Ear Training...Getting a trained ear.

[jopy]

I already have a very practical example in mind that I could continue with, but it's too late for now, so I need to post that tomorrow (in case you're not bored already).

Not bored; I do find this interesting. I have been playing kids songs on the piano by ear for years so that part I've got down pretty well. I'm just trying to figure out new ways to get even better so that I can sit down with a reasonably complex recording of a tune and rapidly get all the parts down (including harmonies) after just one or two listenings. That's still something I struggle with, although I must admit that I've spent far more time working on getting down the more technical aspects of playing the piano and occasionally sight reading than I've spent on ear training.

[shankfiddle]

Contrary to what's been said, perfect pitch CAN be learned, like any other skill. Perfect pitch is the ability to identify any note by name. True, many people are innately born with it, but any musician can learn how to do it.

I am classically trained and used to have really good "relative" pitch but not perfect pitch. That means that if you gave me a reference pitch, (ie if you told me the piece begins on an E) then I could follow every interval and notate it by ear without any problem. But without a reference pitch I would frequently transcribe passages in the wrong key... perfect intervals, but had to be transposed (I was usually off a 4th or 5th) to be in the correct key.

The next step was developing good enough pitch memory. After more training I only needed one reference pitch a day. If listened to a piece in the morning, and figured out that it was in the key of G, my ear would be calibrated for the rest of the day, and every other pitch could be named by comparing it to the G I remembered from earlier that day.

But I would sometimes be off by a 4th or 5th on the first music I'd hear of the day. SO even though I fooled teachers and friends into thinking i had perfect pitch, it was just a combination of good relative piece and memory.

Final step was to sit alone in a room with a mic and make an absolute fool of myself. I'm a strictly instrumental composer, and personally hate the sound of my voice, but i recorded some solo vocals. I forced out the highest and lowest notes I could possibly sing (sounded god-awful and I will never forget those tones). Then I identified the resting pitch of my voice.

Now when I speak it calibrates my ear. But all this requires exploration of your vocal chords and ear, and a willingness to make some ridiculous noise. No computer program or website can give you perfect pitch.

[shankfiddle]

also, I took a synth programming class in college and wrote a synth in Msx/MSP where you can feed any frequency into a "cycle" object to make a sinetone. First thing I did with my synth was the same experiment: find the absolute highest and lowest pitches your ears can discern. many people know the range of their voice, but what about your ear?

[sammy24]

I've read that there's something called "vocal tension" perfect pitch, where basically the person memorizes that a certain note they sing is note x, and that's their reference, either their lowest note, assuming their range remains constant, or a note that they can remember based on the feel of the tension in their voice/cords. From what I understand, however, this is still not the same as absolute pitch. Because one is still relying on some kind of reference, and then relying on relative pitch. It accomplishes the same result, though. But I've always thought of absolute pitch as the similar to seeing colors. Most people just see different colors differently. I don't need to see yellow in order to figure out, oh, then if that's yellow, that must be blue. I think the question remains open if this kind of absolute pitch can be learned. My thought is (though completely unsubstantiated) that possibly if one continues down the path set by shankfiddle, to improve pitch memory, that eventually they can just remember G even from the day before, and eventually they can just tell the difference innately. Using the voice is a way to quicken the process of being able to transcribe in the right key without a reference, but i don't know that that's quite innate yet.

If this is indeed the case, it still makes sense to forget about absolute pitch and focus solely on relative pitch and listening. If eventually through this one acquires absolute pitch one day, the better. But it's like ice cream sundae with a cherry on top. Which I could go for right now, as a matter of fact.

[shankfiddle]

Never heard of vocal tension before, cool. That describes what my brain's doing exactly!

But back to perfect pitch. I would argue that those who possess innate perfect pitch are doing the same thing, hear me out:

Anyone who can identify intervals and chords knows each has a specific character, or color... If one were born with amazing innate pitch memory, then every note he/she hears is not an isolated event. Every pitch he/she perceives is not just a note, but also an interval relative to the remembered reference pitch.

When I get a headrush sometimes my ears start ringing... it's ALWAYS the same pitch. So let's extend this: hypothetically say that a child is born with amazing pitch memory: a pitch that they never forget. The child has had this pitch in his head before ever taking a music lesson or picking up an instrument. when that child DOES get piano lessons, the first note he ever plays is a middle C. If he has the pitch memory we discussed he's not just hearing middle C, he's thinking "it's lower than the pitch in my head. and that interval has a specific character" even if only subconsciously- you are ALWAYS comparing your experiences with past ones whether you acknowledge it or not. Don't you think that child, with next to no musical training, would describe each note as having its own "color" if there was always a reference?

[shankfiddle]

If this is indeed the case, it still makes sense to forget about absolute pitch and focus solely on relative pitch and listening. If eventually through this one acquires absolute pitch one day, the better. But it's like ice cream sundae with a cherry on top. Which I could go for right now, as a matter of fact.

Point is that I agree with you, perfect pitch is a combination of interval identification and pitch memory. Focusing on both individually is the best thing to do for a musician. "Perfect pitch" is when the two coincide. A great goal, but intervals and memory are the path to get there.

