|
|
|
your Country52798 Posts
As someone with perfect pitch, I believe that the difference is that I can identify an exact note or key by listening to it while people with relative pitch can only identify pitches based on their distance from a known pitch.
and then metaphors about being able to hear in color and stuff about how some people are just born with it and such
Isn't this synesthesia?
|
On October 03 2015 07:39 The_Templar wrote:As someone with perfect pitch, I believe that the difference is that I can identify an exact note or key by listening to it while people with relative pitch can only identify pitches based on their distance from a known pitch. Show nested quote +and then metaphors about being able to hear in color and stuff about how some people are just born with it and such Isn't this synesthesia?
Ah, yeah, that part I said a bit sloppily. I read online about somebody comparing perfect pitch(from someone who said they had it) to an imaginary scenario in which some people while looking a painting would not be able to tell precisely which color was used in the painting while looking at it. I didn't mean like synesthesia.
As someone with perfect pitch, I believe that the difference is that I can identify an exact note or key by listening to it while people with relative pitch can only identify pitches based on their distance from a known pitch.
Yeah, that's the bare bones definition of it, what I'm talking about is when you start getting into why that is and the explanations that I see around.
|
if perfect pitch is what i think it is, then yes. basically any schooled and experienced jazz musician developes that just by the nature of the trade
oh, you split it up in perfect and relative, get's abit more complicated then. yeah, perfect pitch should be more rare then
|
It might help to try and define this explicitly here.
perfect pitch is when without any reference point given to you at all you can name precisely what note you just heard.
relative pitch is when you're told (or you already know) what one of notes are and you can tell relatively from that what the other notes are.
and yes, I would say that this way of looking at it is wrong, that these definitions do not really work, this becomes more apparent when you get into explanations of why somebody has perfect pitch and somebody else does not.
|
It's kinda funny how different it works in different music trades. Like, classical musicians just need to read the sheet, so it's not as common for them to develop pitch(they can if they want tho, it's just that the nature of the trade doesn't promote it that mutch).
I kinda catched up now, perfect pitch would be 'absolut gehör' in Swedish i'm pretty sure, so it's a thing  But yeah, perfect pitch works in mysterious ways, I have trained my relative pitch quite well but perfect pitch is beyond me
|
10387 Posts
relative pitch is being able to identify the distance (or "interval") between one note or another. A minor third will sound like a minor third regardless of the starting pitch being A, B, E or G. This is a skill that can be trained to varying degrees of fluency, and is something intensely grinded in aural skill training at music conservatories/university.
Perfect pitch, as demonym says, is the ability to just know what a note is without any reference point. You can play a completely random set of notes, in order or all at the same time, on the piano and someone with real perfect pitch will be able to point out every single note. Musicians with perfect pitch won't necessarily have strong relative pitch. Some music instructors will circumvent a musician's perfect pitch by asking to transpose a melody to a different key when doing dictation (where a melody/harmony/both is played and the musician has to write it all down).
Knowing what the note is (perfect pitch) and knowing the distance/relationship between two notes (relative pitch) are two different things.
You can "fake" perfect pitch by memorizing a certain set of notes by rote, but it'll never be quite up to par as someone who has perfect pitch.
|
Yeah, that faking technique is quite fun. By listening to alot of rock/metal I have solid E in my head, which I can work with. But the ultra perfect pitch would be to identify a note right off the bat, so there we have it
e: just checked my E, and it wasn't as solid as I thought xd
|
United States24772 Posts
On October 03 2015 08:50 ArvickHero wrote:
You can "fake" perfect pitch by memorizing a certain set of notes by rote, but it'll never be quite up to par as someone who has perfect pitch.
What is the difference between having 'perfect pitch,' and memorizing every note on a piano by rote?
|
On October 03 2015 09:02 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 08:50 ArvickHero wrote:
You can "fake" perfect pitch by memorizing a certain set of notes by rote, but it'll never be quite up to par as someone who has perfect pitch. What is the difference between having 'perfect pitch,' and memorizing every note on a piano by rote?
Haha, you're right, technically there wouldn't be much difference. I guess it's a question of mechanical vs natural perfect pitch then.
