![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
To put it straight, the fact is absolute pitch is possession of a particular frequency in the sub-conscious, whether it be 440hz or 442. In the 18th century there was development of French, German and English tuning, resulting in different pitches for the "same" note. Because of wide speculation in that era, it is impossible to name a possessor of absolute pitch; there is no concrete proof whatsoever of Mozart having "perfect pitch". And btw guys: you MUST sign--- Brainsurgeonrocketscientist 03:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
A lot of this is based on misunderstanding. A is not always 440. Think about it.
I agree. I have spent much time with professional pipe organists, the consensus of which is that in that some time during the 19th century, the accepted pitch for A was 435. I encountered this problem when preparing for a guitar solo for my church. I tuned to my quartz tuner (A=440). When my friend Lew showed up and agreed to do a duet with me, he began to tune to the organist's warm-up, a 1915 Skinner. I suggested that Lew and I should leave the sanctuary and tune to my tuner, and to each other. Our church has two Steinways and a Grinnell, all of which are tuned quarterly, are generally reliable to maintain a 440 pitch.
I have heard that some popular 20th century orchestras adopted 435, giving them a "snappier" sound. I have also heard that this "A inflation" resulted, in part, from radio stations speeding up their turntables in order to get more music on the air between commercials. I believe this theory, since I learned music by playing along with the radio. I had no trouble playing guitar in pitch with the radio, but piano was impossible, until I got an accurate turntable.-- W8IMP 10:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Semitone = Half step in the States. Should it be notated or change? Ich 00:47, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC) I can no longer find any reference to a semitone in the article.
My father told me the names of the white notes on a piano when I was five years old. For many years after that, I could identify white notes on a piano when I heard them, but with black notes, I could tell only that they were black notes. And it didn't work with other instruments. During my 20s, "C"s on a piano began to sound almost, but not quite, a full tone higher than "C"s, and ever since then I get confused and cannot identify notes. How does that fit into theories about the origin and nature of this phenomenon? - Mike Hardy
Interesting. When I was in grade 1, my music teacher used to test me on naming pitches, and I could only do the white keys. The black keys just sounded black. By around grade 4 I could identify all the notes without problem. (I had piano education since age of 4, and my mother tongue is Mandarin). I havent got to my 20s yet, but there was one time that a piano sounded a whole tone higher to me while the piano player said she thought the piano is properly toned. Oscar Liu Jan 26, 2008 PCT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.39.148 ( talk) 06:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
"Usually, people with active absolute pitch will not only be able to identify a note, but recognize when that note is slightly sharp or flat." You need not actually identify the black keys to have perfect pitch, but only know that they are indeed black keys, if that makes sense. Jendeyoung 18:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
re: Changes by JonKDan@msn.com
Regarding the new edits made May 28/29 in the definition: I actually quite liked the definition of AP that was there, and all the moreso because it was properly attributed:
Absolute pitch has been defined as "the ability to attach labels to isolated auditory stimuli on the basis of pitch alone". [1] A person with absolute pitch might be able to, for instance, identify the pitch of a car horn, or confirm whether a piece is played in its original key.
It seems to me that it should be retained.
I take issue with the changing of the definitions of "Passive" and "Active" AP, because although I am not the one who contributed them to this WP article, I am the one who defined those terms (with my colleague Richard Parncutt) in the Grove Dictionary of Music. I'd prefer that we left those passages the way they were. Specifically, the very definition of passive AP does require instantaneous labeling; if it requires "more of a conscious effort" it is what Bachem (1954) referred to as "quasi-AP". Under "Active" AP, equal temperament is not necessary. The new note about the impossibility of making an accurate assessment -- the way it is worded now -- implies that it should be attributed to my colleague Oliver Sacks, which it isn't. But in fact, stratified random sampling theory ensures it is just as possible to assess AP in the general population as it is to assess the incidence of Down syndrome, diabetes, or left-handedness. -- User:Daniel Levitin 29 May, 2006
This article uses the oft considered inaccurate term perfect pitch throughout its text. Any reason?- Hyacinth 21:04, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Don't be fooled. Absolute (perfect) pitch and relative pitch are not the same thing. Relative pitch is when you are able to relate the pitch of one note to another (intervals). Most good musicians can do this. Absolute pitch is the ability to remember a certain pitch (eg, remembering exactly what a note sounds like or the frequency of a note). Some musicians with good knowledge and experience can do this. Perfect pitch is a little more difficult to explain, you just know what the note is without relating it to any other note or remembering what it sounds like. It's an intuitive thing. a person is born with this ability (genetic - if a parent has perfect pitch, the child if 15 times more likely to have it), or it can be environmental but it is something that cannot be taught. A person has to work it out and understand it for themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.138.204.246 ( talk • contribs) .
There is no difference between absolute and perfect pitch per se, but the term perfet pitch is misleading. For example, an absolute (perfect) pitch may not neccesarily be able to tell if a note is slightly sharp or flat, so it's not really perfect. As described in the article, perceiving slight differences in pitches and categorizing pitches into tone names are different mechanisms. Oscar Liu 22:14 Jan 26, 2008 (PCT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.39.148 ( talk) 06:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It is possible that you learned to name tones (a collection of characteristics) instead of pitches (a single characteristic of a tone). When musical contexts change-- most typically, timbre and harmony-- the perception of a tone also changes.
Perfect pitch and absolute pitch have become interchangeable terms. I suspect that "perfect pitch" is used throughout the article because it is a less clumsy term than "absolute pitch"-- it's alliterative and has a nicer rhythm.
cheers chris http://www.acousticlearning.com
The melody trigger technique is now being used (successfully) to gain absolute pitch at Prolobe.com
-Pete
I am somewhat doubtful that this is actually true. Throughout my secondary school life I've known quite a number of people who can sing whatever note you tell them to. I can too and even now in a small choir of only roughly 20 people there is also someone else who can. Although I was in Hong Kong in secondary school and in Australia now, surely even in the United States there are many more than 1 in 10,000. -- KittySaturn 09:55, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
Aspiro ( talk) 04:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I am very interested in knowing if Absolute Pitch can be learned, and more about what absolute pitch exactly means.
I have listened to some CD's from the Perfect Pitch Super Training course that claim to be able to teach absolute pitch. On their website they claim that anyone can learn Perfect Pitch, and have 2 University studies that seem to agree with them.
At the same time there are the UCSF studies, which suggests that perfect pitch is rare, and is genetic.
The links from the wikipedia article seem to have some of the same conflicting information.
This has led me to a few hypothesis of possibilities for the conflicting data.
1. The UCSF studies have not taken into account students who have learned through the perfectpitch.com courses.
2. Perfectpitch.com is misrepresenting there information or is lieing in someway. (This is not an accusation, only a possibility. It should be noted that it is also a possibility that the UCSF study could be lieing, but this is not likely, especially with other studies showing similar things)
3. There are more than one form of perfect pitch, one that is genetic and one that can be developed. In Sir James Jeans classic "The Science of Music" he discusses how the eardrum is not perfectly round and so that when you hear a note, you will also hear another note at the same time, just very slighlty. Maybe one form of absolute pitch has to do with the shape of the eardrum, and another has to do with the actual fibers in our ears that pick up tone, or maybe one is how our brains are wired to interpret the information. I'm not sure. I have not seen any studies yet that discuss the physiology, only about testing people to see if they have it or not.
This potential difference in physiological types of perfect pitch could maybe explain active vs. passive perfect pitch also.
I have emailed both perfectpitch.com and UCSF. I will post my findings. But I am also posting this to see if anyone knows of any information that might help bring resolution to this conflicting data.
Ms. Nering has in fact concluded that “Although literature has shown the powerful association between...early age and Perfect Pitch possession, this experiment has shown that by training in the Burge method, the ability can be improved and even acquired among adults...This improvement can take place in a fairly short time, as was the case in this experiment. A few with keen pitch acuity can even acquire Perfect Pitch ability in a short time.”1
“This experiment among others should lay to rest the myth about Perfect Pitch possessors being born, not made ... It is similar to learning a skill such as swimming, in that one must be exposed to it and work at it to one extent or another.”2
“Burge deserves much credit for removing a great deal of the mystery from Perfect Pitch and for making it readily available to the average musician. He does this in terms any layman can understand. By setting aside the technical discussions ... he has been able to get on with the practicalities ... devising a course capable of benefiting many.”3
“Of importance to this study is that through this method almost anyone, it seems, can acquire the ability of Perfect Pitch...”4
The Burge course has proven itself through this study and that [at Ohio State University] to be an effective means of improving pitch discrimination and even acquiring Perfect Pitch.”5
“Because of the effectiveness of the Burge Perfect Pitch technique and the apparent value of Perfect Pitch ability, it seems a reevaluation of theory course content and of methods of teaching ear training in schools, universities, and musical institutions is in order.”6
(Nering, Marguerite Elaine. A study to determine the effectiveness of the David-Lucas Burge technique for development of Perfect Pitch, The University of Calgary, 1991: 1 p. 355; 2 pp. 355-6; 3 p. 135; 4 pp. 135-6; 5 p. 133; 6 p. 357.)
Mr. Levitin, we think it is not up to you to reinterpret the research conclusions of another party. We met Ms. Nering long after her research, and we are confident that she will be appalled that you feel justified to introduce a new spin on her conclusions.
In your personal Wikipedia article, you are described as “an authority on absolute pitch.” Who has given you a reference for this claim? Were they themselves authorities on absolute pitch?
Mr. Burge has countless students who emphatically claim they have developed absolute pitch after using his method. You yourself cannot show even one student who has developed absolute pitch under your tutorship. Who then, is the expert on absolute pitch?
Academic snobbery is dreary and wearisome, and puts one out of touch with the real life experiences of people. Renowned master musicians may have no spreadsheets, but they have better than that, they have personal knowledge that differs from yours.
If you have made a study on Burge’s method, and you have meticulously followed his exacting methodology, and if you have yielded no results, then by all means, please bring such research to attention.
If, on the other hand, you have made research studies which have not used Burge’s method, and they have yielded no results, then such a study must not conclude that “absolute pitch cannot be developed”; this would be most unscientific. The only proper conclusion can be: “The ear training method we used did not work.”
You seem bent on a crusade to convince the world that absolute pitch is impossible to develop. Stephen B. Streater writes that he knows several people who have learned perfect pitch, yet you cannot resist discrediting his statement. You seem to feel that Stephen’s people developed some sort of “inferior” absolute pitch which does not meet your standards. Without any investigation, you imply that perhaps their absolute pitch skills are “slower” than people who had absolute pitch from a young age.
We can only say that you simply don’t know everything. We have seen people who have used Burge’s method who have greater absolute pitch skills than those who had absolute pitch from a young age. Indeed, Burge himself describes in his course many impossible-sounding “ear teasers for super ears” which require extremely fast and deep listening. He himself performed these feats for people, yet he declared he had zero absolute pitch skills as a starting point.
Mr. Levitin, we can certainly understand your intellectual bias. Mr. Burge had to face this when he first introduced his method in 1981. At this time there was no widely known course of instruction in absolute pitch. The first thing professors asked him was, “Do you have any research?” Well, he did not have any research back then, so Mr. Burge had to move forward with the idea, “The real proof is when you hear it for yourself.”
That was 25 years ago. Since then, while people of your kind still laboriously debate the scientific merits of the issue, others have sat amused because we hear the success stories. Musicians tell us they have not only improved their hearing skills, but many also have gained full absolute pitch skills. These people can and do actively name or sing - instantly - any tone requested or played. Mr. Burge’s students would demonstrate their newfound skills to the class when he used to do live workshops. Indeed, Burge’s methods are now being used within the ear training cirricula of hundreds of colleges, universities and music schools around the world.
What an insult to honorable musicians around the globe and to Mr. Burge himself when you dismiss the personal experiences of these musicians. And if, as you say, you cannot conduct a single research study to produce a single documented case of absolute pitch development (according to your standards), then we say with certainty that the failure is in your research and methodology. You have not truly understood the art of absolute pitch development; you are not yet a true expert in absolute pitch. You, sooner or later, like many in all fields who say, “It can’t be done,” will eventually be proved otherwise.
Your attempt to repress two universities studies on Burge’s method is insulting to Wikipedia readers who want to be informed about third party researchers who have personally tested Burge’s method. (It is due to Burge’s course that accounts for a large percentage of the people who look up “perfect pitch” on Wikipedia in the first place.) These studies were examined and approved by a distinguished faculty at distinguished universities, and they earned the researchers a Master’s and Doctoral degree. Certainly these studies are of interest to any musician who wants information on absolute pitch.
Burge was the first to tell the mass media that absolute pitch could indeed be developed. At that time, this was a revolutionary idea to many people. Today, largely due to Burge’s efforts, not only have people embraced the idea of absolute pitch development, many are now copying this idea.
For some time, a music professor at UCLA recently sold a method on eBay which he claimed worked for himself and his students.
One of Burge’s students, Graham English, called Mr. Burge’s assistant one day to say how he had heard Burge’s course, and to tell how he now has perfect pitch. He wanted to make a partnership with Burge so he could teach perfect pitch. When Burge declined, Graham developed his own course and he now has students of his own. The point is not about marketing; the POINT is: Graham did not have perfect pitch either, and now he does (it does not matter what method he used) and he is teaching it to others.
Joshua Jobst is a college music professor. He also purchased Burge’s course. Although he developed his own ideas about perfect pitch development, he ALSO gained perfect pitch, as he regularly demonstrates to his music students. He is also now selling his own ideas about the subject on eBay.
The point we make to you is this: The debate is really so silly. Others HAVE developed absolute pitch, and it has even progressed to the point where others even sell their own methodologies and gather their own students.
If you, Mr. Levitin, with all this activity, cannot produce a single documented case of absolute pitch development, then we will leave you with this:
“Time and again [experience] has proved that ‘absolute pitch’ can be acquired and developed...if not, the question may be raised whether there is any musical gift at all in a mind that cannot learn to remember and compare pitches.” Paul Hindemith, Elementary Training for Musicians. London: Schott and Co., Ltd., 1946, pp. 206, 207
And one final note:
If you should ever decide to make another scientific experiment, please know one thing. Everything is not just about science. Especially in music, it is all about the heart and human emotions.
