EPTI bet anyone who is claiming to have 'perfect' pitch can not do that. In the documentary they call Derek's capability absolute pitch.
perfect vs relative pitch - Page 2
| Blogs > demonym |
Peeano
Netherlands5556 Posts
I bet anyone who is claiming to have 'perfect' pitch can not do that. In the documentary they call Derek's capability absolute pitch. | ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
On October 04 2015 00:54 Peeano wrote: Check out this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbqjxmTNivQ&t=7m20s I bet anyone who is claiming to have 'perfect' pitch can not do that. In the documentary they call Derek's capability absolute pitch. Very interesting video! To be fair that involves a whole lot more, mainly being able to memorise so much information. Reminded me of that :D | ||
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
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. ... no. hertz is a very specific wave in the spectrum of sound. Yes, perfect pitch is based off a certain kind of standardization, although it is probably different for everyone who has perfect pitch. And yes, once that is changed, it'll be harder for the perfect pitch people. But they still have that ability to pinpoint notes that they hear, although they'll hear it as "out-of-tune". Perhaps it'd make more sense to you if we used the term "Absolute pitch" instead, which is the other term for perfect pitch. On October 03 2015 23:50 micronesia wrote: 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? Sure, if you limit the scope of just two notes at the same time, then that's pretty simple actually. You just have to memorize what the quality of the interval (or relationship/distance between the two notes.), which is part of basic ear-training and relative pitch skill. If you have a few notes internally memorized, you can deduce it with some time without being told what one of the note are. But that's not perfect pitch: perfect pitch people won't have to go through all that hassle. They'll just know what the notes are. As for your alternate example, we can already identify the "in-between" notes. They are identified using "quarter-tone" flats and sharp, and "quarter-quarter tone" flats and sharps, etc etc. Like the "in-between" note between A and B-flat is an "A quarter-tone sharp". But if you were to just play that note for someone with perfect pitch, they'd be more likely to say that it's "an A that's a little sharp/high". Again, like I said, notes aren't defined as a single specific frequency--rather, they encompass a range of frequencies. So you know, people with perfect pitch typically are people who have had music training from a very young age. The rate of perfect pitch is even higher in Chinese children because of the tonal nature of the language. Research suggests that most/all children have the capability of perfect pitch, but most lose that capability as they get older. Kids who start musical training early on are more likely to have perfect pitch, and those who speak a tonal language will have an even higher rate of perfect pitch development. The key part really is having musical training early on, since the Western 12-tone system isn't exactly the most natural thing anyways (many eastern cultures used pentatonic scales instead, and Indian classical music has more explicitly defined tones than 12). On October 04 2015 00:54 Peeano wrote: Check out this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbqjxmTNivQ&t=7m20s I bet anyone who is claiming to have 'perfect' pitch can not do that. In the documentary they call Derek's capability absolute pitch. perfect pitch and absolute pitch are two interchangeable terms. Perfect pitch does not correlate with talent or skill. It just means you know exactly what notes are being played--whether or not you have the skill to replicate what was played in one try is something entirely else. | ||
|
demonym
Canada66 Posts
On October 04 2015 01:54 ArvickHero wrote: ... no. hertz is a very specific wave in the spectrum of sound. Yes, perfect pitch is based off a certain kind of standardization, although it is probably different for everyone who has perfect pitch. And yes, once that is changed, it'll be harder for the perfect pitch people. But they still have that ability to pinpoint notes that they hear, although they'll hear it as "out-of-tune". Perhaps it'd make more sense to you if we used the term "Absolute pitch" instead, which is the other term for perfect pitch. Sure, if you limit the scope of just two notes at the same time, then that's pretty simple actually. You just have to memorize what the quality of the interval (or relationship/distance between the two notes.), which is part of basic ear-training and relative pitch skill. If you have a few notes internally memorized, you can deduce it with some time without being told what one of the note are. But that's not perfect pitch: perfect pitch people won't have to go through all that hassle. They'll just know what the notes are. As for your alternate example, we can already identify the "in-between" notes. They are identified using "quarter-tone" flats and sharp, and "quarter-quarter tone" flats and sharps, etc etc. Like the "in-between" note between A and B-flat is an "A quarter-tone