Perfect Pitch/Relative Pitch

[tbone0813]

I'm just curious if this is something you can learn, or do you just possess it? I've seen these advertisements for the Perfect Pitch trainging course & the Relative Pitch training course, and was hoping someone could shed some light on this subject for me. Are these courses worth it? Do they work?

[Alvaro Martín Gómez A.]

This topic has been discussed before:

perfect pitch ear training course ?

Doing it by ear.

Hope that helps.

I have perfect pitch. I always had it, but I wouldn't be surprised if one could learn it. Truthfully, it's really nothing more than a way to win bar bets for me.

[gottawalk]

My take on it is that perfect pitch is being able to hear any pitch and without any other reference, tell what that note is.

Relative pitch is when you can hear a pitch and be able to tell what any other pitch is using that pitch as a frame of reference, thereby knowing the interval and pitch "relative" to the first pitch you hear.

I would think that perfect pitch would be hard to learn, but it would be having your ear/mind recognize specific frequency and then converting that frequency to a specific note on the piano.

Relative pitch can be learned by ear-training exercises, I would think.

I haven't seen any courses in it, but there must be some way to "hone" the talent. IMHO.

[gottawalk]

Did a quick "google" and came across this right away. Haven't looked the whole thing over, but it looked like it had some potential as a "starter" reference, and some help.
http://www.vocalist.org.uk/pitching_exercises.html

Good luck!

[IanStephenson]

As far as I can see the only signifigance of perfect pitch is

a) to get frustrated by concert videos that have been shot at 24fps and replayed at 25fps (or visa versa) - they speed up the song, and it ends up at a different pitch, which drives the PP's nuts!

b) to get confused/frustrated when your band downtunes, or plays a song in a different key to the original.

I have some limited pitch recognition ability, but no where enough to be signifigant. I'm pretty sure it could get better if I worked on it, but it would be just a party trick.

Strong relative pitch is an ABSOLUTE MUST. That can get better very quickly with a little practive and training. My wife had pretty bad pitch - 10 minutes a day for a week or so, and she got WAY better.

Ian

[Bruce Lindfield]

Yup - the late, great John Entwhistle had perfect pitch (played French Horn) and said it was just an annoyance - especially on long,hot, Who gigs - when the guitars started to gradually go out of tune !!

[62bass]

Originally Posted by IanStephenson

As far as I can see the only signifigance of perfect pitch is

a) to get frustrated by concert videos that have been shot at 24fps and replayed at 25fps (or visa versa) - they speed up the song, and it ends up at a different pitch, which drives the PP's nuts!

b) to get confused/frustrated when your band downtunes, or plays a song in a different key to the original.

I have some limited pitch recognition ability, but no where enough to be signifigant. I'm pretty sure it could get better if I worked on it, but it would be just a party trick.

Strong relative pitch is an ABSOLUTE MUST. That can get better very quickly with a little practive and training. My wife had pretty bad pitch - 10 minutes a day for a week or so, and she got WAY better.

Ian

Yes, I agree. I had a friend I played with, a keyboard player and wonderful musician, who had perfect pitch. He used to get frustrated by the same things. In those days turntables didn't always turn at the right speed, even radio station turntables, and many rock records were mastered with a wrap of tape over the capstan to speed it up a bit for a bit of added excitement. It drove him nuts when transcribing parts for band charts.

He bought an outboard powered boat with a 100 HP 2 stroke Merc. He used to tune the high speed jets on the carb by ear. If it would reach C# wide open it was set right.

[geoffkhan]

There are varying degrees of perfect pitch. I have perfect pitch, and can tell you the pitch of notes without any reference. I'll listen to CDs at the library and transcribe solos there. However, I couldn't tell you exactly how flat or sharp an instrument is, if it is out of tune. I can usually recognize if it's out of tune since it sounds a little weird. However, it does not irritate my ears. For some other people with perfect pitch, anything out of tune can be physically painful. I guess I got lucky.

