Perfect Pitch

[mjl422]

I didn't say there is no value in having perfect pitch! I said there isn't much value in having perfect pitch in a band setting, because everyone is supposed to tune to concert pitch, for the previously mentioned reason. Besides, application of scale intervals reinforces the relative pitch argument; once you recognize the sound of each interval RELATIVE to the root, you will be able to transcribe most of what you hear. Someone with perfect pitch may do it faster than others, making transcription a less time consuming task. To take it a further step, most genres of music have chord progressions that are common to that style (2-5-1, 1-4-5, etc), so if you know the genre, you can jump and start playing, based on the song form (AABA, ABA, etc).

So unless you live in a world where absolutely no sheet music is ever used, and no one ever plays using common chord progressions, then having perfect pitch would be an an advantage. But then you would have to stillhave to know where each note occurs on the fretboard and know which one to choose, based on the song you are playing.

I saw an interview with Matt Garrison about being caught, several times , "with his pants down" when playing for Herbie Hancock.  I can see some benefit in having perfect pitch.  There are alot of band situations where you don't necessarily play traditional progressions.  Try playing traditional progressions with Chick Corea or John Peters.  Like I said, I don't think it's a necessity but, I do see a benefit. 

I guess this is one of those subjects where we just disagree.

[jeremyr]

so here's a question about "perfect pitch" for those of you who feel that you're born with it.

Is their perfect pitch at a 440 piano tuning, because we all know that different wind instruments and what not have different tunings. Can their perfect pitch be realtive to the tuning?  If so then it would be realtive pitch still to some degree correct?

This is why I think it's something that you learn, and some are gifted to learn earlier and faster then others

[floaded27]

This is why I think it's something that you learn, and some are gifted to learn earlier and faster then others

to have perfect pitch is to be able to recognize and identify a pitch with no need for context. Relative pitch is to be able to identify a pitch in relation to an already identified one, or to be able to determine the relation between them (ie, interval)

Both are taught in regards to music. However, i think we are mistaking perfect pitch in the terms of auditory recognition (basic hearing) as opposed to perfect pitch in the musical context. Someone can be born with perfect pitch (for example, a large number of autistic children are born with it) but its natural social function is most often found in distinguishing voices and vocal patters, which is something they are exposed to often. But play a note and ask them what note that is and they wont know. Do they no longer have perfect pitch? Thats ridiculous. The thing is they first, as with anything, have to associate that sound with something. Now, once you say "this note is a C", and then let them hear it, now they will be able to hear that note and say "thats a C". Now with the autistic mind, many things are black and white (no grey, relative areas) so a lot of things work this way for them, which is why they struggle with many of the things they struggle with.  But someone born with "perfect pitch", their mind works this way specifically with hearing.

However, because it is an association, there is no reason why this very thing cannot be trained as well, in isolated, specific, definable areas, because everyone has the capability of pitch distinction. Thus "natural perfect pitch" is a bit different than "musical perfect pitch".

It may take longer to get the same accuracy, because of the amount of repetition necessary, but it is possible. However, people dont put in that appropriate work. Why? Because often time, relative pitch is actually more handy, and is indeed easier. And relative pitch is something that is often more difficult for the person that has natural perfect pitch. Thats why the statement was made that these kinds of people have a harder time transposing. Often because their natural inclination to learn/play a song is note based, whereas people who lean towards relative pitch, its pattern based. And as with most people, we tend to rely solely on our strengths when they make things easy and often find ourselves remaining lacking in contrasting methods.

Is their perfect pitch at a 440 piano tuning, because we all know that different wind instruments and what not have different tunings. Can their perfect pitch be realtive to the tuning?  If so then it would be realtive pitch still to some degree correct?

ur natural perfect pitch is still there. but if your musical perfect pitch is based on a different reference, its off. U still have perfect pitch, but ur frame of reference contrasts with everything else. If you first said A and played A on an out of tune piano, once you make that association, A will always be off, yet u can always find "your A".

with that said, if you wanna have musical perfect pitch just so you can rely on it, you can achieve it, but i think you are doing yourself a disservice by ignoring the relative pitch and being more balanced.