sharp". But if you were to just play that note for someone with perfect pitch, they'd be more likely to say that it's "an A that's a little sharp/high". Again, like I said, notes aren't defined as a single specific frequency--rather, they encompass a range of frequencies. So you know, people with perfect pitch typically are people who have had music training from a very young age. The rate of perfect pitch is even higher in Chinese children because of the tonal nature of the language. Research suggests that most/all children have the capability of perfect pitch, but most lose that capability as they get older. Kids who start musical training early on are more likely to have perfect pitch, and those who speak a tonal language will have an even higher rate of perfect pitch development. The key part really is having musical training early on, since the Western 12-tone system isn't exactly the most natural thing anyways (many eastern cultures used pentatonic scales instead, and Indian classical music has more explicitly defined tones than 12). perfect pitch and absolute pitch are two interchangeable terms. Perfect pitch does not correlate with talent or skill. It just means you know exactly what notes are being played--whether or not you have the skill to replicate what was played in one try is something entirely else. All standardized methods of measuring are generalizations, no exceptions. It is only ever possible to get a finer level of detail but never a complete level of detail, if that were possible then we would not even have need for fractions of hertz. Even a line representing a waveform has limits as well because then the question is how would you redraw the line when you zoom into it a little closer? There will not be only one way. As soon as you limit reality to the level of a notation and assume that it covers it in it's entirety you have made a mistake. As soon as you assume that someone can perceive reality in it's entirety (the idea that somebody can hear sounds absolutely with no room for improvement or finer detail) you have made a mistake. This concept of absolute pitch does not add up. | ||
|
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
You were arguing that the difference between relative pitch and perfect pitch are false. The definition of the two are completely different. Relative pitch: The ability to distinguish perceive the interval/distance between notes. The quality of these intervals will always sound the same regardless of what notes are being used to make the interval. You do not need perfect pitch for this. Perfect pitch: The ability to identify what the note/s is/are in terms of the western 12-tone system, regardless of it being "in-tune" or not. You can play notes in the fucking Indian classical music scale, but someone with perfect pitch will just know and be able to point out what the notes are in relation to the western 12-tone system. It's like knowing the distance between two objects, regardless of their position on the map, and knowing explicitly where they are on the map in terms of point A, B, C, D, E F, and G. They are two different things. Yes, in a way the two are interrelated. But they are very different from one another. You also argue anyone can develop perfect pitch. Well good luck, let me know when you are successful in developing true perfect pitch, I'll direct some researchers over to you who'd be quite keen on that. | ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
On October 03 2015 21:00 ArvickHero wrote: 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. I might have been mistaken if you think it's improbable. I was basing it off how my listening got better and better and I was better at tuning instruments by ear (without comparing it with another note) despite never properly "training" for it. Also, my listening has improved though out the years and I play melodies better and better. I just extrapolated it to how it should be very probably for someone who has really put in the effort to achieve it. Absolute pitch (AP), widely referred to as perfect pitch, is a fairly rare auditory phenomenon characterized by the ability of a person to identify or re-create a given musical note without the benefit of a reference tone. Based on this definition my "degree of absolute pitchness" has increased over the years, from nothing. ie. I have an increasing ability to recreate musical notes and phrases from having absolutely no ability to do so. demonym: Just read the definitions. You're sounding like a humanities major talking about quantum physics. There's no need to complicate things. Relative pitch is the ability of a person to identify or re-create a given musical note by comparing it to a reference note and identifying the interval between those two notes. | ||
|
Deleted User 135096
3624 Posts