The elevator in the music building at my university is tuned to A 440, as are a lot of other elevators. This is good to know.

Anyway, I think really good relative pitch is just as good as perfect pitch. Perfect pitch is really helpful with transcription and with singing, but other than that it's a bit of a parlor trick, if you know what I mean.

[MysticMichael]

Originally Posted by tbone0813

I'm just curious if this is something you can learn, or do you just possess it? I've seen these advertisements for the Perfect Pitch trainging course & the Relative Pitch training course, and was hoping someone could shed some light on this subject for me. Are these courses worth it? Do they work?

They're a waste of time & money. Even if they can actually help you to develop perfect pitch - which is dubious - it's generally more of a curse than a blessing. Why would you want to have perfect pitch? What do you think would be the advantage?

Relative pitch is far more useful and important - essential, really. A well-conceived course might be able to help you with that. On the other hand, so could doing a lot of active listening to music - and a lot of hands-on ear training...

MM

[tbone0813]

I think at this point I am more interested in developing my relative pitch vs. perfect pitch. I found a website that plays intervals & then quizzes you on the interval. Is this a good place to start? I might also try DLB's 41 CD relative pitch course that has a 90 day money back guarantee. I'll figure something out.

[Richard Lindsey]

Well, this perhaps something of a digression, but you could argue that in one sense, all perfect pitch is a species of relative pitch anyway. The reason is that note names do not have an absolute and objective association with pitches of specific frequencies--the associations are conventions that are formulated and agreed on by humans. For example, suppose you take a course that allows you to identify A440. You hear a pitch that is 440 Hz, and you say, aha, that's an A. But the only reason that 440 Hz tone is an A rather than an Ab or a Bb is that we have agreed to consider it so. In other times, A might have been some other frequency entirely, perhaps as low as 415. By that standard, your A is way sharp.

Imagine you've taken this perfect pitch course, and then you're transmitted by time machine to an era when A was closer to 415. Suppose the musicians in that era have also taken a perfect pitch course, but based on the A415 standard. When these musicians sing what is a correct A for their time, you'll hear it as incorrect, and vice versa. Which of you is wrong? Neither, really, because both of you are correct in relation to the standards of your time. So when your perfect pitch allows you to identify A440, you're not really identifying A as such, because A does not have the same kind of objective existence that a pitch of 440 Hz does; you're identifying a pitch that your training teaches you to relate to the note name A.

Yeah, I know, this is basically just a quibble, and perhaps a pointless one, but what the hell, I had a few minutes on my hands, and the coffee hasn't kicked in fully yet.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by Richard Lindsey

Well, this perhaps something of a digression, but you could argue that in one sense, all perfect pitch is a species of relative pitch anyway. The reason is that note names do not have an absolute and objective association with pitches of specific frequencies--the associations are conventions that are formulated and agreed on by humans. For example, suppose you take a course that allows you to identify A440. You hear a pitch that is 440 Hz, and you say, aha, that's an A. But the only reason that 440 Hz tone is an A rather than an Ab or a Bb is that we have agreed to consider it so. In other times, A might have been some other frequency entirely, perhaps as low as 415. By that standard, your A is way sharp.

Imagine you've taken this perfect pitch course, and then you're transmitted by time machine to an era when A was closer to 415. Suppose the musicians in that era have also taken a perfect pitch course, but based on the A415 standard. When these musicians sing what is a correct A for their time, you'll hear it as incorrect, and vice versa. Which of you is wrong? Neither, really, because both of you are correct in relation to the standards of your time. So when your perfect pitch allows you to identify A440, you're not really identifying A as such, because A does not have the same kind of objective existence that a pitch of 440 Hz does; you're identifying a pitch that your training teaches you to relate to the note name A.

Yeah, I know, this is basically just a quibble, and perhaps a pointless one, but what the hell, I had a few minutes on my hands, and the coffee hasn't kicked in fully yet.

