I do not know where to post this so hopefully this is the right platform...
Is there anyone with perfect pitch here? Are you easily flustered or annoyed when a professional(s) commit mistakes in performances? Also for non-perfect pitch performers, do you get annoyed by perfect pitch people trying to correct even the slightest mistakes in your intonation or etc when playing?
There was a thread about perfect pitch, either in this or the old forum. Had an online test, too. Seem to recall I scored about 86% in that test. Interesting, as apparently even trained musicians can normally only average 80%, according to the test's creators. No use to me, though: can't read music and don't play any instrument. :D
Quote from: Mark on November 20, 2007, 09:00:57 PM
There was a thread about perfect pitch, either in this or the old forum. Had an online test, too. Seem to recall I scored about 86% in that test. Interesting, as apparently even trained musicians can normally only average 80%, according to the test's creators. No use to me, though: can't read music and don't play any instrument. :D
really? can you listen to any given piece of music (without knowing which key it is in) and tell me at that precise moment which key it is in? and achieve it with a 86% accuracy?
From what I remember - but I might be remembering a different thread from Mark - that thread wasn't about perfect pitch but about ability to play back a tune heard once.
As for me, I'm sure I'm going to be shot down by some of the resident 'experts' on this subject (I remember very involved arguments on the previous GMG about what perfect pitch, absolute pitch etc. entail, and I have no interest into getting into them). I feel that I have some kind of acquired pitch, from much playing of the cello etc. That is, sometimes but not always I will be able to tell the key of a piece, and 95% of the time I am right to within a semitone, but I don't have anything like the 100% accuracy that perfect pitch entails.
I've resented those with perfect pitch (implied ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ) ever since my aural tests at university, in which we were played the whole first movement of the Faure piano trio (I think) and asked, among other things, to list the keys through which it had passed - a question which some could answer without effort, and which others agonised over. I don't think I did very well, though I can't be sure!
Quote from: lukeottevanger on November 20, 2007, 11:29:25 PM
I've resented those with perfect pitch (implied ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ) ever since my aural tests at university, in which we were played the whole first movement of the Faure piano trio (I think) and asked, among other things, to list the keys through which it had passed - a question which some could answer without effort, and which others agonised over. I don't think I did very well, though I can't be sure!
It's not fair really, some people's brains/ears are simply designed for music...
Oh, perfect pitch, with a p. Never mind.
Perfect pitch is a curse that prevents one from enjoying wonderful performances of good music literred with mistakes normal folks don't hear.
Quote from: springrite on November 21, 2007, 09:17:23 AM
Perfect pitch is a curse that prevents one from enjoying wonderful performances of good music literred with mistakes normal folks don't hear.
Though I wouldn't call it a curse (I love it!), add to the above the frustration of knowing the tones, but not the corresponding names - i.e. being unable to name a tone because you don't have enough practice with the names (like C, F, etc.) to know how
that one is called - and you have my case. ;D
As for whether I'm flustered when I hear mistakes: well, I
used to get all fussy about it, but after being exposed to the art of "old masters" like Furtwängler who didn't care about such "mistakes" and thinking on why that might be so, I grew out of it. And thankfully, too; though I still hear the mistakes, and they still "jump at me" from the rest of the music. ;)
Quote from: GBJGZW on November 20, 2007, 11:07:25 PM
really? can you listen to any given piece of music (without knowing which key it is in) and tell me at that precise moment which key it is in? and achieve it with a 86% accuracy?
In a word, no. The test I took made no such demands - it was about hearing two samples and then saying which had pitches that matched, and which didn't. It struck me as little more than a short-term memory quiz - but it can't have been, because some of the examples I was sure I'd matched correctly were wrong; so whatever I did 'right', I did entirely intuitively. ;)
Remember, I have not a shred of formal music education, much to my enduring shame. :-[
Quote from: Mark on November 21, 2007, 02:20:50 PM
Remember, I have not a shred of formal music education, much to my enduring shame. :-[
well, you know the alphabets right? ABCDEFG? plus 5 flats/sharps in between, not that much learning is needed for perfect pitch.
I know a girl who has perfect pitch, it's both intensive training and talent.
Quote from: GBJGZW on November 21, 2007, 03:58:45 PM
well, you know the alphabets right? ABCDEFG? plus 5 flats/sharps in between, not that much learning is needed for perfect pitch.
Yeah ... y'see, you lost me right around that sharps/flats comment ...
Quote from: lukeottevanger on November 20, 2007, 11:29:25 PM
From what I remember - but I might be remembering a different thread from Mark - that thread wasn't about perfect pitch but about ability to play back a tune heard once.
As for me, I'm sure I'm going to be shot down by some of the resident 'experts' on this subject (I remember very involved arguments on the previous GMG about what perfect pitch, absolute pitch etc. entail, and I have no interest into getting into them). I feel that I have some kind of acquired pitch, from much playing of the cello etc. That is, sometimes but not always I will be able to tell the key of a piece, and 95% of the time I am right to within a semitone, but I don't have anything like the 100% accuracy that perfect pitch entails.
I've resented those with perfect pitch (implied ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ) ever since my aural tests at university, in which we were played the whole first movement of the Faure piano trio (I think) and asked, among other things, to list the keys through which it had passed - a question which some could answer without effort, and which others agonised over. I don't think I did very well, though I can't be sure!
I have noticed that I have a similar thing - I often, if not usually find myself humming to myself in the correct key of a piece, and my cello teacher reports the same. I am very sensitive to out of tune notes, and do find them irritating (though my own playing is far from perfect!)
I've never met someone who has embraced perfect pitch as a total blessing and I think it can be pretty uncomfortable at times. I have often wondered whether all perfect pitches agree, and also whether there have been any great instrumental soloists - especially string players - (or singers for that matter) without the ability.