@Jiexian: I'm wondering though, what is your reference point? can you correctly identify any pitch regardless of where it's coming from, or is it that you have gotten better identifying certain pitches on a specific instrument (such as a piano). That is the key difference between developing great relative pitch, and what has generally referred to as 'absolute pitch' or perfect pitch historically. As for your alternate example, we can already identify the "in-between" notes. They are identified using "quarter-tone" flats and sharp, and "quarter-quarter tone" flats and sharps, etc etc. Like the "in-between" note between A and B-flat is an "A quarter-tone sharp". But if you were to just play that note for someone with perfect pitch, they'd be more likely to say that it's "an A that's a little sharp/high". Again, like I said, notes aren't defined as a single specific frequency--rather, they encompass a range of frequencies. I'd also like to add to this that being able to identify smaller units between a semitone is also part of what goes in to developing good relative pitch. I can reliably hear the difference of 1/10th of a tone for example, which is about the upper limit to what humans can discern. Now the difference between me and someone with absolute pitch, AND great relative pitch here, is they could tell you at any given moment exactly what the deviation from 12-tet the current pitch/frequency is. I generally need a reference tone to be mostly accurate there. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On October 03 2015 09:02 micronesia wrote: What is the difference between having 'perfect pitch,' and memorizing every note on a piano by rote? Well here's the interesting thing: in my experience, despite what ArvickHero is saying, most musicians simply can't. The long-term ability to recall the exact pitch of a note from your brain is, maybe surprisingly, not something most people can do. In effect, what you're describing is what people with perfect pitch have done: memorized the pitch of all the notes on the piano, or more likely, memorized twelve notes in a chromatic scale, and then using relative pitch to compare octaves. Most people with perfect pitch were musically trained from an early age. I started playing piano at age 4, and my mom used to train me to read music by showing me flash cards with a music note in treble or bass clef on them, and having me name the note and play it on the piano. I'm not really sure how it happened, but at some point she was doing the reverse – playing a note on the piano and having me name it – and she noticed I didn't need to look at the piano to do it. Of course in the middle of a practice session I could have just been comparing to notes I'd heard earlier in the session, so she must have tried it at some point when we were just starting a practice session and I wouldn't have had any point of reference, and I could still do it. A lot of people I know with relative pitch can still kind of "fake" perfect pitch like ArvickHero is saying, but they can't just memorize the notes. A common one I've seen is for someone to learn the limits of their singing range, and they'll learn that their lowest note is, say, a G. Then they'll try to sing their lowest note, transpose it into the same octave as the note in question, judge the interval, and use that to identify it. So they can in effect identify a pitch just hearing it, but they still need an external reference (their voice). | ||
|
demonym
Canada66 Posts
On October 04 2015 02:56 ArvickHero wrote: at this point you are just philosophizing about existential questions that have no real answer, and I have no real inclination nor interest to go down the rabbit hole with you any further. You were arguing that the difference between relative pitch and perfect pitch are false. The definition of the two are completely different. Relative pitch: The ability to distinguish perceive the interval/distance between notes. The quality of these intervals will always sound the same regardless of what notes are being used to make the interval. You do not need perfect pitch for this. Perfect pitch: The ability to identify what the note/s is/are in terms of the western 12-tone system, regardless of it being "in-tune" or not. You can play notes in the fucking Indian classical music scale, but someone with perfect pitch will just know and be able to point out what the notes are in relation to the western 12-tone system. It's like knowing the distance between two objects, regardless of their position on the map, and knowing explicitly where they are on the map in terms of point A, B, C, D, E F, and G. They are two different things. Yes, in a way the two are interrelated. But they are very different from one another. You also argue anyone can develop perfect pitch. Well good luck, let me know when you are successful in developing true perfect pitch, I'll direct some researchers over to you who'd be quite keen on that. If you want to discontinue the discussion that's fine but I don't appreciate you phrasing it as if I'm just being difficult or something. None of what I've discussed with you was just "existential questions that have no real answer", in fact I've been trying to give you these answers very directly. You also argue anyone can develop perfect pitch. Well good luck, let me know when you are successful in developing true perfect pitch, I'll direct some researchers over to you who'd be quite keen on that. If it works out I may or may not post about it in the future (so far it seems to be). I'm not so sure if I'd like that kind of attention so even if it does work I might not post about it. Overall my impression of you is you're not a bad guy so I will wish you well as well. | ||
