Perfect Pitch (vs relative pitch)

[[vogue]angel]

can explain in a simpler way........ i dun really get the A440 thingy. i have almost perfect pitch, but it makes u kinda lazy in sight-reading

 

[kdash]

can explain in a simpler way........ i dun really get the A440 thingy. i have almost perfect pitch, but it makes u kinda lazy in sight-reading

the A note which is commonly used nowadays is 440Hz, that's why it's called A440. but apparently other parts of the world at different periods of time use other frequencies as A, like 438Hz or 445Hz.

hope that helps!

 

[kdash]

=pianomankris

i think people are able to tell pitch differences less than a quarter tone, but that would be relative pitch, as you mentioned.

 

[Cheez]

pianomankirs, yes the ear CAN tell the difference between 338, 440 or 443. It's not easy and difficult to be accurate to the exact hertz, but it's possible. It's not highly developed relative pitch, since relative pitch requires a reference to locate the pitch. For perfect pitch, a reference is not needed.

So, with regard to the concert A example (tough one) - relative pitch needs a reference of perhaps 440, then play 443 and the person can tell it's sharp. How sharp? The person can make a clever guess. Perfect pitch - play A443 and the person tells you it's A443. Again, this is not easy. Notes all lie on a continuum of frequencies, which makes things complex when trying to determine frequencies between the usual 12 notes. 24 notes are also easy to tell apart (quarter notes). Smaller than that gets really difficult.

 

[pianomankris]

pianomankirs, yes the ear CAN tell the difference between 338, 440 or 443. It's not easy and difficult to be accurate to the exact hertz, but it's possible. It's not highly developed relative pitch, since relative pitch requires a reference to locate the pitch. For perfect pitch, a reference is not needed.

I know what constitutes relative pitch and perfect pitch. I was meaning higher level terms than the standard definitions of the terms.


Maybe an acoustic reference isn't needed, but the mind will have a form of acoustic recognition, so i would class it as relative pitch, as it is relative to a pitch held 'in the mind' (think of a colour (i.e. blue) - we don't need an external reference chart every time we see something 'blue' to tell us that the object is blue). The issue of perfect pitch goes very deep into areas of neuroscience, and areas of philosophy (philosophy of mind, epistemology; the issue is one of 'what constitutes perception')

Perfect pitch - play A443 and the person tells you it's A443. .

Do you have any examples anywhere of people being able to identify the frequencies of notes to such an extent as this?

Again, this is not easy. Notes all lie on a continuum of frequencies, which makes things complex when trying to determine frequencies between the usual 12 notes. 24 notes are also easy to tell apart (quarter notes). Smaller than that gets really difficult.

If said person can identify 443Hz (from your example above) this would imply that they would be able to identify any frequency of note (as long as the note was within the audible pitch spectrum, of course ). If they can identify '443Hz', they should also be able to instantaneously identify '1024Hz', '366Hz' etc etc



You seem to be contradicting yourself by saying that people can identify '443Hz' with no problem, but would find it difficult to identify anything smaller than a quarter tone.



My ear can tell the difference between 440Hz and 443Hz (or 441 Hz, for example), but claiming to be able to identify an actual frequency is a huge claim to make. Being able to distinguish a 'difference' in frequency is an altogether different matter from being able to distinguish an 'actual' frequency.



The implications of 'perfect pitch' are that pitch recognition is a priori, which seems highly doubtful.


'How 'A' is 'A440?' is it more 'A' than 'A443?'
It is like asking someone 'how blue is blue?'.


Intervallic structuring is based on a mathematical algorithm. As such, it is purely relativistic, depending on the point where the algorithm begins (i.e. which frequency is chosen as the 'root' frequency).


Yes, A440 is the standardised way today, and i'm sure many people can tell A440. But this in no way implies that they can tell the specific frequency of any sound.

All it implies is that certain frequencies have been learned/held within the brain.


I personally can tell the pitch of notes when i hear them, but i wouldn't say i had 'perfect pitch' (however, by the general definition of perfect pitch, i would have it). If i was presented with a note of a frequency not in accordance with the current 12-TET system, and not based on an algorithmic function derived from A440, the best i could do is to describe the note either as 'a quarter tone above (for example) B'.

For me, this doesn't constitute 'perfect pitch'.



I think the definition of the term is too broad. It should be remembered that when we hear a specific pitch and call it, for example, 'A', this is, in itself, a broad generalisation.


The issue is as complex or as simple as you choose to see it.

 

[pianomankris]

Pitch is not a priori as tests have been done on deaf people (from profoundly deaf to slightly deaf), and pitch is something that is learned.

Those who are profoundly deaf from birth have no concept of what 'pitch' is.

The best we can do is to state that any form of sensory perception is relativistic, rather than innate/absolute.