You cannot put musicians in a laboratory and try to entice them to gain absolute pitch. It may never work for you, because the student himself has to want this. A black belt in Karate cannot be laboratory trained, he has to want it from his heart. Only then is he truly willing to listen to the instructions of the teacher and take the time and focus required to achieve the result. It is no less so in music.
Happy listening! AEMP 23:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Chris, you are an ever-unfolding flow of facts and figures; we applaud your latest additions to the article.
Our understanding is that WP guidelines do not require reputable sources to be peer-reviewed. “Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals” AND “books published by a known academic publishing house or university press.” The references we posted are from well known university presses which are promoted under WP guidelines.
As a compromise, we have added back the statement,
“A study at the University of Calgary showed statistically significant improvements in absolute pitch skills among students using an ear training method by David Lucas Burge.”
This statement is a fact which is quoted from a reliable published source. This statement is neutral and does not claim anything more than “statistically significant improvements.” Moreover, due to the widespread, knowledge, use and popularity of the Burge course, this statement is of immense interest to readers of this article.
Mr. Levitin’s objections to Nering’s work are not relevant to WP. Our understanding is that WP forbids inclusions of opinions, for or against, information from a reliable published source.
If Mr. Levitin finds fault specifically with Ms. Nering’s work, he could prepare a rebuttal which demonstrates the flaws in her procedures or conclusions. He might then publish such rebuttal in a reliable source. Only comments refuting Ms. Nering’s study directly from a reliable published source may then be cited in WP.
Secondly, a commercial product can also have educational value and must not be disqualified or receive secondary treatment on the basis of being commercial.
Lastly, the quotes from Hindemith and Kodály are highly relevant to this section. We insist there is no need to obfuscate these quotes in the reference area such that readers will have great difficulty procuring these sources to read the quotes. Hindemith and Kodály are regarded as world class experts in music education, and therefore their opinions and experiences on the topic are highly valuable, credible, and desirable. Readers of this article will enjoy these quotes, therefore we have added them back. AEMP 18:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Chris: We will contact Ms. Nering for her view of this issue. Yes, we have read her work, and we will encourage her to publish her complete study online.
Regarding the quotes, WP does encourage opinions -- yes opinions, read the guidelines -- of world class experts when they are referenced from reliable sources. The quotes we posted are highly significant and of high interest to this article. Therefore, we have added them back. Please do not remove them again unless you cite a different reason, or unless many others also agree to delete them. Thanks. AEMP 19:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Chris. Yes, if after consideration you feel the info useful to readers, please do cite the opposing views of the others you mentioned. WP encourages views from all sides and it makes for a richer and more colorful article. Yes, we do support you in your thinking. AEMP 21:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It is a shame that this article does not wish to mention David Lucas Burge in a positive light, that the link was deleted to his article "Perfect Pitch - A Gift or An Achievement?" published in Suzuki World, and that the article on David Lucas Burge has been deleted. When it comes to "perfect pitch" and "absolute pitch," there is no other name in the world who is more recognized than David Lucas Burge and his Perfect Pitch® Ear Training SuperCourse, and all interested editors already know this. His methods are being used at hundreds of colleges and universities around the world by teachers with PhD's. We feel this certainly qualifies as "notable."
However, our apologies go to Mr. Levitin. You are correct, we cannot provide the "peer-reviewed" research as you requested. Yet we find that neither can many, many other articles throughout Wikipedia. If everything had to go through "peer review" published research, we do not think you would have much of a Wikipedia at all for many, many articles.
Our world is not one of laboratories and algorithms. Ours is the interaction with real people who live in the real world. We are sorry that our experiences do not meet your stringent requirements, but we now do understand why you feel the need to uphold certain scientific standards.
Since we feel unsupported by the Wikipedia editors in this subject area, we will now take our leave.
We do wish you all the very best. AEMP 18:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
We have deleted this statement because it is completely unscientific and shows individual bias:
"However, despite reports of improved tone-identification skills, no training method for adults has yet produced abilities comparable to naturally-occurring absolute pitch [2]."
The reason is: Has the cited researcher done peer-reviewed scientifically controlled studies on ALL absolute pitch ear training methods?? We think not. Then how can they say that "no training method for adults has yet produced..." anything? They cannot comment at all on methods they have not fully and meticulously studied, this is absurd.
Perhaps such a researcher could possibly state that "However, despite reports of improved tone-identification skills, there is not yet any peer-reviewed scientifically accepted literature to show any ear training method to result in absolute pitch skills similar to naturally-occurring absolute pitch." But to pronounce a conclusion on all methods (as if the limited body of peer-reviewed research is conclusive for all methods) is way overstepping the scientific method.
Is this really your idea of peer-reviewed science?? Hopefully not, because we think it's pretty silly. AEMP 00:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Chris: Thank you for your acknowledgement. We feel the statement requires one further improvement if it is to be used at all.
When citing: “However, despite reports of improved tone-identification skills, no training method for adults has yet been shown to produce abilities comparable to naturally-occurring absolute pitch,” one assumes that the reader is a scientist, and that the word “shown” means acceptable peer-reviewed research. Of course, the average WP reader is not a scientist and will not read it this way.
There are certainly many ways to “show” something, many of which have nothing to do with scientific research. Many people have shown that the Burge method has produced superior absolute pitch skills (faster and more stable) than those who had absolute pitch “from birth.” (Indeed, many people who have absolute pitch “from birth” do not have a strong sense of it, but that is another discussion.) Though personal anecdotes from musicians do not qualify as peer-reviewed or acceptable to the scientific community, nevertheless such experiences are a fact to those who have them. Therefore, if this statement is to be used, it should clearly indicate that peer-reviewed research is what is meant by the word “shown.” We have adjusted the sentence accordingly, and hope you will concur.
Prominent Musicians
Further, we have moved the “opinions” of prominent musicians back to this area, because they belong here. These “opinions” directly relate to the discussion at hand. It is not prudent to relegate these statements to the back of the bus on the basis that they are “opinions.” WP invites and encourages the citation of opinions whenever and wherever they come from a globally esteemed, recognized, and reputed source.
It is not necessary to downplay these statements by advising the reader with a bold heading that these are merely “Musical Opinion.” (This seems indicative of an editor's personal bias.) Hindemith and Kodály are world renowned scholars, educators, and musicians. Their statements stand on their own merit, and their statements do not require disclaimers. Their “opinions” are much more than opinions; they are ideas which carry the weight of their scholarly insights, their famed careers, and their personal experiences. These statements have far more value to many readers than any scientific citation in the article, simply on the basis of the reputations of those who said them.
For similar reasons, we have deleted the quote from Ron Gorow, who is non-notable and not worthy of inclusion in this article. We think that people will agree that his status does not begin to compare with that of a Hindemith or a Kodály quoted in the same paragraph. Frankly, we have never heard of Ron Gorow, and neither has the majority of the rest of the world. Ron Gorow is selling his own commercial methodology at RonGorow.com, and we do not condone an advertisement for either his name or his ideas. If we should choose to open the article to the likes of a Ron Gorow, then we would also expect equal recognition from the opposite perspective using quotes from David Lucas Burge, who is unquestionably more known and influential in this subject throughout the world.
Thanks for reading. 71.202.121.160 19:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm just going to put this at the bottom because I can't find a specific place it fits in, but wouldn't all the claims of "no method has yet produced in adults perfect pitch similar to that occurring naturally in spontaneous cases" be sort of like saying "no method of teaching Chinese to an adult English speaker has produced abilities equivalent to those of a native speaker?" it just seems to me that that sort of statement is useless. most people are only after "close enough" anyway, whether it be language or "perfect" pitch. We have such a thing as near-native status in language, so why can't we have such a thing as "near-absolute pitch?" If it's on target 95% of the time, that's good enough. Languages disappear when you stop studying them too, as many of us are aware. It seems common sense that you're not going to get abilities like "born-withs" if you start attempting to acquire perfect pitch, but I don't know why there's all the zealotry saying that makes the effort worthless. Granted, this does exist in the world of language learning too, but mostly on the student side. "I'll never be as good as a native speaker, so why bother?" My 10 cents. I think the paradigm needs to shift into potentially viewing "native speaker" vs. "Foreign learner" as being different but related things when talking about many psychological traits, this one included. -Scott
As is true of foreign language.
Wow. This is a controversy. I think that methods of training for absolute pitch may assist with pitch memory, but do not aid in the development of the "genetic" form of absolute pitch. Those who acquire pitch memory may develop many of the same talents as those who were born with the gene, but it will probably fade with time if it is not constantly used and practiced.
Anyone who claims to have developed "full" absolute pitch throughout training and can prove it probably was born with the gene in the first place and the training only "shed light" on the talent that was already there. I would suggest that all musicians attempt the training courses, but if "perfect" pitch does not develop, it was not in the genetic code.
I would also suggest that all musicians take the test at the UCSF website. Even if the results are negative, you will have helped them in their study of perfect pitch development! Aripitch 13:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Aripitch
I always wonder if voice part had anything to do with number of occurances of absolute pitch. In my exprience, I come across people with absolute pitch on the lower voices ( Bass,alto, baritone, mezzo) more often.
Krozo 16:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is sufficient scientific evidence yet that this can be learned as an adult, although I personally believe it can, because I have been doing Burge's program, and eventually, you begin to develop a sort of familiarity with the notes, in that they each have a different "feel", though I cannot yet relaibly tell the difference.
However, I think we also need to address the issue of whether there is any proof that genitics is a large factor. Does anyone have any proof? There is no proof on the UCSF website that I could find. They have shown that it is a discrete ability, but this does not prove that it is genetic. Has anyone actually worked out a correlation based on genetics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregcaletta ( talk • contribs) 12:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I found this: http://news.ucsf.edu/releases/perfect-pitch-study-offers-window-into-influences-of-nature-and-nurture/
Gregcaletta ( talk) 12:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Most of the content in the "Definition" section seems to be less about describing absolute pitch and more about the author(s) passing the ability as an unnecessary annoyance. The author seems a tad envious of the ability and appears to be, "playing it down", so to speak.
For example, while a musician with absolute pitch might feel "off" if a piece is not exactly tuned properly, it is not a constant annoyance. That's like saying a bicyclist will continiously feel uncomfortable if he or she rides a new bike--obviously it will be distracting for a while, but the cyclist can (usually) quickly become adjusted to it.
A revision would be helpful.
Im a Trumpet player with AP and i've encountered a dilema. I started playing on piano since i was 5 years old and at age 10 I also started learing trumpet, but Trumpet is In B flat so i had to Transpose till i got used to it and now when i hear trumpet i hear it in B flat, but when i hear Piano I hear it in C. The tricky part is when i have to improvise to piano chords for example, so while listening to piano chords i have to make myself hear it in B to be able to improvise without mistakes. Also i've noticed that I hear other instruments that sound like trumpet (trombone, french horn, saxophone, clarnet...) in B. Strings, Guitars in C. Cant explain it thats just how it is :) So you might understand that Absolute hearing can be altered in different ways if learned in few pitches for example. The dilema is: was that a mistake to learn Trumpet in B? Maybe i should have learned it in C instead ( i know someone with AP who did that ). Maybe i should continue to learn it in C from now on? I have some hope that i will find an answer to those questions, maybe you can answer them? Would be glad to hear your oppinion please write me an e-mail: 6squall9@gmail.com Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrumpetPlayerWithAP ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
JS Bach is noted here as having absolute pitch, but this may be speculative. A reference should be provided. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shawnc ( talk • contribs) 08:18, 12 October 2005.
The part in the article about absolute pitch being more common among native speakers of Asian languages sounds pretty bogus. What's the basis for this, just Diana Deutsch of UCSD? She seems to have a lopsided understanding of how Asian languages work.-- 69.20.170.196 05:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm probably formatting this very poorly (someone can correct it for me, I hope), but let me throw in a little bit... the statistics do show that Asian-language speakers overwhelmingly have greater incidence of AP than Western-- 85% (or higher) versus 15% (or lower) in any given population of musicians. Diana Deutsch believes that there is a linguistic correlation; Jane Gitschier believes there is a genetic correlation. Deutsch has told me that she has data (unpublished) which shows that certain Asian children raised in the US have absolute pitch at the same rate as those raised in the original context, but I believe that the most likely factor is a vastly different attitude toward musical training and a very different approach that is culturally pervasive (as East vs West). -Chris Aruffo
I find this pretty suspect too. I speak Mandarin (non-native), and aside from the A burned into my head from years of uninspired school orchestra, have nothing resembling Absolute pitch. I think that speaking words within a semitone on separate occasions does not qualify as absolute pitch. I bet if you asked someone to say "dog" on three different days, you'd get similar results in English. Even if this is not true, "flat tones" impose certain limitations on a person's choice of register when speaking. All this about "Asians" and their perfect pitch has really gotten media attention. There need to at least do some studies on "Asians" who didn't study music, as well as Yoruba speakers who both did and didn't. I will find some convincing evidence if Tonal Language speakers more easily acquire perfect pitch after the age of thirteen, or tonal language speakers who play their instruments slightly less well than those in the Central Conservatory of a country with 1 billion plus people (many of whom are mired in poverty, making musical training in their youth impractical at best) show a markedly higher incidence of perfect pitch than non professional musicians in a "Western" context. Comparing the best of 1.3 billion to the best of 300 million is a little different. I'm not saying it should be 4 times as high, but that it's probably harder to get into a Beijing conservatory than an American one. At best, it's a dramatically different sample until I see evidence otherwise. I see a couple of linguists beat me to some of this, but I still had minor caveats. -scott (will finally create an account soon after wasting so much time reading this damn site (curses, wonderful curses!)
