Talk:Absolute pitch/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

440 and famous possessors

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)

440

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?

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.

Absolute pitch?

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)

Different pianos may be tuned a semitone higher or lower than "concert pitch", which may cause this phenomenon. - tk1@despammed.com

"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)

I've noticed many people with perfect pitch (absolute pitch) complain that they begin to hear notes up to a whole step higher as they enter early middle age. It's probably a relatively common aging process, just like losing hair and eyesight. Perhaps you can pick up the clarinet, since it's a Bb instrument.--69.226.242.31 08:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That's scary; I've actually noticed something like this myself, but I attributed it to listening to so much early music where A = Ab or somewhere in between. Interesting! Antandrus (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's not uncommon for people's perception of pitch to alter gradually as they get older. Typically, the note that they think of as, say, C will in fact be more like a B or even a B flat. Consequently, when they hear someone play or sing a true C, it will sound to them more like a C sharp or even a D. I have noticed this, and it's more marked at the beginning of a "session", especially if I haven't had any active involvement with music for a few days. It seems to self-correct after a short while: or at least it does now. (I'm in my late forties.) I suppose I've got used to it, but it can be disorientating. Ondewelle (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2009 (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". 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

Sounds convincing to me. Important changes should be discussed first too. I'll revert it for now. Stephen B Streater 13:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Further updates have been made by this user - I for one support retaining the text that was there, per Daniel Levitin - at this point implying a rollback to 55831749. Outriggr 06:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Perfect pitch

This article uses the oft considered inaccurate term perfect pitch throughout its text. Any reason?-Hyacinth 21:04, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Probably because it is in more common usage, even though it is irritatingly imprecise. I tried to train my students to use the term "absolute pitch" but it was a losing battle. Google for perfect pitch = 87,000; absolute pitch = 20,000, as of today. Antandrus 17:04, 6 Sep 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) .

I've never heard a distinction made between absolute and perfect pitch--what's your source? Grove makes no distinction, except to say that the term "perfect pitch" is misleading, in their article. Antandrus (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a distinction. As for 144.138.204.246's comments: the phenomenon I believe he is referring to is that many good musicians begin to acquire absolute pitch in a weak or not very reliable way, as opposed to the people who have had fast and reliable recognition since childhood (and there is a minority that has acquired this later in life). However, I don't think it's appropriate to make this distinction by the choice of one word. "Perfect pitch", as he described, is really just strong "absolute pitch", or perhaps absolute pitch with good musical training. I have seen this kind of usage, but I believe it is a misusage. What 144.138.204.246's definition is doing is trying to distinguish between the two extreme ends of what should collectively be known as absolute pitch, and there is a very continuous overlap between these two groups, so I don't think it's necessary to include an alternate definition for this common confusing misuse. - Rainwarrior 13:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Tones

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

But the pitch is the fundamental, unless it is a bell or something with an irregular overtone series. When I hear a C# I first hear the C#, whether it is a piano, an oboe, a tire squeal or a modem trying to connect; the perception of timbre comes later. Interesting though. Antandrus 05:41, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Melody trigger: Prolobe.com

The melody trigger technique is now being used (successfully) to gain absolute pitch at Prolobe.com

-Pete

1 in every 10,000?

Active absolute pitch possessors in the United States number about 1 in every 10,000.

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)

I also see this statistic mentioned frequently. My own experience (which I can't put in to the article, since it's original research) is that possessors of perfect pitch may be far more numerous than this, based on how many I knew in graduate school. I taught at a large music conservatory, and I'd say that maybe 1 in 20 of the students in the advanced theory/sight-singing sections that I taught had "active" perfect pitch, and maybe one in ten had "passive". No students in the lower sections did. Overall, maybe one in 50 or 100 students in the school had the ability. The 1:10,000 statistic holds up only if it possible that the students in the school were a tiny subset of the general population. I also observed that students from East Asia (China, Korea, Japan, Singapore especially) were much more likely to have pitch than those from the west; I have no idea why, since not all those places have tonal languages. Antandrus (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Although the statistic is probably inflated to some extent, your case is probably above average. But you must also take into account that you are not only in an academic environment, but also in a musical one. In this environment, although the percentage of people possessing absolute pitch from birth should be unchanged, the percentage of people who develop absolute pitch should be much higher. You must remember that the majority of the population does not study music seriously. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.92.40.30 (talk • contribs) .

I have active absolute pitch, being capable of identifying keys, notes, and producing any notes. I recently participated in an All-State Mixed Chorus ensemble, and approximately 10% of those in the chorus had absolute pitch. The general population might be 1:10,000, but musical population, much higher. Artvandelay 02:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

10% is pretty impressive. That's about the number of people who had absolute pitch in graduate classes I taught, as well as when I taught Advanced Ear Training. (I have it myself, and have had since about age 12.) Always found it a liability when singing in a cappella vocal groups though, and drove me crazy when I tried to learn to play transposing instruments. Antandrus (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I had heard that a form of absolute pitch in which can tell, for example, if a piece of music has been transposed or able to identify the original key when a piece is played in a selection of keys [assuming the original key is among them] occurs at about 1:10 in the population. This lacks the "labelling" ability though which would require musical training. It doesn't seem that surprising that the occurance of absoulte pitch with early musical training such that it can be used a musical facility would be 1:10000 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steve James (talk • contribs) 12:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

In my experience,people often kid themselves that they have absolute pitch. In about 5 cases, when some musician has bragged about having absolute pitch, I've said that I'd love to see it demonstrated, and then played a single note on the piano. Most were about a tone out (the pianos were at concert pitch), and several were most surprised that they couldn't do it accurately. So beware of taking people's word that they have absolute pitch - it really is rare. Of course, relative pitch is a very different matter. (By the way, all the musicians were very talented, and all were Caucasian.)

