More interesting to me is the fact that many people with absolute pitch start to lose it in their 40s and 50s. This has happened to me too. What happens is that your pitch assessment often starts going sharp, so what you thought was a C was actually a B, say. For me the pitch assessment accuracy differs depending on the harmonic content of the sound: guitars and harmonicas are awful, but pianos and flutes etc. seem to do better.
It's a very frustrating and difficult to explain phenomenon. I hate to use the oft-used but inaccurate color analogy, but it might be valid in this context. Imagine that everyone around you is fully color-blind, but not yourself. People are amazed that you can tell something is blue just by looking at it. You've had this ability your whole life. But then one day you look at something and report that it's blue, and someone uses their color-analyzer and tells you that it's not blue, it's in fact yellow. And they're right! But it still looks BLUE to you. Something has broken, and you can't explain it to others easily because they can only see gray.
I have two musicians I've played with who have perfect pitch, and I've seen it fail for both. One is an older man, whose legendary perfect pitch started to fail in his early 60s (not much later came the onset of early dementia, so...).
The other is a bandmate of mine, a woman in her late 20s/early 30s when i saw hers fail. She's genetically predisposed - both her father and her brother have perfect pitch; plus her father is a professional musician, she has a degree in music performance, and has had a violin in her hand since she was old enough to hold one. One day, we were recording, with her overdubbing parts onto some previously recorded work. She complained that a B flat played at the start of a guitar riff was out of tune. I said "No, that's a B". She insisted it was a B flat. I told her I had also played the part on keyboards, and it's a B.
She panicked.
It was extremely difficult for her to play for the rest of the session. Her playing relies so heavily on her perfect pitch that she's always had, that when she can't trust it, anxiety takes over.
Late 20s woman, started playing violin when I was 4, genetically predisposed. I had that SAME moment of shock and panic when I practiced with my sister before we played for my cousin's wedding a year ago. It was wild, the best way I can describe it is my ear has flattened out to baroque tuning down from modern 440 turning. I don't like it! I'm losing my best party trick to age but oh well, I don't think anybody's really gonna fault me if I'm off by a half step when I figure out what note a door is squeaking in lol
funny thing, I've noticed actual detuning happening in one ear only two or three times since I've passed my mid 20s. the second time, I tested it with earbuds - I had my PC play a sine wave at 440, sounded fine in the left but was very flat in the right, by easily 10 to 15 Hz. listening to anything with any kind of harmonic content with both ears was, obviously, terrible. nausea inducing, actually.
it goes away after 30 mins or so but the first time I had a brief moment of panic that this was some kind of permanent effect I had woken up with.
if my memory has any accuracy (dubious) then I was suffering from fairly heavy head colds every time this happened, so - applying totally uneducated guesswork - I put it down to something like uneven pressure buildup from a stuffy nasal cavity dampening the vibrations inside the ear.
You could correct your perception using this knowledge then. Just add the half step. As long as the measurement device is still working, you can always re-calibrate (in this case cognitively) the base.
Yup, singing at 415 fucked up my pitch for a while. Still, it's a good excuse for human lapses. And at least it's not singing at 430, which is uniformly terrible for everyone.
That sounds like a tiny horror story to me. Losing my hearing would be much more difficult to me than losing my site. My sympathies are definitely with you
My pitch started to drift in middle age too. Like you, I do better or worse based on timbre; piano is great (it's my instrument, which must help), stringed instruments are pretty good in general, wind instruments are not so great, organs are the worst.
Playing for ten years in a Balinese gamelan that was not remotely tuned to a Western scale probably didn't help.
Absolute pitch is still a really useful skill to have, in my opinion, and I don't understand it when people say it's just a parlor trick or actually diminishes your ability to appreciate music; being able to spell doesn't diminish my appreciation of language. It is occasionally slightly distressing to realize in retrospect that I've been off by a half step, like thinking you're walking north and then looking at a map and realizing you've been walking west.
Piano has very distinct timbre for each note - there are many people that think they have perfect pitch but only really just learned the timbre for each note on piano and wouldn't be able to identify pitches of puretones for instance.
However for those of us that drift, I think it's likely that we recognized notes by both timbre and pitch, but although now that our pitch recognition has started drifting, we can still identify by timbre.
Absolute pitch is often described as a disadvantage for aural skills as it's often used as a crutch in place of properly identifying intervals and function. I know that when I went through aural skills, I would identify the notes before identifying the interval and draw a conclusion on the interval based on what notes they are rather than hearing them for what they are. Which makes it very difficult for me to pick out vocal harmonies, I'm terrible at picking out vocal pitch and as a result I have to deconstruct notes in my head to figure out intervals when people sing in harmony.
Using your language metaphor, it would be like if you immediately knew what a word in Russian meant in English but didn't actually understand Russian. You'd be linking together words to infer meaning but grammar might not make any sense and you wouldn't be able to speak Russian. (Bad analogy, but hey, that's how analogies are right? :P)
Definitely sympathize on the drift though. It's annoying when I assume I still recognize notes properly but then realize I'm off.
I'm interested in this idea that a piano has a distinct timbre per note. Surely the most distinct thing between two notes is their pitch. But you're saying people pick up on the harmonic signature more readily? I can here the difference in timbre across different sections of the piano, but I really cannot imagine distinguishing the timbre of two consecutive notes within the same "section" (by section I mean that the strings are arranged equivalently except for length and tension).
I'd also think that those people would be very sensitive to the make of piano.
> Absolute pitch is still a really useful skill to have, in my opinion, and I don't understand it when people say it's just a parlor trick or actually diminishes your ability to appreciate music; being able to spell doesn't diminish my appreciation of language.
True, it is just like saying: being able to name colors diminishes your ability to appreciate colors. That would be a ridiculous statement. However, having absolute pitch does make some music more predictable, I think it affected my taste in music.
Same. My instruments piano and trumpet are never-miss (though I hear the trumpet in Bb), and organs are more difficult for me too. I think organ overtones might be off pitch or something? just a wild guess.
Depends on which stops are pulled on the organ. If it's just octaves (8', 4', 2', 16'...), then it will be quite pure, depending on what kind of stops are playing (flutes and principals are purer than reeds, for instance). If you add a mutation (2-2/3', 1-3/5', a mixture of multiple mutations...), then you'll have both the impurity of the mutations themselves, as well as their own overtones.
Or, you could have a string stop pulled, which is purposefully slightly out-of-tune to produce a "string" sound when paired with an in-tune stop.
A typical "pipe organ" sound on a digital keyboard will often have mixtures and other mutations. I've found that settings with names like "church organ" tend to be purer, perhaps only some flutes and principals.