I can identify the white notes with absolute accuracy, but can't identify specific sharps and flats (but when a sharp or flat is played I do know that it is indeed not a white key). Anyone else? 71.131.29.225 23:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Same thing to me, especially when I took the study from the University of california.That test was brutal because it gave you 3 seconds to answer. it takes me 10! Krozo 13:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the list of people with absolute pitch is beginning to overwhelm the article here. What say we split it off into a list... and then go seek out or otherwise demand references for everyone on it so it doesn't become a big unverifiable mess? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, here's another thought. Instead of having the other page, why don't we create a category for people with absolute pitch, and add it to the bio pages of these people? That way the list would be maintained automatically, and we'd have a link to it from every appropriate bio page. Anyone think this is a good idea? Rainwarrior 17:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Stefan h, I had checked this site before. What is a bit uncommon is that the summary text is aimed at experts and non-experts. But the two papers he published in ARLO do exist. ARLO is the online branch of JASA, both being peer-reviewed and leading journals in this field. I also checked if this work is referenced by others (I have an interest in AP myself). It is. See recent review article on the subject (refs 63 & 64). So, no danger. We can keep that in. Interesting material, this. DiMare 17:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The list linked from here was deleted. I kind of agree with the deletion, but if I had known it was coming, I would have grabbed the list and pasted it here so we could start work on making it a category instead, and begin inserting the category into pages on the list. - Rainwarrior 04:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
It is/was as follows ( Hyacinth 07:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)):
This is a list of people possessing absolute pitch.
Fictional characters:
See Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of people with absolute pitch. Hyacinth 07:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Add Nicolas Slonimsky (2002): "It was discovered early in my life that I possessed the precious gift of perfect pitch...". Slonimsky: Perfect Pitch, an Autobiography, p.4. ISBN 0825672740. Hyacinth 07:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
What I like about the category method is that the list is automatically maintained, and we don't have to worry about notability. I was thinking though, if we are worried about citations, where do they go? Should we put them on the category page, or the bio pages? - Rainwarrior 16:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay I've finished adding everyone on the list (including Slonimsky), but not Hendrix as there was no citation, apparently, or Liew Koon Ern, since he was a redlink anyway, maybe not notable? I'm not sure what to do with the fictional characters. Is there a way to force the way the name appears on the category page? I tried on The Simpsons to put the category as "|Largo (Fictional), Mr." but the category page just links it as "The Simpsons". - Rainwarrior 17:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed a lot of links coming in and out to the same sites over and over again. Can we clarify what is worth putting on the page here instead of having this constant battle? Do we want a comprehensive list of all perfect-pitch training programs that have websites, or do we want none of them? - Rainwarrior 05:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Grahamenglish: If you've got information to add to the absolute pitch page, please add it, but continually readding a link to your own site is going to be seen as spamming. See WP:EL#Links to normally avoid: "9. A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.", and "10. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard." - Rainwarrior 03:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
-- Regarding External Links: Deleted the following links for the following reasons:
Music108 19:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who had added an entry to that list, would you go to Category:People with absolute pitch and add a citation for entries which were yours on the original page? Questions about sources have been pouring in on its talk page. - 17:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
It says that there are several Japanese speakers who are perfect pitched. My question is who the heck cares? There are I'm sure a speaker of language X who is perfect pitched. And then it goes on to say that Japanese is a pitch accent language. So what? Maybe someone should mention Ancient Greek and Sanskrit too. Japanese is hardly a tonal language and basically it is irrelevant to the paragraph. I'm going to remove this if no one objects. 24.168.151.153 20:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
From the "Potential problems" section:
What is Harris 1974? -- zenohockey 01:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The incomplete sentences in the opening paragraph (starting with Or... and But...) are really grating.-- 24.126.46.138 06:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there a test you can take or something?
Actually, there is a test that is sponsored by the University of California in San Francisco. I took it, and it confirmed it for me!
Aripitch 22:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Aripitch
Listen to somebody play some notes or chords on the piano and if you can discern them without looking at the keys, then you have perfect pitch. -- Svm2 14:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Outriggr was correct to restore the section on "Musical Opinion". I had deleted the entire section rather rashly, when really it's just the new spam-addition that needed to go. I know there's a Wikipedia policy against creating bogus usernames or enlisting your friends to write positive things about you (I just don't have the link handy) so when this stuff pops up again it should be again deleted.
I was inclined to delete the entire section because of my initial opinion of the quotes (noted previously)-- I wouldn't think it important whether or not anyone "believes" it can be learned-- but I checked with a person I know and didn't let on what my preferred answer was, and they told me they thought it was useful to know how strongly polarized musical opnion of absolute-pitch ability is. aruffo 06:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I have yet to take it, it is pretty interesting. The link is actually sitting in my hotmail, but I have been so busy working and practicing piano ( along with voice)! How ironic?
63.116.110.238
18:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to propose adding a link to the bibliography I've compiled for absolute pitch research (I've mentioned it before), which I believe is the most comprehensive resource of its kind. I've put a few years' work into the bibliography and I think it's a worthy scientific resource-- furthermore, that bibliography page does not have, never has had, and never will have a "buy my product" message or link on it anywhere. Still, with the recent brouhaha about self-aggrandizement I'd rather not add a link to my own site without any discussion.
Further, it occurs to me that perhaps this article should include a list (with links) to the scientists currently conducting research in absolute pitch-- at least Levitin, Deutsch, Zatorre, Trehub, Saffran, Gitschier, and Miyazaki, if not Patterson, Gandour, Griffiths, and others working on general pitch perception. Thoughts? aruffo 22:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
This has appeared in the "scientific studies" section, without any reference to a scientific study. Quite frankly I doubt much of its information about those with absolute pitch. What does it mean if someone "cannot tolerate" slight differences in pitch, and slight differences from what? - Rainwarrior 08:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I just deleted the section as written, because I agree with you guys that it has nothing to do with absolute pitch. However, I think I can suggest a topic to put in its place, which will be appropriate to "scientific study"-- the subject of pitch judgment as spectral vs categorical. That is: according to the research, absolute listeners apparently judge a tone based on its category, and are as indifferent to small variations as any of us would be to small variations in a vowel (such as the letter "a" spoken by different people). The categorical boundaries tend to vary, which leads to certain listeners being more sensitive to small changes than others. I have the research to back this up, so I'll add it in next week as at least a brief comment. aruffo 05:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
There we go.. just added a section which I hope adequately speaks to this issue. aruffo 08:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Gary. Stop trying to manipulate this article to sell your product. aruffo 19:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
(The prior NvN section has become ungainly. Still, this is a continuation of the topic, and if someone wants to move these paragraphs up there instead, feel free.)
The Hindemith and Kodaly quotes are clearly a violation of WP:NPOV and, by themselves, would merit deletion. The inclusion of Gorow's contrasting opinion nullifies the violation by transforming the issue not into a glorification of absolute pitch, but a representation of the fact that there is debate about the musical value of absolute pitch skill, which in turn necessitates the "Musical Opinion" section heading. I've added a sentence to make that point clearer and further reinforce NPOV. aruffo 16:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand, how is possible that only 52 people (mentioned in that list above) have ablolute pitch?! I mean, nobody else owns it? -- Aeternus 20:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I can reproduce any tone/chord from memory on the piano (or vioce), and hear it clearly in my head as if I'm hearing the song...BUT I am completely untrained in music, and I never associated note names with tones...so I can't say what note name it is automatically, without possibily comparing it to the few of the songs I have memorized that I know which key its in (I can't always do this correctly). Is this perfect pitch? -- 67.183.132.49 12:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to do a test - if you are ever near a keyboard, play a note (one you can find again on the keyboard) and try to remember the pitch. If you can come back the next day, sing the pitch again and check it's the same as on the keyboard, then that's probably absolute pitch. Helen-Eva 09:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
See I can do what you are saying as far as the testing you just explain but I am a bit confused. When I took the University of San Francisco test, it told me I had an unsufficient score to have absolute pitch...here's the problem: When I took the series test, it only gave me 4 or 5 ( approx) seconds to recognize before the next on played. It takes me 10(white notes) tp 15( black notes) to do that and I can tell if they are out of tune from A440 and 442. So am I considered to have perfect pitch or borderline perfect pitch going towards relative pitch?
Krozo 20:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
From the article:
1. It is unclear what the word "necessary" means in the first sentence.
2. Given that perhaps one in 2,000 people possesses perfect pitch, the fact that four extremely famous musical geniuses with perfect pitch can be named at all suggests that there is a correlation, and a strong one at that. With no correlation one would on average need a list of 8,000 musicians of the calibre of Mozart, Liszt, Chopin and Beethoven etc. in order to be able to find just four with perfect pitch.
Matt 00:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC).
I have come across some people with AP during my life. From what I have observed there is no connection between AP and musical genious. And the degree of talent is variable. None of the AP`s I know are unusualy gifted in any way. When it comes to musical creativity/composition they all lack the ability. Two examples. My former pianoteatcher has AP. The closest she gets to beeing a composer is writing simplistic songs with a few chords and a melody. I know lots of pianists without AP that are better at playing than she is. A girl in my class had AP too. She was unable to create music of her own. In arranging/composition class me and a lot of people without AP got of _much_ better than she did. She was the only pupil with AP on our school, and was far from the most gifted. Some others I know with AP are good musicians, but not composers.
Some famous composers/musicians had AP but I have no reason to belive they where brilliant because of it. There is a lot more to beeing a musical genious than possessing AP or even a good relative pitch. If you could remove the AP from the composers listed in the article I think they would still be just as good at writing music. I have a better relative pitch than most people I know. This comes from training mostly. The interessting thing is that as I got better at analysing what I hear I did not get better as a composer. When it comes to writing music (It seems to me) there is another mechanism beeing used than when analysing, transcribing or playing music.
I dont have AP but I have good memory. When I hear a song in my head it is mostly in the right key. Example, I have a Bartok song in my head that I know starts at A. If I can hear it inside my head I can use it to sing A and further use relative pitch to find other notes. I`m not always able to recall songs that clearly, but most of the times I bottered to check I was right. This memory can last for a long time. Most songs seem to become foggy after 2-3 months without listening to them. I can also hear if a song is played at the "wrong" key in most cases. Sometimes (rarly) I can notice that a song is played with another mastertuning than 440. Identifying a note I hear is very hard, and I can`t use this method to do so. Identidying what key a song is played at is easyer. I can do this sometimes. Anyway, this memory thing gives me some of the ability of AP and i find it 100% useless. Can anyone explain to me how singing a note on demand will make me a better composer please? This article had some good points and healthy critical aspects that are gone now. I think they should be put back because it is a fact that AP is not the elitistic ability many belive it is.
I had to do this in a short time, so sorry for the bad english and typoz..:).
In my lifetime, I've met five people with AP. Out of those five, one is extremely talented in every aspect of music, one is moderately talented, one is mediocre, and the other two are the average musician. For the two that are average, AP only serves as a parlor trick that is performed for their friends' amazement.
I hope that someone will acknowledge the fact that people who have AP sometimes have difficulty sight-reading. I think that this occurs because it is so easy to play something "by ear" that we almost never have to sight-read!
Aripitch 22:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Aripitch
1 in 2000????? In my elementary school my division had 72 people, and I know 16 of them have perfect pitch, I am one of them. I went to a normal public school without any entrance tests whatsoever. I seriously doubt if that 1/2000 is anywhere near accurate. (I am Chinese, but I doubt tonal language gives so much of a boost as 16/72=444/2000. Our music teacher at school test the class very frequently on naming pitches, and that's how I knew my classmates and I have it) Oscar Liu Jan 26, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.39.148 ( talk) 06:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
<Comment Removed Due to Advertising>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.67.77.153 ( talk) 20:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
I apologize. I was not trying to be a sock puppet, and after you mentioned the fact I realized my statement unintentionally came out looking like an advertisment. I was simply trying to make the argument that one can learn all these skills in adulthood which rival those of an natural perfect pitch possessor. And in response to the statements regarding speed recognition, I've met people who were born with PP who couldn't name notes as fast as me and some who could do it much faster, it all depends on the individual. I have also removed my previous reply of "sock puppetry" and apologize as that wasn't my intention. I just feel very strongly that PP can be learnt as an adult to rival that of a natural. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.67.77.153 ( talk) 17:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
I just performed a reversion on the article because the last editor's changes seemed to be an obfuscation, not a clarification. I read and re-read the editor's changes versus the previous version to be sure of what I was reading, and I also scoured Braun & Chaloupka (2005) and couldn't find any meaningful support for the claim which the editor attributed to that paper. The Wiki article section was written to make a case for absolute pitch as a cognitive process; the fact that the cognitive process is being performed on sensory input may be important, but the section already acknowledged the need for a memory image of pitch. Ross, Gore, and Marks (2005) provide support for the probability that absolute memory encoding is symbolic rather than sensory, and Braun & Chaloupka's evidence does not contradict this assertion. aruffo 18:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Surely, AP also is a “labeling phenomenon”. But the labels must be attached to something. And here we have a wealth of evidence. I only referenced a small part of it. The following further information may be of some use for the editors of this article:
1) Almost all APers that were tested showed the mentioned pattern of strong and weak notes. The issue was tested numerous times by Miyazaki, resulting in three papers, and also by Takeuchi and Hulse (1991), using quite different methods, The latter found a significant bias in 15 of 17 subjects in one of their tests.
2) The carbamazepine-induced pitch shift has repeatedly been reported since 1992, and the number of tested APers is much higher than two. Further, no case of a negative test has so far been reported.
3) The AP literature reports several cases of age-related AP shift.
4) It is well known, though not yet studied systematically, that some musicians have a “motor memory” of AP. These persons cannot identify a tone by naming it, but their hands put the fingers on their instruments, like a robot, to produce this tone.