Faure piano trio - how utterly evil - that has more key changes than you can shake a stick at.
Quote from: Guido on November 21, 2007, 04:29:05 PM
I've never met someone who has embraced perfect pitch as a total blessing and I think it can be pretty uncomfortable at times.
Quote from: Renfield on November 21, 2007, 10:16:01 AM
Though I wouldn't call it a curse (I love it!)
It might be that I'm not an "insider", and my expectations are low. But I think that (with apologies for sounding quasi-mystical) life has wrong notes, as well as it has right ones; and I really,
really appreciate being able to hear both types for what they are, the holding true for music. So there you have at least one who does not view it negatively at all,
nowadays (and assuming you take my word for possessing perfect pitch, that is). :)
P.S.: For example, I just heard a trombone tremble a bit towards a lower pitch, when it should have gone "up", in Skrowaczewski's Bruckner 4th. If I knew more music theory than I do now, I might have been able to say just how far off it was. But does it bother me, that "mistake"? No, it doesn't; because I recognise its importance to me, for all its "dysphony". ;)
Quote from: Renfield on November 21, 2007, 04:57:24 PM
It might be that I'm not an "insider", and my expectations are low. But I think that (with apologies for sounding quasi-mystical) life has wrong notes, as well as it has right ones; and I really, really appreciate being able to hear both types for what they are, the holding true for music. So there you have at least one who does not view it negatively at all, nowadays (and assuming you take my word for possessing perfect pitch, that is). :)
P.S.: For example, I just heard a trombone tremble a bit towards a lower pitch, when it should have gone "up", in Skrowaczewski's Bruckner 4th. If I knew more music theory than I do now, I might have been able to say just how far off it was. But does it bother me, that "mistake"? No, it doesn't; because I recognise its importance to me, for all its "dysphony". ;)
Perhaps there's a misconception here, because that in itself is not perfect pitch - it's just knowing that the trombone is veering somewhere off the centre of the note, out of tune.
(off-topic, the worst out-of-tune playing I have heard recently is also a trombone - in that marvellous 22 CD Stravinsky-conducts-Stravinsky box set, and unfortunately right at the start of one of my favourite Stravinksy works, the
Mass; to make it worse, he does it at least twice in quick sucession!)
Quote from: lukeottevanger on November 21, 2007, 11:24:21 PM
Perhaps there's a misconception here, because that in itself is not perfect pitch - it's just knowing that the trombone is veering somewhere off the centre of the note, out of tune.
(off-topic, the worst out-of-tune playing I have heard recently is also a trombone - in that marvellous 22 CD Stravinsky-conducts-Stravinsky box set, and unfortunately right at the start of one of my favourite Stravinksy works, the Mass; to make it worse, he does it at least twice in quick sucession!)
Yes, I was thinking how it was a rather poor example as I was typing it. That's why I added that, had I known the formalities of the matter, I might have been able to
say exactly what the trombone played, and what it was supposed to play. Alas, I don't. :(
I know the tones, but can't describe (i.e. name) them.
But even so, both are instinctively apparent to me, and I could definitely pick both tones from a dozen others, names aside: that's what I meant. :)
A better example might be from a few months ago, when I was listening to a Beethoven sonata, and a friend of mine asked me what key it was in.
Going through the tones I do know by name (the "white keys" on the piano, A-G) in my head, I was immediately able to say that the tone was between a specific pair of those; but I didn't know how to call it, due to lack of familiarity with the correspondance of tones to the "sharp" and "flat" keys. And further on, when the key slightly changed, it again was very obvious to me, and I could "feel" the new key, remember it from other occasions, just not name it. It turns out that it was also one of the "plus half-tone" keys.
Although I have a sense of pitch it is far from perfect. If I want a C, I think Beethoven's 5th and there it is. Sometimes I have to work hard at playing dissonances because my ear would rather hear the octave. As for spotting mistakes, obviously one needs to know the work fairly well first and if one plays the same CD over and over maybe they'll never come to light.
I have perfect pitch and I think it can help a lot as a composer. I composed my first symphony (in Classical style) sitting in a train and I had no training at all. Although it's far away from perfect, as Larry Rinkel pointed out, I had to correct maybe 5-10 notes when I typed the whole first movement in Finale. I could play the whole symphony through my head and did know exactly how each note/chord would sound like.
Others I've talked with in my age say that they need a piano for writing. I've often noticed that, If they try to go on writing without an instrument, they try to do it by theory (which will make them avoid crazy chord progressions).
I don't think that's because of talent, as I'm not a very special instrumentalist.
Quote from: Renfield on November 22, 2007, 04:39:39 AM
Yes, I was thinking how it was a rather poor example as I was typing it. That's why I added that, had I known the formalities of the matter, I might have been able to say exactly what the trombone played, and what it was supposed to play. Alas, I don't. :(
I know the tones, but can't describe (i.e. name) them.
But even so, both are instinctively apparent to me, and I could definitely pick both tones from a dozen others, names aside: that's what I meant. :)
A better example might be from a few months ago, when I was listening to a Beethoven sonata, and a friend of mine asked me what key it was in.
Going through the tones I do know by name (the "white keys" on the piano, A-G) in my head, I was immediately able to say that the tone was between a specific pair of those; but I didn't know how to call it, due to lack of familiarity with the correspondance of tones to the "sharp" and "flat" keys. And further on, when the key slightly changed, it again was very obvious to me, and I could "feel" the new key, remember it from other occasions, just not name it. It turns out that it was also one of the "plus half-tone" keys.
it's called having a "Relative pitch", i think most musicians have relative pitch at least.
Quote from: GBJGZW on November 23, 2007, 09:46:00 AM
it's called having a "Relative pitch", i think most musicians have relative pitch at least.