|
demonym
Canada66 Posts
On October 04 2015 00:54 Peeano wrote: Check out this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbqjxmTNivQ&t=7m20s I bet anyone who is claiming to have 'perfect' pitch can not do that. In the documentary they call Derek's capability absolute pitch. Ah, that's a very cool video. | ||
|
Deleted User 135096
3624 Posts
For example, you mention hertz being a somewhat inaccurate measuring system, but that's actually not inaccurate at all. The reason non-integer numbers exist for hertz is due to the measuring system itself, where 1second == the periodicity of a sine wave at 1 hertz (or cps); so of course this is an arbitrary system, because the division of time that we use is completely arbitrary (why not 100 divisions in a second instead of 60). But then again, this isn't really relevant to the discussion of relative vs absolute pitch anyway. | ||
|
demonym
Canada66 Posts
On October 04 2015 08:33 wo1fwood wrote: demonym, the complaint from Arvick comes from your comment about standardized methods being non-sequitur to the topic of relative vs absolute pitch, not that it is or isn't worth a discussion or without merit. For example, you mention hertz being a somewhat inaccurate measuring system, but that's actually not inaccurate at all. The reason non-integer numbers exist for hertz is due to the measuring system itself, where 1second == the periodicity of a sine wave at 1 hertz (or cps); so of course this is an arbitrary system, because the division of time that we use is completely arbitrary (why not 100 divisions in a second instead of 60). But then again, this isn't really relevant to the discussion of relative vs absolute pitch anyway. It actually is central to my point about perfect pitch and it is also central to how I solve the problem of developing perfect pitch. Seriously, it is. All I've been trying to get across this whole time is that sounds can be measured to varying degrees of accuracy and that the current level of accuracy that sounds are divided up on the keyboard is also arbitrary. Why is that relevant? Because perfect pitch is in part defined by this. I am trying to point out that if you divided it up differently... lets say like this: Relative to this way of dividing up notes a lot more people may be considered to have perfect pitch, however in the end you want to be able to identify them all individually, right? So what you do is master it at one level (whatever comes easiest really) and you then add more notes in between and try to master those notes along with the ones that you already have. You keep going with this until you can do them all. I am testing this actively with myself and it seems to genuinely work. (I of course test with having someone else hitting one of the highlighted notes randomly while I look away and try to name it). I am not quite at the point where I can do it at the scale of a regular keyboard but I am getting close | ||
|
ApocAlypsE007
Israel1007 Posts
On October 04 2015 00:54 Peeano wrote: Check out this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbqjxmTNivQ&t=7m20s I bet anyone who is claiming to have 'perfect' pitch can not do that. In the documentary they call Derek's capability absolute pitch. I know the song that you pointed. It's called "Jerusalem of Gold (yerushalaim shel zahav 8:00)", a very known Israeli song. He extrapolates the accords rather well for someone who 1st time is hearing the song, but not the melody. I also much more familiar with the term Absolute Pitch, I'm assuming the OP refers to it as Perfect Pitch. I studied in the same class for a time with a guy who could do insane things with his hearing, we were kinda rivals at the time. He could play a song he heard first or second time really well, and he is a damn good pianist. Now he preforms abroad, while I'm perusing an engineering career, looking back he wanted a musical career much more than me. Here is his Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/RafaelSkorka | ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
On October 04 2015 03:47 wo1fwood wrote: @Jiexian: I'm wondering though, what is your reference point? can you correctly identify any pitch regardless of where it's coming from, or is it that you have gotten better identifying certain pitches on a specific instrument (such as a piano). That is the key difference between developing great relative pitch, and what has generally referred to as 'absolute pitch' or perfect pitch historically. I'd also like to add to this that being able to identify smaller units between a semitone is also part of what goes in to developing good relative pitch. I can reliably hear the difference of 1/10th of a tone for example, which is about the upper limit to what humans can discern. Now the difference between me and someone with absolute pitch, AND great relative pitch here, is they could tell you at any given moment exactly what the deviation from 12-tet the current pitch/frequency is. I generally need a reference tone to be mostly accurate there. I can do it for any sound from any instrument, I am not aware that there were people who can only identify pitches from certain instruments. :O Since I always keep my guitar in tune I do feel when a note is played 10 cents off