Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Re: Absolute pitch

JUst a rathre amusing thing.

Found that if I whistle a tune that I've played a while back on the recorder, say,
an hour ago, then compare it with the tune played anew, I'm just a little bit sharp.

It's because the recorder get's sharp when warmed up, and if playing on my own,
there's no other reference, so I tend to just follow that. Then presumably
remember the most recent pitch of the tune.

May be part of the reason I've never developed perfect pitch, although I do
seem to have a _sort_ of absolute pitch.

I wonder if string players have more of a tendency towards perfect pitch than
wind players?

Also, another thing on the thread about absolute pitch and j.i.

If one has absolute pitch, it may be a bit easier to hear the partials
in timbres.

I can tune a perfect octave or octave + fifth on the recorder by playing the note
for the second or third harmonic, and then the fundamental, and listening to hear
if the first note I played is one of the partials of the fundamental.

(This is the easiest way to hear the partial, by playing the note first, and
then listening for it in the next note. It isn't easy to hear them
without a previous cue to cue you in to them).

The recorder doesn't have any higher partials, to speak of. However, one could
do the same with much higher harmonics on a string instrtument.

I wonder, to instrumentalists who play a string instrument and have perfect
pitch and are trained to think of only 12-tet as "in tune", do the various
partials sound "out of tune"? Especially, the seventh harmonic, which should
sound well out.

Some day I'll do a little midi file of an ocarina playing each partial in turn
followed by a string instrument playing the fundamental, to help with hearing them.

Might be fun, and get some "12-tet only" musicians to think a bit!

Robert

🔗Haresh BAKSHI <hareshbakshi@hotmail.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robert_walker@r...> wrote:
> JUst a rathre amusing thing.
>
> Found that if I whistle a tune that I've played a while back on the
recorder, say,
> an hour ago, then compare it with the tune played anew, I'm just a
little bit sharp.
>
> It's because the recorder get's sharp when warmed up, and if
playing on my own,
> there's no other reference, so I tend to just follow that. Then
presumably
> remember the most recent pitch of the tune. >>

Hello Robert, Or, is it that we retain the impression of the pitch
better when the pitch goes a little sharp? Do not brass and wind
sections play sharp all the time, to "shine out"? In case of the
leading note, I think it is expected that it will tend to become
sharp before it resolves the tension by finally merging into the
tonic, the next highr note.

One more, little but significant observation: I have observed this
often happening especially to the music on the TV; at the end of a
song, if the accompanying orchestral part sustains before dying down
(dying out? --pardon my English!), the entire orchestra becomes a
little sharp at the very end. I have repeatedly observed this. What
happens? Is the ear playing some trick? Or, in an effort to
memorize the final pitch, our memory has a natural tendency to make
it sharp?

Regards,
Haresh.

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

Hi Haresh,

Thinking on your observation, is not sharpening a pitch an increasing of
tension? If the music is to hold your attention, this may be a device to
achieve maximum results.

A solo violinist is notorious for playing sharp to an orchestra in a
concerto, most likely for reasons of definition, to distinguish the soloist
from the ensemble.

Perfect Pitch and Absolute Pitch are synonymous for me, but they are
different from the way it was described by Robert Walker. It is not a
learned attribute: it is something that you are born with (a gene) and it has
its own advantages and disadvantages. I do not have it, but if I teach a
class in Ear Training or Theory, I make it my business to find out who does.
In an average music class of 18 I would find only 1 or 2 with Perfect Pitch.
They will learn everything differently.

There are other ways of retaining pitch....habit, emotional memory, matching
a 60 cycle hum as a constant, the physical memory of one's idiosyncratic
vocal range limit. The Juilliard School insists its students bring a tuning
fork at A=440 to be checked with each day of class, for memorization. This
does improve accuracy, but it's not the same thing as perceiving each pitch,
with mathematical precision, unaided, and rather unstressed.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

🔗Robert Walker <robert_walker@rcwalker.freeserve.co.uk>

Hi Johnny,

I don't htink I'd count as one of those 1 or 2!