Each of these items presents further empirical evidence for the existence of a sensory, precognitive memory of pitch. It appears to be this memory that tone labels are attached to in some cases, and are not attached to in most cases. DiMare 18:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
If there's someone reading this who knows how to archive talk pages, could you archive this page? Otherwise I'll look at WP:MOVE at some point and see if I can figure it out... aruffo 19:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I found 11 papers about the carbamazepine pitch shift (between 1994-2006). The final one, from last year, gave available details about the pitch shift of 26 known cases-- most were a semitone low, and others lower, and still others were higher. I took the statement about the drug out of the main article here because the 2006 article acknowledged that the drug's specific effect which causes this shift is unknown: "The mechanism of pitch-perception deficit associated with carbamazepine is uncertain, and may range from subtle changes in complex brain functions [6,8,11,18] to changes in the mechanical properties of the organ of Corti [3,7]. From a pharmacologic perspective, carbamazepine inhibits nerve activity [20]. Although not included in the present report, a 10-year-old female with epilepsy reported feeling rhythms, such as in music, faster than they really were, for a few hours after taking carbamazepine. This fact may let us suppose that carbamazepine may act on the central nervous system. Further studies are necessary to elucidate the mechanisms." aruffo 08:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I know that it's generally Wikipedial etiquette to add the "facts" tag to an unverified statement before opting for deletion. I'm reverting the comment about sight reading because I am reasonably certain that there are no studies anywhere which have addressed to any significant degree the issue of sight-reading skills in the population of absolute musicians-- which means if there were any evidence, that "evidence" is most likely anecdotal or hearsay, and therefore a call for citations would be pointless. In other words, it doesn't make sense to add a facts tag to a statement which can be neither supported nor verified by available scientific literature. aruffo 18:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
There are some things surrounding the theory of AP development that can only be acknowledged or described by those who have experienced them and are not otherwise verifiable.
Wiki should allow users to create a "Experiences with AP" page that would allow users who possess AP to talk about their unique experiences and compare them without being judged.
Aripitch 22:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Aripitch
Since it seems that many of us (absolute pitch possessors) have not met many other with absolute pitch, I think that we should create a listing with our user names and brief experiences about how we learned of our "gift."
Aripitch 13:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Aripitch
"Y'might" want to find one that is actually currently in use or contains recent conversation instead of ancient debates! Aripitch 22:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Aripitch
Once one factors in the time element there is no valid Nurture argument. It took me less than a week (as a preschool six year old) to memorize the names of the notes on a piano keyboard, (including the octaves.) and be able to name them upon hearing them. To suggest that this ability can be matched with the help of hours upon hours of study misses the point. A natural does not need to do anything other than memorize the names of the notes on any instrument tuned to 440 and almost like magic they (we) are able to tell what note is being played.
As for the idea that age plays a significant role in the onset of absolute pitch I can only attest to the fact that I have discovered it in adults who could not read music. Again once they memorized A keyboard tuned to 440 they were able to name them without seeing them being played. Time is therefor at the essence. Thegreatjefftaylor 12:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely have absolute pitch. I had a lot of trouble using a guitar capo at 1st. Playing a C chord formation (for example) and hearing an F chord instead was very disconcerting indeed. So I learned to think in terms of formation as opposed to anticipated sound and voila it worked like a wage slave on a week day. Jscotttaylor 12:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Has anybody else with absolute pitch noticed that some musical recordings are tuned to the 440 standard and others aren't ?? This only seems to be the case when there are no keyboards in the recording. Out of tune pianos notwithstanding.
In my exprience with piano tuners, I have notice that with digital tunning, 440 always is either a few semitones flat or sharp. Why is that? I preferably like piano tuners who do not use digital because their accuracy towards the pitch is greater ( my tuner is on the dot). Have you exprience this? Krozo 20:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Accompanist Gerald Moore said that he had had absolute pitch and then lost it. Does anyone know of any other cases? Kostaki mou 04:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
There have been so many misconceptions about absolute pitch over the years that I would love to ask Mr Moore what he met by perfect pitch. If he met that he lost his ability to remember 440 A in spite of being exposed to it and mostly it on a daily basis then he probably did in fact lose it. I thought I was losing mine there for a while but then I asked the question listed just above this one and realized that I still have it. Albion moonlight 06:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I have reasonable suspicion to believe that perfect pitch could theoretically be lost. From what I can understand in my scenario, I am an "active" perfect pitch possessor, I can sing any note whenever, and I can recognize any note sans reference. I was early in my life diagnosed as having "autistic tendencies", so I had autism, but a very mild case at that. Circumstances played in my favor, and now, I am in high school, and if you ever met me, you would never believe I was autistic. But back to the point; from research I had done, perfect pitch could be thought of as a form of eidetic memory, something that can be remembered in great detail. If this is assumed, and adults supposedly lose this "eidetic memory" as they age, then yes, perfect pitch could be lost, which I absolutely despair the thought of. Under the basis that autistic brains in contrast to "neurotypical" brains (non-autistic) are structured differently, the functions of the autistic brain would sustain the eidetic memory. However, if recovery took place, and the autistic brain were to develop into a more neurotypical design, the eidetic memory could be obscured by normal-functioning intelligence, and perfect pitch would disappear, while in a simultaneous blunder, social interactions, motor skills, and communication skills would improve. My brain seems to have made that recovery, but I still have perfect pitch, and I can still name notes and sing them on a dime. So this is a very difficult question to answer, unless we knew somebody of age who actually had and lost it right here to discuss it. All that can be really thought of concerning the question until then is pure speculation. The only other real thing that could make you lose it is amusia, if you got in some terrible accident and suffered brain damage.
~Sot1006
In the article, it compares recognizing sound frequencies with recognizing blue (as light of a certain frequency). I'm ambivalent about that comparison. The ear really works as a spectrum analyser, i.e. it hears frequencies. So perfect pitch is simply a form of memory, attaching a name to a given sensory stimulus. I guess the same can be said for recognizing colors, but in that case there is more "brain analysis" involved. The eye only detects 3 ranges of frequencies (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell ) and then interprets the mix and creates imaginary colors that we consciously "see". So yes both are a form of memory of sensory input, but the ear is much more direct.
And my grain of salt on whether or not you can train it is that you can: it's just memory, so practice! I used to have a quite dependable active perfect pitch when I was studying music some years ago. Now I'm in sciences and it's not as precise anymore, but I'm sure with a little practice it would come back. Moo 00:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind too that the entire range of visible light wavelengths is less than one octave. From deepest red to remotest violet is only about a major sixth, while people normally can hear frequencies over 8 octaves. So for me the analogy breaks down quickly. MJ 06:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark R Johnson ( talk • contribs)
As a two-year contributor to Wikipedia, I feel compelled to speak to the OUTSTANDING quality of this article. I just heard a weekly psychology NPR radio programme, "The Infinite Mind", in which Perfect Pitch was discussed for one hour. After the discussion between musicians and scientists, I found very little which had not been well-covered in the Wiki article.-- W8IMP 11:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The wiki page does not refer to any online absolute pitch test anymore. I think such a link offers an added value here : most people interesting in this page are also interested in testing if they have perfect pitch. I suggested the following link, but it was removed right after submission:
http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_abspitch.php
This page blind tests the absolute pitch hearing and it's a non commercial page.
Any comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.29.154 ( talk) 06:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Some people can tell if a piano note is G# or A. Some people can tell if an orchestra note is G# or Ab. A few others can tell you if it matters or not and you will understand. Hopefully they will post on wikipedia. Pnoric ( talk) 23:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
pnoric www.pnotec.com
I have absolute perfect pitch. How would you suggest explaining the difference between G# and Ab (and more)understandably? Usually, when explained, it sounds odd and picky, sometimes perenoid... OnFire4Jesus ( talk) 8:13, 21 March 2008 (EST)
That's exactly what I mean. OnFire4Jesus (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2008 (EST)
Speaking from the point of view of someone who did not have the priviledge of a music education but who hears every note that is off pitch, every key change, knows every starting pitch and who can sing back to you the sounds from any air conditioner/engine/alarm clock/phone/bell etc.and who can sing by memory,in pitch and who has trouble singing around anything or anyone that is not in what is in "pitch" to my ear, I do have one opinion on this issue.
We can all settle on our minds around the fact that absolute pitch is a natural occurring ability and we all know that notes are frequencies that occur in our natural world. Note names were given by man for those frequencies. AP should be judged in terms of reproduction of the frequency by the individual not so much the labeling with note names. So that it would not be enough to say that it is a "G" or "A" but can the person reproduce the tone either singing or on an instrument. Reproduction of tones in singing being the true manifestation of the ability as this would not allow the person to memorize position of the note on the instrument , but would have to pull it out of their grey matter from whatever corner it is in. -- Asileg ( talk) 22:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason not to change "External Links" back to "Current Research"? Leaving the section title as "External Links" seems to invite randomness. Although a video of absolute pitch ability demonstrated might be interesting, there are arguments to be made-- about what aspect of the ability should be presented (musical competence, note naming, improvisation, development over time), how rigorous the demonstration should be (a faked demonstration could be easily staged), what value the demonstration contributes toward an encyclopedic understanding of the ability (that a verbal description doesn't already accomplish), and probably other issues as well. aruffo ( talk) 22:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
It is not determined that absolute listeners are making a judgment influenced by octave circularity. Although the fact of absolute listeners' octave errors is suggestive, I don't think anyone's done a study on absolute listeners' octave circularity as yet. aruffo ( talk) 13:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
1) Korpell (1965) used artificial lab sounds that are potentially ambiguous both re height and re chroma. Further, this ambiguity applies equally for APers and non-APers. The outcome of such experiments depends on objective (stimulus) and subjective (experience) variables. Most importantly in this context, such experiments reveal no information on the “mechanism” (!) of chroma.
2) Octave circularity of pitch is a general trait of the mammalian auditory system. It is not restricted to human APers. But the specific abilities of human APers are restricted to octave circularity and have nothing to do with the normal abilities concerning one-dimensional pitch height.
3) Almost all material on the internet is self-published. That’s what the internet is all about. Clearly, most of this material is not appropriate as a reliable source for Wikipedia. But there is an important exception, which is explicitly stated in the Wikipedia rules: “Self-published sources …. may be used …. when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.” This rule applies here, because Braun is an established expert on pitch, absolute pitch, and the octave, and his work in these fields has previously been published by peer-reviewed scientific journals.
4) There were several problems in your last edits. (a) The addition “precisely” is misleading, because AP is not related to pitch height at all. (b) The source Takeuchi & Hulse (1993) contains a specific chapter called “Octave Errors” (pp. 349-350) and needs to be referenced accordingly. (c) The issue of octave errors in APers is a recurring one throughout the history of AP research. It is the key observation proving that AP is restricted to chroma. This needs to be made clear in the article.
5) What about leaving my edits as they are, until better ones are found?
DiMare ( talk) 13:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
We definitely made some improvement to the article, and that's good.. I was looking at that last revision, trying to make sense of it, trying to figure out why it should be either left alone or modified and not reverted, and I just don't understand. I've never before seen the term "pitch-relevant" used in this context, and I don't understand how it's meant to apply. Following that, it is a direct contradiction to simultaneously describe absolute pitch as unrelated to height and as dependent upon a two-dimensional scale whose second dimension is height. A dimension is, definitively, a range to which real numbers (i.e., sequential labels) can be assigned. A two-dimensional figure is a line, not a point. A single value is a point, not a line. aruffo ( talk) 23:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
To prevent the same BS from occurring over and over again, and because Aruffo has failed to disclose it himself, I am adding this section specially dedicated to disclosing Aruffo's conflict of interest. Editor aruffo is the owner of this ear training sites http://www.aruffo.com/eartraining/ , http://www.wehearandplay.com/taneda/index.htm , http://www.acousticlearning.com/ . He has failed to disclose this in any of the prior conversations. He sells several products related to ear training and perfect pitch likely even making his living from it; "The Ear Training Companion", "We hear to play", "The Fletcher Music Method" and the "Relative pitch monster course" http://www.aruffo.com/eartraining/monster/ . His main editing involvement has been to deny anyone from editing external links in the ear training and perfect pitch section (the perfect pitch section he self-linked also without disclosing conflict of interest). He should not have a say in addition or removal of external links because it is in his own commercial interest to prevent people from knowing about his product's competition. 75.53.34.231 ( talk) 16:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
CRITERIA FOR EXCLUSION
"Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations"
"Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."
"Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research"
"Links mainly intended to promote a website."
"Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising."
"Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article."
"Links that are not reliably functional, or likely to continue being functional."
"you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent."
"Avoid undue weight on particular points of view"
CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION
"Is the site content accessible to the reader?"
"Is the site content proper in the context of the article?"
"Is the link functional and likely to remain functional?"
"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail"
"Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."
This is a complete list of criteria from WP:LINKS accurately represented with the exact words from that page. Only the inapplicable criteria on that page (e.g., biographical pages, rich media, etc) have been omitted here; all applicable criteria are addressed, and none have been deliberately overlooked.
The only seriously contentious item is the admonition to avoid adding a link to a site "that you own, maintain, or represent". I readily acknowledge that I added the link a long time ago before I was aware of this Wikipedia policy. I believe that it actually had been deleted at one point and then restored by someone other than myself, which would eliminate that concern; I don't know how to search the history to pinpoint and verify that particular change, but it is not now splitting hairs to point out that at this moment I am not inappropriately adding a link, I am restoring a link that was inappropriately removed. If the reason for its removal had been specified as a legitimate violation of Wikipedia policy, I would hesitate to restore the content. Unfortunately, as the reason for its exclusion was instead an unfounded personal attack, its removal was inappropriate, and I am providing this excess of evidence to forestall any objection.
As I have demonstrated, in reference to WP:LINKS, the link which I have restored satisfies every criterion for inclusion and fails to satisfy every criterion for exclusion but one. If that one criterion (that I own the site) is challenged I could dig through the history to verify that the link was restored at one point by someone other than myself, but even before that I would contend that, unless such a challenge offers additional evidence to explain why and how the bibliography's inclusion is in fact against Wikipedia policy, and contradicts all that I have presented here, the challenge is without merit. aruffo ( talk) 03:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
they are claiming to have more than 95% success.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.11.160 ( talk) 02:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
To put it straight, the fact is absolute pitch is possession of a particular frequency in the sub-conscious, whether it be 440hz or 442. In the 18th century there was development of French, German and English tuning, resulting in different pitches for the "same" note. Because of wide speculation in that era, it is impossible to name a possessor of absolute pitch; there is no concrete proof whatsoever of Mozart having "perfect pitch". And btw guys: you MUST sign--- Brainsurgeonrocketscientist 03:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
A lot of this is based on misunderstanding. A is not always 440. Think about it.