Aspiro (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that 1 in 10,000 sounds about right. I have AP and I studied at a music conservatory where many people had AP also. However, this is a specialized situation. We're not talking about 1 in 10,000 musicians, we're talking about 1 in 10,000 people. How many construction workers, vacuum salesman, pilots, nurses, and taxi drivers have "active" perfect pitch? So, while a music school might have 1 in 20 with perfect pitch, a typical construction site might have 1 in 100,000. 74.92.147.125 (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Learnable Vs. Genetic Only

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.

I'm a skeptic of the claim adults can learn perfect pitch. I started the Perfect Pitch Super Training Course regiment two weeks ago. I remain a skeptic. Here's what I've found for myself. I never realized in my 37 years of existance that I could identify C. Now, I know. And it's only for C. Going through the regimen, I can produce most of the notes of chromatic scale on demand so that I'm either dead on or close enough for my voice and my keyboard to generate beats. My hearing isn't as good. I can only identify a note on the chromatic scale half the time. The other times, I'm off by a half step. I feel like I could do a few things to make myself look like I have perfect pitch. In reality, I'm nowhere closer to perfect pitch than when I started. C is still the only note that I can immediately tell like I can identify colors or shapes. Identifying other notes is more like recalling the meaning of words in a foreign language with a mental dictionary, although the mental dictionary could get faster with constant practice. Producing notes feels more like I'm being lucky with a guess than something that feels natural. I think I'm only honing an advanced form of relative pitch. The Perfect Pitch Super Training Course and others should be put to shame for selling their courses to desparate musicians. I'll still continue with the regimen because it's fun to see results, and I feel like I'm developing an interesting (non-musical) skill. But it has nothing to do with perfect pitch. I still remain a skeptic.--69.20.170.196 08:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm concerned about the statement in the article that "Independent research at Ohio State University and the University of Calgary demonstrated statistically significant improvements in absolute pitch skills among students using a perfect pitch method by David Lucas Burge. [10]. " This is straight out of Burge's training materials, but I've read those two reports carefully and they do NOT show that absolute pitch can be learned, as Burge has claimed. I know this is rash, but I'm going to take down that claim later this week unless there are any objections. Daniel Levitin

If I'm following the article history correctly, this statement was placed in the article as a "compromise" for an editor trying to linkspam various articles relating to pitch and Ear training. The compromise was also based on the fact that this article apparently alludes or links to a competitor of PerfectPitch.com[mercial]. Therefore, we are supposed to give them equal license, apparently. I would support edits that ensure factual information is recognized, and that we don't worry about giving equal time to commercial interests who want to slide their way into this article, but have no a priori justification, per WP policy, for being included at all. (Now if established research happens to be coming from a commercial source, then fine). Full discloure: I'm the original linkspam remover. Regards, Outriggr 04:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: the statement in question was actually placed by the party I'm calling the "spammer", after discussions on talk pages of a couple of earnest Wikipedians trying to come to a compromise with him/her. Outriggr 04:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I added the link to the references to reduce its profile in the article and also because it claims to contain research. I would rather link to this research directly, but haven't had time to dig it up or verify its existence. PS I know several people who have learned perfect pitch, so the claims seemed plausible to me. Stephen B Streater 12:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify my earlier comment. I read the Ohio State and U of Calgary articles very carefully, and they did NOT show that the Burge method works. Burge has been claiming for years that they show something that they do not. I agree that this article (like all WP articles) needs to give a fair treatment to different sides of an issue, but this particular sentence goes against fact. As to Stephen's note that he knows several people who have learned perfect pitch, I think one needs to be precise about what is meant by "perfect pitch" (or "absolute pitch", and I'm using the terms interchangeably as I think Stephen intended for our TALK purposes here). I don't know of any documented case of an adult who learned perfect pitch with a degree of accuracy and speed-of-naming that was equivalent to someone learning it before the age of 8. In every scientifically documented case, the adult had slower responses, suggesting that (s)he had learned only a few "landmark" tones, and was using relative pitch to calculate the remaining pitches from there. This is what Bachem (1954), Ward (1982) and others have called pseudo-absolute pitch. I am emphatically NOT saying that Stephen is mistaken, and I am NOT saying that adults cannot learn AP; rather, I am saying that there are no scientifically documented cases of adults learning AP. This is the reason that I think the misleading quote about the OSU and UC studies should be removed. I also would like your permission/consensus to clean up the discussion of "perfect pitch" versus "absolute pitch" and to clarify "white keys" vs. "black keys," "absolute piano" (timbre effects), and pseudy-AP, but of course I will propose any changes here in TALK before actually posting them. Daniel Levitin

User Aempinc deleted my edit today about the Ohio State and U of Calgary articles, claiming that it was the "opinion of one researcher" only that these do not support the claims made by David L. Burge. In fact, it is not just my opinion, but the opinion of the broader scientific community. Note also that neither of these papers was ever published in a peer-review journal, and so are not considered acceptable evidence in the scientific community. In other scientific entries, WP holds peer-review as a standard of proof, there is no reason that this entry should be any different. Daniel Levitin

• Yes, Mr. Levitin, please do not become rash. You are stating your own personal opinions, evaluation, and bias. You have not communicated the researcher’s own statements.