This is rather like an intresting philosphical point, put by Bertrand Russell - which is that no two people see exactly the same thing - how do you know that what you call orange, doesn't actually look Blue to other people - everything is subjective ....

It also fits in with another philosphical idea that the only meaning in the world is what we provide - it seems there are patterns - but these are just what we have chosen ourselves, due to bias in our own perceptions....

[labgnat]

Originally Posted by Richard Lindsey

Well, this perhaps something of a digression, but you could argue that in one sense, all perfect pitch is a species of relative pitch anyway. The reason is that note names do not have an absolute and objective association with pitches of specific frequencies--the associations are conventions that are formulated and agreed on by humans. For example, suppose you take a course that allows you to identify A440. You hear a pitch that is 440 Hz, and you say, aha, that's an A. But the only reason that 440 Hz tone is an A rather than an Ab or a Bb is that we have agreed to consider it so. In other times, A might have been some other frequency entirely, perhaps as low as 415. By that standard, your A is way sharp.

Imagine you've taken this perfect pitch course, and then you're transmitted by time machine to an era when A was closer to 415. Suppose the musicians in that era have also taken a perfect pitch course, but based on the A415 standard. When these musicians sing what is a correct A for their time, you'll hear it as incorrect, and vice versa. Which of you is wrong? Neither, really, because both of you are correct in relation to the standards of your time. So when your perfect pitch allows you to identify A440, you're not really identifying A as such, because A does not have the same kind of objective existence that a pitch of 440 Hz does; you're identifying a pitch that your training teaches you to relate to the note name A.

Yeah, I know, this is basically just a quibble, and perhaps a pointless one, but what the hell, I had a few minutes on my hands, and the coffee hasn't kicked in fully yet.

interesting,
i take it to mean that you shouldn't bother with perfect pitch cause when you time travel you'll be thrown off and that as well will be frustrating.
i agree

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally Posted by labgnat

interesting,
i take it to mean that you shouldn't bother with perfect pitch cause when you time travel you'll be thrown off and that as well will be frustrating.
i agree

Yes, seeing that time travel is just around the corner, this sort of problem is bound to come up a lot in the near future, and so I thought I'd point out a problem that time-traveling musicians are likely to encounter.

Actually, my implication was really that relative pitch is more practically useful than perfect pitch, first, because it still works in situations of nonstandard tuning, and second, because IMO it encourages you to think of musical tones relationally rather than as individual units, which I think is a more musically effective perspective. But that's just my take, possibly worth about what you just paid me for it. Anyway, who says you can't develop both perfect pitch and relative pitch if you want?

[dlloyd]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

This is rather like an intresting philosphical point, put by Bertrand Russell - which is that no two people see exactly the same thing - how do you know that what you call orange, doesn't actually look Blue to other people - everything is subjective ....

Some of the "beauties" that are posted in the basses forum are definitive proof that we don't all see colour the same.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by dlloyd

Some of the "beauties" that are posted in the basses forum are definitive proof that we don't all see colour the same.

Yes - I don't know how anybody can see a Bongo and not think : "Toilet Seat"!!

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by Richard Lindsey

Yes, seeing that time travel is just around the corner, this sort of problem is bound to come up a lot in the near future, and so I thought I'd point out a problem that time-traveling musicians are likely to encounter.

Actually, my implication was really that relative pitch is more practically useful than perfect pitch, first, because it still works in situations of nonstandard tuning, and second, because IMO it encourages you to think of musical tones relationally rather than as individual units, which I think is a more musically effective perspective. But that's just my take, possibly worth about what you just paid me for it. Anyway, who says you can't develop both perfect pitch and relative pitch if you want?

Red shift pitch?

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

Red shift pitch?

Is that what they have on the Tardis?

[Bruce Lindfield]

More like "Cricket Pitch" - if it was Peter Davidson!!