I agree. I have spent much time with professional pipe organists, the consensus of which is that in that some time during the 19th century, the accepted pitch for A was 435. I encountered this problem when preparing for a guitar solo for my church. I tuned to my quartz tuner (A=440). When my friend Lew showed up and agreed to do a duet with me, he began to tune to the organist's warm-up, a 1915 Skinner. I suggested that Lew and I should leave the sanctuary and tune to my tuner, and to each other. Our church has two Steinways and a Grinnell, all of which are tuned quarterly, are generally reliable to maintain a 440 pitch.
I have heard that some popular 20th century orchestras adopted 435, giving them a "snappier" sound. I have also heard that this "A inflation" resulted, in part, from radio stations speeding up their turntables in order to get more music on the air between commercials. I believe this theory, since I learned music by playing along with the radio. I had no trouble playing guitar in pitch with the radio, but piano was impossible, until I got an accurate turntable.-- W8IMP 10:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Semitone = Half step in the States. Should it be notated or change? Ich 00:47, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC) I can no longer find any reference to a semitone in the article.
My father told me the names of the white notes on a piano when I was five years old. For many years after that, I could identify white notes on a piano when I heard them, but with black notes, I could tell only that they were black notes. And it didn't work with other instruments. During my 20s, "C"s on a piano began to sound almost, but not quite, a full tone higher than "C"s, and ever since then I get confused and cannot identify notes. How does that fit into theories about the origin and nature of this phenomenon? - Mike Hardy
Interesting. When I was in grade 1, my music teacher used to test me on naming pitches, and I could only do the white keys. The black keys just sounded black. By around grade 4 I could identify all the notes without problem. (I had piano education since age of 4, and my mother tongue is Mandarin). I havent got to my 20s yet, but there was one time that a piano sounded a whole tone higher to me while the piano player said she thought the piano is properly toned. Oscar Liu Jan 26, 2008 PCT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.39.148 ( talk) 06:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
"Usually, people with active absolute pitch will not only be able to identify a note, but recognize when that note is slightly sharp or flat." You need not actually identify the black keys to have perfect pitch, but only know that they are indeed black keys, if that makes sense. Jendeyoung 18:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
re: Changes by JonKDan@msn.com
Regarding the new edits made May 28/29 in the definition: I actually quite liked the definition of AP that was there, and all the moreso because it was properly attributed:
Absolute pitch has been defined as "the ability to attach labels to isolated auditory stimuli on the basis of pitch alone". [1] A person with absolute pitch might be able to, for instance, identify the pitch of a car horn, or confirm whether a piece is played in its original key.
It seems to me that it should be retained.
I take issue with the changing of the definitions of "Passive" and "Active" AP, because although I am not the one who contributed them to this WP article, I am the one who defined those terms (with my colleague Richard Parncutt) in the Grove Dictionary of Music. I'd prefer that we left those passages the way they were. Specifically, the very definition of passive AP does require instantaneous labeling; if it requires "more of a conscious effort" it is what Bachem (1954) referred to as "quasi-AP". Under "Active" AP, equal temperament is not necessary. The new note about the impossibility of making an accurate assessment -- the way it is worded now -- implies that it should be attributed to my colleague Oliver Sacks, which it isn't. But in fact, stratified random sampling theory ensures it is just as possible to assess AP in the general population as it is to assess the incidence of Down syndrome, diabetes, or left-handedness. -- User:Daniel Levitin 29 May, 2006
This article uses the oft considered inaccurate term perfect pitch throughout its text. Any reason?- Hyacinth 21:04, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Don't be fooled. Absolute (perfect) pitch and relative pitch are not the same thing. Relative pitch is when you are able to relate the pitch of one note to another (intervals). Most good musicians can do this. Absolute pitch is the ability to remember a certain pitch (eg, remembering exactly what a note sounds like or the frequency of a note). Some musicians with good knowledge and experience can do this. Perfect pitch is a little more difficult to explain, you just know what the note is without relating it to any other note or remembering what it sounds like. It's an intuitive thing. a person is born with this ability (genetic - if a parent has perfect pitch, the child if 15 times more likely to have it), or it can be environmental but it is something that cannot be taught. A person has to work it out and understand it for themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.138.204.246 ( talk • contribs) .
There is no difference between absolute and perfect pitch per se, but the term perfet pitch is misleading. For example, an absolute (perfect) pitch may not neccesarily be able to tell if a note is slightly sharp or flat, so it's not really perfect. As described in the article, perceiving slight differences in pitches and categorizing pitches into tone names are different mechanisms. Oscar Liu 22:14 Jan 26, 2008 (PCT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.39.148 ( talk) 06:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It is possible that you learned to name tones (a collection of characteristics) instead of pitches (a single characteristic of a tone). When musical contexts change-- most typically, timbre and harmony-- the perception of a tone also changes.
Perfect pitch and absolute pitch have become interchangeable terms. I suspect that "perfect pitch" is used throughout the article because it is a less clumsy term than "absolute pitch"-- it's alliterative and has a nicer rhythm.
cheers chris http://www.acousticlearning.com
The melody trigger technique is now being used (successfully) to gain absolute pitch at Prolobe.com
-Pete
I am somewhat doubtful that this is actually true. Throughout my secondary school life I've known quite a number of people who can sing whatever note you tell them to. I can too and even now in a small choir of only roughly 20 people there is also someone else who can. Although I was in Hong Kong in secondary school and in Australia now, surely even in the United States there are many more than 1 in 10,000. -- KittySaturn 09:55, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
Aspiro ( talk) 04:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I am very interested in knowing if Absolute Pitch can be learned, and more about what absolute pitch exactly means.
I have listened to some CD's from the Perfect Pitch Super Training course that claim to be able to teach absolute pitch. On their website they claim that anyone can learn Perfect Pitch, and have 2 University studies that seem to agree with them.
At the same time there are the UCSF studies, which suggests that perfect pitch is rare, and is genetic.
The links from the wikipedia article seem to have some of the same conflicting information.
This has led me to a few hypothesis of possibilities for the conflicting data.
1. The UCSF studies have not taken into account students who have learned through the perfectpitch.com courses.
2. Perfectpitch.com is misrepresenting there information or is lieing in someway. (This is not an accusation, only a possibility. It should be noted that it is also a possibility that the UCSF study could be lieing, but this is not likely, especially with other studies showing similar things)
3. There are more than one form of perfect pitch, one that is genetic and one that can be developed. In Sir James Jeans classic "The Science of Music" he discusses how the eardrum is not perfectly round and so that when you hear a note, you will also hear another note at the same time, just very slighlty. Maybe one form of absolute pitch has to do with the shape of the eardrum, and another has to do with the actual fibers in our ears that pick up tone, or maybe one is how our brains are wired to interpret the information. I'm not sure. I have not seen any studies yet that discuss the physiology, only about testing people to see if they have it or not.
This potential difference in physiological types of perfect pitch could maybe explain active vs. passive perfect pitch also.
I have emailed both perfectpitch.com and UCSF. I will post my findings. But I am also posting this to see if anyone knows of any information that might help bring resolution to this conflicting data.
Ms. Nering has in fact concluded that “Although literature has shown the powerful association between...early age and Perfect Pitch possession, this experiment has shown that by training in the Burge method, the ability can be improved and even acquired among adults...This improvement can take place in a fairly short time, as was the case in this experiment. A few with keen pitch acuity can even acquire Perfect Pitch ability in a short time.”1
“This experiment among others should lay to rest the myth about Perfect Pitch possessors being born, not made ... It is similar to learning a skill such as swimming, in that one must be exposed to it and work at it to one extent or another.”2
“Burge deserves much credit for removing a great deal of the mystery from Perfect Pitch and for making it readily available to the average musician. He does this in terms any layman can understand. By setting aside the technical discussions ... he has been able to get on with the practicalities ... devising a course capable of benefiting many.”3
“Of importance to this study is that through this method almost anyone, it seems, can acquire the ability of Perfect Pitch...”4
The Burge course has proven itself through this study and that [at Ohio State University] to be an effective means of improving pitch discrimination and even acquiring Perfect Pitch.”5
“Because of the effectiveness of the Burge Perfect Pitch technique and the apparent value of Perfect Pitch ability, it seems a reevaluation of theory course content and of methods of teaching ear training in schools, universities, and musical institutions is in order.”6
(Nering, Marguerite Elaine. A study to determine the effectiveness of the David-Lucas Burge technique for development of Perfect Pitch, The University of Calgary, 1991: 1 p. 355; 2 pp. 355-6; 3 p. 135; 4 pp. 135-6; 5 p. 133; 6 p. 357.)
Mr. Levitin, we think it is not up to you to reinterpret the research conclusions of another party. We met Ms. Nering long after her research, and we are confident that she will be appalled that you feel justified to introduce a new spin on her conclusions.
In your personal Wikipedia article, you are described as “an authority on absolute pitch.” Who has given you a reference for this claim? Were they themselves authorities on absolute pitch?
Mr. Burge has countless students who emphatically claim they have developed absolute pitch after using his method. You yourself cannot show even one student who has developed absolute pitch under your tutorship. Who then, is the expert on absolute pitch?
Academic snobbery is dreary and wearisome, and puts one out of touch with the real life experiences of people. Renowned master musicians may have no spreadsheets, but they have better than that, they have personal knowledge that differs from yours.
If you have made a study on Burge’s method, and you have meticulously followed his exacting methodology, and if you have yielded no results, then by all means, please bring such research to attention.
If, on the other hand, you have made research studies which have not used Burge’s method, and they have yielded no results, then such a study must not conclude that “absolute pitch cannot be developed”; this would be most unscientific. The only proper conclusion can be: “The ear training method we used did not work.”
You seem bent on a crusade to convince the world that absolute pitch is impossible to develop. Stephen B. Streater writes that he knows several people who have learned perfect pitch, yet you cannot resist discrediting his statement. You seem to feel that Stephen’s people developed some sort of “inferior” absolute pitch which does not meet your standards. Without any investigation, you imply that perhaps their absolute pitch skills are “slower” than people who had absolute pitch from a young age.
We can only say that you simply don’t know everything. We have seen people who have used Burge’s method who have greater absolute pitch skills than those who had absolute pitch from a young age. Indeed, Burge himself describes in his course many impossible-sounding “ear teasers for super ears” which require extremely fast and deep listening. He himself performed these feats for people, yet he declared he had zero absolute pitch skills as a starting point.
Mr. Levitin, we can certainly understand your intellectual bias. Mr. Burge had to face this when he first introduced his method in 1981. At this time there was no widely known course of instruction in absolute pitch. The first thing professors asked him was, “Do you have any research?” Well, he did not have any research back then, so Mr. Burge had to move forward with the idea, “The real proof is when you hear it for yourself.”
That was 25 years ago. Since then, while people of your kind still laboriously debate the scientific merits of the issue, others have sat amused because we hear the success stories. Musicians tell us they have not only improved their hearing skills, but many also have gained full absolute pitch skills. These people can and do actively name or sing - instantly - any tone requested or played. Mr. Burge’s students would demonstrate their newfound skills to the class when he used to do live workshops. Indeed, Burge’s methods are now being used within the ear training cirricula of hundreds of colleges, universities and music schools around the world.
What an insult to honorable musicians around the globe and to Mr. Burge himself when you dismiss the personal experiences of these musicians. And if, as you say, you cannot conduct a single research study to produce a single documented case of absolute pitch development (according to your standards), then we say with certainty that the failure is in your research and methodology. You have not truly understood the art of absolute pitch development; you are not yet a true expert in absolute pitch. You, sooner or later, like many in all fields who say, “It can’t be done,” will eventually be proved otherwise.
Your attempt to repress two universities studies on Burge’s method is insulting to Wikipedia readers who want to be informed about third party researchers who have personally tested Burge’s method. (It is due to Burge’s course that accounts for a large percentage of the people who look up “perfect pitch” on Wikipedia in the first place.) These studies were examined and approved by a distinguished faculty at distinguished universities, and they earned the researchers a Master’s and Doctoral degree. Certainly these studies are of interest to any musician who wants information on absolute pitch.
Burge was the first to tell the mass media that absolute pitch could indeed be developed. At that time, this was a revolutionary idea to many people. Today, largely due to Burge’s efforts, not only have people embraced the idea of absolute pitch development, many are now copying this idea.
For some time, a music professor at UCLA recently sold a method on eBay which he claimed worked for himself and his students.
One of Burge’s students, Graham English, called Mr. Burge’s assistant one day to say how he had heard Burge’s course, and to tell how he now has perfect pitch. He wanted to make a partnership with Burge so he could teach perfect pitch. When Burge declined, Graham developed his own course and he now has students of his own. The point is not about marketing; the POINT is: Graham did not have perfect pitch either, and now he does (it does not matter what method he used) and he is teaching it to others.
Joshua Jobst is a college music professor. He also purchased Burge’s course. Although he developed his own ideas about perfect pitch development, he ALSO gained perfect pitch, as he regularly demonstrates to his music students. He is also now selling his own ideas about the subject on eBay.
The point we make to you is this: The debate is really so silly. Others HAVE developed absolute pitch, and it has even progressed to the point where others even sell their own methodologies and gather their own students.
If you, Mr. Levitin, with all this activity, cannot produce a single documented case of absolute pitch development, then we will leave you with this:
“Time and again [experience] has proved that ‘absolute pitch’ can be acquired and developed...if not, the question may be raised whether there is any musical gift at all in a mind that cannot learn to remember and compare pitches.” Paul Hindemith, Elementary Training for Musicians. London: Schott and Co., Ltd., 1946, pp. 206, 207
And one final note:
If you should ever decide to make another scientific experiment, please know one thing. Everything is not just about science. Especially in music, it is all about the heart and human emotions.