Piano overtones are normally off-pitch (in a sense), and guitar too, to a lesser extent. I would imagine organ overtones to be highly dependent on the design of the specific instrument, but I'm guessing they are largely more harmonic.
Mostly I feel like the timbre of an organ note is very consistent from pitch to pitch, whereas, say, an A on a piano sounds buzzy to me while a Bb sounds more smooth and a B natural is kind of liquid. (Of course the timbre probably isn't really changing much but that's how my brain perceives it.)
I just read a comment above that discussed this timbre sensitivity. In any octave the A sounds buzzy? What about on any piano? Do all 88 keys produce a kind of unique timbre signature for you?
A just has a kind of a buzzy feel to it. It's not something I can really quantify or prove, just a sort of synaesthetic sense. I would say that I feel it the strongest in the two octaves below middle C. It is basically true for any piano. I don't have a mapping for all 88 notes on a piano, and it's not like you could hand me a timbre and I could identify the corresponding pitch. The whole thing is shifty enough that I assume something else is actually going on and this is just the way that my conscious brain makes sense of it. But it is part of the way that I perceive pitch.
Organs don't have inharmonic overtones, but organ tuning changes with air pressure/temperature/humidity, and organs are a big hassle to tune, so in practice organs rarely play at A=440Hz.
Supposedly the ability to guess how long a minute is also goes that way as you get older, e.g. older participants think a minutes is over after 62s or more. So if your internal clock slows down a B would sound like a C.
Is there some sort of online test to figure out if you’re tone deaf. Every time people talk about B, C, etc. and then reproduce the sound with another instrument, I have no idea what it’s supposed to be...
It's unlikely that you're tone deaf. It's quite rare. Truly tone deaf people can't really hear music, because they can't hear the relative relationships of pitches properly. It's the relative pitches, not the absolute pitches, that create the ebb and flow of music.
I've been playing music for thirty-odd years, and I couldn't name pitches by ear most of the time, certainly not without thinking about it. I often hand-tune guitars (relatively!) if I'm playing by myself, and after a few days of that, it's not unusual to be more than a half-step out of whack. I don't notice, because it's in tune with itself.
There's a lesser form of tone-deafness (perhaps that's not the right word for it) where you can't tell with certainly or consistency the direction or extent of a change in pitch.
You can still hear and appreciate music, but you can't whistle or hum along to a tune.
I know someone who can sing to match a melody from memory very accurately. They sing on key. But they have a hard time singing to match a single pitch, and they have a very hard time naming whether two consecutive pitches are ascending or descending.
Definitely possible, but I suspect there are also quite a lot of people like me, who have a fairly poor ear for intervals (let alone absolute pitch) and are baffled by a lot of the things that seem 'obvious' to others, but wouldn't meet the criteria for amusia.
Try searching for "amusia". A long time ago I took a test at http://www.delosis.com/listening/summary.html. It's been down for years now, but some of the results/discussion/links are still up.
There are links other possible theories on that page, namely the temporal theory, which does propose we rely on neuronal clocks. It seems likely to me that both theories play a role in pitch perception.
> you don't analyze pitches using an internal clock, rather you cochlea acts like an analog fourier transform.
I'm out of my depth here, but wouldn't that process still require some kind of 'clock' (albeit not necessarily the one used for conscious time perception) in order to resolve the signal into absolute, rather than relative, frequencies?
Nope - the transform is analog. You have a tube, and the sound propagates down the tube; higher frequencies get absorbed first, while lower frequencies make it further. The tube is lined with little hairs that just sense amplitude; each hair thus measures the amplitude of the signal convolved by the frequency response of that spot in the tube (actually pulling a pure tone out of that is a remarkable feat of signal processing as there is huge overlap). So no clock is required - an absolute frequency turns into an absolute pattern of nerve stimulus.
If I may emphasize your point, the frequency reference doesn't come from a neurological time-keeping mechanism. Instead it comes from physical resonance. So it is definitely still a "clock". It's like having many pendulum clocks in your ear. However it is unlikely that whatever you use to count by seconds has to do with the little pendulums (pendula) in your ear.
Wouldn't routinely listening to music be enough to calibrate it? Maybe my memory is unusually good, but I think I remember the key(s) of all the songs that I listen to frequently. So I think I'd notice if my perception of the key of a song changes.
I'd guess this is related to the general tendency towards hearing loss with age? There's presumably an intermediate period between "not hearing things as well as you used to" and "your hearing is so reduced that you can tell" (I know at least one person currently in that gap, though it might just be that he's stubborn about it).
Having absolute pitch would then make it easier to realize when your hearing's going, because you're used to it being more precise?
Since birth I've been susceptible to otitis, and one day I was having a bad one, with eardrum penetration in right ear, as I was at the edge of teenage. I always have been listening to some music, and happened to notice that tone in the sore right ear is 1/2 tone up. But when I plugged left headphone into healthy left ear, music somehow had synchronized and I heard no difference then. I was terrified with thought that it would keep pitch shifted forever, but thank god it's okay now.
I wonder what biologists say, but I guess than final pitch/hue we perceive is a result of altogether three factors: liquid pressure inside ear (physics), unconditional neural reflexes (developed as genetically encoded), and chronobiology (there are structures inside our brain that play the same role as clock impulse generator in electronic devices[1]).
"Most psychedelic drugs affect, primarily, the visual sense, but here is one that shows its effects primarily in the auditory system. And it screws it up in a most unlinear manner, in that there in not just a simple decrease in pitch which would be as if someone had his thumb against the LP record and made everything come out at a 3/4 speed text, or a 1/2 speed text. Actual [p]roportionality is lost, so there is complete harmonic distortion."
"For me the pitch assessment accuracy differs depending on the harmonic content of the sound: guitars and harmonicas are awful, but pianos and flutes etc. seem to do better."
It is common for musicians with relative pitch skills to be better at it with their own instrument(s) than others. For example, I hear guitar parts better than most other instruments, and I've played guitar for three decades. I can do pitch recognition with other sounds, but the further from the range and timbre of guitar it gets the trickier it becomes.
I think absolute pitch is fascinating and confusing...because pitch is arbitrary. We've all mostly agreed on A=440Hz, and it's become more common with time and electronic instruments and tuners and such for recordings and live performances to be A=440Hz. But, I still find myself retuning sometimes when learning new pieces by ear, because the recording is a little sharp or flat. And, it's arbitrary that we have 12 notes to an octave; we could have 17 or whatever (based on closely matching the ratios, so it's not completely arbitrary).
