who has perfect pitch?

[Hink]

fwiw hot tuna is a very old band...

[Meffy]

Old is good. Spry is good. Practice makes perfect. Tar makes pitch. Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana. Oon yellimon. Oon yellimon.

[droolmaster0]

The point is that perfect pitch has next to nothing to do with composition, whereas relative pitch has everything to do with composition.

However, if everyone heard in absolute pitch, that wouldn't be the case.

Bottom line is, if your audience doesn't hear in absolute pitch, then the end product is the same to them whether or not it was composed by someone with absolute pitch. However posessing workable absolute pitch is a powerful tool for the composer simply from a practical standpoint. It makes it easier to find notes, easier to grab complicated chords. Changing key is much easier with the help of absolute pitch sense.

Actually, I think that if your audience doesn't hear in absolute pitch, then the end product would not NECESSARILY be the same, they would just not be able to define the difference explicitly in pitch. The definition of absolute pitch doesn't imply that one without it cannot have different reactions to things played at different pitches.

this is not so much a matter of belief, but a matter of logic.

but completely irrelevant, init? I mean face it perfect or absolute pitch doesn't effect what the audience hears...you're gonna use a tuner or at least be proficient at tuning (which is not perfect pitch)..perfect pitch assuming one has it, truly benefits the artist not the audience...besides perfect pitch means perfect note recognition...so one with perfect pitch watching a band tuned a half step low would recognize the E as Eb right away. So different tunings and relative pitches will still be recognized as the note they in fact are even if they are off..."that's an Ab, but it's a little sharp"...

No. YOu're talking as if you have some knowledge on the subject, but you don't. What is obvious, and one can infer simply from the definition of absolute pitch, is that the exact tuning would not be recognizeable by an audience of people without absolute pitch. Obviously. They don't have absolute pitch.

But what does not follow from the definitions is that they wouldn't possibly sense some more subtle difference that they can't define. so this audience member might, on 2 consecutive nights, hear the same music played at a different pitch. The person might think that one of the ways just sounded better, or different, but not be able to define exactly why.

So, to say that the absolute pitch imposed by the composer doesn't affect an audience without absolute pitch makes the assumption that the pitch has NO AFFECT on the audience. That's quite a stretch.

(edit for clarity)

[Hink]

yah know that show also stands out because of how it ended. It was in Springfield Mass, 82-83 and they had strict laws...the show had to be over at 11:30...and they meant it. They pulled the plug on bobby and the midnights midsong...

[Meffy]

:-S The philistines.

[el davo]

For those interested a good recent review on the subject of inheritance and molecular basis for absolute pitch detection is available in Nature Neuroscience: Zatorre RJ, "Absolute pitch: a model for understanding the influence of genes and development on neural and cognitive function". It does a good job of going through most topics touched upon in this thread, but with less guessing

http://www.zlab.mcgill.ca/docs/Zatorre_2003.pdf

It also supplements a test for those of you who would like to try your own abilities:

http://www.zlab.mcgill.ca/home.html
Go to "Supplements"/Absolute pitch

As for the discussion of wether absolute pitch gives you an advantage for writing or performing music, I'd say sure, but not necessarily more so than a very good relative pitch hearing in combination with training in recognizing chords and scales. In fact, some individuals with AP appear to have a slightly impeded relative pitch detection.. To follow your example, Beethoven/Mozart et al would know from experience what a good reference key would be, and (deaf-version of) Beethoven could write everything from there based on relative intervals, regardless of whether he in his mind was half a note off or not... it's all good

Edits: clarity.

Cheers,
David (PhD in Genetics/Genomics)

[Hink]

The point is that perfect pitch has next to nothing to do with composition, whereas relative pitch has everything to do with composition.

However, if everyone heard in absolute pitch, that wouldn't be the case.

Bottom line is, if your audience doesn't hear in absolute pitch, then the end product is the same to them whether or not it was composed by someone with absolute pitch. However posessing workable absolute pitch is a powerful tool for the composer simply from a practical standpoint. It makes it easier to find notes, easier to grab complicated chords. Changing key is much easier with the help of absolute pitch sense.

Actually, I think that if your audience doesn't hear in absolute pitch, then the end product would not NECESSARILY be the same, they would just not be able to define the difference explicitly in pitch. The definition of absolute pitch doesn't imply that one without it cannot have different reactions to things played at different pitches.

this is not so much a matter of belief, but a matter of logic.

but completely irrelevant, init? I mean face it perfect or absolute pitch doesn't effect what the audience hears...you're gonna use a tuner or at least be proficient at tuning (which is not perfect pitch)..perfect pitch assuming one has it, truly benefits the artist not the audience...besides perfect pitch means perfect note recognition...so one with perfect pitch watching a band tuned a half step low would recognize the E as Eb right away. So different tunings and relative pitches will still be recognized as the note they in fact are even if they are off..."that's an Ab, but it's a little sharp"...