Although with your suggested way I could assume you would have problem getting to a note by yourself, in constrast to how you would visualize the piano key when you are given a note
e: I'm kinda tired so I'm probably not making that much sense, I'll leave it to the pros from here on 
e2: you would probably also have problem with harmonies
|
What I was trying to point to (although perhaps unclearly) is that perfect pitch is defined relative to how the notes are divided up (they do not have to be divided up as they are). Color works like this as well but generally speaking it is defined relative to only a handful of colors, if you were to divide colors up more finely it would not be so easy and that is what I think is what's going on in music and is the source of a lot of confusion (thus the explanation of relative vs perfect pitch). Perhaps I need to somehow create an example that people could try themselves to convey this point.
|
Perfect pitch is definitely a thing. I use it all the time to steal reproduce other people's melodies when an instrument isn't around and then work on them for a few hours before I can check the results on an actual keyboard.
Oh and synesthesia is its own cool thing. But it has nothing to do with perfect pitch.
|
On October 03 2015 09:19 demonym wrote:
What I was trying to point to (although perhaps unclearly) is that perfect pitch is defined relative to how the notes are divided up (they do not have to be divided up as they are). Color works like this as well but generally speaking it is defined relative to only a handful of colors, if you were to divide colors up more finely it would not be so easy and that is what I think is what's going on in music and is the source of a lot of confusion (thus the explanation of relative vs perfect pitch). Perhaps I need to somehow create an example that people could try themselves to convey this point.
If you point to a bunch of socks in a box, relative pitch is being able to figure out what 100 socks is shaped like and use that to benchmark how many socks are in the box.
Perfect pitch is being able to say "about X socks in the box" just by looking at the box of socks.
Some people can say, one hundred socks or two hundred socks, or three hundred socks in the box of sock stocks.
Some people can say, one hundred seven, or one hundred eight, or one hundred nine socks inside of the crate.
But if you count the box using only the box and with no other socks to compare, then your perfect pitch rocks when it comes to the socks in the box whose count you must declare.
|
10387 Posts
On October 03 2015 09:02 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 08:50 ArvickHero wrote:
You can "fake" perfect pitch by memorizing a certain set of notes by rote, but it'll never be quite up to par as someone who has perfect pitch. What is the difference between having 'perfect pitch,' and memorizing every note on a piano by rote?
people with perfect pitch can do things that normal people can never do no matter how much training you do. If you were to play a completely random set of notes on the piano at the same time, someone with perfect pitch will be like "oh yea that was a F, F#, A, B, G and D". If you don't have perfect pitch you can't do that, no matter what training you have.
They'll also be able to identify pitch from completely non-musical noise. Some people with perfect pitch love to complain how closing/opening their fridge bothers them, because it's at an "out of tune F#". Again, this is not possible without the gift of perfect pitch.
|
On October 03 2015 09:55 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 09:19 demonym wrote:
What I was trying to point to (although perhaps unclearly) is that perfect pitch is defined relative to how the notes are divided up (they do not have to be divided up as they are). Color works like this as well but generally speaking it is defined relative to only a handful of colors, if you were to divide colors up more finely it would not be so easy and that is what I think is what's going on in music and is the source of a lot of confusion (thus the explanation of relative vs perfect pitch). Perhaps I need to somehow create an example that people could try themselves to convey this point. If you point to a bunch of socks in a box, relative pitch is being able to figure out what 100 socks is shaped like and use that to benchmark how many socks are in the box. Perfect pitch is being able to say "about X socks in the box" just by looking at the box of socks. Some people can say, one hundred socks or two hundred socks, or three hundred socks in the box of sock stocks. Some people can say, one hundred seven, or one hundred eight, or one hundred nine socks inside of the crate. But if you count the box using only the box and with no other socks to compare, then your perfect pitch rocks when it comes to the socks in the box whose count you must declare.
The problem with your comparison is socks are clearly individual while notes are about sound waves. Sounds do not have to be divided as they are by notes, they could be divided up more or less and it is very likely that if you were to divide up the musical notes to a great enough degree that a person deemed to have perfect pitch would no longer be deemed to have perfect pitch. There is a very real difference between people's abilities to discern sensory information so I do not want people to think that this is what I am saying is not the case. The confusion I am pointing to is that exactly captured in what you are saying when you compare it to discerning the numbers of socks inside of a box. Perfect pitch as it is can only be judged relative to the degree by which sounds are divided up into their various notes.
|
perfect pitch is a real thing and has nothing to do with synesthsisia
If I were to define the difference between perfect and relative pitch it would simply be about how one rationalizes what they hear. We all hear the notes correctly but only some people actually manage to rationalize them well enough to tell them apart individually at such a level of detail. One could very easily as an example create a color wheel divided into 88 colors instead of the usual 6 and see how well people manage to point to the exact right colors in a painting in reference to it.