Ok, just to clarify my definitions a bit (and stop fooling about with vague examples :-[):
A definition of "perfect pitch" from Wikipedia (as a random source) is "the ability of a person to identify or sing a musical note without the benefit of a known reference."
What I understand from this (and other such definitions I've heard) is that perfect pitch entails being able to produce internally ("in your head") any tone you know, without having an external reference.
In other words, I understand perfect pitch as meaning you can "tune" without a reference.
(That is something I can do 100%, and have always been able to do: I know it because my music teacher at school kept hounding me for it, and if nothing else I have always found it very easy to either sing or whistle any tone (or tune) "out of nowhere".)
Additionally, I understand that there exists independently of "perfect pitch" what is known as "relative pitch", in some way entailing the ability to place tones next to each other, assuming a given reference. I understand the example I gave above was of that.
Finally, it seems that perfect pitch can be employed to identify a given tone "out of the blue", which makes sense if you can compare it to the tones stored in your "absolute pitch" memory (given that any sort of identification is, in its basis, a comparison).
But when the memory of tones exists, but the reference to lingual structures (words) does not, is perfect pitch not "absolute" still?
What I'm trying to say is: doesn't "naming" tones depend on more than having absolute pitch (the training mentioned above), thus being an inadequate way of assessing that trait?
I'm wondering because I notice "tone identification" is a very prominent diagnostic tool, but it's always seemed to me somewhat circumstantial; true, you need perfect pitch to make that identification, but it is not an "if and only if" relation. Unless you limit it to the musically-trained alone. :-\
Edit: And in fact, might not the same apply regarding the notion of perfect-pitch "owners" noticing mistakes other people don't? Isn't that relative pitch too? Or is it (more likely) a different sort of mistakes that each trait "catches", given that they are not exclusive to each other.
For instance, with apologies for the essay-style post/rant due to my curiosity (or confusion), I remember being especially bothered by a note in the Karajan/BPO Brahms 1st from the 60's, which wasn't the right one I knew should be there.
I knew what the note was, and I knew what the other note that it should have been was: it wasn't it. I could reproduce both notes in my head, and made the "comparison" that way.
(It turned out to be an issue of balance, making the trumpet note more prominent than the trombone note I knew - I had even posted about that curiosity here, a while ago.)
On the other hand, there are cases of downright "stray" notes, played badly, like my first example from above.
Is each of the above a matter of relative pitch, absolute pitch, or neither?
Finally, on identifying keys, is it valid to separate the notions of "tone progression awareness" and "tone identification", ascribing the former to relative, and the latter to perfect pitch? Because to me, they still feel quite integral to each other, the way I notice either of them.
I wish I had good experimental conditions, and a host of suitable subjects to test, to spare you from all this naive "questioning". But if anyone might cogently clarify at least some of the above points, I would be most grateful.
okay, Renfield, I read your post. The concept of "Relative Pitch" and having "Perfect pitch" is quite simple and straightforward, i don't understand why so many people are having trouble with the concept.
Let me make it as simple as i could
an example of having Perfect Pitch:
I press a note on the piano, and ask you what it is, if you can tell me the name of that note, then you have perfect pitch (note: I merely press ONE note, so there is nothing relative to it for you to make any sort of reference). like, if I pressed an E-flat(the black note between D natural and E natural), and you tell me it's D sharp or E flat, then obviously you have perfect pitch.
an example of having Relative Pitch
I press a series of notes, a melody if you will. At the end, i ask you to notate it on paper. if my original melody is F natural - A natural - C natural. But you wrote C natural - E natural - G natural. Then, you obviously don't have "perfect" pitch, but you are able to distinguish the intervals in between, and while you didn't get the "exact" answer, it still works. In this case, you have Relative pitch.
this is as simple as i can do, I mean, it's REALLY not a difficult concept, you either have one or the other, or neither, like me :'(
Quote from: GBJGZW on November 23, 2007, 04:56:47 PM
this is as simple as i can do, I mean, it's REALLY not a difficult concept, you either have one or the other, or neither, like me :'(
just do a lot of studying and you can develop absolute pitch just like anyone else.
Quote from: GBJGZW on November 23, 2007, 04:56:47 PM
okay, Renfield, I read your post. The concept of "Relative Pitch" and having "Perfect pitch" is quite simple and straightforward, i don't understand why so many people are having trouble with the concept.
Let me make it as simple as i could
an example of having Perfect Pitch:
I press a note on the piano, and ask you what it is, if you can tell me the name of that note, then you have perfect pitch (note: I merely press ONE note, so there is nothing relative to it for you to make any sort of reference). like, if I pressed an E-flat(the black note between D natural and E natural), and you tell me it's D sharp or E flat, then obviously you have perfect pitch.
an example of having Relative Pitch
I press a series of notes, a melody if you will. At the end, i ask you to notate it on paper. if my original melody is F natural - A natural - C natural. But you wrote C natural - E natural - G natural. Then, you obviously don't have "perfect" pitch, but you are able to distinguish the intervals in between, and while you didn't get the "exact" answer, it still works. In this case, you have Relative pitch.
this is as simple as i can do, I mean, it's REALLY not a difficult concept, you either have one or the other, or neither, like me :'(
Oh, I'd think it's more complicated... Here are two counter-examples to its simplicity:
1) You play a note on the piano, a single note (for example C sharp). What you are doing is playing a
tone, right? You ask X what that tone was: but X can only reply using a word. Hence, if X does know the tone, but not the word, you will be misled into thinking he couldn't recognise it.
Thus, it seems you can't define absolute pitch via this method, unless you can assure that your subject knows the correspondence of names (words) to the respective tones.