No. YOu're talking as if you have some knowledge on the subject, but you don't. What is obvious, and one can infer simply from the definition of absolute pitch, is that the exact tuning would not be recognizeable by an audience of people without absolute pitch. Obviously. They don't have absolute pitch.

But what does not follow from the definitions is that they might sense some more subtle difference that they can't define. so this audience member might, on 2 consecutive nights, hear the same music played at a different pitch. The person might think that one of the ways just sounded better, or different, but not be able to define exactly why.

So, to say that the absolute pitch imposed by the composer doesn't affect an audience without absolute pitch makes the assumption that the pitch has NO AFFECT on the audience. That's quite a stretch.

thanx for clearing up what I know and don't know....where would be without people telling me what I know...

[herodotus]

The point is that perfect pitch has next to nothing to do with composition, whereas relative pitch has everything to do with composition.

However, if everyone heard in absolute pitch, that wouldn't be the case.

Bottom line is, if your audience doesn't hear in absolute pitch, then the end product is the same to them whether or not it was composed by someone with absolute pitch. However posessing workable absolute pitch is a powerful tool for the composer simply from a practical standpoint. It makes it easier to find notes, easier to grab complicated chords. Changing key is much easier with the help of absolute pitch sense.

Actually, I think that if your audience doesn't hear in absolute pitch, then the end product would not NECESSARILY be the same, they would just not be able to define the difference explicitly in pitch. The definition of absolute pitch doesn't imply that one without it cannot have different reactions to things played at different pitches.

this is not so much a matter of belief, but a matter of logic.

but completely irrelevant, init? I mean face it perfect or absolute pitch doesn't effect what the audience hears...you're gonna use a tuner or at least be proficient at tuning (which is not perfect pitch)..perfect pitch assuming one has it, truly benefits the artist not the audience...besides perfect pitch means perfect note recognition...so one with perfect pitch watching a band tuned a half step low would recognize the E as Eb right away. So different tunings and relative pitches will still be recognized as the note they in fact are even if they are off..."that's an Ab, but it's a little sharp"...

No. YOu're talking as if you have some knowledge on the subject, but you don't. What is obvious, and one can infer simply from the definition of absolute pitch, is that the exact tuning would not be recognizeable by an audience of people without absolute pitch. Obviously. They don't have absolute pitch.

But what does not follow from the definitions is that they might sense some more subtle difference that they can't define. so this audience member might, on 2 consecutive nights, hear the same music played at a different pitch. The person might think that one of the ways just sounded better, or different, but not be able to define exactly why.

So, to say that the absolute pitch imposed by the composer doesn't affect an audience without absolute pitch makes the assumption that the pitch has NO AFFECT on the audience. That's quite a stretch.

Excuse me but what the hell are you talking about?

What absolute pitch is 'imposed by' the composer?

How does said composer 'impose' it?

[droolmaster0]

The point is that perfect pitch has next to nothing to do with composition, whereas relative pitch has everything to do with composition.

However, if everyone heard in absolute pitch, that wouldn't be the case.

Bottom line is, if your audience doesn't hear in absolute pitch, then the end product is the same to them whether or not it was composed by someone with absolute pitch. However posessing workable absolute pitch is a powerful tool for the composer simply from a practical standpoint. It makes it easier to find notes, easier to grab complicated chords. Changing key is much easier with the help of absolute pitch sense.

Actually, I think that if your audience doesn't hear in absolute pitch, then the end product would not NECESSARILY be the same, they would just not be able to define the difference explicitly in pitch. The definition of absolute pitch doesn't imply that one without it cannot have different reactions to things played at different pitches.

this is not so much a matter of belief, but a matter of logic.

but completely irrelevant, init? I mean face it perfect or absolute pitch doesn't effect what the audience hears...you're gonna use a tuner or at least be proficient at tuning (which is not perfect pitch)..perfect pitch assuming one has it, truly benefits the artist not the audience...besides perfect pitch means perfect note recognition...so one with perfect pitch watching a band tuned a half step low would recognize the E as Eb right away. So different tunings and relative pitches will still be recognized as the note they in fact are even if they are off..."that's an Ab, but it's a little sharp"...

No. YOu're talking as if you have some knowledge on the subject, but you don't. What is obvious, and one can infer simply from the definition of absolute pitch, is that the exact tuning would not be recognizeable by an audience of people without absolute pitch. Obviously. They don't have absolute pitch.