pitch, especially if it's on my guitar and I feel uneasy and think "better tune this thing" hahaha. Listening to microtonal music probably helps with sensitivity too. One of my favourite microtonal songs:: + Show Spoiler + I'm not claiming to be correct all the time but I've been getting better and better. I remember when we first had a piano when I was 13. I needed for 3-5 hours on the piano to figure out the melody of simple songs like the barney song and the sound track of MTG Duels of the Planeswalkers. The latter which I gave up after trying for several hours. + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler + This was me before ever having any sort of training or education. Now it takes me a few seconds to figure out the melodies (harmonies are more complicated, especially ones with more interesting chords like bossa nova) I use my ear mainly and my theory and reading isn't on the same level, and I never had serious education but I'd figure out how to play a random sound (sometimes from non musical instruments) on my instrument for fun, had to figure out many songs without having sheet music or only an incomplete video of the person playing (sometimes none at all). And I'm not talking about taylor swift songs either but things like this: + Show Spoiler + When I compose I'd usually hear and imagine sounds first before writing it into my DAW or at least improv and play around until I hear something in my head. I never trained or practised anything and my listening is nowhere as good as I'd ideally like it to be but I'm using it quite often and I am seeing the difference despite having never ever doing any "ear training", which was why I assumed that someone who did training or just do what I do more often should see the results. Upon rereading the definitions on wikipedia my development has been in both parts, but I repeat that I am in no way good at everything. I just tested myself again with the Barney tune and I guess the note wrongly but my fingers automatically moved to the correct one and I only realised that I wasn't playing an "A" after I've finished figuring out he entire melody hahahaha Which reminds me that my theory is bad and I often play without knowing what the notes are until I spend time processing it. And I do do a fair amount of "hunting" :D AP can be demonstrated via linguistic labeling ("naming" a note), auditory imagery, or sensorimotor responses. For example, an AP possessor can accurately reproduce a heard tone on their musical instrument without "hunting" for the correct pitch.[3][4] Researchers estimate the occurrence of AP to be 1 in 10,000 people.[5] Generally, absolute pitch implies some or all of the following abilities, achieved without a reference tone:[6] Identify by name individual pitches (e.g. A, B, C♯) played on various instruments. Name the key of a given piece of tonal music. Reproduce a piece of tonal music in the correct key days after hearing it. Identify and name all the tones of a given chord or other tonal mass. Accurately sing a named pitch. Name the pitches of common everyday sounds such as car horns and alarms. Relative pitch is the ability of a person to identify or re-create a given musical note by comparing it to a reference note and identifying the interval between those two notes. Relative pitch implies some or all of the following abilities: Determine the distance of a musical note from a set point of reference, e.g. "three octaves above middle C" Identify the intervals between given tones, regardless of their relation to concert pitch (A = 440 Hz) the skill used by singers to correctly sing a melody, following musical notation, by pitching each note in the melody according to its distance from the previous note. Alternatively, the same skill which allows someone to hear a melody for the first time and name the notes relative to some known reference pitch. @demonym I am understanding you better now but I do not understand the applications of it (or if there is one intended) | ||
|
Deleted User 135096
3624 Posts
also, a great microtonal piece is one of the earliest in the western tradition: | ||
|
demonym
Canada66 Posts
The reason I was even interested in this is I like things that alter my perceptions in general (well other than drugs), I've done similar things in many other areas. As for the benefits I think many people possessing perfect pitch are selling themselves short, the ability to know exactly the right notes without having to guess just by listening is a very useful skill, considering that you seem to learn by listening to songs I'm betting you could imagine how useful that would be for you. If it were indeed possible to learn would you not want to? @wo1fwood I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on the definitions of perfect pitch or relative pitch but if the test I described is not adequate for determining whether someone possesses (or learned) perfect pitch what would be a more reliable test? Perhaps I will give that a shot next. (that music is extremely odd sounding, it's difficult to not just conclude it just sounds 'wrong') | ||
|
Pontius Pirate
United States1557 Posts