2) You play a series of notes (again,
tones from now on), within a set "distance" from each other (I believe, with my limited knowledge, that this could be a
scale). If a subject can identify the distance between the notes, but not the notes, they have relative pitch, correct? But if they also have absolute pitch, does the latter "subsume" the former?
More properly, is relative pitch a less-advanced version of absolute pitch, or are they two different abilities, with the property that relative pitch is a material implication of absolute pitch (in other words, that you can't have perfect pitch without relative pitch)?
I don't think it's as simple as it looks, all in all; and most especially so when musical training becomes a factor.
I am not saying that process of attaining relative/perfect pitch is simple, i am saying that the concept what perfect/relative pitch means is fairly straightforward.
you said:
"1) You play a note on the piano, a single note (for example C sharp). What you are doing is playing a tone, right? You ask X what that tone was: but X can only reply using a word. Hence, if X does know the tone, but not the word, you will be misled into thinking he couldn't recognise it.
Thus, it seems you can't define absolute pitch via this method, unless you can assure that your subject knows the correspondence of names (words) to the respective tones"
uh.... there are only a few names for the tones, ABCDEFG, either sharp/flat for each. but in essence, there are only 12 distinct tones on say a given span on the piano (say from C natural to C natural one octave up). So, i can't imagine that somone who has even little music education to not to be able to come up with the names. After all, if you don't know what the tone is, you can simply push the piano key, and learn that tone. A very simple process. Especially when you can mentally recognize it (the hard part), you can name them(the easy part).
I know you might disagree with me, but people who HAVE perfect pitch have being doing music for most of their life, and the basics theory stuff, like scales, notes, intervals, etc... are quite "basic" "kindergarden" "piece of cake" "walk in the park" etc... this is why i find your question pointless.
you said:
"2) You play a series of notes (again, tones from now on), within a set "distance" from each other (I believe, with my limited knowledge, that this could be a scale). If a subject can identify the distance between the notes, but not the notes, they have relative pitch, correct? But if they also have absolute pitch, does the latter "subsume" the former?
More properly, is relative pitch a less-advanced version of absolute pitch, or are they two different abilities, with the property that relative pitch is a material implication of absolute pitch (in other words, that you can't have perfect pitch without relative pitch)?"
yes, if the person has perfect pitch, he/she obviously is not going to have trouble with relative pitch. Relative pitch is less than perfect pitch obviously, they are very much the same. Perfect being at the highest level, the relative being lower.
I think, in my experience with music. Training primarily concerns with the relative pitch, because perfect pitch is something that only a few people (relatively speaking) can master. Most people/musicians/composers can get by playing/writing music with knowing relative pitch. A violinist friend of mine, who is greatly skilled at his craft, can only attain "relative pitch", and even that is already quite remarkable, considering that he is only 16. Another pianist friend of mine, she is around my age, about 20, has "Perfect pitch", she once identified a series of notes in a composition of mine(perfectly correct), and taught me much about music. She has been playing piano and learning music theory ever since she was a little girl, and this "special" ability is also a product of years of hard work.
It seems to me that with hard work, many can achieve "relative pitch", but it takes something special to achieve "perfect pitch".
Well, I think it's coincidence if you have perfect pitch. I never did hard work and had it since I can remember. Of course it implies some sort of relative pitch: If I hear a G and a D, I know it's a fifth because I know the single notes (some basic education is necessary, of course).
Quote from: rappy on November 23, 2007, 11:49:29 PM
Well, I think it's coincidence if you have perfect pitch. I never did hard work and had it since I can remember. Of course it implies some sort of relative pitch: If I hear a G and a D, I know it's a fifth because I know the single notes (some basic education is necessary, of course).
yeah, having the talent is a big factor.
Quote from: GBJGZW on November 23, 2007, 11:45:02 PM
I am not saying that process of attaining relative/perfect pitch is simple, i am saying that the concept what perfect/relative pitch means is fairly straightforward.
you said:
"1) You play a note on the piano, a single note (for example C sharp). What you are doing is playing a tone, right? You ask X what that tone was: but X can only reply using a word. Hence, if X does know the tone, but not the word, you will be misled into thinking he couldn't recognise it.
Thus, it seems you can't define absolute pitch via this method, unless you can assure that your subject knows the correspondence of names (words) to the respective tones"
uh.... there are only a few names for the tones, ABCDEFG, either sharp/flat for each. but in essence, there are only 12 distinct tones on say a given span on the piano (say from C natural to C natural one octave up). So, i can't imagine that somone who has even little music education to not to be able to come up with the names. After all, if you don't know what the tone is, you can simply push the piano key, and learn that tone. A very simple process. Especially when you can mentally recognize it (the hard part), you can name them(the easy part).
I know you might disagree with me, but people who HAVE perfect pitch have being doing music for most of their life, and the basics theory stuff, like scales, notes, intervals, etc... are quite "basic" "kindergarden" "piece of cake" "walk in the park" etc... this is why i find your question pointless.
You missed my point. You (and not only you, it's not personal) support as a valid mean of identifying perfect pitch whether one can name tones without comparison (i.e. in an "absolute" manner). However, the part about "naming" implies an additional circumstantial capacity to match tones with words, which is not always the case.
Perhaps the reason this sounds so trivial is that you're thinking only about the 12 distinct tones, "in essence", but let me ask you this:
Assume you know a person by his appearance, but you don't know their name. Now, assume you're also familiar with the appearance of five others, and do know their names. Finally, assume that there are, in total, 12 people the pictures of which you can be shown, all of distinct appearance.
If it's one whose name you know, you need practice to remember who is who - not which face belongs to which person, but which
name does.
If it's one whose name you don't know, and you're not even sure how many of them might appear (unless you consciously limit your choices to the 12 "people" mentioned above, versus all the people you can meet), you can know if you've recognised them before, but without a "verbal reference", it's not so easy to
name them.