So, absolute pitch is clearly a learned skill. The wild thing about it is that it is a learned skill that is mostly only obtainable when very young. This is similar to some language nuances and why someone may speak a second language with an accent even after decades of speaking it fluently, if they learned it as an adult. There aren't a lot of skills like that, however...I can't think of any others, and it seems to be because pitch/music/language are all closely related in the brain.
I wonder if in your case, you could retune your absolute pitch with practice? Perhaps you don't play or listen to as much music as you did in your youth when it was "in tune".
> I think absolute pitch is fascinating and confusing...because pitch is arbitrary.
> So, absolute pitch is clearly a learned skill.
Being able to name a note as an A or a B or whatever must be learned, because those labels are arbitrary -- but isn't that just a matter of translation? It seems that the fundamental ability (perceiving and identifying absolute frequencies) could still be innate.
That may be so. But, it seems to be more common among the children of musicians and children who have heavy exposure to music early in life. But, then again, that could also be indicative of genetics...maybe people who love music enough to expose their kids to a lot of it at a young age have more of whatever this ability is, just not enough to be absolute pitch.
I guess it could be that there are people who have the fundamental ability, without ever learning the labels to apply to them. Like the fact that humans took a while to name a bunch of the colors, and even now there are cultures where blue and green are not distinct colors. Maybe there are people with absolute pitch who just never learned the names of the notes they're hearing. Heck, maybe those folks are some of the ones who are "learning" absolute pitch as adults in these trials.
So you have perfect pitch and does that equate to having a good quality singing voice (others enjoy listening to you)?
It is a weird phenomenon and I think songwriting is too .. like why do Melodies and lyrics (usually somewhat jumbled) I never heard before pop in my head? Where does that come from?
> So you have perfect pitch and does that equate to having a good quality singing voice (others enjoy listening to you)?
At the simplest there's 2 components in enjoying somebody sing:
- They have a pretty-ish voice that they master. Absolute pitch doesn't help for that, just like it doesn't help for any other instrument.
- They sing on tune. Absolute pitch doesn't help either, anybody can tune themselves on a background music. Even if a capella, everybody without an absolute pitch won't know if you don't start on the right note
> like why do Melodies and lyrics (usually somewhat jumbled) I never heard before pop in my head? Where does that come from?
Pattern matching, which the brain is extremely good at
I've noticed another odd thing. I'm blessed/cursed with absolute pitch, and once in a while I have enough trouble with wax buildup that I have to break out the ear drops and squeeze bulb. When I flush out the ear with trouble, that ear's pitch sense goes awry; dial tone sounds a half-step flat, for instance. Once that ear dries out, it's back to normal.
Me too; I guess it's nice not to be alone. I thought I was shifting into Baroque A=415 mode.
Alas even this mutant absolute pitch is still troublesome in one way: sometimes some folks I played and sang with said "OK, the music is written in X, but we want to do it in Y." I couldn't do it without learning it as written and then playing or singing it in Y without looking at the music.
I had a nasty sinus infection a few years ago that took weeks to clear up. My ears were stuffed up and it made hearing difficult for a while. After it cleared up, my left ear was tuned about a quarter-tone sharp, and only above a certain frequency (about middle C). It was the damndest thing.
Perfect pitch is overrated. In college as a music student with excellent relative pitch, I routinely outscored peer students with perfect pitch when taking classical ear training courses. Perfect pitch is more of a parlor trick. It's occasionally useful when trying to tune a stringed instrument by yourself, and distracting if your ensemble starts to drift off key while remaining in tune with each other.
Also, trained relative pitch is better than untrained perfect pitch. For instance, if my instructor played four bars of a four-part bach chorale on the piano (sixteen quarter notes, perhaps a couple of eighth-note passing tones), I could fully notate it within three repetitions, sometimes on first listen - if I were initially told what key it was in. Someone with untrained perfect pitch would be able to tell if the instructor was lying about what key it was in, but they wouldn't be able to notate it. So in that scenario, the only thing it's useful for is recognizing what key it's in. If I hadn't been told, I could have just notated it in C and then transposed it to the right key later.
I would later learn that being able to notate a bach chorale by ear is nothing compared to the kind of ear skills you need as a jazz musician - but again, there, perfect pitch isn't important or super useful. We learn chord relations - it's all relative.
Your comment is analogous to a colorblind person telling everyone how overrated red and green are.
First, someone with "untrained" AP (I assume you mean no musical training) wouldn't be in a position where they'd be needing to transcribe a Bach chorale, would they? Any AP possessor with musical training--I am one--finds transcription trivially easy since there's only rhythm to figure out.
While it can be momentarily distracting when music doesn't match its normal key due to transposition or tuning issues, I can move past it without too much effort, although I am continually aware of the discrepancy. It's like the visual illusion where the ballerina can spin both clockwise and counterclockwise depending on your perspective.
The biggest benefit is being able to identify the key without having to do the initial hunt for the tonic by testing notes. This is very useful in an accompaniment situation.
Color is overrated in a world where most are colorblind. Red means danger or stop because you have seen a lot of stop signs. In a world of colorblind people, stop sign colors are chosen by the colorblind, based on something like "is this a cheap metal" rather than design language (which no longer exists for color). Instead we would use reflectivity or something to indicate danger. As to whether or not the varying-colored stop signs leads to a statistically significant number of color-sighted people blowing through them it is hard to say, but does seem a legitimate safety concern.
And this is the situation in music; keys are chosen based on the technical details of the musician rather than a design language. Meanwhile, we do have a design language based on relative pitch (e.g. a 5/7 chord "leads" to the tonic). Of course you can see that the same way you can see a purple stop sign, but you may lack some of the pattern-matching intuition of your peers.
As a musician with relative pitch and the child of a musician with perfect pitch, I have watched them get puzzled a lot navigating a design language that is very obvious to me. Perhaps you are a better musician than they are, or perhaps you avoid areas where the design language dominates. Either way, I would not trade places with you, unless the rest of society did also.
> Color is overrated in a world where most are colorblind.
That's speaking to the value in communication/collaboration.
The sensory experience itself would still have its own qualities even if other people are unable to appreciate them.
I went through a weird period of a few months in college when tones had a... character. I use that term rather than color because for some reason some of them were tied in with associations I had with the sound of people's voices. Not every pitch had this association, but recognizing the character let me identify the pitch.
The utility of this was certainly nothing astounding, but it was interesting to say the least. And it probably wasn't even absolute pitch.
And then, of course, there's the matter of utility that doesn't come from communication. Color vision doesn't just provide a field of aesthetic exploration, it actually lets people distinguish certain things more easily.