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)

I do not dispute that music is about heart and emotion. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Science is not a "bias," it is the basis on which encyclopedia entries about neurological and biological functions must be written. I am NOT claiming that it is impossible to develop absolute pitch as an adult. I am claiming that there does not exist any peer reviewed scientific evidence that it can, and that without peer-review, there is no place for the work in a serious encyclopedia. User:DanielLevitin, June 10. 2006

My goodness, that's a lot of verbiage. Regardless of AEMPINC's feelgood philosophy, Dr. Levitin's observation is correct in at least one respect: the Rush and Nering studies are represented by advertising which cherry-picks quotes and data that seem to "prove" the method and ignores everything that doesn't. The data in both studies can be interpreted as proving the method (as the advertisers contend), failing to prove the method (as Dr. Levitin asserts), or being completely inconclusive-- after all, the proportion of subjects who "learned absolute pitch" is extremely small (below chance?), Rush's most successful subject self-reports that despite his test scores he has not gained absolute pitch, and there have been no follow-up studies to show that the ability did not fade (as it had with Meyer's 1899 study using a similar method).

We seem to agree that the data is the crucial stuff, and that opinions are highly debatable. This must, therefore, include the "conclusions" of the researchers (Nering and Rush) which are interpretations and therefore themselves opinions. Consequently, if opinions regarding these studies are going to consistently and stubbornly differ, it only makes sense to restrict any discussion of the two studies solely to the available data, and delete all personal opinions or conclusions related to that data. -Chris Aruffo (who still hasn't figured out the timestamp, but it's 2:37 Central Time on 6/11/06.)

I just took a closer look at all the words written above by AEMPINC, and I (somewhat reluctantly) confess some amusement in identifying its logical fallacies. There's Ad hominem, Appeal to belief, Appeal to common practice, Biased sample, Straw man, Personal attack... and others, too. Here's a link to common fallacies if you want to find the ones I haven't listed... or for a greater challenge, try to find something in those paragraphs that's logically valid. -Chris Aruffo again, 4:39 Central time, 6/11/06.

I also took another look at the Rush and Nering studies. I find that I disagree with Dr. Levitin on a specific point-- the statement "Independent research at Ohio State University and the University of Calgary demonstrated statistically significant improvements in absolute pitch skills among students using a perfect pitch method by David Lucas Burge", which Dr. Levitin refutes, actually appears to be quite true. I would suggest that the main trouble with the statement within the Wiki entry is not its inherent veracity, but that it lacks context, disregarding as it does the fact that, historically, every study on absolute pitch training has always shown improvement in the subjects' absolute pitch skills, irrespective of the method... but highly correlated with existing musical abilities. In that light, the quoted statement is not untrue, but is inarguably presented within the Wiki article as a purely gratuitous commercial placement. -Chris Aruffo, 7:31 Central Time, 6/11/06

: Chris - sign with four tildes: ~~~~. Outriggr 02:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The Ohio and Calgary papers do indeed claim that they found improvements. My point is one of admissability of evidence. Science is like a courtroom -- we don't allow just any evidence into a courtroom, and we require that witnesses be credible; we only accept as expert witnesses those who have been proven to have expertise. Science does not accept the claims of research that has not passed peer review, such claims are considered unsubstantiated and have no place in an Encyclopedia. If the Ohio and Calgary authors can get their papers published in a peer-reviewed journal, then the evidence will be admissable. Without peer-review, anyone can say anything, and then scientific history becomes based on opinion rather than fact. Until they're peer-reviewed, we can't know if the Ohio and Calgary authors did or did not follow commonly accepted experimental procedures, and so we can't know if their conclusions are valid. The beauty of peer-review is that anyone anywhere can submit a paper through it, blind if they wish (their name obscured) and the system will evaluate claims in an unbiased fashion. As Chris points out, the additional problem with the AEMPINC posting is that there seems to be a commercial interest motivating the posting, and for that reason, this user should recuse him/herself from posting on this topic. ~~~~ User:DanielLevitin 01:046, 12 June 2006

• Note 6-12-06:

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)

Have you read the Nering and Rush studies yourself? Do you know what the data really says, or have you only ever seen your own advertising copy? If you persist in restoring this statement from Nering's report, I will insist on including the rest of the information that you do not want your customers to see. If you have actually read the report (hers or Rush's) you will know what I am talking about, and you will be satisfied with the current deletion. I know you want Burge's course to receive a favorable impression from this article, and if you have read those reports you should be fully aware that it is in your best interest for the public to remain unaware of the contextualized contents of those studies.