But what does not follow from the definitions is that they might sense some more subtle difference that they can't define. so this audience member might, on 2 consecutive nights, hear the same music played at a different pitch. The person might think that one of the ways just sounded better, or different, but not be able to define exactly why.

So, to say that the absolute pitch imposed by the composer doesn't affect an audience without absolute pitch makes the assumption that the pitch has NO AFFECT on the audience. That's quite a stretch.

Excuse me but what the hell are you talking about?

What absolute pitch is 'imposed by' the composer?

How does said composer 'impose' it?

I simply was referring to the fact that a composer with 'absolute pitch', in all likelihood, chose a specific key because that key had a particular nuance that he liked, and that this particular key is likely more essential to the piece in his mind, than it might be to a composer without absolute pitch. My point had to do with audience reaction not the choice of words having to do with the composer assigning a key to his work. You're looking for additional meaning that isn't there.

[Hink]

I simply was referring to the fact that a composer with 'absolute pitch', in all likelihood, chose a specific key because that key had a particular nuance that he liked, and that this particular key is likely more essential to the piece in his mind, than it might be to a composer without absolute pitch.

that makes absolutely no sense...you don't have to have absolute pitch to create moods by using different keys. Also just because you don't have absolute pitch doesn't mean you will care less.

As for your audience thing...first a composer has no audience...it's the performer that plays for the audience and their interpretation of the composition that ultimately gets heard by the audience. So it makes no sense.

But lets ignore that part...your theory is not making sense either. You assume that the audience will have the same threshold for perception of tone as the performer.

You mention if it's a little off they might notice it but not know why. Likely they won't percieve the difference from one show to the other to begin with. But then factor in all the other variables, the most obvious the soundman. A soundman is more likely to be different enough to create what you describe. Of course today with digital mixers one can save snapshots if they have that size a system.

But even if they do recreate the exact mix as the day before and assuming all changes are perfectly automated. You still have myriad of variables from one show to the other. The ambient noise will vary from night to night with each crowd. If it's a greatly smaller or larger crowd, then less bodies will be absorbing the sound. Thus changing the sound to create what you describe.

Even weather will play a factor if one day is quite humid and the next not. Then also there will the performers and their dynamics. Sometimes they can be right on but a little lackluster, then other nights they can really pumped up. That too could cause a change.

So if the composition was played by musicians without perfect pitch, they played with the exact same dynamics, same exact mix or volume, in the same room, to the same person (or the exact same audience in tha exact same spots), who had a god enough ear to hear the extremely slight difference that might be there...then you have a point.

[Bonteburg]

I'm really good at relative pitch which is extremely helpful. I'm good to the point of being able to kind of "mimick" perfect pitch sometimes


Perfect pitch , don't know, I imagine it mnust be a pain in the arse sometimes, what with all the detuned instruments and no-one around to notice it but you
IS it that way tho?

Marco

[Radek]

I got the famous 'perfect pitch' course and also his relative pitch course. I've much more benefit from the relative pitch when it comes to jamming in addition to my own compositions.

My "pitch senses" are very weird. I barely can sing to the 1st because I'm getting 4rd or 5th instead. This is in a higher part of scale because in the lower I (usually) can tune fine. Don't having a "perfect pitch" yet I could (when I was learning to play) whistle Bach's pieces instinctively. Better yet I can turn the monitor's volume down and improvise without hearning (and don't having a clue how the notes are sounding) but actual recordings of such playing are ok. So... imho music perception is very individual thing and this even relates to something we call a "pitch".

After someone got proficient enough with an instruments all this stops mattering. Thinking about pitch isn't needed then as playing a intrument became an instinct. Do we need to know anathomy of our legs and hands to use them?

[droolmaster0]

I simply was referring to the fact that a composer with 'absolute pitch', in all likelihood, chose a specific key because that key had a particular nuance that he liked, and that this particular key is likely more essential to the piece in his mind, than it might be to a composer without absolute pitch.

"that makes absolutely no sense...you don't have to have absolute pitch to create moods by using different keys. Also just because you don't have absolute pitch doesn't mean you will care less."

Well, what you say here is true, but you are not referring to what I actually meant which can be gleaned from the context of several of my posts. You're right - you don't need to have absolute pitch to create moods by using different keys. However, BY DEFINITION, someone with absolute pitch has a more precise recognition of these pitches, and then (presumably) a more precise recollection or association of these pitches with moods. Presumeably then, as a consequence, you would expect that it would be more important in such a composer's mind that a piece be played in precisely this key, with a = exactly 440, etc. This does not mean that this is true all of the time - a composer may not really care, or the piece may not even consist of pitches.