> Your comment is analogous to a colorblind person telling everyone how overrated red and green are.
Ooh, that is such an intriguing analogy. I think it's wrong.
The analogy should be a colorblind person complaining that the ability to guess html hex color values is overrated for the purpose of measuring, analyzing, and describing how a combination of colors affects the mise en scene in a given film still.
We must also add the complication that most televisions and places where people look at scenes the colors tend to gradually ramp down in frequency as the lights get tired.
In a lot of classical music, especially since 1900, pitch classes play a really fundamental role. When, say, G is a prominent pitch class for a while, and then I hear it come back a few minutes later, that lets me understand the structure of the piece better than if I didn't recognize it. So absolute pitch has a real use, and I don't think it's quite fair to put it on the level of "absolute hex color values".
Of course, there is a lot of subtle stuff going with color design in TV and movies that generally passes me right by, so maybe I should be spending more time trying to appreciate that and less time getting excited about identifying Gs in atonal music...
> When, say, G is a prominent pitch class for a while, and then I hear it come back a few minutes later, that lets me understand the structure of the piece better than if I didn't recognize it.
Give me a controlled example where the return of the prominence of pitch class G lets you understand the structure of a section of music.
Controlled example would mean:
* the orchestration used for the G is different at moment A and moment B, OR the piece is for a solo instrument. Otherwise you could be hearing a timbral connection and confusing it for a pitch class connection.
* the G at moment B is in a different octave. Otherwise you could be hearing a pitch connection and confusing it for a pitch class connection. (Esp. if you have perfect pitch.)
* the musical texture at moment A is different from moment B. Otherwise you could just be hearing a textural connection (e.g., big orchestral hit, moment where the woodwinds return, etc.) and confusing it for a pitch class connection.
* it's not a tonal piece of music. Otherwise you could be hearing the same or similar harmonic progression and confusing it with a pitch class connection.
* moment A is melodically dissimilar from moment B. Otherwise you could be hearing a melodic connection and confusing it with a pitch class connection.
I can't think of any musical moments that meet those constraints.
Oh, geez, I'm not going to go find some specific section of music that perfectly meets all these constraints. Often the pitches are at the same octave, by the way; I don't think that makes the connection any smaller. And often the texture is similar; many aspects of the music may be "recapping" and one of them happens to be pitch. I'm not "confusing anything with a pitch class connection" just because another connections happen to exist; I'm hearing more connections than I otherwise might.
I am definitely talking about non-tonal music in general, yes. Elliott Carter is a good example of a composer where I feel that absolute pitch helps me understand what is going on more than I would otherwise. But again I'm not going to dig out some particular measure of music that perfectly proves my point.
If this reply was insufficient for your needs (I fear it is) I apologize. I'm not trying to win some debate, just to elucidate a little how I feel that absolute pitch aids my music appreciation.
I’d argue that you are either at synesthetic or are somewhat pre-disposed to absolute pitch. I have heard others describe it the way you do but I do not hear tones that way.
I agree, with the caveat that the person with relative pitch may not know that the particular color is "green", but does know that-- given two different colors-- both will have the adjective "dark" in their names.
In that analogy, suppose a "mise en scene" teacher gives the students an assignment to analyze the use of color in a picture. Using music dictation classes as a guide here, what would happen is that the person with "perfect color" immediately labels all the colors in the scene with the correct crayon name. This intimidates all the "relative color" people because they can't do the mappings without reference to the crayon box. Thus, the "relative color" people assume they are at a lower skill level in their analysis than the "perfect color" person. (This is exaggerated by the fact that the "perfect color" student has the word "perfect" in their name.)
Once the students finish their mappings the teacher asks the "perfect color" student, "How would you describe the use of colors here?" The "perfect color" student shrugs-- it is a collection of all the colors which they correctly named. As a kid they got praise from the teacher for their amazing ability to effortlessly map colors to names. No one ever asked them about the relationship among colors. (Or, if they did, the student nodded along and then correctly mapped colors to names as necessary to do an end-run around the question.)
On the other hand, "relative color" students grew up getting color names wrong. Every color class teacher would come up with a different ad hoc color theory and ad hoc color exercise to explain to the student how to correctly map colors to names. Most of them were wrong, but the student noticed weird little successes in identifying the relationship among colors. In their quest to stop failing all the time, they started to inarticulately ask themselves about the meaning of color, enumerating all the relationships among colors that could identify to help them narrow down the possible right answers to perhaps only a handful of names.
Back to the mise en scene class. One of these "relative color" student pipes in. "It looks like a bunch of pastels." The teacher praises the "relative color" student and moves on to other exercises.
After class the "perfect color" student asks the "relative color" student how they knew to say the word "pastels." The "relative color" student starts to talk about different famous scenes that have pastels, a childhood memory they have of a pastel drawing that won a prize at school, etc. But none of that connects at all with the "perfect color" student, because they've only ever had to map colors to names. They've never considered the relationship among colors.
So now the "perfect color" student dreads going to class for fear of the teacher discovering the profundity of their inability to say anything of substance about color relationships. And the "relative color" students dread the same class because they have no idea that their lifelong work to that point considering the relationships among colors constitutes a kind of knowledge.
Finally, there are no "perfect color" students who-- through sheer curiosity and discipline-- took it upon themselves to systematically investigate the relationships among colors. The people who did that would have placed out of this mise en scene class.
Agreed. I had a special ear training class at Berklee for all the incoming freshman who aced placements, and if I recall correctly everyone in the class had perfect pitch. Transcribing was trivial across the board. I transcribed solos for jazz magazines as a side gig, and filled notebooks with solos in my personal practice.
Without a doubt, relative pitch and learning theory are important skills too, but they aren't mutually exclusive.
All of that is possible and frequently accomplished with relative pitch. I'm sure you don't disagree, but just for the benefit of other readers. Most of transcribing is recognizing intervals and rhythms, which does not require perfect pitch in the slightest. (If transcribing pitches were purely about recognizing pitches, then it would be maddeningly frustrating to transcribe a recording that is slowed down a few cents. But it can be done just as easily by someone with relative pitch, by focusing on intervals, key relations, and contextual memory.)
Do you believe that lack of perfect pitch should be recognized as a disability? Do you believe that lack of perfect pitch should prevent someone from certain licensed professions? Do you believe that lack of perfect pitch is a safety concern in some circumstances?