[kevmove02]

Well said floaded27! As I re-read earlier post, I am trying to understand why perfect pitch is seen as the "golden fleece" of musicicanship. A comment was made that "Matt Garrison about being caught, several times , "with his pants down" when playing for Herbie Hancock". How would perfect pitch have "pulled his pants up"? Are you suggesting that Chick Corea completely threw music theory out the window and just randomly plays notes with no discernable or repeating patterns? How exactly does having perfect pitch translate into "monster playing"? Whether you have perfect pitch or not the following  holds true:

You still have to practice
You still have to learn to play with others
If you can't keep time, you can't play bass
If you don't know what else to play, play the root

[rEaLiTy|cHecK]

@ jeremyr, in a traditional western music setting, wind and string instruments have different tunings, but are all still based on A 440, similar to those of us who tune our basses flat, but are definitely still on A 440. there are examples in certain areas of western music history where different tuning scales are used, (equal temperament [the most common], mean tone, pythagorean, to name a few), especially with keyboard instruments such as harpsichords, but generally speaking, if it was a "band" situation (lol), the tunings would match up.

what does that have to do with perfect pitch? i disagree with gouche's sentiment, because centuries ago, people played several instruments of several tunings without problem. i dont mean to insult him because he's definitely due alot of credit and honor for his skill on the instrument, but his inability to play as proficiently on basses of other tunings has almost nothing to do with his perfect pitch. i say that because i dont have perfect pitch and when i started playing bass 3 yrs ago, i played ADGCF, then in the second year i decided to go standard. it was the hardest thing i ever had to do, because i LEARNED playing the bass with the A tuning, and i too (without perfect pitch) was unable to play cuz i wanted to hear Eb on the first fret of the d string. eventually i got it. and when i switched to flat tuning it was hard, but not AS hard. now i can play any of the three tunings, not NEARLY as proficiently as if i was playin flat cuz that's what im most accustomed to, but the point im trying to make is its just a matter of training your brain.

my dad has perfect pitch, and one day we had a competition to see who could get notes faster. this was when i was unsure if i had perfect pitch or not. of course i lost, and i realized i didnt have it. he's a doctorate of musical arts in piano performance, so he's taught alot of students over the past 40 years and he told me he encourages people to develop their relative pitch, but he has NEVER seen a student develop perfect pitch. cuz perfect pitch is a reaction not a thought process. i hear Ab and i KNOW it's Ab, but i do have that split second of thinking. my boy has perfect pitch and he doesnt have to think about it, when he hears notes or chords, he sees colors! anyways, my point after all of this talking is, IMO you can't learn perfect pitch.

as far as it's worth in a band situation, my boy that has perfect pitch is a keyboardist and we always used to play at stuff in school. if the p&w leader started a song, he would always start up instantly in the right key. i mean i play keys too, and its not that i cant hear the key that the person is singing in, but there's sometimes a bit of a delay. not w/ him, and that may be a small advantage, but one nonetheless. another advantage is up here in MA/CT we do alot of lines, and in rehearsal teaching them can be kinda difficult sometimes, but he is always real quick w/ it, cuz he can SEE the lines as opposed to relying on relative pitch. and im not saying that you can't be fast with relative pitch, he's just FASTER...

sorry for the essay lol, just my two cents

[floaded27]

i got a question. if you see the color green, do you have to think about its green or you automatically know its green? Do you need another color next to it, to help you decide?

did you start out that way? or did by constant repetition over time did it become second nature to you?

here's the process. probably way back in preschool or around that time, they showed you colors and told u what they were. Then you were quizzed on it. "What color is this?" "Um, um, green?" "Yeah thats right." It took you a while to process. Not too long after that you were "I want the green crayon." or something like that. Now you can see green. But the next level of this is fine tuning this. When you asked for the green whatever, could you tell if it was light green, dark green, olive green, etc when it was isolated by itself? Probably not. But when they were held together you could see the relation between them (same as relative pitch). But if you fine tuned that color identification, to not just green, but the specific shades of green you can identify them independent of one another (musical perfect pitch). Now this doesnt mean you can identify each shade of every color, just the shades you trained yourself for.

So if this is possible for visual perception, why isnt this possible for aural perception?

my dad has perfect pitch, and one day we had a competition to see who could get notes faster. this was when i was unsure if i had perfect pitch or not. of course i lost, and i realized i didnt have it. he's a doctorate of musical arts in piano performance, so he's taught alot of students over the past 40 years and he told me he encourages people to develop their relative pitch, but he has NEVER seen a student develop perfect pitch. cuz perfect pitch is a reaction not a thought process. i hear Ab and i KNOW it's Ab, but i do have that split second of thinking. my boy has perfect pitch and he doesnt have to think about it, when he hears notes or chords, he sees colors! anyways, my point after all of this talking is, IMO you can't learn perfect pitch.

he probably has NEVER seen a student do that, because of the amount of training and effort it requires. Many things we learn and instantly identify and recognize become such because of constant exposure and repetition, the majority of which we dont even notice. Why do you think you can answer the phone and know who it is once you hear them say hello? Same thing, but to apply it to music is a specific isolated area of sound. And in everyday occurrences we dont hear notes in the same manner as this aural identification happens with other things. How many of us can hear a friends voice in a crowd of people? Many, but we can only do that because we've heard that friends voice by itself repeatedly. I bet if you sat down for a couple of days and listened to just the note "A" all day, if you hear an A you'd know it. But who has time for that? Hardly anybody.