On October 03 2015 08:57 Muffloe wrote: 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 We must listen to different kinds of metal, because I have a pretty solid A in my head, as well as a passable F :p On October 04 2015 22:27 wo1fwood wrote: yea, what happens over time with performers who have developed this is that on their instruments some musicians can readily identify what pitches are being played which would look on the outside exactly like someone with absolute pitch. But whats happened here is that over a period of decades they've become so accustomed to their own instruments that they just know how certain pitches sound or feel. I've known a few musicians who can do this, but it's not something everyone learns. I and many other of my musician friends have developed this with distorted guitar tones. It takes less than a second for us to tell a drop C band from a drop B band, or a drop A band from a drop G# band. Part of this is due to the highly standardized methods of equalization and distortion that are used in modern conventional production, whether in-studio or live, that is intended to control and shape the highly saturated tone of a heavily-overdriven guitar so that it plays well in the mix with the other instruments, that follows a fairly strict series of standards, making it easy to discern the overall sound of a guitar playing that note. This is especially noticeable with the low open strings. | ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
On October 04 2015 22:27 wo1fwood wrote: yea, what happens over time with performers who have developed this is that on their instruments some musicians can readily identify what pitches are being played which would look on the outside exactly like someone with absolute pitch. But whats happened here is that over a period of decades they've become so accustomed to their own instruments that they just know how certain pitches sound or feel. I've known a few musicians who can do this, but it's not something everyone learns. also, a great microtonal piece is one of the earliest in the western tradition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhF0-hN4I8k oh okay, what you're saying is that no one has been able to develop absolute pitch? I'm surprised. I don't enjoy listening to atonal music as music, except when I'm watching the Matrix because the chaotic sound fits the movie. That Ives piece was interesting and I liked it at first but later on, it reminded me of atonal music :D microtonal on the "fliud piano" (traditional) + Show Spoiler + microtonal in contemporary jazz if you're interested: + Show Spoiler + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlzOkiyLVco there are some good moments but it mostly sounds like random wanking to me I've spent a lot of time searching about microtonal music because I was fascinated about the possibilities On October 05 2015 02:57 demonym wrote: @JieXian The reason I was even interested in this is I like things that alter my perceptions in general (well other than drugs), I've done similar things in many other areas. As for the benefits I think many people possessing perfect pitch are selling themselves short, the ability to know exactly the right notes without having to guess just by listening is a very useful skill, considering that you seem to learn by listening to songs I'm betting you could imagine how useful that would be for you. If it were indeed possible to learn would you not want to? @wo1fwood I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on the definitions of perfect pitch or relative pitch but if the test I described is not adequate for determining whether someone possesses (or learned) perfect pitch what would be a more reliable test? Perhaps I will give that a shot next. (that music is extremely odd sounding, it's difficult to not just conclude it just sounds 'wrong') From what I gather you are trying to listen to microtones, right? (Pic 1 shows 12 half tones in an octave, pic 2 is, I assume dividing C to F into 12 half tones?) Even for applications for microtonal music there is the option to target specific microtones which are used in the type or types of music as opposed to dividing it up arbitrarily. For example if I want to be better at a certain raga or singing style i'd study and listen to it it in a controlled way to pick up their scales and such. microtonal music can sound very beautiful not like random wanking if it's well controlled. (traditional gypsy/greek/ladino/spanish) The wailing takes some time getting used to but I absolutely love it now although I didn't at first. It's a song about being an outcast, not having a country or a place, being born out of love, really emotional. And that wind player is just sweeping me away~~~~~~ + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler + (traditional turkish) + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler + For normal tonal music there's no application that I can think of for this, and imo time would be better spent doing something else like listening to harmonies, or just composing more :D If you get some special experience from this I understand and I won't argue with that. Have fun! ===== Edit: HOLD ON! I just realised that the intro of I did a few years ago could be classified as microtonal too! Have a listen, I played it without having and microtonal ideas in mind, but it turned out that way :D | ||
| ||
