that D is a lot less weird, but, if there is already a standard in place for musicians all over Europe and the Americas to refer to A4, anything that is not communicated as A4 is at least a little weird (as in, going against convention). So why? --[[User:Bozu\|Bozu]] ([[User talk:Bozu\|talk]]) 21:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)		:::::::::: Say that two microtonal musicians wish to collaborate on a song over the miracle of the internet. Musician A chooses to perform in Orwell[9] in A in 53-edo at A4=440 Hz. Musician B can pretty easily set up to accommodate that. If Musician A instead chooses a reference pitch of E^4 = 334.33 Hz. Musician B can still figure this out, but it's a pain, because the reference pitch given is communicated in a weird way. Now, I'm sure we can agree that D is a lot less weird, but, if there is already a standard in place for musicians all over Europe and the Americas to refer to A4, anything that is not communicated as A4 is at least a little weird (as in, going against convention). So why? --[[User:Bozu\|Bozu]] ([[User talk:Bozu\|talk]]) 21:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

			::::::::::: > Why is dorian mode unbiased, as you say?

			::::::::::: Let's look at the circle of fifths. Dorian is the one that's generated by equal steps from each side. Dorian is also the mode that inverts to itself. The inversion pairs are like: Lydian-Locrian, Ionian-Phrygian, Mixolydian-Aeolian, and Dorian-Dorian.

			::::::::::: > what makes the center any more significant than the beginning or the end?

			::::::::::: The center is the reconciliation of the beginning and the end. If one argues for one, one can argue for the opposite with equal validity, but they unite at the center.

			::::::::::: > going against convention

			::::::::::: Citing the status quo is cheap. We're talking about different things: what's better and what we should do. Actually, digital tuning is very easy, just a few clicks to get the tuning files through. I'm not so concerned about acoustic instruments since most are difficult to microtune anyway. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 06:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

	I don't want to disturb your discussion too much, but I thought it might be useful to keep in mind that "KISS notation" is just '''one''' representative of many [[:Category:Notation\|notation systems]]. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 21:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)		I don't want to disturb your discussion too much, but I thought it might be useful to keep in mind that "KISS notation" is just '''one''' representative of many [[:Category:Notation\|notation systems]]. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 21:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Xenwolf at 21:41, 5 June 2020

2020-06-05T21:41:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:41, 5 June 2020
Line 82:		Line 82:
	: I suppose the topic has drifted from the initial question (which was directed at the reasoning given in the article to recommend middle C as a reference pitch), which maybe only the author can properly address. Perhaps this would be better addressed by linking this article to another article (which one?) that has more information about the topic. --[[User:Bozu\|Bozu]] ([[User talk:Bozu\|talk]]) 21:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)		: I suppose the topic has drifted from the initial question (which was directed at the reasoning given in the article to recommend middle C as a reference pitch), which maybe only the author can properly address. Perhaps this would be better addressed by linking this article to another article (which one?) that has more information about the topic. --[[User:Bozu\|Bozu]] ([[User talk:Bozu\|talk]]) 21:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

	:: Or we ask the author of the notation system, [[User:Mike Battaglia\|Mike Battaglia]], to shed some more light on the reasons for his choice. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 21:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)		:: ... or we ask the author of the notation system, [[User:Mike Battaglia\|Mike Battaglia]], to shed some more light on the reasons for his choice. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 21:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)