Because the answer is "yes" for colorblindness. It's just a wildly overstated comparison. I mean, even tone-deaf people don't experience the kind of difficulties that people with colorblindness experience. You could just say that I could never entirely understand the benefits of having perfect pitch since I don't have it, and maybe that would be true, but I have literally never experienced a professional musical situation where I felt or thought, "Oh man, if only I had perfect pitch - I would have succeeded where I just failed." And this includes directing gigs, accompanying gigs, performance gigs, etc.
I'm occasionally wistful I don't have synesthesia just because that sounds actually expansive, but I don't pine for perfect pitch at all.
Synesthesia is weird and can be pretty specific. I have it - I "hear" flavors, although it's more about tones than pitches (think drums and cymbals rather than pianos). And part of it is about shape. Flavors change over exposure time, just as a musical note changes volume and harmonic content over its duration. It's almost impossible to explain.
The comparison to colorblindness isn't precise: colorblind people don't have relative color perception. In terms of information content, over an entire song the information encoded in the scale is very small compared to the information encoded in the relative pitches of notes (in fact the ratio goes to 0 for long music). A grayscale image contains significantly less information, essentially a 2D chrominance array; the ratio of information is roughly constant and does not diminish for large images, or say a series of images (e.g. a grayscale movie). It would be more like applying unknown hue rotations [1] each time you look at an image.
As a colorblind person with synesthesia (but I don’t play any instruments), I can say it is absolutely expansive. I experience sounds partially as sight; I have ‘seen’ many shades I would never be able to distinguish in the real world. I believe it works the other way as well, allowing me to notice more sounds than others because I can visually distinguish them, and then listen for differences
I'm colorblind, and I think red and green are kind of overrated :). I didn't even know I was colorblind until I took a test at age 11. The extent which it has impacted my life negatively is absolutely negligible. Granted, it's not as though red and green don't exist to me. Some shades are just ambiguously red or green.
I'm not sure, but I think I tend toward absolute pitch. Individual notes out of context often make me recall specific songs. I'm not that accurate with my AP when I try to test it though, which is why I wouldn't claim to have perfect pitch.
However, I did take formal ear training in grad school, I found it really difficult. Perfect 5ths with different base notes don't "sound alike" to me. I had to rely on a lot of tricks to get by. I can transpose melodies in my head, so I could pattern-match a test interval to, say, the Superman melody (P5) or the Taps melody (P4). Or, if I were transcribing a melody or harmony, I could figure it out by function (chordal, stepwise, or chromatic motion). For leaps and intervals beyond an octave, I'm useless.
I'd also say that when I learn a song for voice, I'm mostly memorizing how to produce the right tones in-key, as opposed to moving by interval. I don't know how other people experience singing, but I suspect it might also be due to my bias toward AP.
This triggers some thoughts that I haven't quite joined up yet.
Likewise, some reds and some greens are interchangeable to me.
I imagine the different colouring of intervals that you hear in different keys is due to tempering. I don't have anything close to AP, but I tell chord progression in C# from the same in C. But purple is pretty much just a shade of blue to me.
I studied Indian classical music for quite a few years, which involved a lot of listening to and repeating phrases. I was fine with the longer stuff, but eventually found out I had some sort of deficit with interval recognition and struggled with replicating standalone 2 note phrases.
I have good harmony and rhythm instincts in practice, but am almost 'dyslexic' when trying to describe them formally.
I'm slightly wondering if this collection of deficits and compensatory mechanisms is what has led me to a fascination with flamenco. (Albeit with a little frustration at some of the more puritanical traditionalism.)
I agree. I was a music major long ago and at least as far as musical applications go, relative pitch is much more valuable. Hearing intervals and harmony is much more important for the performance of music.
Professional classical singer here. I'm personally glad that I don't have absolute pitch, or at least not any version that is mostly focused on A=440 Hz, because as an early-music performer, I regularly have to sing at A=415 (for Bach and other Baroque composers), A=430 (for Mozart on classical-period instruments), A=440, and even A=465 (for Monteverdi) at times. And occasionally at other pitches. And with varying temperaments.
This discussion doesn't seem to be acknowledging how many pitch standards there are that are still in common use, and even in increasingly-common use due to the original-instruments movement.
It's my understanding that perfect pitch can be tuned, and also trained to deal with microtonal harmonies, etc. I don't think it is a straight jacket. Jacob Collier, I think(?), has perfect pitch, but going outside of western harmony is his schtick.
I think it's more like learning new words as an adult rather than a cage. But, maybe I'm wrong? I've heard anecdotally of people with perfect pitch complaining about some music being "out of tune", but I somehow doubt musicians are saying that, since as you note, music comes in all sorts of tunings (and the more interesting the music is, the more likely it is to go in weird directions, in terms of tuning, scales, etc.).
I'm inclined to believe it. I don't care for his music, but he's really impressive from a technical perspective. He can zero in on incredibly tiny pitch variations, when listening and singing. Hearing him sing microtonal stuff is downright intimidating.
Anyway, since he does have absolute pitch, I think he is very strong evidence that it doesn't limit you to A=440 and 12 tone equal temperament, because he is frequently wildly divergent from that, exploring microtonal music, harmonic series tunings, etc. It seems to be freeing rather than limiting (I understand some of that stuff on a theoretical level, but not on a level where I could improvise or compose in those languages without a lot of work and a whole new approach to ear training...musical concepts he studies and seems to grok in days or weeks would take me months or years).
You make a good point. I have absolute pitch, or at least something very close. When I was 16, we sang several of the songs from Handel's Messiah in my high school choir. A couple of times, our teacher played a recording. And I, knowing nothing about the history, criticized it for being flat. I'm pretty sure it was A=410. We did our performances at A=440 though.
That's interesting. Do you know why pitch varied so much at those periods and why have we settled on A=440 being considered orchestral pitch these days? I'd think having to sing at these different pitches must be difficult since you can't tune your voice like a instrument can.
In short, it was competition for the performance to seem more "bright" and exciting. It's arbitrary, but for performers to reach higher pitches was viewed as more challenging (and it is, for singers).
The wiki article is cited, so you can read up in as much depth as you like. But, it mostly boils down to, "That's just what people liked during important periods of musical development. And, then we stopped because technology advanced to the point where we could very accurately determine pitch and for the past 50+ years the majority of recorded and performed music has been A=440, or very close to it."
I'm an amateur classical singer, and I definitely have trouble dealing with A=415 when sight reading.
Another problem with absolute pitch, in a cappella singing: hearing another section of the choir go flat and either having to follow along or vainly try to prop the pitch up.
That's just as painful with good relative pitch. :-D I dropped out of a choir largely because the director put up with (or didn't notice) some pretty bad flatting. This was an otherwise superb choir, who has been to national ACDA conventions multiple times.