"Relative" pitch might even be used here, to work your way to
precisely ascertaining the name of the "nameless tone". But regardless, don't think "absolute" pitch relates to names: it relates to tones. Then names relate to tones, after training.
And, again, given that there are way more tones in total than the "essential" 12, it still requires a lot of practice to be able not only to know each of the 12 "essential tones" by name, but also
exclude the other 11
names when seeking to "tag"
one tone.
(Even more so if we're talking about the full range of tones producable anywhere, which is actually the "list" from which some of us "choose", and which only contains a handful of coherent names, to the non-musically-trained.
The fact that most people with perfect pitch are rushed into a conservatory at first notice does not mean some might not choose against that. I know I did, and I know that my erstwhile music teacher is still frustrated by that choice.
Still, the point remains: perfect pitch does not immediately imply naming - only identification, but which can be non-communicable.)
it's going back to that old problem of "how do I know that you know". Sure, let's say you can identify tones, but for some odd reason can't memorize the name associated with them. How would anyone know that you have this ability? How do I test you on it? Can you give me an example?
Quote from: GBJGZW on November 24, 2007, 07:34:21 AM
it's going back to that old problem of "how do I know that you know". Sure, let's say you can identify tones, but for some odd reason can't memorize the name associated with them. How would anyone know that you have this ability? How do I test you on it? Can you give me an example?
What if you were to play a note, and the person were to say, yep, that's the same note as the first chord in Beethoven's Pathetique? Would that be a vaild alternative nomenclature? I.e. the person doesn't know what c minor is, but can intuitively recognise it? Or is that relative pitch because you're kind of 'remembering' the tone?
For those of you with perfect pitch and find it a hindrance when listening to music, what exactly is it that is annoying? Would it be, say, the A=415 of some performances that makes you think that the whole thing throughout is flat? Or is it just a more acute sense of intonation which makes even very minor deviations seem quite glaring?
Quote from: Novitiate on November 24, 2007, 08:00:38 AM
What if you were to play a note, and the person were to say, yep, that's the same note as the first chord in Beethoven's Pathetique? Would that be a vaild alternative nomenclature? I.e. the person doesn't know what c minor is, but can intuitively recognise it? Or is that relative pitch because you're kind of 'remembering' the tone?
but, do you see how unlikely this scenario is? for someone who has listened to Pathetique (and knows music quite well), and doesn't know what the note is called. Suppose, you tell this person that this key is C sharp minor, when someone ask him the same question again, will he reply in the same way?
Quote from: GBJGZW on November 24, 2007, 03:59:09 PM
but, do you see how unlikely this scenario is? for someone who has listened to Pathetique (and knows music quite well), and doesn't know what the note is called. Suppose, you tell this person that this key is C sharp minor, when someone ask him the same question again, will he reply in the same way?
You are making the (in my opinion mistaken) assumption that one instantly learns the names of things. And regardless,
Novitiate got the gist of my question, which isn't really about me personally:
Quote from: Novitiate on November 24, 2007, 08:00:38 AM
What if you were to play a note, and the person were to say, yep, that's the same note as the first chord in Beethoven's Pathetique? Would that be a vaild alternative nomenclature? I.e. the person doesn't know what c minor is, but can intuitively recognise it? Or is that relative pitch because you're kind of 'remembering' the tone?
What I am asking, and you are dismissing as trivial (and I am insisting it isn't) is whether it is vital for
names to be "singly" associated, in order to acknowledge "absolute" pitch - something which I find absurd - or just the tones.
And Novitiate's example highlighted my question very aptly. :)
(For the record, I can confirm that I am able to recognise the tone the Pathetique starts with, or the second, or the fifty-fifth tone in the piece, and repeat it a hundred times on its own in my head. I just can't
name the bloody thing!)
Though you're right in that, as far as "proving" absolute pitch this way is concerned, it's almost impossible to do so; but is using such an "unclean" rule as the naming one a good alternative? Unless you assume the subject is musically educated, which again means the method is limited in scope. That is what I'm getting at: no more, no less.
Then you don't have what academics call "perfect pitch", case closed.
Quote from: GBJGZW on November 24, 2007, 05:06:06 PM
Then you don't have what academics call "perfect pitch", case closed.
Come again? What were you answering to? :o
Here I am trying to discuss a subject I think is worth some discussion, and you're replying as if it's a competition. Easy on the trigger, there!
If nothing else, you are tempting me to ask an academic or two about what they would consider perfect pitch, and see if it
isn't "the ability to
recognize [my emphasis] the pitch of a note or produce any given note" (Concise Oxford Dictionary), which I don't see having anything to do with names.
Although interestingly, the Concise Grove Music Dictionary (via Gramophone.co.uk) appears to list absolute pitch as "The ability to
name [my emphasis] the pitch of a note, or to sing a named note, without reference to a previously sounded one.", which I have spent the last several posts arguing against, as a definition.
Whereas relative pitch is, according to Grove (the Concise Oxford doesn't have it), "the ability to identify intervals by ear without being able to identify individual pitches, as with Absolute pitch." Is that the same as recognising notes, but not being able to name them? Is it even related to that at all? This is another question I asked above.
So all in all, I'll stick with Oxford, but it appears even academics are not so clear on this subject. But did I not begin the discussion with saying it isn't as simple as it sounds, anyway? :)
you do realize that the people who made Oxford dictionary aren't exactly expert in everything they cover... why should i argue with you? you obviously don't like my answer, so you definitely should consult an academic (it helps if his/her field is music) and ask them about it.