You cannot put musicians in a laboratory and try to entice them to gain absolute pitch. It may never work for you, because the student himself has to want this. A black belt in Karate cannot be laboratory trained, he has to want it from his heart. Only then is he truly willing to listen to the instructions of the teacher and take the time and focus required to achieve the result. It is no less so in music.
Happy listening! AEMP 23:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Chris, you are an ever-unfolding flow of facts and figures; we applaud your latest additions to the article.
Our understanding is that WP guidelines do not require reputable sources to be peer-reviewed. “Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals” AND “books published by a known academic publishing house or university press.” The references we posted are from well known university presses which are promoted under WP guidelines.
As a compromise, we have added back the statement,
“A study at the University of Calgary showed statistically significant improvements in absolute pitch skills among students using an ear training method by David Lucas Burge.”
This statement is a fact which is quoted from a reliable published source. This statement is neutral and does not claim anything more than “statistically significant improvements.” Moreover, due to the widespread, knowledge, use and popularity of the Burge course, this statement is of immense interest to readers of this article.
Mr. Levitin’s objections to Nering’s work are not relevant to WP. Our understanding is that WP forbids inclusions of opinions, for or against, information from a reliable published source.
If Mr. Levitin finds fault specifically with Ms. Nering’s work, he could prepare a rebuttal which demonstrates the flaws in her procedures or conclusions. He might then publish such rebuttal in a reliable source. Only comments refuting Ms. Nering’s study directly from a reliable published source may then be cited in WP.
Secondly, a commercial product can also have educational value and must not be disqualified or receive secondary treatment on the basis of being commercial.
Lastly, the quotes from Hindemith and Kodály are highly relevant to this section. We insist there is no need to obfuscate these quotes in the reference area such that readers will have great difficulty procuring these sources to read the quotes. Hindemith and Kodály are regarded as world class experts in music education, and therefore their opinions and experiences on the topic are highly valuable, credible, and desirable. Readers of this article will enjoy these quotes, therefore we have added them back. AEMP 18:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Chris: We will contact Ms. Nering for her view of this issue. Yes, we have read her work, and we will encourage her to publish her complete study online.
Regarding the quotes, WP does encourage opinions -- yes opinions, read the guidelines -- of world class experts when they are referenced from reliable sources. The quotes we posted are highly significant and of high interest to this article. Therefore, we have added them back. Please do not remove them again unless you cite a different reason, or unless many others also agree to delete them. Thanks. AEMP 19:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Chris. Yes, if after consideration you feel the info useful to readers, please do cite the opposing views of the others you mentioned. WP encourages views from all sides and it makes for a richer and more colorful article. Yes, we do support you in your thinking. AEMP 21:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It is a shame that this article does not wish to mention David Lucas Burge in a positive light, that the link was deleted to his article "Perfect Pitch - A Gift or An Achievement?" published in Suzuki World, and that the article on David Lucas Burge has been deleted. When it comes to "perfect pitch" and "absolute pitch," there is no other name in the world who is more recognized than David Lucas Burge and his Perfect Pitch® Ear Training SuperCourse, and all interested editors already know this. His methods are being used at hundreds of colleges and universities around the world by teachers with PhD's. We feel this certainly qualifies as "notable."
However, our apologies go to Mr. Levitin. You are correct, we cannot provide the "peer-reviewed" research as you requested. Yet we find that neither can many, many other articles throughout Wikipedia. If everything had to go through "peer review" published research, we do not think you would have much of a Wikipedia at all for many, many articles.
Our world is not one of laboratories and algorithms. Ours is the interaction with real people who live in the real world. We are sorry that our experiences do not meet your stringent requirements, but we now do understand why you feel the need to uphold certain scientific standards.
Since we feel unsupported by the Wikipedia editors in this subject area, we will now take our leave.
We do wish you all the very best. AEMP 18:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
We have deleted this statement because it is completely unscientific and shows individual bias:
"However, despite reports of improved tone-identification skills, no training method for adults has yet produced abilities comparable to naturally-occurring absolute pitch [2]."
The reason is: Has the cited researcher done peer-reviewed scientifically controlled studies on ALL absolute pitch ear training methods?? We think not. Then how can they say that "no training method for adults has yet produced..." anything? They cannot comment at all on methods they have not fully and meticulously studied, this is absurd.
Perhaps such a researcher could possibly state that "However, despite reports of improved tone-identification skills, there is not yet any peer-reviewed scientifically accepted literature to show any ear training method to result in absolute pitch skills similar to naturally-occurring absolute pitch." But to pronounce a conclusion on all methods (as if the limited body of peer-reviewed research is conclusive for all methods) is way overstepping the scientific method.
Is this really your idea of peer-reviewed science?? Hopefully not, because we think it's pretty silly. AEMP 00:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Chris: Thank you for your acknowledgement. We feel the statement requires one further improvement if it is to be used at all.
When citing: “However, despite reports of improved tone-identification skills, no training method for adults has yet been shown to produce abilities comparable to naturally-occurring absolute pitch,” one assumes that the reader is a scientist, and that the word “shown” means acceptable peer-reviewed research. Of course, the average WP reader is not a scientist and will not read it this way.
There are certainly many ways to “show” something, many of which have nothing to do with scientific research. Many people have shown that the Burge method has produced superior absolute pitch skills (faster and more stable) than those who had absolute pitch “from birth.” (Indeed, many people who have absolute pitch “from birth” do not have a strong sense of it, but that is another discussion.) Though personal anecdotes from musicians do not qualify as peer-reviewed or acceptable to the scientific community, nevertheless such experiences are a fact to those who have them. Therefore, if this statement is to be used, it should clearly indicate that peer-reviewed research is what is meant by the word “shown.” We have adjusted the sentence accordingly, and hope you will concur.
Prominent Musicians
Further, we have moved the “opinions” of prominent musicians back to this area, because they belong here. These “opinions” directly relate to the discussion at hand. It is not prudent to relegate these statements to the back of the bus on the basis that they are “opinions.” WP invites and encourages the citation of opinions whenever and wherever they come from a globally esteemed, recognized, and reputed source.
It is not necessary to downplay these statements by advising the reader with a bold heading that these are merely “Musical Opinion.” (This seems indicative of an editor's personal bias.) Hindemith and Kodály are world renowned scholars, educators, and musicians. Their statements stand on their own merit, and their statements do not require disclaimers. Their “opinions” are much more than opinions; they are ideas which carry the weight of their scholarly insights, their famed careers, and their personal experiences. These statements have far more value to many readers than any scientific citation in the article, simply on the basis of the reputations of those who said them.
For similar reasons, we have deleted the quote from Ron Gorow, who is non-notable and not worthy of inclusion in this article. We think that people will agree that his status does not begin to compare with that of a Hindemith or a Kodály quoted in the same paragraph. Frankly, we have never heard of Ron Gorow, and neither has the majority of the rest of the world. Ron Gorow is selling his own commercial methodology at RonGorow.com, and we do not condone an advertisement for either his name or his ideas. If we should choose to open the article to the likes of a Ron Gorow, then we would also expect equal recognition from the opposite perspective using quotes from David Lucas Burge, who is unquestionably more known and influential in this subject throughout the world.
Thanks for reading. 71.202.121.160 19:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm just going to put this at the bottom because I can't find a specific place it fits in, but wouldn't all the claims of "no method has yet produced in adults perfect pitch similar to that occurring naturally in spontaneous cases" be sort of like saying "no method of teaching Chinese to an adult English speaker has produced abilities equivalent to those of a native speaker?" it just seems to me that that sort of statement is useless. most people are only after "close enough" anyway, whether it be language or "perfect" pitch. We have such a thing as near-native status in language, so why can't we have such a thing as "near-absolute pitch?" If it's on target 95% of the time, that's good enough. Languages disappear when you stop studying them too, as many of us are aware. It seems common sense that you're not going to get abilities like "born-withs" if you start attempting to acquire perfect pitch, but I don't know why there's all the zealotry saying that makes the effort worthless. Granted, this does exist in the world of language learning too, but mostly on the student side. "I'll never be as good as a native speaker, so why bother?" My 10 cents. I think the paradigm needs to shift into potentially viewing "native speaker" vs. "Foreign learner" as being different but related things when talking about many psychological traits, this one included. -Scott
As is true of foreign language.
Wow. This is a controversy. I think that methods of training for absolute pitch may assist with pitch memory, but do not aid in the development of the "genetic" form of absolute pitch. Those who acquire pitch memory may develop many of the same talents as those who were born with the gene, but it will probably fade with time if it is not constantly used and practiced.
Anyone who claims to have developed "full" absolute pitch throughout training and can prove it probably was born with the gene in the first place and the training only "shed light" on the talent that was already there. I would suggest that all musicians attempt the training courses, but if "perfect" pitch does not develop, it was not in the genetic code.
I would also suggest that all musicians take the test at the UCSF website. Even if the results are negative, you will have helped them in their study of perfect pitch development! Aripitch 13:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Aripitch
I always wonder if voice part had anything to do with number of occurances of absolute pitch. In my exprience, I come across people with absolute pitch on the lower voices ( Bass,alto, baritone, mezzo) more often.
Krozo 16:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is sufficient scientific evidence yet that this can be learned as an adult, although I personally believe it can, because I have been doing Burge's program, and eventually, you begin to develop a sort of familiarity with the notes, in that they each have a different "feel", though I cannot yet relaibly tell the difference.
However, I think we also need to address the issue of whether there is any proof that genitics is a large factor. Does anyone have any proof? There is no proof on the UCSF website that I could find. They have shown that it is a discrete ability, but this does not prove that it is genetic. Has anyone actually worked out a correlation based on genetics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregcaletta ( talk • contribs) 12:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I found this: http://news.ucsf.edu/releases/perfect-pitch-study-offers-window-into-influences-of-nature-and-nurture/
Gregcaletta ( talk) 12:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Most of the content in the "Definition" section seems to be less about describing absolute pitch and more about the author(s) passing the ability as an unnecessary annoyance. The author seems a tad envious of the ability and appears to be, "playing it down", so to speak.
For example, while a musician with absolute pitch might feel "off" if a piece is not exactly tuned properly, it is not a constant annoyance. That's like saying a bicyclist will continiously feel uncomfortable if he or she rides a new bike--obviously it will be distracting for a while, but the cyclist can (usually) quickly become adjusted to it.
A revision would be helpful.
Im a Trumpet player with AP and i've encountered a dilema. I started playing on piano since i was 5 years old and at age 10 I also started learing trumpet, but Trumpet is In B flat so i had to Transpose till i got used to it and now when i hear trumpet i hear it in B flat, but when i hear Piano I hear it in C. The tricky part is when i have to improvise to piano chords for example, so while listening to piano chords i have to make myself hear it in B to be able to improvise without mistakes. Also i've noticed that I hear other instruments that sound like trumpet (trombone, french horn, saxophone, clarnet...) in B. Strings, Guitars in C. Cant explain it thats just how it is :) So you might understand that Absolute hearing can be altered in different ways if learned in few pitches for example. The dilema is: was that a mistake to learn Trumpet in B? Maybe i should have learned it in C instead ( i know someone with AP who did that ). Maybe i should continue to learn it in C from now on? I have some hope that i will find an answer to those questions, maybe you can answer them? Would be glad to hear your oppinion please write me an e-mail: 6squall9@gmail.com Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrumpetPlayerWithAP ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
JS Bach is noted here as having absolute pitch, but this may be speculative. A reference should be provided. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shawnc ( talk • contribs) 08:18, 12 October 2005.
The part in the article about absolute pitch being more common among native speakers of Asian languages sounds pretty bogus. What's the basis for this, just Diana Deutsch of UCSD? She seems to have a lopsided understanding of how Asian languages work.-- 69.20.170.196 05:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm probably formatting this very poorly (someone can correct it for me, I hope), but let me throw in a little bit... the statistics do show that Asian-language speakers overwhelmingly have greater incidence of AP than Western-- 85% (or higher) versus 15% (or lower) in any given population of musicians. Diana Deutsch believes that there is a linguistic correlation; Jane Gitschier believes there is a genetic correlation. Deutsch has told me that she has data (unpublished) which shows that certain Asian children raised in the US have absolute pitch at the same rate as those raised in the original context, but I believe that the most likely factor is a vastly different attitude toward musical training and a very different approach that is culturally pervasive (as East vs West). -Chris Aruffo
I find this pretty suspect too. I speak Mandarin (non-native), and aside from the A burned into my head from years of uninspired school orchestra, have nothing resembling Absolute pitch. I think that speaking words within a semitone on separate occasions does not qualify as absolute pitch. I bet if you asked someone to say "dog" on three different days, you'd get similar results in English. Even if this is not true, "flat tones" impose certain limitations on a person's choice of register when speaking. All this about "Asians" and their perfect pitch has really gotten media attention. There need to at least do some studies on "Asians" who didn't study music, as well as Yoruba speakers who both did and didn't. I will find some convincing evidence if Tonal Language speakers more easily acquire perfect pitch after the age of thirteen, or tonal language speakers who play their instruments slightly less well than those in the Central Conservatory of a country with 1 billion plus people (many of whom are mired in poverty, making musical training in their youth impractical at best) show a markedly higher incidence of perfect pitch than non professional musicians in a "Western" context. Comparing the best of 1.3 billion to the best of 300 million is a little different. I'm not saying it should be 4 times as high, but that it's probably harder to get into a Beijing conservatory than an American one. At best, it's a dramatically different sample until I see evidence otherwise. I see a couple of linguists beat me to some of this, but I still had minor caveats. -scott (will finally create an account soon after wasting so much time reading this damn site (curses, wonderful curses!)