My other choir (a semiprofessional chamber choir) sharps occasionally (especially with songs in the key of F), but never flats.
I think it's overly simplistic to group people into those who have perfect pitch and those who don't. Of course, I don't know if the article makes this claim, but I think a lot of people tend to view perfect pitch as a binary ability -- either you have it or you don't. But speaking personally, I have "sort of" perfect pitch (imperfect pitch? semi-perfect pitch?), by which I mean that I can sing and/or recognize the pitch of certain notes from memory, but not any arbitrary note, not under all circumstances, and not instantaneously. If I'm not right on the money, I'm usually at least within a semitone or two. I can do it reliably enough that I'm convinced it's not just a fluke when I get it right, but on the other hand it's not at all "perfect." Moreover, the recognition happens too slowly to be practical in real time; usually it involves audiating part of a song that I know has certain notes, and using them as reference pitches. Perhaps if I dedicated more time to it I could get it more accurate or faster, and maybe even develop proper perfect pitch.
All that being said, while having true perfect pitch would probably open up new ways to appreciate and understand the music I'm listening to, I think that relative pitch is a far more useful skill -- nigh essential for many genres.
For what it's worth, I have the exact same skill as you down to all of the details. I can remember many songs in their original key, sing them / whistle them within a few cents usually, identify the key of many notes most of the time, but by no means 100% of the time perfectly. It's probably something that could indeed be trained to be more "perfect", but as someone who does have "pretty good" absolute pitch, I still consider it a parlor trick. It's fun now and again, but it doesn't really help much with my music. Perhaps that's because I don't transcribe Bach concertos.
On the other hand, I completely agree that relative pitch has to be on point. I don't see how it's possible to be an effective musician without it. Being able to intuitively know intervals, certainly if you're a singer, is indispensable.
Could this be the genetic predisposition aspect at play? I'm a complete idiot musically but my perception of sounds seems to be better than most (I can tell facial expressions from voice only,or sometimes just the sounds of their saliva, when others can't). I can't hold a tune, or rather I have no idea if I am holding a tune. I have wondered if I had acquired the luck part without the training required for the skill part.
Interestingly I get asked about my musical background a lot, because of my daughter's ability, whose conversations with her teachers have been beyond my comprehension for years now. While she also lacks perfect pitch, there seems to certainly be something going on. Her Mandarin teacher asked if she was raised around Chinese speakers from an early age because her ability to hear and match tones is something you generally can't just pick up the way she did.
My sense of absolute pitch decays with time. If I've been practicing my instrument a lot, then I can maintain absolute pitch for maybe a few days, e.g., recognize what key something is in. After a month, e.g., on family vacation, it's gone.
I think it's probably more likely that absolute and relative pitch are different capabilities, with most people innately biased one way or the other. But I don't think they're mutually exclusive. And I'm pretty certain some people have low capability in both.
I find the obsession with perfect pitch to be pretty overwrought. Much like I often find some people to be overly obsessed with synesthesia as a mystical source of artistic creativity.
The way I do it is I keep a memory of a song with a known reference frequency in my head. Usually it's the Super Mario Bros. theme, whose root is middle C. I know how the other notes on the scale sound relative to middle C. Sharps and flats are trickier, but if they sound unusual I can go half a step up or down and see if they match some other note. Usually I can identify a tone within half a step or so. Or at least I could, using this method, when I was a kid. Haven't tried it much lately.
I have a similar method. It's certainly not perfect, but 99% of the time I'll be within two semitones, 80% within 1 semitone, and 50% of the time I'll be exactly right (percentages are approximate).
Smoke On The Water gives me a G, Call Me The Breeze gives me an A, and so on. These are songs I've heard so many times they are just burned into my head.
This is one of those occasions when the research team definitely needs to test on more than the local population of subjects.
Because all the authors appear to be Chinese, probably all the test subjects were too. But because the Chinese language requires substantial awareness of subtle changes in prosody (esp. pitch), it's likely that speakers of other languages will not perform as well on their absolute pitch tests.
I suspect native speakers of Chinese have developed a subtle ear (and voice) for pitch during that critical period of language acquisition in childhood that makes them more able to acquire perfect pitch in adulthood than speakers of other languages, especially western ones.
This doesn't make sense to me. Everyone can distinguish relative pitch, that's how humans understand music. It was probably a crucial part of human evolution, somehow, as we all can do it. Tonal languages use relative pitch, not absolute pitch. Everyone can learn Cantonese regardless whether they have AP or not. If you claim tonal languages train you for AP that's citation needed, I don't think that's true (we would expect tonal language speakers to be more likely to have AP, a trend we haven't observed).
Music conservatory students in the U.S. and China were tested. The Chinese subjects
spoke the tone language Mandarin, in which pitch is involved in conveying the meaning of words.
The American subjects were nontone language speakers. The earlier the age of onset of musical
training, the greater the prevalence of absolute pitch; however, its prevalence was far greater among
the Chinese than the U.S. students for each level of age of onset of musical training.
You're probably right about the subjects: "Ten adults were recruited at City University of Hong Kong and completed the
training." So they'd likely be native Cantonese speakers.
But tonal languages use relative rather than absolute pitch (because different people have different vocal ranges), and all participants in the study improved their performance over time.
So speaking a tonal language or being a musician (also the case for the subjects in the study) can give an advantage, but I'd be surprised if deliberate training of pitch perception had absolutely no effect for people without such an advantage.
"In three experiments, we trained adults to name pitches for 12 to 40 hours. Within the training period, 14% of the participants were able to name twelve pitches at 90% accuracy or above, a performance level comparable with typical AP possessors."
This sounds like good relative pitch, with a memorized reference tone. Absolute pitch doesn't fade in 12 to 40 hours. Many musicians have relative pitch abilities that look, to observers, like absolute pitch, because they've memorized a reference tone sometime in the recent past and can find any other note relative to that reference (some folks also use their own voice as a reference tone, because they know the top and/or bottom of their range, or how a specific note feels when they sing it).
I only have the summary to go by, but this sounds quite different from absolute pitch and quite similar to relative pitch. We've always known people can acquire very good relative pitch recognition skills as an adult. That isn't new or groundbreaking (though if they have a training regimen that works fast enough for a study like this, that would be great news, since ear training for very good relative pitch recognition is a months or years long process for most people).
I used to be able to pretend I had absolute pitch, back when I played in a college orchestra that rehearsed four days per week—I had that A (for tuning) memorized very well. Now that I'm over a decade removed from that, it's not quite as reliable as it used to be.