In fact, don't have a good long term memory for pitch either,
i.e. from one day to the next, though have a reasonably good
short term memory, like over about an hour or so.

Though, when I was learning the 'cello, things were a bit
different, and I could sometimes remember the A tuning fork
pitch fairly accurately from one day to the next. So I think
perhaps there is some element of training involved in it.
(This is without particularly trying to remember it, just
happens naturally).

I also remember once hearing some instrumentalists playing
"flat, but in tune", at that time, which was a very curious
sensation, and so I don't think you need to have perfect
pitch to hear that. (Not that it is a particularly desirable
thing to hear but if anyone has hearing it as a goal, that
gives them some encouragement!!)

However do find it much easier to percieve things in terms
of absolute than relative pitch, and notice it most as
a difficutly in perceiving relative pitch, combined with
an ease in comparing pitches of notes, such as remembering
the pitch of a partial, and then playing it. Also I
can compare pitches of notes very easily just by hearing
them in sequence one after another, to within a few cents
and don't need to count beats for that. Also find it relatively
easy to remember a pitch, and look out for its recurrence
later on in a piece of music - to listen out for that pitch
coming in again, in the same way that one might listen out for the
entry of a particular instrument. All that comes in
pretty useful when writing a music program, and debugging
it!

Plus, a kind of "pitch timbre" effect that sounds a lot
like instrument colour to me. It's quite vivid, but
doesn't seem to assist in identifying the pitch from,
say, one day to the next, though very helpful over
shorter time periods.

I think there is quite a range and variety of ways of
hearing sound, and perfect pitch is just one rather remarkable
kind of way of hearing that a few have.

The distinction between absolute and relative pitch isn't
my own invention, but found it in a helpful on-line article on the
variety of ways pitch is perceived (can't remember the ref,
but it is in one of the earlier posts). Synthesia (associating
colours or other sensations with pitch) is yet another thing
that is independent of the other two - there was an example
of a pianist who had that, but associated the colour with
the notes played, rather than the pitches, and so would perceive
the same colours even if the pitch of the piano was changed.
Perhaps my pitch timbre thing is a bit like that.

I don't know whether perfect pitch can be learnt, some people
seemingly try to learn it. However, if one had it, I think one
might still need to learn to identify pitches that one hears,
in the same way that an artist could learn to identify and name
various colours.

For instance, someone with perfect pitch in a 19-tet musical
culture would presumably learn 19 main pitches instead of
12.

I think one can also learn relative pitch, and am trying to learn
it better myself. For instance, by playing easy tunes, then immediately
transposing them up and down by a few semitones.

I've got a lot to learn there - still working at the distinction
between a minor third and a fourth, when played out of context
at an arbitrary transposition, and if I'm to identify it
just by listening, and not trying to sing a scale from one
to the other.

Though I can tell differences in relative pitches easily
if there is enough context for them, say, in a musical phrase
of half a dozen notes or so.

So when I say absolute pitch, I really mean in distinction to
relative pitch, a tendency to focus on the absolute than the
relative quality of the pitch of a note. Don't know if htere
is a better word for that?

Perhaps a number of people may have absolute pitch in this
more general sense, and not realise it, because it only
really came to my attention as a result of trying out the
new random chord quiz in the FTS 1.09 beta.

Focusing on absolute pitch instead of relative pitch can
also make it hard for a beginner to match a heard pitch
by singing it. They can hear it isn't the same as the one they
are singing, but can't easily hear how far away it is,
or even sometimes, which direction it is. I was a bit
like that when younger, and still probably a bit slower
than most at getting into the immediate vicinity of a heard
note - once there, can get to the exact pitch quickly.

So, I wonder sometimes how many people who are actually
quite musical may write themselves off as unmusical
because they find it hard to match a heard pitch in this
way?

I remember reading in the paper on Shephard tones, he needed
to do some preliminary tests, and was surprised to find
that some non musicians (scientist from the Bell laboratories
in fact) were unable to distinguish
notes a semitone apart at all - they are the ones
who one could call tone deaf I suppose. Others though
could tell such notes apart, but were unable to tell
which way was up; which was higher. Later with
time to sing and try it out, some of those then
were able to get it.