I can identify the white notes with absolute accuracy, but can't identify specific sharps and flats (but when a sharp or flat is played I do know that it is indeed not a white key). Anyone else? 71.131.29.225 23:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Same thing to me, especially when I took the study from the University of california.That test was brutal because it gave you 3 seconds to answer. it takes me 10! Krozo 13:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the list of people with absolute pitch is beginning to overwhelm the article here. What say we split it off into a list... and then go seek out or otherwise demand references for everyone on it so it doesn't become a big unverifiable mess? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, here's another thought. Instead of having the other page, why don't we create a category for people with absolute pitch, and add it to the bio pages of these people? That way the list would be maintained automatically, and we'd have a link to it from every appropriate bio page. Anyone think this is a good idea? Rainwarrior 17:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Stefan h, I had checked this site before. What is a bit uncommon is that the summary text is aimed at experts and non-experts. But the two papers he published in ARLO do exist. ARLO is the online branch of JASA, both being peer-reviewed and leading journals in this field. I also checked if this work is referenced by others (I have an interest in AP myself). It is. See recent review article on the subject (refs 63 & 64). So, no danger. We can keep that in. Interesting material, this. DiMare 17:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The list linked from here was deleted. I kind of agree with the deletion, but if I had known it was coming, I would have grabbed the list and pasted it here so we could start work on making it a category instead, and begin inserting the category into pages on the list. - Rainwarrior 04:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
It is/was as follows ( Hyacinth 07:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)):
This is a list of people possessing absolute pitch.
Fictional characters:
See Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of people with absolute pitch. Hyacinth 07:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Add Nicolas Slonimsky (2002): "It was discovered early in my life that I possessed the precious gift of perfect pitch...". Slonimsky: Perfect Pitch, an Autobiography, p.4. ISBN 0825672740. Hyacinth 07:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
What I like about the category method is that the list is automatically maintained, and we don't have to worry about notability. I was thinking though, if we are worried about citations, where do they go? Should we put them on the category page, or the bio pages? - Rainwarrior 16:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay I've finished adding everyone on the list (including Slonimsky), but not Hendrix as there was no citation, apparently, or Liew Koon Ern, since he was a redlink anyway, maybe not notable? I'm not sure what to do with the fictional characters. Is there a way to force the way the name appears on the category page? I tried on The Simpsons to put the category as "|Largo (Fictional), Mr." but the category page just links it as "The Simpsons". - Rainwarrior 17:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed a lot of links coming in and out to the same sites over and over again. Can we clarify what is worth putting on the page here instead of having this constant battle? Do we want a comprehensive list of all perfect-pitch training programs that have websites, or do we want none of them? - Rainwarrior 05:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Grahamenglish: If you've got information to add to the absolute pitch page, please add it, but continually readding a link to your own site is going to be seen as spamming. See WP:EL#Links to normally avoid: "9. A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.", and "10. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard." - Rainwarrior 03:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
-- Regarding External Links: Deleted the following links for the following reasons:
Music108 19:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who had added an entry to that list, would you go to Category:People with absolute pitch and add a citation for entries which were yours on the original page? Questions about sources have been pouring in on its talk page. - 17:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
It says that there are several Japanese speakers who are perfect pitched. My question is who the heck cares? There are I'm sure a speaker of language X who is perfect pitched. And then it goes on to say that Japanese is a pitch accent language. So what? Maybe someone should mention Ancient Greek and Sanskrit too. Japanese is hardly a tonal language and basically it is irrelevant to the paragraph. I'm going to remove this if no one objects. 24.168.151.153 20:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
From the "Potential problems" section:
What is Harris 1974? -- zenohockey 01:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The incomplete sentences in the opening paragraph (starting with Or... and But...) are really grating.-- 24.126.46.138 06:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there a test you can take or something?
Actually, there is a test that is sponsored by the University of California in San Francisco. I took it, and it confirmed it for me!
Aripitch 22:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Aripitch
Listen to somebody play some notes or chords on the piano and if you can discern them without looking at the keys, then you have perfect pitch. -- Svm2 14:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Outriggr was correct to restore the section on "Musical Opinion". I had deleted the entire section rather rashly, when really it's just the new spam-addition that needed to go. I know there's a Wikipedia policy against creating bogus usernames or enlisting your friends to write positive things about you (I just don't have the link handy) so when this stuff pops up again it should be again deleted.
I was inclined to delete the entire section because of my initial opinion of the quotes (noted previously)-- I wouldn't think it important whether or not anyone "believes" it can be learned-- but I checked with a person I know and didn't let on what my preferred answer was, and they told me they thought it was useful to know how strongly polarized musical opnion of absolute-pitch ability is. aruffo 06:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I have yet to take it, it is pretty interesting. The link is actually sitting in my hotmail, but I have been so busy working and practicing piano ( along with voice)! How ironic?
63.116.110.238
18:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to propose adding a link to the bibliography I've compiled for absolute pitch research (I've mentioned it before), which I believe is the most comprehensive resource of its kind. I've put a few years' work into the bibliography and I think it's a worthy scientific resource-- furthermore, that bibliography page does not have, never has had, and never will have a "buy my product" message or link on it anywhere. Still, with the recent brouhaha about self-aggrandizement I'd rather not add a link to my own site without any discussion.
Further, it occurs to me that perhaps this article should include a list (with links) to the scientists currently conducting research in absolute pitch-- at least Levitin, Deutsch, Zatorre, Trehub, Saffran, Gitschier, and Miyazaki, if not Patterson, Gandour, Griffiths, and others working on general pitch perception. Thoughts? aruffo 22:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
This has appeared in the "scientific studies" section, without any reference to a scientific study. Quite frankly I doubt much of its information about those with absolute pitch. What does it mean if someone "cannot tolerate" slight differences in pitch, and slight differences from what? - Rainwarrior 08:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I just deleted the section as written, because I agree with you guys that it has nothing to do with absolute pitch. However, I think I can suggest a topic to put in its place, which will be appropriate to "scientific study"-- the subject of pitch judgment as spectral vs categorical. That is: according to the research, absolute listeners apparently judge a tone based on its category, and are as indifferent to small variations as any of us would be to small variations in a vowel (such as the letter "a" spoken by different people). The categorical boundaries tend to vary, which leads to certain listeners being more sensitive to small changes than others. I have the research to back this up, so I'll add it in next week as at least a brief comment. aruffo 05:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
There we go.. just added a section which I hope adequately speaks to this issue. aruffo 08:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Gary. Stop trying to manipulate this article to sell your product. aruffo 19:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
(The prior NvN section has become ungainly. Still, this is a continuation of the topic, and if someone wants to move these paragraphs up there instead, feel free.)
The Hindemith and Kodaly quotes are clearly a violation of WP:NPOV and, by themselves, would merit deletion. The inclusion of Gorow's contrasting opinion nullifies the violation by transforming the issue not into a glorification of absolute pitch, but a representation of the fact that there is debate about the musical value of absolute pitch skill, which in turn necessitates the "Musical Opinion" section heading. I've added a sentence to make that point clearer and further reinforce NPOV. aruffo 16:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand, how is possible that only 52 people (mentioned in that list above) have ablolute pitch?! I mean, nobody else owns it? -- Aeternus 20:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I can reproduce any tone/chord from memory on the piano (or vioce), and hear it clearly in my head as if I'm hearing the song...BUT I am completely untrained in music, and I never associated note names with tones...so I can't say what note name it is automatically, without possibily comparing it to the few of the songs I have memorized that I know which key its in (I can't always do this correctly). Is this perfect pitch? -- 67.183.132.49 12:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to do a test - if you are ever near a keyboard, play a note (one you can find again on the keyboard) and try to remember the pitch. If you can come back the next day, sing the pitch again and check it's the same as on the keyboard, then that's probably absolute pitch. Helen-Eva 09:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
See I can do what you are saying as far as the testing you just explain but I am a bit confused. When I took the University of San Francisco test, it told me I had an unsufficient score to have absolute pitch...here's the problem: When I took the series test, it only gave me 4 or 5 ( approx) seconds to recognize before the next on played. It takes me 10(white notes) tp 15( black notes) to do that and I can tell if they are out of tune from A440 and 442. So am I considered to have perfect pitch or borderline perfect pitch going towards relative pitch?
Krozo 20:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
From the article:
1. It is unclear what the word "necessary" means in the first sentence.
2. Given that perhaps one in 2,000 people possesses perfect pitch, the fact that four extremely famous musical geniuses with perfect pitch can be named at all suggests that there is a correlation, and a strong one at that. With no correlation one would on average need a list of 8,000 musicians of the calibre of Mozart, Liszt, Chopin and Beethoven etc. in order to be able to find just four with perfect pitch.
Matt 00:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC).
I have come across some people with AP during my life. From what I have observed there is no connection between AP and musical genious. And the degree of talent is variable. None of the AP`s I know are unusualy gifted in any way. When it comes to musical creativity/composition they all lack the ability. Two examples. My former pianoteatcher has AP. The closest she gets to beeing a composer is writing simplistic songs with a few chords and a melody. I know lots of pianists without AP that are better at playing than she is. A girl in my class had AP too. She was unable to create music of her own. In arranging/composition class me and a lot of people without AP got of _much_ better than she did. She was the only pupil with AP on our school, and was far from the most gifted. Some others I know with AP are good musicians, but not composers.
Some famous composers/musicians had AP but I have no reason to belive they where brilliant because of it. There is a lot more to beeing a musical genious than possessing AP or even a good relative pitch. If you could remove the AP from the composers listed in the article I think they would still be just as good at writing music. I have a better relative pitch than most people I know. This comes from training mostly. The interessting thing is that as I got better at analysing what I hear I did not get better as a composer. When it comes to writing music (It seems to me) there is another mechanism beeing used than when analysing, transcribing or playing music.
I dont have AP but I have good memory. When I hear a song in my head it is mostly in the right key. Example, I have a Bartok song in my head that I know starts at A. If I can hear it inside my head I can use it to sing A and further use relative pitch to find other notes. I`m not always able to recall songs that clearly, but most of the times I bottered to check I was right. This memory can last for a long time. Most songs seem to become foggy after 2-3 months without listening to them. I can also hear if a song is played at the "wrong" key in most cases. Sometimes (rarly) I can notice that a song is played with another mastertuning than 440. Identifying a note I hear is very hard, and I can`t use this method to do so. Identidying what key a song is played at is easyer. I can do this sometimes. Anyway, this memory thing gives me some of the ability of AP and i find it 100% useless. Can anyone explain to me how singing a note on demand will make me a better composer please? This article had some good points and healthy critical aspects that are gone now. I think they should be put back because it is a fact that AP is not the elitistic ability many belive it is.
I had to do this in a short time, so sorry for the bad english and typoz..:).
In my lifetime, I've met five people with AP. Out of those five, one is extremely talented in every aspect of music, one is moderately talented, one is mediocre, and the other two are the average musician. For the two that are average, AP only serves as a parlor trick that is performed for their friends' amazement.
I hope that someone will acknowledge the fact that people who have AP sometimes have difficulty sight-reading. I think that this occurs because it is so easy to play something "by ear" that we almost never have to sight-read!
Aripitch 22:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Aripitch
1 in 2000????? In my elementary school my division had 72 people, and I know 16 of them have perfect pitch, I am one of them. I went to a normal public school without any entrance tests whatsoever. I seriously doubt if that 1/2000 is anywhere near accurate. (I am Chinese, but I doubt tonal language gives so much of a boost as 16/72=444/2000. Our music teacher at school test the class very frequently on naming pitches, and that's how I knew my classmates and I have it) Oscar Liu Jan 26, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.39.148 ( talk) 06:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
<Comment Removed Due to Advertising>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.67.77.153 ( talk) 20:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
I apologize. I was not trying to be a sock puppet, and after you mentioned the fact I realized my statement unintentionally came out looking like an advertisment. I was simply trying to make the argument that one can learn all these skills in adulthood which rival those of an natural perfect pitch possessor. And in response to the statements regarding speed recognition, I've met people who were born with PP who couldn't name notes as fast as me and some who could do it much faster, it all depends on the individual. I have also removed my previous reply of "sock puppetry" and apologize as that wasn't my intention. I just feel very strongly that PP can be learnt as an adult to rival that of a natural. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.67.77.153 ( talk) 17:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
I just performed a reversion on the article because the last editor's changes seemed to be an obfuscation, not a clarification. I read and re-read the editor's changes versus the previous version to be sure of what I was reading, and I also scoured Braun & Chaloupka (2005) and couldn't find any meaningful support for the claim which the editor attributed to that paper. The Wiki article section was written to make a case for absolute pitch as a cognitive process; the fact that the cognitive process is being performed on sensory input may be important, but the section already acknowledged the need for a memory image of pitch. Ross, Gore, and Marks (2005) provide support for the probability that absolute memory encoding is symbolic rather than sensory, and Braun & Chaloupka's evidence does not contradict this assertion. aruffo 18:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Surely, AP also is a “labeling phenomenon”. But the labels must be attached to something. And here we have a wealth of evidence. I only referenced a small part of it. The following further information may be of some use for the editors of this article:
1) Almost all APers that were tested showed the mentioned pattern of strong and weak notes. The issue was tested numerous times by Miyazaki, resulting in three papers, and also by Takeuchi and Hulse (1991), using quite different methods, The latter found a significant bias in 15 of 17 subjects in one of their tests.
2) The carbamazepine-induced pitch shift has repeatedly been reported since 1992, and the number of tested APers is much higher than two. Further, no case of a negative test has so far been reported.
3) The AP literature reports several cases of age-related AP shift.
4) It is well known, though not yet studied systematically, that some musicians have a “motor memory” of AP. These persons cannot identify a tone by naming it, but their hands put the fingers on their instruments, like a robot, to produce this tone.