IF you've tried playing by ear before you'd understand a lot more about how "real" you actually listen. I thought I knew many melodies until I've really played them. You should try it, it's a lot of fun
You cannot compare it with colors because in music the notes are well defined and the are set and standard frequencies that people do not deviate from.
On October 03 2015 11:14 ArvickHero wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 09:02 micronesia wrote:On October 03 2015 08:50 ArvickHero wrote:
You can "fake" perfect pitch by memorizing a certain set of notes by rote, but it'll never be quite up to par as someone who has perfect pitch. What is the difference between having 'perfect pitch,' and memorizing every note on a piano by rote? people with perfect pitch can do things that normal people can never do no matter how much training you do. If you were to play a completely random set of notes on the piano at the same time, someone with perfect pitch will be like "oh yea that was a F, F#, A, B, G and D". If you don't have perfect pitch you can't do that, no matter what training you have. They'll also be able to identify pitch from completely non-musical noise. Some people with perfect pitch love to complain how closing/opening their fridge bothers them, because it's at an "out of tune F#". Again, this is not possible without the gift of perfect pitch.
Surely people can be trained to do that...?
|
10387 Posts
On October 03 2015 12:22 demonym wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 09:55 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On October 03 2015 09:19 demonym wrote:
What I was trying to point to (although perhaps unclearly) is that perfect pitch is defined relative to how the notes are divided up (they do not have to be divided up as they are). Color works like this as well but generally speaking it is defined relative to only a handful of colors, if you were to divide colors up more finely it would not be so easy and that is what I think is what's going on in music and is the source of a lot of confusion (thus the explanation of relative vs perfect pitch). Perhaps I need to somehow create an example that people could try themselves to convey this point. If you point to a bunch of socks in a box, relative pitch is being able to figure out what 100 socks is shaped like and use that to benchmark how many socks are in the box. Perfect pitch is being able to say "about X socks in the box" just by looking at the box of socks. Some people can say, one hundred socks or two hundred socks, or three hundred socks in the box of sock stocks. Some people can say, one hundred seven, or one hundred eight, or one hundred nine socks inside of the crate. But if you count the box using only the box and with no other socks to compare, then your perfect pitch rocks when it comes to the socks in the box whose count you must declare. The problem with your comparison is socks are clearly individual while notes are about sound waves. Sounds do not have to be divided as they are by notes, they could be divided up more or less and it is very likely that if you were to divide up the musical notes to a great enough degree that a person deemed to have perfect pitch would no longer be deemed to have perfect pitch. There is a very real difference between people's abilities to discern sensory information so I do not want people to think that this is what I am saying is not the case. The confusion I am pointing to is that exactly captured in what you are saying when you compare it to discerning the numbers of socks inside of a box. Perfect pitch as it is can only be judged relative to the degree by which sounds are divided up into their various notes.
Yes, there are more than 12 distinct frequencies than defined in the western system of notation. This is one of the "limitations" of the western notation of music, but that's okay because the concept of intonation in western style of music is based off of relative positions of notes vs. absolute positions of notes. I could delve into this in detail, but I would end up writing a paper so let me try to simplify it ....
Each pitch can vary a certain amount in position and still be defined as that specific pitch. Say that you set your A to equal 440hz. An A-flat is about 415hz in that tuning. You play a note at 436hz. You could classify that as a somewhat "low" A, or a "high" A-flat. What it is depends on context, and the discretion of whoever, but it goes to show that the definition of a pitch is not defined as a single frequency, but rather, a range of frequencies.
People with perfect pitch aren't without their own problems. Orchestras and musicians around the world play at different frequencies. The "standard" is A=440hz, but parts of Europe will play at higher tunings, like A=441, 442, or even 443. I believe some places in Japan go as far as A=449hz. Performers of early music will tend to tune down as far as A=415hz or so. This comes back to the concept that intonation in western music is based off of relative position of pitches, not absolute. So in these different tunings, everything is shifted up or down depending on what they decide their A to be. This often will throw off people with perfect pitch because they typically see pitch as absolute, and have difficulty adapting. Sometimes, people with perfect pitch will have learned their perfect pitch from an "out-of-tune" piano, so they're even more fucked. BUT, often their conception of where the note is and what is being played in these different tunings will still be close enough to each other, so a person with perfect pitch could still point out what is what.
