Perfect pitch survey

[MISHUGINA]

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?

[Mark]

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.

[mahlertitan]

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.

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?

[lukeottevanger]

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  ) 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!

[mahlertitan]

I've resented those with perfect pitch (implied  ) 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...

[JoshLilly]

Oh, perfect pitch, with a p. Never mind.

[springrite]

Perfect pitch is a curse that prevents one from enjoying wonderful performances of good music literred with mistakes normal folks don't hear.

[Renfield]

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.

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.

[Mark]

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.

[mahlertitan]

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.

[Mark]

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 ...

[Guido]

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  ) 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.

[Renfield]

I've never met someone who has embraced perfect pitch as a total blessing and I think it can be pretty uncomfortable at times.

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".

[lukeottevanger]

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!)

[Renfield]

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.

[Ten thumbs]

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.

[rappy]

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.

[mahlertitan]

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.

[Renfield]

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.

[mahlertitan]

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