Okay, it's time to shine some light and try to bring down the heat. ;D
I have perfect pitch. For as long as I can remember, I have been able to recognize pitches (not tones necessarily--a separate issue) without effort and without any other referent than my own pitch memory. This is what perfect pitch is: the ability to remember pitches well enough to recognize or reproduce them without referring to another instrument or tuning fork or whatever. Whether one knows the names of the notes is beside the point, although it would be difficult to tell if one had perfect pitch if one didn't know the note names. I cannot guarantee that I can reproduce A440 within 1 Hz plus or minus; but I can come very close.
Someone mentioned the Faure trio as having many key changes and implying that it would be a challenge. Such things are no challenge to me; I recognize the key instantly and without effort wherever it is. Even in atonal pieces, I know exactly which notes are being played at any instant.
Relative pitch has to do, not with the pitches themselves, but with their relation to each other. Anyone who has neither perfect pitch nor relative pitch is functionally tone-deaf. (Such people might still become pianists or percussionists; just ask Evelyn Glennie, an astonishing percussionist who is also profoundly deaf.) Most musicians, I would imagine, have relative pitch and have been trained in its use; but I have not met many who have perfect pitch.
About period pitch: Yes, it's a problem. I have to "recalibrate" my pitch sense every time I hear a period group. And some of the French and English groups seem to play at about A390, because they sound a whole step flat to my ears; A415 sounds about a half-step low.
Another problem comes when I play a transposing instrument such as the English horn or Bb clarinet. I find it very difficult in such cases to remember that a written C sounds as an F, or Bb! :o I really have to do a double transposition in my head--at sight. On the other hand, I can easily transpose at sight from a non-transposed part; that involves only a single transposition. ;D
And yes, perfect pitch is a useful gift for composition or arranging. I can "hear" things in my head and don't have to refer to a keyboard. 8)
A final comment: Some have described teaching programs designed to teach perfect pitch. One of them tries to teach pitch recognition by "sound color." That has never been my method, if I have a method at all; I remember the pitches regardless of their color, which changes with every instrument. So all I can say is I doubt they would be effective.
Quote from: jochanaan on November 25, 2007, 07:34:36 AM
And yes, perfect pitch is a useful gift for composition or arranging. I can "hear" things in my head and don't have to refer to a keyboard. 8)
Yes, and I wonder if that's possible with relative pitch either. Doubt so, although many people say that perfect pitch doesn't make you a better composer.
Quote from: rappy on November 25, 2007, 09:22:55 AM
Yes, and I wonder if that's possible with relative pitch either. Doubt so, although many people say that perfect pitch doesn't make you a better composer.
That is true, i mean a keyboard is not that hard to find....
Perfect pitch story:
Writer Boris Pasternak started life as a composer, a pretty good one in the Scriabin line. In fact he was an adoring acolyte of Scriabin's. The time came when he knew he had to make the choice between music - his main love - and literature - in which he excelled even more. But he couldn't bear to make the break from composing, so he set himself a scenario to act out. He would go to Scriabin's house to discuss his thoughts on stopping composing. At some point in the conversation he would mention his lack of perfect ptich. If - as he assumed he would - Scriabin said something along the lines of 'but Tchaikovsky [etc. etc.] didn't have perfect pitch either' Pasternak would take that as a cue to give up composing. And that is exactly what happened when the conversation took place. Hence, Doctor Zhivago was made possible by Pasternak's lack of perfect pitch...
Quote from: GBJGZW on November 25, 2007, 08:04:25 PM
That is true, i mean a keyboard is not that hard to find....
Well, but on a keyboard you have to try out, while in your head you can find the most weird progressions by yourself.
Quote from: rappy on November 25, 2007, 09:22:55 AM
...many people say that perfect pitch doesn't make you a better composer.
If that were all that was required, I'd be as well-known as Mozart! ;D
Quote from: rappy on November 26, 2007, 10:49:24 AM
Well, but on a keyboard you have to try out, while in your head you can find the most weird progressions by yourself.
True, but sometimes I find that something I think would work doesn't, while something I feel will never work does just fine. Very strange. ???
Is it possible to imagine tones, melodies, key modulations, harmonies etc. when someone is composing without perfect pitch ? I wonder if Tchaikovsky didn't have perfect pitch, how could he compose such gentle harmonies and artful key modulations ?
Quote from: marcelIs it possible to imagine tones, melodies, key modulations, harmonies etc. when someone is composing without perfect pitch ? I wonder if Tchaikovsky didn't have perfect pitch, how could he compose such gentle harmonies and artful key modulations ?
Perfect pitch isn't necessary to do the things you imagine - evidently not, because Tchaikovsky didn't have it. Nor, I should add, did plenty of other great composers, including e.g Wagner, who is an even greater example of harmonic empiricism. As Jochanaan has pointed out, most musicians do not have perfect pitch, and the lack of it is not a handicap, especially if, as I imagine all composers do, they have a good sense of relative pitch, which is the
really important thing for 'hearing' music internally. To be specific to the case of Tchaikovsky, in addition to a flawlessly developed sense of relative pitch, like all other musicians of his time he had an intimate knowledge of how harmony works, so that he knew how to achieve each harmonic effect that he wanted. These things combined meant that he could still hear exactly what he composed in his head, correct in relation to itself regardless of whether or not he heard it at exactly the right pitch. Though in fact I suspect he worked near a piano, so that he heard it at pitch too. I know that Tchaikovsky used to write down his first thoughts using the baroque technique of figured bass, which demonstrates that he was thinking very much in terms of an established repertoire of harmonic patterns. He seems to have had a preference for certain harmonic sequences, which is part of an explanation of 'the Tchaikovsky sound', just as it is part of the explanation of all composers' personal 'sounds.'