Each of these items presents further empirical evidence for the existence of a sensory, precognitive memory of pitch. It appears to be this memory that tone labels are attached to in some cases, and are not attached to in most cases. DiMare 18:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
If there's someone reading this who knows how to archive talk pages, could you archive this page? Otherwise I'll look at WP:MOVE at some point and see if I can figure it out... aruffo 19:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I found 11 papers about the carbamazepine pitch shift (between 1994-2006). The final one, from last year, gave available details about the pitch shift of 26 known cases-- most were a semitone low, and others lower, and still others were higher. I took the statement about the drug out of the main article here because the 2006 article acknowledged that the drug's specific effect which causes this shift is unknown: "The mechanism of pitch-perception deficit associated with carbamazepine is uncertain, and may range from subtle changes in complex brain functions [6,8,11,18] to changes in the mechanical properties of the organ of Corti [3,7]. From a pharmacologic perspective, carbamazepine inhibits nerve activity [20]. Although not included in the present report, a 10-year-old female with epilepsy reported feeling rhythms, such as in music, faster than they really were, for a few hours after taking carbamazepine. This fact may let us suppose that carbamazepine may act on the central nervous system. Further studies are necessary to elucidate the mechanisms." aruffo 08:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I know that it's generally Wikipedial etiquette to add the "facts" tag to an unverified statement before opting for deletion. I'm reverting the comment about sight reading because I am reasonably certain that there are no studies anywhere which have addressed to any significant degree the issue of sight-reading skills in the population of absolute musicians-- which means if there were any evidence, that "evidence" is most likely anecdotal or hearsay, and therefore a call for citations would be pointless. In other words, it doesn't make sense to add a facts tag to a statement which can be neither supported nor verified by available scientific literature. aruffo 18:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
There are some things surrounding the theory of AP development that can only be acknowledged or described by those who have experienced them and are not otherwise verifiable.
Wiki should allow users to create a "Experiences with AP" page that would allow users who possess AP to talk about their unique experiences and compare them without being judged.
Aripitch 22:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Aripitch
Since it seems that many of us (absolute pitch possessors) have not met many other with absolute pitch, I think that we should create a listing with our user names and brief experiences about how we learned of our "gift."
Aripitch 13:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Aripitch
"Y'might" want to find one that is actually currently in use or contains recent conversation instead of ancient debates! Aripitch 22:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Aripitch
Once one factors in the time element there is no valid Nurture argument. It took me less than a week (as a preschool six year old) to memorize the names of the notes on a piano keyboard, (including the octaves.) and be able to name them upon hearing them. To suggest that this ability can be matched with the help of hours upon hours of study misses the point. A natural does not need to do anything other than memorize the names of the notes on any instrument tuned to 440 and almost like magic they (we) are able to tell what note is being played.
As for the idea that age plays a significant role in the onset of absolute pitch I can only attest to the fact that I have discovered it in adults who could not read music. Again once they memorized A keyboard tuned to 440 they were able to name them without seeing them being played. Time is therefor at the essence. Thegreatjefftaylor 12:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely have absolute pitch. I had a lot of trouble using a guitar capo at 1st. Playing a C chord formation (for example) and hearing an F chord instead was very disconcerting indeed. So I learned to think in terms of formation as opposed to anticipated sound and voila it worked like a wage slave on a week day. Jscotttaylor 12:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Has anybody else with absolute pitch noticed that some musical recordings are tuned to the 440 standard and others aren't ?? This only seems to be the case when there are no keyboards in the recording. Out of tune pianos notwithstanding.
In my exprience with piano tuners, I have notice that with digital tunning, 440 always is either a few semitones flat or sharp. Why is that? I preferably like piano tuners who do not use digital because their accuracy towards the pitch is greater ( my tuner is on the dot). Have you exprience this? Krozo 20:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Accompanist Gerald Moore said that he had had absolute pitch and then lost it. Does anyone know of any other cases? Kostaki mou 04:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
There have been so many misconceptions about absolute pitch over the years that I would love to ask Mr Moore what he met by perfect pitch. If he met that he lost his ability to remember 440 A in spite of being exposed to it and mostly it on a daily basis then he probably did in fact lose it. I thought I was losing mine there for a while but then I asked the question listed just above this one and realized that I still have it. Albion moonlight 06:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I have reasonable suspicion to believe that perfect pitch could theoretically be lost. From what I can understand in my scenario, I am an "active" perfect pitch possessor, I can sing any note whenever, and I can recognize any note sans reference. I was early in my life diagnosed as having "autistic tendencies", so I had autism, but a very mild case at that. Circumstances played in my favor, and now, I am in high school, and if you ever met me, you would never believe I was autistic. But back to the point; from research I had done, perfect pitch could be thought of as a form of eidetic memory, something that can be remembered in great detail. If this is assumed, and adults supposedly lose this "eidetic memory" as they age, then yes, perfect pitch could be lost, which I absolutely despair the thought of. Under the basis that autistic brains in contrast to "neurotypical" brains (non-autistic) are structured differently, the functions of the autistic brain would sustain the eidetic memory. However, if recovery took place, and the autistic brain were to develop into a more neurotypical design, the eidetic memory could be obscured by normal-functioning intelligence, and perfect pitch would disappear, while in a simultaneous blunder, social interactions, motor skills, and communication skills would improve. My brain seems to have made that recovery, but I still have perfect pitch, and I can still name notes and sing them on a dime. So this is a very difficult question to answer, unless we knew somebody of age who actually had and lost it right here to discuss it. All that can be really thought of concerning the question until then is pure speculation. The only other real thing that could make you lose it is amusia, if you got in some terrible accident and suffered brain damage.
~Sot1006
In the article, it compares recognizing sound frequencies with recognizing blue (as light of a certain frequency). I'm ambivalent about that comparison. The ear really works as a spectrum analyser, i.e. it hears frequencies. So perfect pitch is simply a form of memory, attaching a name to a given sensory stimulus. I guess the same can be said for recognizing colors, but in that case there is more "brain analysis" involved. The eye only detects 3 ranges of frequencies (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell ) and then interprets the mix and creates imaginary colors that we consciously "see". So yes both are a form of memory of sensory input, but the ear is much more direct.
And my grain of salt on whether or not you can train it is that you can: it's just memory, so practice! I used to have a quite dependable active perfect pitch when I was studying music some years ago. Now I'm in sciences and it's not as precise anymore, but I'm sure with a little practice it would come back. Moo 00:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind too that the entire range of visible light wavelengths is less than one octave. From deepest red to remotest violet is only about a major sixth, while people normally can hear frequencies over 8 octaves. So for me the analogy breaks down quickly. MJ 06:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark R Johnson ( talk • contribs)
As a two-year contributor to Wikipedia, I feel compelled to speak to the OUTSTANDING quality of this article. I just heard a weekly psychology NPR radio programme, "The Infinite Mind", in which Perfect Pitch was discussed for one hour. After the discussion between musicians and scientists, I found very little which had not been well-covered in the Wiki article.-- W8IMP 11:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The wiki page does not refer to any online absolute pitch test anymore. I think such a link offers an added value here : most people interesting in this page are also interested in testing if they have perfect pitch. I suggested the following link, but it was removed right after submission:
http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_abspitch.php
This page blind tests the absolute pitch hearing and it's a non commercial page.
Any comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.29.154 ( talk) 06:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Some people can tell if a piano note is G# or A. Some people can tell if an orchestra note is G# or Ab. A few others can tell you if it matters or not and you will understand. Hopefully they will post on wikipedia. Pnoric ( talk) 23:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
pnoric www.pnotec.com
I have absolute perfect pitch. How would you suggest explaining the difference between G# and Ab (and more)understandably? Usually, when explained, it sounds odd and picky, sometimes perenoid... OnFire4Jesus ( talk) 8:13, 21 March 2008 (EST)
That's exactly what I mean. OnFire4Jesus (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2008 (EST)
Speaking from the point of view of someone who did not have the priviledge of a music education but who hears every note that is off pitch, every key change, knows every starting pitch and who can sing back to you the sounds from any air conditioner/engine/alarm clock/phone/bell etc.and who can sing by memory,in pitch and who has trouble singing around anything or anyone that is not in what is in "pitch" to my ear, I do have one opinion on this issue.
We can all settle on our minds around the fact that absolute pitch is a natural occurring ability and we all know that notes are frequencies that occur in our natural world. Note names were given by man for those frequencies. AP should be judged in terms of reproduction of the frequency by the individual not so much the labeling with note names. So that it would not be enough to say that it is a "G" or "A" but can the person reproduce the tone either singing or on an instrument. Reproduction of tones in singing being the true manifestation of the ability as this would not allow the person to memorize position of the note on the instrument , but would have to pull it out of their grey matter from whatever corner it is in. -- Asileg ( talk) 22:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason not to change "External Links" back to "Current Research"? Leaving the section title as "External Links" seems to invite randomness. Although a video of absolute pitch ability demonstrated might be interesting, there are arguments to be made-- about what aspect of the ability should be presented (musical competence, note naming, improvisation, development over time), how rigorous the demonstration should be (a faked demonstration could be easily staged), what value the demonstration contributes toward an encyclopedic understanding of the ability (that a verbal description doesn't already accomplish), and probably other issues as well. aruffo ( talk) 22:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
It is not determined that absolute listeners are making a judgment influenced by octave circularity. Although the fact of absolute listeners' octave errors is suggestive, I don't think anyone's done a study on absolute listeners' octave circularity as yet. aruffo ( talk) 13:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
1) Korpell (1965) used artificial lab sounds that are potentially ambiguous both re height and re chroma. Further, this ambiguity applies equally for APers and non-APers. The outcome of such experiments depends on objective (stimulus) and subjective (experience) variables. Most importantly in this context, such experiments reveal no information on the “mechanism” (!) of chroma.
2) Octave circularity of pitch is a general trait of the mammalian auditory system. It is not restricted to human APers. But the specific abilities of human APers are restricted to octave circularity and have nothing to do with the normal abilities concerning one-dimensional pitch height.
3) Almost all material on the internet is self-published. That’s what the internet is all about. Clearly, most of this material is not appropriate as a reliable source for Wikipedia. But there is an important exception, which is explicitly stated in the Wikipedia rules: “Self-published sources …. may be used …. when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.” This rule applies here, because Braun is an established expert on pitch, absolute pitch, and the octave, and his work in these fields has previously been published by peer-reviewed scientific journals.
4) There were several problems in your last edits. (a) The addition “precisely” is misleading, because AP is not related to pitch height at all. (b) The source Takeuchi & Hulse (1993) contains a specific chapter called “Octave Errors” (pp. 349-350) and needs to be referenced accordingly. (c) The issue of octave errors in APers is a recurring one throughout the history of AP research. It is the key observation proving that AP is restricted to chroma. This needs to be made clear in the article.
5) What about leaving my edits as they are, until better ones are found?
DiMare ( talk) 13:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
We definitely made some improvement to the article, and that's good.. I was looking at that last revision, trying to make sense of it, trying to figure out why it should be either left alone or modified and not reverted, and I just don't understand. I've never before seen the term "pitch-relevant" used in this context, and I don't understand how it's meant to apply. Following that, it is a direct contradiction to simultaneously describe absolute pitch as unrelated to height and as dependent upon a two-dimensional scale whose second dimension is height. A dimension is, definitively, a range to which real numbers (i.e., sequential labels) can be assigned. A two-dimensional figure is a line, not a point. A single value is a point, not a line. aruffo ( talk) 23:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
To prevent the same BS from occurring over and over again, and because Aruffo has failed to disclose it himself, I am adding this section specially dedicated to disclosing Aruffo's conflict of interest. Editor aruffo is the owner of this ear training sites http://www.aruffo.com/eartraining/ , http://www.wehearandplay.com/taneda/index.htm , http://www.acousticlearning.com/ . He has failed to disclose this in any of the prior conversations. He sells several products related to ear training and perfect pitch likely even making his living from it; "The Ear Training Companion", "We hear to play", "The Fletcher Music Method" and the "Relative pitch monster course" http://www.aruffo.com/eartraining/monster/ . His main editing involvement has been to deny anyone from editing external links in the ear training and perfect pitch section (the perfect pitch section he self-linked also without disclosing conflict of interest). He should not have a say in addition or removal of external links because it is in his own commercial interest to prevent people from knowing about his product's competition. 75.53.34.231 ( talk) 16:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
CRITERIA FOR EXCLUSION
"Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations"
"Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."
"Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research"
"Links mainly intended to promote a website."
"Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising."
"Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article."
"Links that are not reliably functional, or likely to continue being functional."
"you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent."
"Avoid undue weight on particular points of view"
CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION
"Is the site content accessible to the reader?"
"Is the site content proper in the context of the article?"
"Is the link functional and likely to remain functional?"
"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail"
"Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."
This is a complete list of criteria from WP:LINKS accurately represented with the exact words from that page. Only the inapplicable criteria on that page (e.g., biographical pages, rich media, etc) have been omitted here; all applicable criteria are addressed, and none have been deliberately overlooked.
The only seriously contentious item is the admonition to avoid adding a link to a site "that you own, maintain, or represent". I readily acknowledge that I added the link a long time ago before I was aware of this Wikipedia policy. I believe that it actually had been deleted at one point and then restored by someone other than myself, which would eliminate that concern; I don't know how to search the history to pinpoint and verify that particular change, but it is not now splitting hairs to point out that at this moment I am not inappropriately adding a link, I am restoring a link that was inappropriately removed. If the reason for its removal had been specified as a legitimate violation of Wikipedia policy, I would hesitate to restore the content. Unfortunately, as the reason for its exclusion was instead an unfounded personal attack, its removal was inappropriate, and I am providing this excess of evidence to forestall any objection.
As I have demonstrated, in reference to WP:LINKS, the link which I have restored satisfies every criterion for inclusion and fails to satisfy every criterion for exclusion but one. If that one criterion (that I own the site) is challenged I could dig through the history to verify that the link was restored at one point by someone other than myself, but even before that I would contend that, unless such a challenge offers additional evidence to explain why and how the bibliography's inclusion is in fact against Wikipedia policy, and contradicts all that I have presented here, the challenge is without merit. aruffo ( talk) 03:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
they are claiming to have more than 95% success.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.11.160 ( talk) 02:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)