Hindemith's and Kodaly's quotes are interesting, indeed, but in support of your earlier statement that the biased opinions of single individuals have no place in this article, I have again removed them. 65.42.143.82 19:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Chris Aruffo

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)

You're right. It is a fact that those two prominent musicians have stated their belief that it is possible and even desirable to learn absolute pitch. It is also a fact that other prominent musicians (such as Ron Gorow) have stated their belief that it is impossible and undesirable to learn or have absolute pitch, and it is also a fact that the peer-reviewed research of respectable scientists (such as Kenichi Miyazaki) support the belief that absolute pitch is an obstacle and a hindrance to making music. However, I would contend that it is entirely irrelevant in a scientific article whether anyone "believes" the ability can be learned-- for whatever reasons-- and I recommend that you delete the quotes. If you do not delete the quotes, I will go ahead and add the contrasting perspective. 65.42.143.82 20:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Chris Aruffo

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)

The theses that were done at U Calgary and at Ohio State have not been published in any conventional meaning of the word. They were not published by a University Press, nor were they subjected to any of the normal controls a publisher might excertcise, they are simply made available by University Microforms. Normally, when a person finishes a thesis that is of scientific interest, they submit it to peer review to have it published, or to a book publisher which, normally, includes some sort of review. In my opinion, these two studies therefore do not meet the minimum level of standards for inclusion in a scientific article in an encyclopedia. I think at this point we should submit this issue to mediation or arbitration, because it cuts to the core of what standards WP wants to uphold. User:DanielLevitin

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)

I once asked composer Louise Talma, under whom I attended classes ("studied" would be too strong a word) at Hunter College whether absolute pitch could be acquired. "Very readily," she answered. I don't know how seriously to take this. I do remember that she was very opposed to the use of "moveable do" ("do" as in "do, re, mi") in ear training. This method is obviously only useful for teaching relative pitch, as "do" is used for any keynote. Perhaps she thought, rightly or wrongly, that associating syllables consistently with the same pitches would encourage the acquisition of absolute pitch. (On the other hand, the method she used had "do" for C even if sharped or flatted, whereas the "moveable" system used by my other teachers altered the syllables for sharps and flats, which would seem necessary for an "absolute" system.) Of course, even experts have their pet theories. This may or may not have been one of them. Kostaki mou 23:52, 18 July 2007 (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."

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)

Well, to answer your question, in a word, yes. That's pretty much why Takeuchi & Hulse wrote the article. aruffo 04:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspected I was being hasty, so I took another look at it, and you do have a point. You're right that it can't be said that no training method has produced such results. It can, however, be truthfully said that no experiment or report has ever shown that such results can be produced, so I altered the statement to reflect as much. aruffo 04:14, 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)

Ron Gorow is an arranger and orchestrator who works in Hollywood and is quite well-known in the recording business. Among other claims to fame, he was the copyist for Richard Carpenter (of the musical group The Carpenters) and helped Richard turn his ideas into orchestrations since Richard doesn't write music. (The source of my knowledge about this is that I know Richard, and this is what he's told me, and I knew of Gorow independently because I worked in Hollywood as a producer myself for many years). I have no knowledge of whether Gorow is trying to sell a commercial product or not, but I consider him to be an expert professional musician of very high repute.

As to the comment about the many ways to show things, I believe that I have already stated my own opinion that Wikipedia entries should be held to the same high standards as a print encyclopedia such as Brittanica or the Harvard Dictionary of Music. There are many people who believe that various things in the world can be "shown" by psychics, seers, messages from Mars and messages from the dead, and I feel they are entitled to these beliefs, but the standard of proof for an encyclopedia should be the scientific method for phenomena that concern the human brain. User: DanielLevitin 03:46, 10 August 2006

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

The "no method..." statement is quantitative, not qualitative. The acquired ability is slower and less accurate; furthermore, the mental strategies used for tone identification described by each category of listener are radically different. Finally, the available brain-scan research shows that the spontaneous cases process music in an entirely different part of their brain. aruffo 22:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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've never heard of this, also "bass alto baritone mezzo" covers far more than half of all voices, so your perceived bias might just be because most people are in one of those ranges. - Rainwarrior 15:32, 13 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/

“Interestingly,” they write in their paper, “one study [by another research team] showed that infants preferentially use absolute pitch cues over relative pitch cues in certain situations, suggesting that all people might be born with absolute pitch, but that a majority lose their absolute pitch abilities with age. Thus, an attractive hypothesis is that genetic factors might extend this neurodevelopmental window to a duration sufficient to intersect with the onset of musical training.”

Gregcaletta (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Content in the article

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.

As someone who is said to possess a very extreme form of "active" absolute pitch, I can tell you that what you have identified as complete nonsense is, in fact, complete nonsense. I can instantly discern the key of a piece and can tell you if a piece normally played in one key has been transposed to another, but it's simply just an observation I can make. It doesn't cause me any emotional distress when a piece is transposed to an unusual key. Neither am I put off by performances on historical instruments which use a different tuning system than modern instruments. I can tell that the pitches are slightly different, but the important thing is really the relationships between the pitches, so it doesn't bother me at all. The assertions in the article about people with absolute pitch not being able to identify intervals as easily as people with only relative pitch are, from my own experiences, also fictitious. I can analyze notes relatively or absolutely with equal facility. Unless I possess some form of pitch recognition which hybridizes relative pitch and absolute pitch that someone with just absolute pitch doesn't necessarily have, I can tell you that what is written in the article is just false. Batman Jr. 23:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree fully with this (as another person with absolute pitch). I don't think I would discredit the things said in that definition, as there are cited sources and they are more or less common-sense deductions, but I would definitely assert that potential problems arising from the ability are not its definition. I've moved them to the scientific studies section. Rainwarrior 18:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely wouldn't want to change the article based on my own personal experiences as I can't cite any scholarly sources verifying them, but they can at least serve as a hint to someone else who might be interested in studying the validity of the claims in the article in further detail and either conclusively affirming them or debunking them. Batman Jr. 06:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As someone with relative pitch, however, I can say that even a slightly out-of-tune instrument can disturb me. If a piece is transposed to a different key, that's no disturbance, but if one were to take a mallet instrument where every key is in tune except C4, every time C4 was played would bother me. I don't know if that's common to persons with "just" relative pitch, though (I have no absolute pitch at all), or just a coincidental peculiarity. The Dark 07:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason why it's disturbing for one note to be tuned slightly off-key is because you're changing the intervals between that note and the rest of the notes on the instrument. If you were to tune all of the rest of the notes so that they were also slightly off-key so that every one note related to every other with the proper interval, I would expect the disturbance to be ameliorated (after all, certain tuning methods deliberately tune notes slightly off-pitch to make an instrument sound better). If you have free time, maybe you can try that and tell me if my hypothesis is right. Take care. Batman Jr. 06:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