Im gonna have some ice cream

[sammy24]

I think you're right, it makes more sense to assume that people born with perfect pitch just have a heightened sense of awareness of something everyone has, in this case pitch retention or memory, as opposed to having some completely unique talent, i.e. their brain is wired differently. I have read, though, that some people with perfect pitch have some kind of synesthesia, this connection between sensory pathways like color perception, sound, and taste, etc. But my assumption (just an educated guess) is that this type of thing is the exception among those with perfect pitch, rather than the rule. If it is true that 30-40% or higher of professional symphony musicians have perfect pitch (I've heard this but don't know if it's really true), I'd be quite surprised to learn that they're all seeing blue when they hear the cellos play a C#, and associate it with the taste of mint chocolate chip ice cream. A good conversation such as this should always lead back to ice cream in one way or another.

My understanding is that there are wildly varying degrees of perfect pitch, as well. (that's why some people prefer the term absolute pitch, in contrast to relative pitch, rather than "perfect", since most people with different degrees of this skill cannot do it "perfectly". If perfect pitch is indeed a product of enhanced pitch retention, these varying levels make sense. If it is, on the other hand, an innate ability to perceive sound in a way that others just can't do (like imagine 99% of people were color blind instead of the other way around), it'd be a little surprising that the skill-sets vary so much.

As an example of this, I once tutored an autistic child, who can identify single notes spot-on, with his eyes closed. But he couldn't do too well when I played two notes simultaneously, at best he'd get one of them. There must be, however, those who can identify any and all the notes they hear through absolute pitch alone. Also, maybe some people are only correct 80% of the time. Or, they can tell the difference between A and Bb, but can they tell the difference between 150 hz and 155 hz?

Also, to substantiate what you were saying, I once read about a flute player, an excellent relative-pitch musician, who just kind of realized one day that they had acquired or begun to acquire perfect pitch. Just kind of happened naturally. I myself have noticed that together with improving in relative pitch, there is a certainly a kind of simultaneous process of pitch recognition and retention. I remember having a tough time latching onto pitch of very low notes, or fast notes, but with practice this all improves. think I'm quite far, however, from retaining a single note all day. Certainly not if I listen to music as usual, and do ear-training, by the time that's over I'll only have a guess at the pitch, I think.

[shankfiddle]

As an example of this, I once tutored an autistic child, who can identify single notes spot-on, with his eyes closed. But he couldn't do too well when I played two notes simultaneously, at best he'd get one of them. There must be, however, those who can identify any and all the notes they hear through absolute pitch alone. Also, maybe some people are only correct 80% of the time. Or, they can tell the difference between A and Bb, but can they tell the difference between 150 hz and 155 hz?

well now we're getting into psychology/perception... just as fun as music if you ask me

Now I have a few more supporting examples.

You compare the idea of "perfect pitch" to the idea of seeing color, but even color is subjective. You THINK you don't need a reference to know that a green is a green, BUT I would argue that you calibrate your eyes to the known color of your surroundings the second you wake up, just as "vocal tension" does with sound. What if you were to stare directly the sun for ten minutes to "calibrate" then try to identify some colors for me. It would be a bit more difficult, no?

In my anthropology class a bit ago, we learned about how culture defines perception (NOT the other way around), by looking at a case study of an isolated native balinese culture. In their language there is no word for the color green, and as such, they don't perceive it as a distinct color, they would identify it as a blueish yellow or a yellowish blue, because their language has words for those colors. If the language does not define a term you don't perceive it.

Find a roomful of small children and tell them to separate themselves into 3 groups, tall, medium and short. Tell another class to get into groups of Tall and short. You could have two children of exactly the same "absolute" height and ask "how tall are you?", and one would say "medium" and the other may say "im tall, but shorter than most of the other tall kids" or vise versa.

Along the same lines, my bloodline goes back to India, where the musical system is based on 24 tones per octave, not 12. A carnatic-ly trained musician can identify a B half-flat where a western-trained musician would hear an out of tune B. The carnatic ear is exactly twice as precise as the ear of someone raised in a western culture solely because of the musical language. I really do believe that's been an advantage for me in learning the violin, aruguably the most difficult instrument in terms of intonation.

SOOOO even though you may think that perception of color is absolute, it is actually shaped by your specific culture and by referencing past experiences. I would argue that the manner in which you think you have "absolute color" is the same way one develops absolute pitch. (or has it innately, nothing more than an ability to auto-calibrate)

[jopy]

In my anthropology class a bit ago, we learned about how culture defines perception (NOT the other way around), by looking at a case study of an isolated native balinese culture. In their language there is no word for the color green, and as such, they don't perceive it as a distinct color, they would identify it as a blueish yellow or a yellowish blue, because their language has words for those colors. If the language does not define a term you don't perceive it.

actually, this study has been widely debunked. i know anthropologists are fond of trotting it out as an example of the power of culture, but most research suggests this variant of the sapir-whorf hypothesis isn't very strong nor very robust to simple changes in the directions the experimenter/researcher gives.

you might find this interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic ... ing_debate

[shankfiddle]

reading through that page and a few of the other links, it doesn't seem that any of those studies dubunk the linguistic influence on perception. They just show that linguistics isn't the SOLE influence. One can interpret S-W in a strong manner and a weak manner. Strong: language alone determines perception and weak: language influences perception.