In my opinion, effective use of perfect pitch in any setting depends on the person's thought process. Just like you say your boy "sees colors" when he hears notes, chords, etc., I see everything in patterns and relations. And when i say everything, i mean everything. (A gift and a curse. lol) So for me, perfect pitch in that sense would conflict with my natural thought process (maybe why my brain didnt develop such abilities). I would HAVE to learn relative pitch (something people with natural perfect pitch often dont do) because i would need the pattern and relationship with the notes. I would never be able to use perfect pitch as effectively as some use it. My mind just dont work that way.

just my opinion.

think of it this way. Both Shaq (7'1") and Nate Robinson (5'9") can dunk. Who did it come more naturally for and who had to work hard to get there? But by working hard, the process developed other stuff that wasnt developed in the person who it came naturally for. Perfect pitch isnt the golden fleece, and actually can be hindrance for further development and balance for some over the long term.

[rEaLiTy|cHecK]

interesting. the only thing i can say is that your point relies on the premise that auditory and visual perception happen the same way in the brain, and that's not a proven theory as yet. but still good point.

[mjl422]

Well said floaded27! As I re-read earlier post, I am trying to understand why perfect pitch is seen as the "golden fleece" of musicicanship. A comment was made that "Matt Garrison about being caught, several times , "with his pants down" when playing for Herbie Hancock". How would perfect pitch have "pulled his pants up"? Are you suggesting that Chick Corea completely threw music theory out the window and just randomly plays notes with no discernable or repeating patterns? How exactly does having perfect pitch translate into "monster playing"? Whether you have perfect pitch or not the following  holds true:

You still have to practice
You still have to learn to play with others
If you can't keep time, you can't play bass
If you don't know what else to play, play the root

First of all let me say this again, I'm not saying that perfect pitch is a necessity but, can be beneficial in some circumstances.  The point that I was making about Matt Garrison is this: Let's say you are in a situation where you're playing with another musician and he/she goes off into some altered chords or wierd progressions (some musicians do that to intentionally try to lose you).  Of course you can keep playing a basic progression and find your way back to your place (that's probably what most of us would do anyway).  But, imagine if you could hear the actual notes that they are playing, your ability to follow what they are doing is a little greater.  I never said that having perfect pitch makes you a great musician or that you don't have to practice.  All I said that I can see some benefit in having perfect pitch.   

Just to explain my perspective a little better: I picked up the bass, as my first instrument, at 25.  When I picked it up, I couldn't even tune it if you played me the note.  It took years to get my ear to where it is today and my relative pitch is nowhere near perfect pitch.  I still have to slow down fast songs in order to get the progressions.  So, I'm speaking from that perspective when I say that I can see some benefit in being able to hear a pitch and no what it is.  Of course, I work on my relative pitch every day and see a greater benefit in having that because everything we do in music is relative.  Having perfect pitch doesn't mean that you don't have to have relative pitch, it's just an added resource.   BTW, some of what Chick Corea plays aren't real chords let alone natural progressions (at least not from a theory standpoint).

[kevmove02]

I follow floaded27 argument and would agree that his logic is sound. Learning theory stipulates that everyone has at least one learning intelligence; many have more than one. Once you become aware of the multiple intelligences, you can focus on the ones that you don't naturally have and develop them. The benefit is twofold: you expand your ability to interact with your environment, and you strengthen the abilities you already posess. As an experiment, I decided to learn to play a musical instrument, as it was not my strong suit, so if I became a competent musician, it would serve as a proof of theory.
Long story short, I found that adding a musical intelligence dramatically enhanced my perceptions on all levels.
My point in all this is that relative pitch as a learned behavior is extraordinarily beneficial to enhancing not only your musical aptitude, but other aptitudes as well. While it seems that perfect pitch may aid in attaining virtuosity, you still have to put your time in (somewhere around 10,000 hours). That alone puts everyone on equal footing.

[Bullitt]

I have good prelative pitch *better then alot of people* and I can even name some notes just by hearing them, just from hearing them so much/often, however I will say that I'm with Gouche on this subject.