In general I agree with Batman Jr's original comment - I think that to emphasise the disadvantages of absolute (or perfect) pitch is to miss the point. I also suspect (from my own observations) that those people with absolute pitch who are disorientated by music played in a different key from the one they expect or by instrumental tuning that is correct in relation to itself but slightly sharp or flat compared with some standard reference pitch (as often happens with 'period' instruments, for example) are more likely to be people without a lot of musical training or experience. Experienced musicians usually (?always) have a well-developed sense of relative pitch, whether or not they possess absolute pitch. Certainly if I hear a piece of music in a strange key it generally takes me but a moment to adjust to the new tonality. (There are some exceptions to this - all pieces of music that I knew as a very young child, interestingly - and even with these I cope all right.) Similarly, if I have to play or listen to music on an instrument that is not tuned to 'standard' pitch, it doesn't take me long to adjust to the new pitch. Where I have had to work to overcome problems with changes of pitch was in transposing music at sight from one key to another (particularly keyboard music). I suspect that most musicians have to work at this, but I wonder if the problems confronting the absolute pitch musician are different from those confronting other musicians when it comes to this particular skill. ChristopherW, 28 May 2006

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)

Alleged capabilities

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.

I removed the statement "Johann Sebastian Bach did not have perfect pitch" since this seems to be controversial. One source claims that Bach had perfect pitch and a nice voice when he was a child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSchoenberger (talk • contribs) 11:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought all but a handful of major composers had perfect pitch and that it is insanely hard to compose anything good without it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.179.170.45 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 15 January 2006.

There are many, many, many composers who would be angry at you for saying that. Not me, though, I actually have pitch. ;) The answer to your thought, though, is: no. Most music was written by people who did not have absolute pitch. I would doubt that anyone can tell the difference (in a suitable blind test) between the music of a composer with pitch, and a composer without. Rainwarrior 17:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly Schumann and Wagner did not have perfect pitch, and there are many others. ChristopherW, 29 May 2006

They didn't? I've heard claims that they didn't, but I've never actually seen anything proving it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.179.195.218 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 13 July 2006.

Most biographers will mention absolute pitch if the composer had it, because it's unusual. Not mentioning it at all weakly implies that they did not have it. Actual proof that someone does not have absolute pitch is troublesome, because even if they fail a test of pitch, you must rule out the possibility that they failed deliberately. Anyhow, the ability to composer is very much not limited by the absence of absolute pitch; start asking any composers you meet, and you'll find that most of them don't have it. - Rainwarrior 21:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Asian languages

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)

Actually, I have noticed this trend, personally, so I wasn't immediately skeptical about the suggestion. The reasoning that the languages are more tonal seems a possibility, but what if a genetic predisposition for better pitch sense is the cause of a more tonal language and not the other way around? I would guess that the statistical advantage is probably sound (it could easily be studied whether Asian-language-speakers have a higher rate of absolute pitch), but the reasoning is just conjecture (it would be much harder to prove, but if someone did a really good experiment I think I could be convinced). Rainwarrior 18:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, as a linguist, coming across the line "what if a genetic predisposition for better pitch sense is the cause of a more tonal language and not the other way around?", I have only one thing to say, which is itch itch itch itch itch itch. There is no relationship between genetics and ability to learn a tonal language, and if I could make the word "no" any bolder than that, I would. If you raise an infant of Caucasian descent in Beijing, in a Mandarin-speaking home, they'll end up speaking perfect Mandarin. It doesn't matter if their parents couldn't tell a tritone from an octave. If you are seriously claiming that Mandarin is a tonal language because the Chinese are genetically predisposed towards perfect pitch, then I must inform you, with all respect, that you have no idea what you're talking about, and should be quiet now. In other words, if there is indeed a correlation between the ability to speak a tonal language and absolute pitch - and if so, it needs to be way more convincingly cited - then that proves absolute pitch should have little if anything to do with genetics. However, I think that's really, really far from proven. Cultural differences aren't being accounted for, for one. Do "Asians" (and I use the word in the sense the article does, to mean "East Asians whose languages are in some way or another kind of like a tonal language") put a higher value on musical ability in general, and absolute pitch in particular? Are these same effects seen in tonal languages elsewhere in the world - like, say, West Africa? And then there's the simple fact of the matter, which is that tonal languages do not rely on absolute pitches, but on relative pitch differentials. Otherwise, men and women would speak different languages! Plus you wouldn't be able to inflect things differently to form questions, or sing, or what have you. I'm not ruling out the possibility that learning a tonal language - hell, maybe even a pitch stress language - might be of some small use in priming the infant to listen for tones, but I certainly can't see strong evidence being presented to back up the audacious claim that there's a clear correlation visible here. 69.140.12.199 07:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't making any claims, just a sort of wandering thought process... you seem to have taken this quote from me to mean something I didn't quite intend, but I don't think it's important enough to retread at the moment. If you think the source is bad, look it up, change the article, and tell us about it here. It's really not worthwhile quoting my talk page mumblings when you could be quoting the article. Just pretend I didn't say it. I was mostly trying to provoke someone who knows more about the study to respond.