However, this leads to an interesting article from John Cage (who has already been mentioned here) with regards to sound. Anyone interested, let me know.

 

[Cheez]

So, by your definition, "perfect pitch" is a misnomer. In fact, nobody would have perfect pitch. I can accept that - it all depends on how one would define it, although your definition appears stricter than the usual definition, albeit not without good reasons. As your argument on the colour "blue", we also have problem identifying "how A is an A". Good point there.

I would go the other way - sing a note accurate to the pitch without reference would also constitute "perfect pitch" (now in parenthesis). A person with "perfect pitch" should not only identify the pitch without reference, but also produce the note without reference.

As for people able to tell frequencies, it all goes by pitch - and according to your definition - relative to the "image" in the mind. For example, my mind as an image of A440 instilled. 440 means nothing to me - it's the tone that's imprinted. Play a 442 - the mind tells me it's sharp. How much off - it has to go be estimation again (so hence - your argument makes sense, as it becomes relative). So in practical terms, this makes tuning of an instrument (say violin playing concert A) much easier.

Perhaps we should define perfect pitch has someone who has an imprint of the "standard" tones in his/her head, although we will have trouble defining what is "standard"...

On the end, relative or perfect pitch by whichever definition, although an interesting topic of discussion for critical thinking, remains theoretical in itself. the question is how it all works in real life and how they are applied.

 

[pianomankris]

I would go the other way - sing a note accurate to the pitch

Ah - but we have the same problem What is 'the pitch'?!!! It would be one of many possible pitches that could be used to define the note (e.g. if it were A, it could be A440, A441, A442 etc etc). The issue still remains relativistic, unless the standard A440 is assumed beforehand (which it probably is).


I do agree that an issue such as this is purely theoretical (at present), but i don't think this makes it irrelevant to having real-life applications. Because we can't see an application, it doesn't mean one doesn't exist.


Look at prime number theory - considered by many mathematicians pretty useless in application. It is now the standard method of encryption for credit cards


Who knows where musings can lead!!

 

[pikachu86]

this is how my "pitch" works:

i have all the sounds of all 12 notes of the scale (C, C#, D, D# etc.) in my head, mapped along the middle C (what can i say; i was trained on the piano =X). And when i hear a song after listening to it for a few times i can map the tune to the "scale in my head" and produce the melody almost exactly, sometimes with 1/2 semitone error (especially when i'm tired). This is what i call "horizontal hearing" because i'm only listening to the tune of the song.

i take abit longer to do "vertical hearing" which is listening to the chords of the song. With my theory background i'm able speed up the process, but i still need the piano to double-check the accuracy of chords.

as for relative pitch... i seem to find it quite irritating (no offence meant) because i seem inclined to "cadence" whenever i hear a I (tonic) chord. Must be my theory background interfering... =X

 

[pianomankris]

this is how my "pitch" works:

i have all the sounds of all 12 notes of the scale (C, C#, D, D# etc.) in my head, mapped along the middle C (what can i say; i was trained on the piano =X).

To me, you are implying you have perfect pitch, yes? Or do you use the piano to establish middle C?

And when i hear a song after listening to it for a few times i can map the tune to the "scale in my head" and produce the melody almost exactly, sometimes with 1/2 semitone error (especially when i'm tired). This is what i call "horizontal hearing" because i'm only listening to the tune of the song.

This would contradict your above statement, if you are implying you have perfect pitch. With true perfect pitch, you should be able to tell the pitch of the note the instant you hear it.

(PS you don't need to say a '1/2 semitone'. This would actually imply a quarter-tone. Just say a 'tone' or a 'semitone' )

i take abit longer to do "vertical hearing" which is listening to the chords of the song. With my theory background i'm able speed up the process, but i still need the piano to double-check the accuracy of chords.

What level is your theory at? Can't you identify (for example) a 'dominant 9' chord when you hear one?


You should do the opposite: work out the chords first - this will be more indicative as to what melody notes will be used, rather than the other way around.

 

[pikachu86]

To me, you are implying you have perfect pitch, yes? Or do you use the piano to establish middle C?

nope i don't use the piano to establish anything, just for double-checking purposes (i.e. semitone errors >"<)

This would contradict your above statement, if you are implying you have perfect pitch. With true perfect pitch, you should be able to tell the pitch of the note the instant you hear it.

(PS you don't need to say a '1/2 semitone'. This would actually imply a quarter-tone. Just say a 'tone' or a 'semitone' )

the term "perfect pitch" has too broad a definition and to some extent quite overrated. i abit of time to tell the pitch of the note because i'm still "mapping" to the "scale-in-my-head". And also because i'm used to equal temperament.

my bad: semitone, not 1/2 semitone

What level is your theory at? Can't you identify (for example) a 'dominant 9' chord when you hear one?