I've wondered if, just possibly, this might mean
they are relying excessively on absolute rather than
relative type pitch distinctions.

I know of scientists who are appreciative of music
and sensitive to it, but think of themselves as
un-musical, because they can't match a pitch
in this way.

Just ideas.

Robert

🔗Robert Walker <robert_walker@rcwalker.freeserve.co.uk>

Hi Haresh,

Yes, that may be it. After going amongst traffic for a
few hours, and with lots going on so that I forgot the
pitch of the tune completely, on coming back, tried again
and was a whole tone sharp, which is much more than the usual
range for warming up the recorder. It's also quite a
bright lively kind of a tune.

I wonder, with the effect you noticed, does the whole
orchestra get sharper, or just the higher instruments?

Do the bases get sharper, or flatter?

If the bases got flatter, it could instead be to do
with the tendency of a note to appear to change pitch
as it fades, if it is kept at a constant frequency.

I notice this effect a lot on my soundcard - the high notes
get flat as they fade, and the low notes get sharp.

So perhaps players compensate for it in live performances.

If so, maybe they could be overcompensating.

Or might be compensating for it perfectly, but if played
on a television set quietly, the compensation mightn't
work the same way.

I wondered if that could be it, because of your description of it, as
something that happens when a chord fades away to silence.

Just something to think over,,, I can't say I've noticed
the effect, but will look out for it.

Robert

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>

🔗Haresh BAKSHI <hareshbakshi@hotmail.com>

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., "Haresh BAKSHI" <hareshbakshi@h...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20728.html#20736

> --- In tuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robert_walker@r...> wrote:
> > Hi Robert,
> >
> > ..........
> >
> > I wonder, with the effect you noticed, does the whole
> > orchestra get sharper, or just the higher instruments?
> >
> > Do the bases get sharper, or flatter? >>
> >
>
> Yes, the entire orchestra, along with the basses, get sharper.
This effect is as definite an experience as, for example, the Doppler
> effect [the pitch-change sensation you get when a hooting car
speeds by you]. I do not imply, though, that this may have anything
to do with the latter effect -- I do not know.
>
> Haresh.

Hello Haresh!

Perhaps several readers will remember the extensive studies in pitch
rise conducted by Alexander Ellis, the translator of Heinrich
Helmholz' great classic _On the Sensations of Tone_.

Beginning on page 495 of the paperback version of _Sensations_, Ellis
details the gradual historical rise of concert pitch. The pitch "a"
starts as low as 373hz in Paris, 1648.

By 1789 "a" is up to 395 in Versailles... 415 in Dresden in 1754...

By 1780, concert "a" is 421.3 in the Vienna of Mozart's time (!!)

Well, the chart goes one... 423hz in Dresden 1815...436hz in London
1878..

A440 doesn't appear until 1829 in Paris, the Paris Opera Orchestra..

Believe it or not, the "American Pitch" of Steinway in 1879 is
reported as 457hz (!!) Ahem...

As to the reasons for all this, Ellis conjectures:

"The rise in pitch began at the great Congress of Vienna, 1914, when
the Emperor of Russia presented new and sharper windinstruments to an
Austrian regiment of which he was colonel. The band of this regiment
became noted for the brilliancy of its tones. In 1820 another
Austrian regiment received even SHARPER instruments, and as the
theatres were greatly dependent upon the bands of the home regiments,
they were obliged to adopt their pitch. Gradually, at Vienna, pitch
rose from a' 421.6 (Mozart's pitch) to a' 456.1, that is, 136 cents,
or nearly three-quarters of a Tone. The mania spread throughout
Europe, but at very different rates...."

And in another statement (p. 513 of the paperback):

"If we look into the secrets of the rise of pitch, we find it always
connected with wind instruments..."

So Ellis seems to pretty much blame wind players for this!!!