Some people do believe absolute pitch is a genetic thing. I don't have an opinion either way, but I do think it deserves consideration. You're right though, no language relies on absolute pitch, but the question is whether a stronger focus on pitch in your native language promotes the learning of absolute pitch. If you think it's not worth suggesting this, take it out of the article. I was merely mentioning that I have, in my own biased and anecdotal way, known more people of Chinese or Vietnamese background to have perfect pitch. I would not suggest this is evidence, I was just saying that this is why I wouldn't [i]immediately[/i] doubt a study that states it. If someone where to quote the study specifically and offer criticism of it, then I might begin to have doubt. Rainwarrior 19:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. In tonal languages, which some Asian languages are, it is imperative to discern differences in tones to communicate. For example: si and si both look the same when written, but when spoken in different tones could mean totally different words in Chinese. I myself have perfect pitch and grew up speaking Chinese; but whether or not I would have perfect pitch if I spoke English instead...I wouldn't know.

But overall, I don't necessarily doubt that this may be true. It would be interesting to do a thorough study on this though. Highconclave 15:27, 10 February 2006 (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!)

There are a couple pieces of research which make me shrug away the "tone language as perfect pitch bestower" theory. One is that which you mention-- I'm not convinced that speaking words within a semitone is significant, especially since everyone tends to have their preferred "tonic" from which they speak. There are also brain-scan studies (Gandour et al 2000, Klein et al 2001, to name a couple) which show how brain activity is obviously different when tones are presented as language or non-language. aruffo 04:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Partial Absolute Pitch

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)

Apparently so. See above: #Absolute pitch?. Hyacinth 09:23, 4 February 2006 (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)

Becoming listless?

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)

Absolutely agree. People keep adding names to it, many unverifiable. Like many other articles that once had "list of whatever"s towards the end, this one could have a List of people with absolute pitch broken out (with references only) ... Antandrus (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I third that. I'm fairly certain that some of them don't belong there... Create a new article and references them. Blahm 22:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

And the deed is done, or rather the list is split off to List of people with absolute pitch, but the entries aren't yet verified, as I haven't gotten around to that. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that the list is growing again, one anonymous addition at a time, like a patch of weeds that's been incompletely eradicated. Shall we perhaps not list any famous people that had absolute pitch, but only indicate that many famous musicians did/do? Antandrus (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Since that section has it's own page, and it's not exactly essential to the topic, I think it might as well contain nothing more than the reference to the other page. Rainwarrior 17:48, 1 April 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)

Question on link

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)

Start here: web.telia.com/~u57011259/engH.htm. Biograpy? Watch this: web.telia.com/~u57013916/index.htm. Last but not least, the famous Mozart portrait studies: web.telia.com/%7Eu57013916/Edlinger%20Mozart.htm and web.telia.com/%7Eu57013916/Hagenauer%20Mozart.htm. The author is not only an expert in neurobiology, but also in shipbuilding and in biometrics. This all is simply done by pictures downloaded from the net and googling. What is missing on his site tells even more about him. If you really would like to keep the link, keep it. I was just removing the links to his site, especially the "mozart"-links, which are placed on every single wikipedia. --stefan (?!) 13:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Famous possessors of absolute pitch

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.

• Julie Andrews
• Lera Auerbach
• Emilie Autumn
• Johann Sebastian Bach
• Bill Bailey
• Béla Bartók
• Ludwig van Beethoven
• Michelle Branch
• Bumblefoot
• Frédéric Chopin
• Nat King Cole
• Bing Crosby
• Chevy Chase
• Madeleine Dring
• Miles Davis
• Mia Farrow
• Charly García
• Glenn Gould
• Ella Fitzgerald
• George Frideric Handel
• Jascha Heifetz
• Jimi Hendrix [citation needed]
• Erich Wolfgang Korngold
• Franz Liszt
• Phil Lesh
• Yo-Yo Ma
• Yngwie Malmsteen
• Spike Milligan
• Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
• Jason Mraz
• Jay Nordlinger
• Niccolò Paganini
• Charlie Parker
• André Previn
• Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov
• Jordan Rudess
• Camille Saint-Saëns
• Arnold Schönberg
• Paul Shaffer
• Frank Sinatra
• John Phillip Sousa
• Phil Spector
• Josef Stalin
• Barbra Streisand
• Lee-Hom Wang
• Liew Koon Ern, William
• Amy Wright
• Brian Wilson
• Ludwig Wittgenstein
• Yanni
• Shakira
• Michael Jackson
• Stevie Ray Vaughan
• Nick Drake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.10.2 (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Fictional characters:

• Charlie Brown
• The Simpsons' Mr. Largo
• John Doe.