Anecdata: my piano teacher was one of a class in the 1920s who were all explicitly trained into absolute pitch during kindergarten . Every person in the class learned it and retained it until at least late middle age. Some were better than others: my teacher’s sister, for example, could give you the pitch of anything from knocking a piece of wood to the sound of a car exhaust.
Not sure why this was downvoted. It's an interesting video from a smart musician with a ton of training and experience. He might be wrong, but he's not wildly wrong. Despite this and the one study of valproate that indicated adults could start to learn perfect pitch while using the drug, the preponderance of evidence is still that learning perfect pitch as an adult doesn't really happen all that often (if ever).
Think of all of the musicians who do ear training for years and never develop perfect pitch (but develop very good relative pitch). That's a tremendous amount of evidence that developing perfect pitch as an adult is vanishingly rare. I'm not sure why a couple of tiny studies with somewhat inconclusive results would be considered enough to ignore thousands of musician's experience.
I'd love it if perfect pitch could be acquired as an adult, but I've mostly accepted that pretty good relative pitch is the best I'll ever have, and a couple of small studies don't really convince me otherwise. It's interesting how "amazing new cancer cure" studies are brutally beaten down with "this is a small study, don't get your hopes up too high yet" here, but this tiny study has everybody convinced perfect pitch is totally do-able for everyone.
It seems all participants in the study were recruited from within Hong Kong. I wonder if being speakers of tonal languages has any effect. I'd be interested in seeing if the study could be reproduced with speakers of non-tonal languages.
> The findings from these three experiments are in accordance with the hypothesis that speakers of tone language employ absolute pitch as a feature of speech and that they refer to precise and stable absolute pitch templates in enunciating words.
> The present study does not address the question of whether absolute pitch, when acquired as a feature of speech, later generalizes to music.
I've studied cello from age 5 to conservatory degree; the pitches of the open strings are burned in my memory. I can also often tell which key an orchestra plays by timbral cues. However, I do not have "real" perfect pitch, although the topic study might find that I do. True perfect pitch is like the anecdotes in the thread: discomfort with "wrong" transpositions or tunings, learning melodies by real rather than relative pitch, internal references that can go out of tune with age. All these are completely alien to me.
I understand your point, but who knows if these things aren't really the same? My opinion is that having the notes "burned" in your memory is a lesser degree of the same phenomenon. People that are considered to have "real" perfect pitch just developed these abilities beyond what normal musicians like you did. And doing this at a very young age really helps a lot, in the same way that leaning new languages in infancy is a painless activity and quite difficult at adult age.
Yeah - I guess the early acquisition might be what influences the way these kids develop different cognitive strategies for music early on. It's obvious when teaching kids: the median student seems to operate on the first order derivative of the pitch curve, while the perfect pitch kids operate with the absolute values. A gross simplification. Interestingly, many of them require a different strategy for transposing melodies: go note by note, while median learners apply melodic intervals incrementally. Similar differences can be seen in solfege and dictation.
Musician here with terrible pitch guessing ability (but semi-decent composition skillz and good harmony sense).
I have always found absolute (or "perfect" pitch) to be misinterpreted in popular culture. I have not actually met a musician with perfect pitch. However, perhaps my definition is too narrow.
Would a person with perfect pitch be able to tell the difference between 440 Hz A and 432 Hz A? Would they be able to tell the difference between 440 Hz A and 438 Hz A?
If the definition is to be able to tell that a note is only slightly off within some pre-decided tuning system, then I know many people that can do this. The question to me is whether absolute pitch is as it says in the name, "absolute", or is it always limited by some measure of uncertainty? Is there a physical limitation? (Is it 1 Hz, or is it 5 Hz?)
Hope someone can explain this.
Edit: In the paper, they seem to stick to a pre-decided tuning system. Probably the standard one that we have now (equal spacing based on 13th root of 2 with 440 Hz A).
If you have very well developed perfect pitch, you can sense the difference just in the same way that you can feel that two strings are out of tune by a few Hz. That's why some people with perfect pitch like Mozart get annoyed by out of tune instruments.
My pitch recognition isn't bad but not particularly good either. When I play my mandolin, though, I can pick up small pitch differences on certain frets because I'm so used to associating finger position with frequency.
Not sure if you can reach AP (which is not clearly defined anyway) but you can dramatically improve pitch recognition in general by practice.
This is interesting to me, not because of the musical implications but because of the neurobiological ones – and especially with regards of learning accents / pronunciation of second languages.
There has been a lot of studies that have tried to teach recognizing the audible difference of R and L to Japanese English learners. I don't know of a single study has been able to produce robust results. (There's a primary and secondary acoustic cues to the difference; some Japanese have had success recognizing the difference using secondary acoustic cues, but recognizing the primary cue which is the most robust one and which the natives use preferentially escapes treatment.)
However, the testing protocols and time are limited, and we have increasingly knowledge about adult neuroplasticity. Results like this keep me hopeful that it's just that we don't know the good way to do that yet and we might see some results in the future.
In my first class in college for a music theory course, the first assignment was "memorize A" (440Hz). Surprisingly, after several weeks of playing the tone and matching it verbally, I did learn A. Everything else from there is knowing intervals relative to A (like, C is a minor 3rd above A, or 3 half steps).
Edit: there are tricks you can use for memorizing the intervals, too, like "Here Comes the Bride" is a perfect 4th, "My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean" is a major 6th, and so on. There's a whole list at https://www.earmaster.com/products/free-tools/interval-song-....
I had a choir teacher who told us a story about cheating that assignment by learning the pitch of the hum of the fluorescent lights in their classroom.
How would you ever know if you "have" perfect pitch without training? I don't even know what a C or B is[0]. Are there any tests online that don't require prior knowledge?
Musical notes are a base-7 system denoted with the letters A-F repeating. Given that it is not a numerical system, different A's or B's (ect) are marked with numbers rather then continuing like hex. i.e. A3, E5 (etc) with lower tones being lower numbers.
To answer your question, you won't. Perfect pitch usually develops in people who have had musical training since very young childhood. Just like you can't really remember learning your native language, they can't remember learning this skill. But like everyone, they did learn it at some point.
I was always taught there are 12 notes, while any standard scale contains only 7 of them. (The chromatic scale obviously being the exception which contains all 12.)
Accidentals are just for notation -- obviously B-flat and A-sharp are the same "note", just as F-sharp-sharp and G are.
Our entire turning of equal temperament is based on 12 equal intervals, not 7. So I'd argue parent commenter is correct -- notes are base 12, not base 7.