_______ ______ _____ _
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Martin Braun <nombraun@telia.com>

🔗Justin Weaver <improvist@usa.net>

🔗gdsecor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin Weaver" <improvist@u...> wrote:
> Having read this through it's interesting how everything is phrased
in terms of "may
> be", with the understanding that this is the "first report". As you
can tell, I'm not
> partial to this type of research.
>
> I'd be interesting to know if those with AP on this list hear
people's voices as
> transpositions from the "key" of their mother's voice (cf.
the "comments" section in
> the link). -Justin
>
> > http://w1.570.telia.com/~u57011259/Schlaug.htm
> >
> > Non-APers might like it in particular, because it suggests a
harmless
> > anatomical deficit in APers.
> >
> > Martin

For the sake of others who may read this years later (when the link
may no longer be available), here is the entire text of the comment
section:

<< This is the first report of anatomical evidence that subjects with
absolute pitch (APers) may have something less than non-APers. The
planum temporale (PT) is a small part of the neocortex that
contributes to language processing and to general auditory
processing. The right PT has now been found to be significantly
smaller in APers than in control groups. Interestingly, an anatomical
deficit in APers could indeed be expected, based on the assumption
hat the propensity to develop AP during childhood may be a by-effect
of a harmless developmental disorder. Due to such a (slight)
disorder, some children may have difficulties in doing the normal
step from implicit AP at birth to implicit relative pitch (RP) when
learning their first language. Implicit RP helps understanding the
speech intonation of speakers other than the mother. So, while still
struggling with acquiring implicit RP, these children may - if there
is a musical environment - extend their implicit AP to explicit AP.
From a neuroanatomical point of view, AP clearly is an easier task
than RP. This is simply due to the tonotopic neural wiring throughout
the auditory brain. For AP one only needs a certain memory
connection. For RP, however, one needs a computation that compares
pitch intervals across different spectral ranges, and thus across
different neural map sections. Many have wondered why not all have
explicit AP. The likely answer is that RP is of more use than AP in
speech. A deficit in the right PT may impede the development of
implicit RP, and then, by triggering a compensatory measure, lead to
the development of explicit AP. >>

I don't think that the comment about a possible relationship between
relative pitch and the perception of pitch intonation of speakers
other than one's mother is corroborated by anything that I am aware
of concerning my early childhood (or later on, for that matter), so
much of what I find in the above paragraph strikes me as a lot of
nonsense. I have never had any reason to believe that I might have
any deficiency in my perception of relative pitch, and my microtonal
experience (in which I often have not had the opportunity to commit
certain pitches to memory) has shown me that I can easily identify
subtle differences in intervals, being able to distinguish, for
example, the difference between diatonic music played in 19-ET and 31-
ET, as can most anyone with good relative pitch and sufficient
listening experience.

However, I do happen to know that my speech development did not
follow a normal pattern, because my mother mentioned it to me a
couple of times some years later. At an age many months past the
time when I was expected to be speaking words, I was still spewing
out "gibberish" (as she described it), complete with varying
inflections of pitch, as if I were speaking a real language. There
was nothing wrong with my ability to hear and understand speech,
because my parents tested me and found that I could point to objects
whose word-names they spoke. Our family physician advised them that
I would most likely start speaking words once I was ready. He was
right, and once it happened, it was not just single words, but
sentences.

--George

🔗Justin Weaver <improvist@usa.net>

I have heard of many people with similar experiences. There seems to be a sizable
minority children who have a "non-risk-taking" first language acquisition process,
where they will model intonation but not speech until they (or their brain) is fully
confident that the results will be linguistically comprehensible. The majority
constantly risks misunderstanding in producing so-termed "baby talk". There's
probably no real conscious process of risk-taking involved, but I just thought that
terminology seemed apt. -Justin

> However, I do happen to know that my speech development did not
> follow a normal pattern, because my mother mentioned it to me a
> couple of times some years later. At an age many months past the
> time when I was expected to be speaking words, I was still spewing
> out "gibberish" (as she described it), complete with varying
> inflections of pitch, as if I were speaking a real language. There
> was nothing wrong with my ability to hear and understand speech,
> because my parents tested me and found that I could point to objects
> whose word-names they spoke. Our family physician advised them that
> I would most likely start speaking words once I was ready. He was
> right, and once it happened, it was not just single words, but
> sentences.
>