My issue is that I know where the notes are at on my bass with it being tuned down a half step and the issue isn't not being able to play the bass, but not being able to navigate the neck as you are accoustomed.  Give me a standard tuned bass and sure I can play it, but i'm secrectly struggling in some of the open keys and don't ask me to go into the upper register without much concentration..lol

I don't htink he can't play another bass, it's just that the tonal expectation of whta you're use to vs what you hear really just throws you off.  I'm sure if he finds the key he'll be OK, but not "Gouche" fluent.

+1

I never seem to have problems just "knowing" certain notes when I hear them but I don't consider myself to have perfect pitch.  I tune down a half step also and have been in situations that I had to play someone elses bass (tuned standard) and tho it's not impossible, it's kind've hard to navigate the neck since I'm used to notes being in certain places.   I also think relative pitch is more useful in most band applications but it's debatable.


-J

[Asahel]

"Some students at the Conservatory possessed perfect pitch, an ability that cannot be achieved with practice.  Mikiko, an oboe player, could identify every note you'd played if you turned around and sat on a piano keyboard.  But perfect pitch didn't make her the best musician.  She rushed through phrases and never made it into the Conservatory orchestra.  If the most gifted were not the best musicians, perhaps the best musicians were not necessarily the most gifted.  There were many different kinds of musical ability.  Leonard Bernstein didn't have perfect pitch; nor does Paul McCartney.  What enabled them to become so great?"  - Glen Kurtz, Practicing, pp 63.

OTOH, Paul Hindemith, who had perfect pitch and was a well known musician, believed that perfect pitch can be developed.  And there has been some academic research around the work/course of David Lucas-Burge that shows that apparently there is a correlation between training for perfect pitch and the results thereof.

My opinion?  I'll tell you as soon as I can find which one of these five strings is the "A" string........  

[rEaLiTy|cHecK]

great point @ asahel, and @kevmove and floaded, that is why i can't agree or disagree to the correlation between visual and auditory perception. although its a logical connection to make, the research simply isn't there, coupled with the fact that the "experts" out there are split.

another point to consider is that perfect pitch in some individuals (particularly violinists and other string players) goes as far as to hear the difference between A 440 and A 438. that would lead me to the conclusion that influence to music at an early age or even en masse is not the sole determinant for the possession of perfect pitch, since western tonal music (which is what we're talking about here for the most part) doesnt rely on tones outside of equal temperament.

anyway lol, all in all man, idk

[cordney]

"Some students at the Conservatory possessed perfect pitch, an ability that cannot be achieved with practice.  Mikiko, an oboe player, could identify every note you'd played if you turned around and sat on a piano keyboard.  But perfect pitch didn't make her the best musician.  She rushed through phrases and never made it into the Conservatory orchestra.  If the most gifted were not the best musicians, perhaps the best musicians were not necessarily the most gifted.  There were many different kinds of musical ability.  Leonard Bernstein didn't have perfect pitch; nor does Paul McCartney.  What enabled them to become so great?"  - Glen Kurtz, Practicing, pp 63.

OTOH, Paul Hindemith, who had perfect pitch and was a well known musician, believed that perfect pitch can be developed.  And there has been some academic research around the work/course of David Lucas-Burge that shows that apparently there is a correlation between training for perfect pitch and the results thereof.

My opinion?  I'll tell you as soon as I can find which one of these five strings is the "A" string........ 

www.perfectpitch.com

[floaded27]

another point to consider is that perfect pitch in some individuals (particularly violinists and other string players) goes as far as to hear the difference between A 440 and A 438. that would lead me to the conclusion that influence to music at an early age or even en masse is not the sole determinant for the possession of perfect pitch, since western tonal music (which is what we're talking about here for the most part) doesnt rely on tones outside of equal temperament.

anyway lol, all in all man, idk

which is why i made a significant distinction between "natural/absolute perfect pitch" and "musical perfect pitch". The first one is universal pitch distinction that has nothing to do with music at all. This is what people are born with. "Musical perfect pitch" is only a subset of such, and i was alluding that the subset could be attained. I think people use these two different things interchangeably. I wouldnt be surprised if some of the said people with perfect pitch only had the subset and it wasnt absolute on all aspects of auditory perception. But thats only postulation.

[rEaLiTy|cHecK]

which is why i made a significant distinction between "natural/absolute perfect pitch" and "musical perfect pitch". The first one is universal pitch distinction that has nothing to do with music at all. This is what people are born with. "Musical perfect pitch" is only a subset of such, and i was alluding that the subset could be attained. I think people use these two different things interchangeably. I wouldnt be surprised if some of the said people with perfect pitch only had the subset and it wasnt absolute on all aspects of auditory perception. But thats only postulation.

i wasnt aware of a distinction. very well then