---

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)

I've created Category:People with absolute pitch, and added Julie Andrews, whose name I've struck off the list above. I'm too tired to continue at the moment, but I'll be back for the rest sooner or later. Out of curiosity, did you have the page cached, or is there some way to retrieve the contents of recently deleted pages? - Rainwarrior 07:44, 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)

There doesn't seem to be a good way to set apart the fictional characters. Mr. Largo doesn't have an article to himself, and neither does John Doe, so I've removed them. Charlie Brown I've kept. - Rainwarrior 18:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I raised this question at the Charlie Brown article: What is the basis for listing him here? Schroeder is known to have perfect pitch, but Charlie Brown thought he was talking about baseball. Rockhopper10r 19:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

External links to commercial sites

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)

I would rather we had none of them, since they are WP:SPAM. They're not there to provide useful additional content to our encyclopedia, they are there to sell a product. I just removed four that look spammy to me; I welcome other opinions. Antandrus (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that my opinion is that we shouldn't have these links because they'd clutter the article, but I don't think one link to a well maintained list would be bad. (Someone tried a link like this recently, but it was to a message board, which I don't think qualifies.) - Rainwarrior 18:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If you would rather have none of them, why does aruffo.com remain? And my ear training blog http://www.grahamenglish.net is a good free source to learn absolute pitch. I also post research on absolute pitch so I'm not sure why it keeps getting removed. - Grahamenglish 4 May 2006

I didn't remove any links myself. I'm just disturbed by the constant shuffle and wonder if we can't set some guidelines down here. - Rainwarrior 01:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed a bunch of them because I came across this article again and was dismayed at the buildup of spam links. I left the aruffo.com link because it was one of the most interesting and applicable in my completely subjective opinion, but probably better if they all went. (There must be better resources to link to, really.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not extremely opposed to any external link in particular, and concede that people coming here would be interested in learning perfect pitch. WP:EL prefers people not to link to their own sites. If research is not WP:OR it could be included in this article for peer review. Perhaps a compromise could be a link to the free training guide rather than the home page. I couldn't see this clearly amongst the other information (clutter?) on the main page. Stephen B Streater 06:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC

I think there might come people interested in absolute pitch as a learnable concept here. Therfor, I don't think my software list and link to additional information about absolute pitch as learnable concept was useless. It explains all the methods avaible intend to achieve absolute pitch; aruffo.com is basically the same but explains only 1 method. --Frank at 08:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The ideal scenario may be to include the information in this article, and then refer to the websites as supporting information. This allows the information itself to be reviewed by editors here. Stephen B Streater 11:00, 5 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)

Maybe it would be worth creating a separate section for commercial products that claim to teach absolute pitch? There is no proof that any of them actually work (mine included), but I have the impression that the reason most people look up absolute pitch on the net is because they want to find out if they can learn it themselves. I suspect a separate section for commercial products-- with or without the disclaimer that none of them are scientifically proven to work (yes, none of them, not even the ones that advertise otherwise)-- would be something people would want to look for. Whether or not that section should be created, I wonder if it would be helpful to link to the aruffo.com research page or even the bibliography, rather than the main page which has a direct link to the software. -Chris Aruffo... um.. how do I add the time and date... well, it's 11:25pm on May 8, anyway.

-- Regarding External Links: Deleted the following links for the following reasons:

1) PerfectPitchPeople.com - 'Perfect Pitch Links: The Ultimate Web Resource for Information on Perfect Pitch'

Linke deleted because

a) Link "PerfectPitchPeople.com" is misleading, it does give info about people with perfect pitch

b) Link makes unreasonable claim that it is the "Ultimate Web Resource for Information on Perfect Pitch"

c) Link leads to page containing personal opinions about commercial products

If someone feels any links listed at "PerfectPitchPeople.com" are relevant to article, they should instead list links individually directly on the WP Absolute Pitch page, where they can be evaluated by the Wiki community.

2) Aruffo.com - 'Absolute pitch,' Nicolas Slonimsky

Link deleted because

a) Clicking link "Aruffo.com" does not actually translate to Aruffo.com home page. Listing link as "Aruffo.com" serves as advertisement for commercial product site.

b) Article seems OK, but contains commercial links back to Aruffo.com.

Music108 19:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Contributors to the list of famous possessors of absolute pitch

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)

Is the references to Japanese necessart

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)

Missing source

From the "Potential problems" section:

Because their comprehension of musical pitch is categorical rather than spectral (Harris, 1974), poorly-trained absolute pitch possessors can find it quite difficult to play in tune with an orchestra which is not tuned to standard concert pitch A4 = 440 Hz.

What is Harris 1974? --zenohockey 01:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed it. 68.21.172.31 04:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Chris Aruffo (and I hope those tildes work...)

Bad grammar in the opening paragraph

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)

How do you know if you have perfect pitch?

Is there a test you can take or something?