Scales are based on ratios, and our equal tempered scale is a compromise to get equidistant steps that can be used to closely approximate those ratios. The idea being to be able to use the same instrument to play in any key without retuning the instrument and adjusting the intonation.
So...one could argue for either or both interpretation and explanation. The note names, sharps and flats, is what is most arbitrary about it.
Can somebody recommend an app for pitch recognition training for people who have the capacity to distinguish small differences in sound frequency but zero knowledge of music theory? E.g. an app that plays a sound and asks to name it doesn't qualify as I have no idea of how do musical notes and their varieties sound and am to be taught these from scratch. Of course I can find some examples and listen to them but that would take a fair amount of repetitions to memorize and I'd like the app to help with this too.
"an app that plays a sound and asks to name it doesn't qualify"
I don't think any ear training app works that way. Any app that is based on good pedagogical practice would be training relative pitch recognition, not note naming. An app like that would only be usable by people who already have perfect pitch. Relative pitch, which is the skill most musicians cultivate, is based on recognizing the difference between pitches as well as the sound of combinations of pitches (i.e. recognizing major/minor chords), and only much later do note names come into play. Someone with a very refined sense of relative pitch can name notes, if they have a reference pitch in their head that they can compare to (and some people take that one step further by making the top or bottom of their vocal range their "reference note", or they "memorize" the first note of some piece of music they know well, so they can figure out other pitches based on where it is relative to a known note, but that can drift).
One strange phenomenon I've noticed (while trying to teach myself perfect pitch) is that, when trying to reproduce (say) middle C, if I'm off, I'm only ever off by multiples of a half-step. That is to say, I'm singing exactly a B or C# (or on a bad day, Bb or D). My ear is sharp enough to detect if I were, say, a quarter step off.
This ability seems to fall somewhere in between relative and absolute pitch, and I'm sure I'm not the only one it is true for.
I've played the piano for 50 years (I'm 55), and I do a lot of ear-training practice with software (Ear Master, etc) to keep myself sharp.
I still don't have perfect pitch. Without hearing a reference note, I won't get it.
In some ways, it's good. I keep my Bosendorfer tuned to A=443 and occasionally someone comes over whose used to the American A=440 and it bothers them. It doesn't bother me.
440 is actually an international standard, not American.
>In 1939, there was an international conference held in London that resulted in a recommendation to use A = 440 Hz, as a compromise between the various tuning systems used at the time, some of which reached beyond 450 Hz. This recommendation was further supported by the fact that the BBC required their orchestras to tune to 440 Hz instead of 439 Hz because 439 is a prime number, and the corresponding frequency was hard to generate electronically with standard electronic clocks. Eventually, in 1955, the standard A = 440 Hz was adopted by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).*
When I shopped for my piano, in Vienna, it was tuned to 443 which was the custom there. It was crated up at the factory and shipped to California where it's been holding its tune.
From the evolutionary perspective, what advantage does having perfect pitch "built-in" give a person or society? Being able to identify the pitch of some game you might be hunting wouldn't seem to make you a better hunter thus being able to survive hard times so you're able to pass your genes along better than one without it.
It's closely related to language skills, which also have nothing to do with hunting, but have a lot to do with being an attractive mate and having leadership abilities. So...it is not a survival skill, rather it is a mating skill.
I've heard anecdotal reports that absolute pitch training kind of works as an adult, but not as well. If you practice enough you can start to identify notes correctly, but if you don't keep up with training, the ability goes away.
My understanding is that you can train people to recognize few/certain tones, but if you have a perfect pitch you are able to do it for every tone, which is something that cannot be learned.
There are supplements/nootropics that people claim to make all sorts of things possible. The research is often lightly corroborated. But, there has been discussion here about the subject a few times over the years. Valproate, a mood stabilizer, is one such drug, but the study size was small.
lol, the entire nootropic industry is just one step above pseudoscience. Nobody I know who has started taking nootropics has seen any measurable benefit from them aside from side effects, assuming we are excluding normal stimulants from "nootropics" and mostly referring to *racetams. Additionally, most studies on nootropics that show promising results focus on things like NGF rather than actual changes in intelligence, and only test one potential nootropic at a time, while most people who take them do complex stacks / take much higher doses, which makes me question their safety regarding long-term use
Given that, to my knowledge, there isn't any evidence that increasing neurotropic growth factor will cause significant neuron growth/regeneration in regular adults, it seems the only nootropics that actually work are stimulants and semi-stimulants, which at the end of the day just make you more alert and focused
It's one of those "life hacks" that gives such marginal, if any, benefits that it's not even a productive use of your time to think about them/order them/etc. when you could do more productive life hacks with your time instead
SEMAX + selank + alpha-GPC 5 days/week alternating every 4 weeks with p21/cerebrolysin. Also add a multivitamin, D + K, and chelated/TRAACS magnesium supplement.
Nootropics, if they have an effect, tend to improve aspects of cognition. For example, focus, creativity, mental energy, verbal fluidity, ability to multitask (ie, listen to music while reading), etc.
Not all benefits are perceivable without monitoring via sites like Cambridge Sciences.
I'm interested in large double blind studies regarding increases in IQ or alertness, as well as studies into the long term effects of taking these mostly untested drugs/supplements.
A bunch of guys on the internet taking Lumosity tests doesn't replace a study
Sites like Cambridge Sciences are mentioned as another way to see if nootropics are having an effect. Even if studies claim benefits, some may experience nothing. That is, many things health-related tend to vary on a per-person basis.
It is like learning a language: just as kids can acquire a new language, they can also acquire absolute pitch. So, send your kids for early musical training, if they like music, in order to acquire absolute pitch.
It was an unreleased progressive training program, with sections of immediate feedback, and sections with only feedback after a certain amount of questions.
The secret sauce is kinda a glissando between sections to try and throw off your pitch memory.
there are people working on recreating this in a web page. There are also people who argue this is not Perfect pitch, but just well trained relative pitch. It did fade after no training for 3 months IIRC.
There was a a different study that showed Depakote possibly aiding learning perfect pitch as an adult. Don't go find some Depakote and cram music theory, Depakote could kill you.
It's a very frustrating and difficult to explain phenomenon. I hate to use the oft-used but inaccurate color analogy, but it might be valid in this context. Imagine that everyone around you is fully color-blind, but not yourself. People are amazed that you can tell something is blue just by looking at it. You've had this ability your whole life. But then one day you look at something and report that it's blue, and someone uses their color-analyzer and tells you that it's not blue, it's in fact yellow. And they're right! But it still looks BLUE to you. Something has broken, and you can't explain it to others easily because they can only see gray.