Quote from: GBJGZW on November 24, 2007, 09:11:42 PM
you do realize that the people who made Oxford dictionary aren't exactly expert in everything they cover... why should i argue with you? you obviously don't like my answer, so you definitely should consult an academic (it helps if his/her field is music) and ask them about it.
I didn't like the style of your answer, in dismissing various issues I asked about offhand like I perceived it as doing. If that was a mis-perception, my apologies.
Still, I do think anyone disagreeing with anyone else could at least bother to explain their point further, and in an objective tone. Otherwise, it's not an argument, it's a competition.
Jochanaan, my thanks for a very informative post! And even more so, for drawing my attention to this "period pitch" business (perhaps responding to a previous post I failed to notice?), which would
finally explain what was "wrong" with period performances, during my listening to them so far.
Thank you!
Because
I kept wondering if it was some curious placebo and/or minor loss of sanity that made me think Norrington's Beethoven cycle, for instance, sounded
lower than it should. :o
Quote from: Renfield on November 27, 2007, 08:09:18 PM
I didn't like the style of your answer, in dismissing various issues I asked about offhand like I perceived it as doing. If that was a mis-perception, my apologies.
Still, I do think anyone disagreeing with anyone else could at least bother to explain their point further, and in an objective tone. Otherwise, it's not an argument, it's a competition.
what do you want me to say? Okay, let's do this again, post your questions again, I'll answer them, that is, if you are willing to listen.
Quote from: GBJGZW on November 27, 2007, 08:38:12 PM
what do you want me to say? Okay, let's do this again, post your questions again, I'll answer them, that is, if you are willing to listen.
Jochanaan already did. And I appreciate your intent: what didn't sit well with me was the apparent lack of desire to actually discuss the issue at hand, versus
what others say about the issue at hand, in an objective manner.
It's nothing to me if we disagree, but everything to me that we should do it "properly". ;)
well, i don't find this topic fascinating at all. But, apparently you do.
Quote from: GBJGZW on November 27, 2007, 08:54:54 PM
well, i don't find this topic fascinating at all. But, apparently you do.
Fair enough. :)
Quote from: GBJGZW on November 27, 2007, 08:54:54 PM
well, i don't find this topic fascinating at all. But, apparently you do.
The topic is rather boring, but you and Renfield are fascinating.
Quote from: Renfield on November 27, 2007, 08:09:18 PM
Jochanaan, my thanks for a very informative post! And even more so, for drawing my attention to this "period pitch" business (perhaps responding to a previous post I failed to notice?), which would finally explain what was "wrong" with period performances, during my listening to them so far.
Thank you!
Because I kept wondering if it was some curious placebo and/or minor loss of sanity that made me think Norrington's Beethoven cycle, for instance, sounded lower than it should. :o
Not at all! At least, that's not a symptom of whatever insanity might afflict you, or me. ;D I suppose that Norrington was conducting the London Classical Players or some other period group that plays at A415.
One evening I heard the Hummel Trumpet Concerto over the radio--the Wynton Marsalis recording with (I think) the Academy of St. Martin in the Fields, Neville Marriner leading. The host announced it as "Trumpet Concerto in Eb," which is what I and most others would have expected, but I heard it plainly as being in E, not Eb. I queried the radio station (KVOD/Denver), and after a day or so they sent me a very nice email. It turns out that this concerto was originally written in E, and that the Eb version was an arrangement, done to make it easier for Bb trumpets to play the solo part! :o Mr. Marsalis, who usually plays a trumpet in C, had gone back to the original version. 8)
Quote from: jochanaan on November 29, 2007, 10:32:37 AM
Not at all! At least, that's not a symptom of whatever insanity might afflict you, or me. ;D I suppose that Norrington was conducting the London Classical Players or some other period group that plays at A415.
One evening I heard the Hummel Trumpet Concerto over the radio--the Wynton Marsalis recording with (I think) the Academy of St. Martin in the Fields, Neville Marriner leading. The host announced it as "Trumpet Concerto in Eb," which is what I and most others would have expected, but I heard it plainly as being in E, not Eb. I queried the radio station (KVOD/Denver), and after a day or so they sent me a very nice email. It turns out that this concerto was originally written in E, and that the Eb version was an arrangement, done to make it easier for Bb trumpets to play the solo part! :o Mr. Marsalis, who usually plays a trumpet in C, had gone back to the original version. 8)
see? Perfect Pitch is useful.
I have absolute pitch and I don't find it much of a problem most of the time, but it can be disconcerting hearing period instrument performances at times.
When I hear a period instrument orchestra playing Mozart's Jupiter symphony the C major sounds like B major. But I've found that my ear can adjust.
I've heard a recording on harpsichord of the Well Tempered Clavier which sounded a WHOLE tone below modern pitch. Thus, the opening C major prelude sounded like B flat major to me. It was weird.
I've noticed something strange about my absolute pitch at times. When I hear highly complex atonal, 12-tone or serial music with its extreme chromaticism, my ear sometimes become confused and I temporarily lose my pitch sense. Does any one hear know anything about this kind of pehenomenon? ???
Quote from: Superhorn on November 08, 2008, 06:36:09 AM
I've noticed something strange about my absolute pitch at times. When I hear highly complex atonal, 12-tone or serial music with its extreme chromaticism, my ear sometimes become confused and I temporarily lose my pitch sense. Does any one hear know anything about this kind of pehenomenon? ???
No, but I've heard it can make you respond to threads that have had no posts in nearly a year! ;) ;D
I was tuning the guitar with one of those circle blowers, and, maybe I've been listening to too much Modern Microtonal Music, but I was having just the time of it getting what I though must be the right pitch, but all these tones were buzzing through my head and I was hearing a big mush, and now I'm just unconfident that my ears know anything when it comes to this kind of stuff.