You should do the opposite: work out the chords first - this will be more indicative as to what melody notes will be used, rather than the other way around.

qualification-wise my theory is at A(Mus)TCL level. As for identifying chords i still need to listen to the melody before determining the chords. e.g. for V9 chord i will need to determine the dominant first in the melody, then decide whether it should be V, V7, V9 etc. Resolution is also quite an important factor to consider.

i seem to have problems working out chords first because i tend to think of cadence whenever i hear I chord, and also because i've been working melody first for a long time i find it quite difficult to do the opposite

maybe it's just me that i have my own way of working things out. no offence meant

 

[pianomankris]

nope i don't use the piano to establish anything, just for double-checking purposes (i.e. semitone errors >"<)

This would imply that you don't have perfect pitch. I don't understand - are you claiming to have perfect pitch?

the term "perfect pitch" has too broad a definition and to some extent quite overrated.

-See previous posts I have made with regards to this issue.

As for identifying chords i still need to listen to the melody before determining the chords.

-You don't have perfect pitch then.

e.g. for V9 chord i will need to determine the dominant first in the melody, then decide whether it should be V, V7, V9 etc. Resolution is also quite an important factor to consider.

The melody within a V9 chord could simply be the 5th note of said chord (i.e. for G9 the melody could be D, and only D). Therefore, the melody bears no significance to the harmonic framework of the chord.

Resolution means nothing if you have perfect pitch, as you will hear all sounds independently.

Resolution is a term of relativity, as it implies movement from one thing to another.

This is why I asked about a V9 chord. Your ear would not need to hear this chord 'within a context' in order to define it as a dominant 9 chord.

This example should be easy though - as it is a dominant 9, it will contain the tritone, therefore should be instantly recognisable.

 

[Cheez]

pianomankirs...

but.... by your original definition, nobody has perfect pitch, right?

But yes, pikachu86, you don't have "perfect pitch" even if using the "general definition". A semi-tone off is way off. But you have a good ear .

 

[pf]

There is one thing I'm puzzled. A few posts away pianomankirs said to determine the chord first to have an indication of the melody line. Was that a red herring?

My question is off topic which arises from the above, but here it goes...

The melody line is often easier to determine than chords for me as it is more prominent. In improvisation, I could be making up a melody as I go along playing a set of chord progression. However, there are times when a short melody for an introduction or an ending to a song came to me, but not sure how to match it with chords.

Anybody has any comments?

 

[pikachu86]

just wonderring if this proves anything?

There is one thing I'm puzzled. A few posts away pianomankirs said to determine the chord first to have an indication of the melody line. Was that a red herring?

when i was doing counterpoint back then,given the melody line (i.e. soprano) and then i was tasked to write out the harmony for alto/tenor/bass while making sure i don't break the counterpoint rules.

i guess that's why (our of habit perhaps?) i find it easier to work out the melody first and then the chords that harmonise the melody.

 

[kdash]

pf: to me chords are relatively easy to determine, maybe because as a bassist i tend to listen to the bass lines and how it fits into the particular chord/chord progression being played. hence my ears are accustomed to making out the chords and bass lines. i think for some keyboardists their ears are trained to pick out the melody lines, unless you are a jazz pianist etc, that one i have nothing to say haha.

for determining what chords fit into a certain melody line, it can vary. one can certainly determine the key in which the melody line is played/sung, but for that key one can use a lot of different kinds of chord progressions, to give a certain feel to the music. eg, major and the corresponding VI minor scales. it depends on the genre of music, and the feel that the composer wants to portray from the music.

1 cent's worth

 

[pianomankris]

There is one thing I'm puzzled. A few posts away pianomankirs said to determine the chord first to have an indication of the melody line. Was that a red herring?

If harmonic knowledge is lacking, the chords can be derived from the melody. Melody lines (in pop, at least) are usually arpeggios with a few passing notes. The arpeggio notes will usually fall on the beats (especially beats 1 and 3), with the passing notes off-beat. This should be enough for you to determine the chords from the melody.

However, determining the chord/harmony first actually limits the potentiality/possible variation of said melody notes.

My question is off topic which arises from the above, but here it goes...

The melody line is often easier to determine than chords for me as it is more prominent. In improvisation, I could be making up a melody as I go along playing a set of chord progression. However, there are times when a short melody for an introduction or an ending to a song came to me, but not sure how to match it with chords.

Anybody has any comments?

The melody is easier as you are only working out one note, as opposed to many notes simultaneously.


By studying four part harmony, or popular/jazz harmony, you will be able to harmonise your melody.


Basic four part harmony will allow you to know how to 'treat' a note i.e. how to make the supertonic effective as, say, a passing note, or how to give it more harmonic pull (by pre-determining the chord that will come before (and after) it).