This is where training in relative pitch comes into play. If you're a well-trained musician, then you shouldn't have too many problems adapting to these different tunings. The majority of musicians are without perfect pitch, but can play perfectly fine and beautifully in tune because their relative pitch is so strong. Perfect pitch has no correlation with quality of musicianship and skill in relative pitch.
On October 03 2015 16:10 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 11:14 ArvickHero wrote:On October 03 2015 09:02 micronesia wrote:On October 03 2015 08:50 ArvickHero wrote:
You can "fake" perfect pitch by memorizing a certain set of notes by rote, but it'll never be quite up to par as someone who has perfect pitch. What is the difference between having 'perfect pitch,' and memorizing every note on a piano by rote? people with perfect pitch can do things that normal people can never do no matter how much training you do. If you were to play a completely random set of notes on the piano at the same time, someone with perfect pitch will be like "oh yea that was a F, F#, A, B, G and D". If you don't have perfect pitch you can't do that, no matter what training you have. They'll also be able to identify pitch from completely non-musical noise. Some people with perfect pitch love to complain how closing/opening their fridge bothers them, because it's at an "out of tune F#". Again, this is not possible without the gift of perfect pitch. Surely people can be trained to do that...?
If you can find me someone who has truly developed perfect pitch from an age past adolescence, please let me know. I'd love to see it.
|
United States24772 Posts
On October 03 2015 11:14 ArvickHero wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 09:02 micronesia wrote:On October 03 2015 08:50 ArvickHero wrote:
You can "fake" perfect pitch by memorizing a certain set of notes by rote, but it'll never be quite up to par as someone who has perfect pitch. What is the difference between having 'perfect pitch,' and memorizing every note on a piano by rote? people with perfect pitch can do things that normal people can never do no matter how much training you do. If you were to play a completely random set of notes on the piano at the same time, someone with perfect pitch will be like "oh yea that was a F, F#, A, B, G and D". If you don't have perfect pitch you can't do that, no matter what training you have. They'll also be able to identify pitch from completely non-musical noise. Some people with perfect pitch love to complain how closing/opening their fridge bothers them, because it's at an "out of tune F#". Again, this is not possible without the gift of perfect pitch.
What is the cutoff between having perfect pitch, and being someone who just practiced observing notes a lot? You seem to concede that it is possible for someone without perfect pitch to practice enough such that they can identify any single note, and instead use an example of multiple notes being played at the same time. What if we limit the scope to just two notes at the same time? Could a really motivated person who wasn't magically blessed with this theoretical concept of 'perfect pitch' become capable of identifying any two notes at the same time if he really worked at it?
I'm not going to say you are wrong, but I feel like the difference between perfect pitch and not having perfect pitch is probably more a matter of whether you fall to the right or left of a zone withing a large spectrum, rather than a Boolean determination.
As an alternate example, what if you created a piano that has more keys than a normal piano even though the lowest note and highest note are the same? You'd need to come up with a system for naming all of the new "in between" notes, but once you accomplished that, how would someone with perfect pitch fare at identifying randomly played notes? Would they just need a few days of practice and they would be just as good as they were with a normal piano? What about a piano that has millions of keys and just fractions of a hertz between each note?
edit: another question: If your child is say, 8 years old with no real formal music training, and you want to know if they were 'blessed' with perfect pitch, how do you find out?
|
I think the problem that we're finally running into is that our historical definition of what 'absolute pitch' is comparatively to relative pitch is starting to crack. The Univ. of Chicago has been doing a bunch neurological studies into this and some of the data they have is somewhat suggestive of the possibility
|
Relative pitch is proof in of itself that you can physically hear the difference because if you could not then you would not be able to tell when a note is lower by 1 or higher by 1 or the same. It's deceptive to say that perfect pitch is identifying pitch without reference, the reference that is being used is from within one's own mind. This is why I talk about the difference being between how one rationalizes what they hear. If you want to develop perfect pitch all you need to do is recognize what is unique about the individual notes (an example and what works for me is how "full" a sound feels within my ears while I'm listening to it).
notes refer to ranges and even hertz only refer to ranges as well when it comes to sound. Perfect pitch is judged relative to the standardized ranges by which sounds are categorized. Change the standardization and who is considered to have perfect pitch will change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