Anyhow, I didn't read the Thread yet, so I don't know what's been discussed yet, but if anyone has personal experience/input/whatever,... I'm all ears, haha.
Oddly enough, my music teachers claimed that perfect pitch could be a hindrance for instrumentalists/singers playing/singing in larger groups, because "perfect pitchers" would tend to play/sing the "right" pitch, even when the rest of the ensemble strayed a little. Which can make matters even worse.
Of course, this was a while ago and the memory might be disfigured, but I'm sure that I retained the general gist of what I was told. ::) ;D
For the record, I'm practically tone deaf. I've always had great difficulties with writing down music solely "by ear" (dictation). At least when a single line was to be written. OTOH, give me two voices (was never forced to take down more), and suddenly all my troubles (and mistakes) are gone. Odd? (Again - this was a long time ago, I'm sure today it wouldn't work.)
Quote from: Maciek on January 22, 2010, 02:47:20 PM
Oddly enough, my music teachers claimed that perfect pitch could be a hindrance for instrumentalists/singers playing/singing in larger groups, because "perfect pitchers" would tend to play/sing the "right" pitch, even when the rest of the ensemble strayed a little. Which can make matters even worse.
I have heard this, too, mostly from singers in choirs. It can be especially problematic in an
a cappella piece, when sometimes the entire ensemble drifts up or down a slight bit in pitch.
--Bruce
Yes, the heartbreak of choral sag . . . .
Quote from: snyprrr on January 22, 2010, 11:28:17 AM
I was tuning the guitar with one of those circle blowers, and, maybe I've been listening to too much Modern Microtonal Music, but I was having just the time of it getting what I though must be the right pitch, but all these tones were buzzing through my head and I was hearing a big mush, and now I'm just unconfident that my ears know anything when it comes to this kind of stuff.
Anyhow, I didn't read the Thread yet, so I don't know what's been discussed yet, but if anyone has personal experience/input/whatever,... I'm all ears, haha.
Being trained in microtonality whets (I will not use "sharpen" :o ) the ear and makes it more sensitive to the usual 12 tones and their combinations.
Last year our music teacher was playing an electric piano for our school's Passion Play, and I kept getting terrible chills because one of the keys - the F key in the middle octave - was off. She had never noticed it, but when I pointed it out and played a scale slowly, the F - somehow - was no longer in tune. I thought this was impossible on electronic keyboards, but apparently not.
It has taken me years to accustom myself to the dreadful off-key intonations of most pop warblers, screechers, shouters, and young and old yellers! :o
When my pianist grandmother and I watched the Beatles on the first Ed Sullivan broadcast, we both looked at each other and shook our heads.
"What's all the fuss about these guys?" she asked.
"I don't know. They're flat, constantly flat."
"Flatter than pancakes," said Grandma. And Grandma was never wrong...at least about such things musical! 0:)
I understand that these days rock musicians' voices are electronically manipulated in many cases to place their voices on the right note.
I remembered a story about Arnold Schoenberg in his later years: I do not recall the source, but he commented that he was losing his ability to concentrate on the notes accurately for long periods.
Age interfered with the accuracy of his mental ears.
So far...this has not happened to me! 0:)
Quote from: Cato on January 25, 2010, 12:37:01 PM
I understand that these days rock musicians' voices are electronically manipulated in many cases to place their voices on the right note.
Yes virtually everyone uses that software. It's astonishing how much they can manipulate things these days.
Quote from: Guido on February 09, 2010, 04:25:01 PM
Yes virtually everyone uses that software. It's astonishing how much they can manipulate things these days.
A very strange movie from the 70's, a satire on the rock-n-roll music business (and its audience) using the Phantom of the Opera's plot-line, called
The Phantom of the Paradise, shows a scene where the Phantom's voice (a creaking, scarred disaster) is electronically modified into smooth creaminess.
Because the movie mocked the audience it was aimed at, the effort (from
Brian DePalma) did not earn much money! 8)
I always thought Phantom of the Paradise was a bit of a cult movie? Used to have it on video, wish I had a DVD of it too... :'(
Quote from: Maciek on February 11, 2010, 03:32:24 PM
I always thought Phantom of the Paradise was a bit of a cult movie? Used to have it on video, wish I had a DVD of it too... :'(
(http://img.listal.com/image/634733/600full-phantom-of-the-paradise-photo.jpg)
Maciek: for a mere pittance ($10.00) you can have your DVD and watch it too !
http://www.amazon.com/Phantom-Paradise-Paul-Williams/dp/B00005LIRB/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1265940611&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Phantom-Paradise-Paul-Williams/dp/B00005LIRB/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1265940611&sr=1-1)
And speaking of cults, that group picture of yours looks like a
Cult of Cute! 0:)
From an interview with
Jessica Harper on the "entertainment industry" found on the DVD "extra" with
Phantom of the Paradise:
QuoteIn the "Paradise Regained" documentary, Jessica Harper observes: "In the film [DePalma] depicts the entertainment business as being sleazy and I think there's no question... it still is sleazy, and it always will be, with a few elements of truth and beauty."
How uplifting. ;D
Scary thing is, when she thinks "elements of truth and beauty," she might be thinking of the James Taylor & Carole King "Troubadour" Reunion Tour . . . .
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 12, 2010, 03:35:21 AM
Scary thing is, when she thinks "elements of truth and beauty," she might be thinking of the James Taylor & Carole King "Troubadour" Reunion Tour . . . .
Dude! I will be finding out, if your conjecture is true! :o
(Tickets to that is my wife's (early) birthday present, when they come here in May! 8) )
(The tickets were horribly expensive: the Cleveland Orchestra or the Cincinnati Symphony are much, much less expensive!)
I don't even like to think what the tickets cost, Cato. Testimony to a husband's devotion.