"As for your audience thing...first a composer has no audience...it's the performer that plays for the audience and their interpretation of the composition that ultimately gets heard by the audience. So it makes no sense."

I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that a composer has an audience. In fact, I think that you will hear other people talk this way. What you are not realizing is that the meanings of words are derived from their use - this is obviously a slightly different meaning of the word than when you speak of a performer playing for an audience. When you speak of the audience of a composer, you quite obviously are referring to those people who listen to his music played by a performer of some sort, which would include stereo reproduction or live performance.

"But lets ignore that part...your theory is not making sense either. You assume that the audience will have the same threshold for perception of tone as the performer."

I don't have a 'theory'. I am stating something that really isn't that controversial, and am simply trying to clarify the meaning of concepts and words. You are attacking the meaning of words without a clear understanding of their meanings in the contexts.

And I simply do not assume that 'the audience will have the same threshold for perception of tone as the performer' if by that you mean that they will necessarily be able to differentiate pitch (as in absolute pitch) as well as the performer (or the composer). Why would this be implied by anything that I've said?

"You mention if it's a little off they might notice it but not know why. Likely they won't percieve the difference from one show to the other to begin with. But then factor in all the other variables, the most obvious the soundman. A soundman is more likely to be different enough to create what you describe. Of course today with digital mixers one can save snapshots if they have that size a system. "

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The point was made that an audience wouldn't care (if they did not have absolute pitch) what key a piece was played in. That it wouldn't make a difference. I was making the point that while absolute pitch is the ability to recognize precise pitches, one need not have that to have a less precise sense that something is being played 'differently' than it did at another pitch. It is not part of the same concept. This is logically true. Absolute pitch is a more precise definition than simply 'the ability to notice, when a piece is being played in a different key, that something feels different about it'. So, logically, the assumption that an audience member does not have absolute pitch does not imply (necessarily) that changing the key, or the tuning, would make no difference to him.

"But even if they do recreate the exact mix as the day before and assuming all changes are perfectly automated. You still have myriad of variables from one show to the other. The ambient noise will vary from night to night with each crowd. If it's a greatly smaller or larger crowd, then less bodies will be absorbing the sound. Thus changing the sound to create what you describe."

I'm not sure how this relates at all the points being made.

"Even weather will play a factor if one day is quite humid and the next not. Then also there will the performers and their dynamics. Sometimes they can be right on but a little lackluster, then other nights they can really pumped up. That too could cause a change."

All you seem to be arguing is that there are other factors that can play into a person without absolute pitch noticing that a piece sounds different. Nothing that I have said would imply otherwise.

"So if the composition was played by musicians without perfect pitch, they played with the exact same dynamics, same exact mix or volume, in the same room, to the same person (or the exact same audience in tha exact same spots), who had a god enough ear to hear the extremely slight difference that might be there...then you have a point"

Well, I think you need to pay more attention to exactly what is being said.

[IvoryTickler]

Does the process of learning an instrument give you the moods associated with pitch? For example, most pianists learn their early simple pieces in C major. To me now, any piece in C major tends to sound straightforward and uncomplicated - independantly of the actual music. Having established that association in my mind, would that be the reason for the dramatic change in mood I hear from moving to B major or F# major?

Now what happens with eg violinists who would (I presume) first learn in other keys (E and A). Are their moods "keyed" in to their learning experience?

I have met the opposite to perfect pitch - a friend who was totally tone deaf. He heard music as volumes and rhythms only - which I worked out initially from the fact that he sang along in totally random notes but accurately matched the volume he was singing at to the record. He also had no idea when to change gear in his car, and had to watch the rev counter to do so as he was unaware of the engine's note rising.

Strangely he absolutely loved music - purely for rhythms and lyrics.

[Hink]

sorry dude my life has no room for pintless dribble...my
post was in response to this.

But what does not follow from the definitions is that they might sense some more subtle difference that they can't define. so this audience member might, on 2 consecutive nights, hear the same music played at a different pitch.

you are the one that said audience it it's quite obvious you meant a live audience as a recorded piece is not gonna change pitch much unless it's played on two different systems, one having crap gear. But then you say this

I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that a composer has an audience. In fact, I think that you will hear other people talk this way. What you are not realizing is that the meanings of words are derived from their use - this is obviously a slightly different meaning of the word than when you speak of a performer playing for an audience. When you speak of the audience of a composer, you quite obviously are referring to those people who listen to his music played by a performer of some sort, which would include stereo reproduction or live performance.

which is what I call spin and see no point in taking it any further...

Well, I think you need to pay more attention to exactly what is being said.

you might try paying attention to what you say...