Kessen, Bornstein and Weiskopf did studies on infants and found that on the biological level, they are capable of perceiving the same visual frequencies. this study took place before the influence of culture, before the infants learned language - this finding supports a universalist theory of color perception. So when you say S-W was debunked, it was only the strong interpretation of it that was debunked. These infants were able to perceive colors before learning language, but once once the process of cultural/linguistic development begins, it starts to shape the way you view the world.

the KBW study only proved was that it is possible to perceive before learning a language. This is what is used to support a universalist theory of color perception. But it would be impossible to confirm this theory, you would have to take these infants and send them off to an isolated island to grow up without parents/language/culture and that is absolutely impossible.

so you are right, instead of "culture DEFINES perception" i should have used the words "strongly influences"

for the purposes of our discussion relating to music theory, all the above examples are still perfectly suitable for my argument.

Compromise: Let's say there is a universal potential to perceive all colors and a universal potential to perceive absolute pitch, but ones culture and language greatly affect the degree to which these skills develop.

[sammy24]

I do see your point, though. I think, however, that I'd be able to just remember the color green for quite a long time, even without re-calibrating. But you're right, that's akin to remembering a pitch from a long time ago and being able to identify it when you hear it again. Maybe they've done studies on people who have lost their memories, if they need to re-learn which color is which?

Also, as u alluded to, color and pitch are similar in that we have names for colors and pitches, whereas the reality is that both are an infinite spectrum where the color and pitch change ever so slightly if you increase or decrease the frequency. I wonder how good my own color memory is. I'm sure I can remember what color something is, but can I remember exactly which shade, and to what degree? I guess it has to do with first of all noticing, consciously or subconsciously, what shade something is, and then one's ability to remember later.

I've often heard people say something like, our western ears have been conditioned to hear the V-I relationship of dominant to tonic. I do think there's a lot to that, but I also think it is something innate about the logic of music (based on overtone series, etc.). Meaning that it just makes sense, innately, and that's why we have allowed ourselves to become conditioned to it in the first place.

[shankfiddle]

I do see your point, though. I think, however, that I'd be able to just remember the color green for quite a long time, even without re-calibrating. But you're right, that's akin to remembering a pitch from a long time ago and being able to identify it when you hear it again. Maybe they've done studies on people who have lost their memories, if they need to re-learn which color is which?

It would be very interesting if one did research into how memory-loss affects pitch recall. if (and that's a huge IF) you could identify musicians with a family history of alzheimer's AND find those who had perfect pitch; then track their ability to maintain the skill as the disease developed. If it did not affect their ability to name pitches that would support the idea of a constant reference pitch (which would most likely be stored in long-term memory). If it did then it would suggest a daily auto-calibration stored in short-term.

[shankfiddle]

I've often heard people say something like, our western ears have been conditioned to hear the V-I relationship of dominant to tonic. I do think there's a lot to that, but I also think it is something innate about the logic of music (based on overtone series, etc.). Meaning that it just makes sense, innately, and that's why we have allowed ourselves to become conditioned to it in the first place.

Yes, but it's only innate to your musical culture. Western musical culture is heavily influenced by the piano and equal temperament, as such the music developed in a completely different direction -- even though it is based on the same overtone series.

take an indian and play him Bach and I guarantee it won't sound natural or logical... and vise versa.

Indian music interprets melody and pitch in relation to an open fifth drone (from the overtone series). They also play in just intonation: minute changes in pitch are frequently categorized as completely different scales. So so so many pitches, and ways of tuning them... i call it micro-composition. When your tuning system is just intonation, it makes sense to explore and study all the small pitch variations horizontally as they relate to the primal fifth interval.

Western music uses the same fifth relationship, but defines yet another overtone series beginning on the 5 and then how that relates to the 1, etc. a more macro-compositional approach. When your system is equal temperament and pitches are fixed, it makes sense to start thinking about more and more complex verticalities.

[Tony Ostinato]

ive never believed in innate perfect pitch, as if someone could tell 440 from 440.00000001.

i think if you are a kid and you wanna learn a song on a record and you listen enough to it and pick out the notes and do enough songs that way youll develop a very good ear.

ill say transcription is a lot easier nowadays. i used to sit with vinyl and tape and be hitting rewind over and over and over and over. by the time youve charted up the song youve pretty much ruined your copy from wear.

i remember auditioning for a band where they wanted to watch me transcribe, to prove i could do it, and i said oh you dont wanna watch that its boring but they insisted.

after like 16 bars they were like god this is so boring how can you do it?

now we have computers and looping and i can burn thru a chart in about an 8th of the time, and i use finale with the jazz font which is much better than my pen calligraphy and its easy to make copies and transpose things.

if anyone ever needs a horn section chart for a song lemme know , i might already have it.

[jopy]

Compromise: Let's say there is a universal potential to perceive all colors and a universal potential to perceive absolute pitch, but ones culture and language greatly affect the degree to which these skills develop.

I would say that is a fair statement.