If you can remember a specific pitch (ie. A440) from hour to hour, day to day, you likely have it. If you've got a tuning fork, whack it and listen, and try to remember that tone. Come back later that day, hum it to yourself while you hit the fork again, see how close you are. - Rainwarrior 19:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Persistent spam

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)

Past and present research

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)

It's been more than a week, with no objections raised, so I'll add the bibliography link. aruffo 05:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolute pitch and recorded sound

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)

Slight differences from the original. Ex. cassette recordings (especially amateur ones) are prone to have a flattening of the pitch originally recorded. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 10:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course they are. It was a problem with every medium before CDs. But, that's information that belongs at the Compact Disc page, not here. What does it have to do with absolute pitch, or any scientific study of absolute pitch? - Rainwarrior 15:12, 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)

That sounds like it agrees with my own experience with it. It took a lot of effort to teach myself to properly identify tones between the letter names I knew. (Though, in this case, tape slowdown goes well beyond the boundaries... I just doubt that anyone really finds tape delay itself "intolerable". I have a hard time believing that the enjoyment of music must depend on a work always sounding in the same key, for anyone.) - Rainwarrior 06:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that AP listers are "as indifferent to small variations as any of us would be to small variations in a vowel." My papers in the . International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems (1999), Anee Psychologique (2004), and Trends in Cognitive Science (with Susan Rogers, 2005) show graphs that indicate otherwise. Plus, Ward & Burns (1999) and others have stated that pitch resolution in AP possessors is no better than in non-AP musicians. – DanielLevitin 13:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean... that's not exactly what I was talking about. Still, the fact that such a confusion exists underscores the relevance of the topic. An absolute listener, as I understand it, may acknowledge the spectral difference while accepting the categorical similarity. aruffo 14:35, 25 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)

Even more persistent spam

Gary. Stop trying to manipulate this article to sell your product. aruffo 19:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Nature vs Nurture pt 2

(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 agree. There is plenty of scientific study already referenced here that makes Hindemith and Kodaly's opinions irrelevant. So what if they had an opinion? As for the debate about how relevant it is to musicianship, well, I think a lot of the rest of the article speaks to that a lot better than a few random quotes from a couple of musicians. - Rainwarrior 16:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with Rainwarrior about this. A discussion in another article revealed an interesting perspective which I appreciate-- that NPOV is achieved by neutral presentation of objective fact rather than assemblage of conflicting opinions. I'd like to see remove d the random quotes from a couple of musicians. If they are removed, does anyone think that it's important for this article to represent the fact that different people have different opinions about the value of absolute pitch ability? (My vote: I don't.) aruffo 17:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been a month with neither an objection against removal of the quotes or a show of support for the notion that this article should bother to mention that there is disagreement about the "value" of absolute pitch. Random quotes, then, will likely go away soon... aruffo 07:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

At the end of another week, now, with no objection to the quotes' removal. Furthermore, the last couple edits to the article seem to support the assertion that these quotes are not valued in the context of this article. aruffo 02:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thumbs up on that move. I read those quotes a couple of weeks ago but didn't think of checking here. Was going to say I'm pretty sure that Kodaly quote was taken out of context - from my experience of Kodaly method, it focuses on realtive over absolute pitch (he published whole books full of melodies for young kids notated only in solfa letters - where any note could be the tonic - with no references to absloute pitch at all, for example - doesn't sound like soumeone who wants to promote absolute pitch recognition). My guess it that the quote was refering to intonation (as in singing perfectly in tune) rather than perfect pitch. - Good that it's removed anyway.

Only 52 people with absolute pitch?!

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)

Another "do I have perfect pitch" question

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)

Correlation with musical talent

From the article:

There is no necessary correlation between the possession of absolute pitch and musical genius. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Franz Liszt, Frédéric Chopin and Ludwig van Beethoven are some of the classical composers/musicians who had absolute pitch; Joseph Haydn, Igor Stravinsky, Maurice Ravel, and Richard Wagner are among those who did not. Absolute pitch is not a prerequisite for developing a high level of talent as a musician or composer.

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).

The one in 2,000 estimate of "people with Absolute Pitch" is not well accepted within the research community. But even so, it is expressed as 1 in 2,000 PEOPLE, not 1 in 2,000 MUSICIANS. The correct sample space for testing the correlation is musicians. By most reckonings I have seen, a smaller number of great musicians and composers had AP than people who did. For there to be a a significant causal relation, one would need to find that, for the binary trait of AP, greater than 50% of musicians and composers had it, otherwise, AP exists at chance levels among the group. Note also that "correlation" is a statistical concept, one that is not valid with n = 4. --User:DanielLevitin 2:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean about needing to find that "greater than 50% of musicians and composers had it", or that correlation is "not valid with n = 4". Let me try to explain my point in a little more detail. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that on average 1 in 2000 people have perfect pitch. Supose that there is no correlation between perfect pitch and "musical genius", and a "musical genius" has just the same 1/2000 probability of having perfect pitch as anyone else. Further suppose, being generous, that the list of "musical geniuses" of the sort of fame and calibre that the article wants to cite as examples numbers 500. Then, the probability that at least four out of the 500 will have perfect pitch is about 1 in 7500. (If we are less generous and choose 200 rather than 500, then the probability becomes about 1 in 267000.) Because these probabilities are so low, the fact that there are at least four with perfect pitch is strong evidence that there is a correlation – in other words, "musical geniuses" are more likely to have perfect pitch than the general population. If there was no correlation then it would be remarkably unlikely that the article could find the likes of Mozart, Liszt, Chopin and Beethoven to cite as examples of musical geniuses with perfect pitch. Matt 11:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC).

On that topic, I have heard the statistic of 10% of professional musicians possesing perfect pitch. From ancedotal observations, many music students that I have heard of that underwent the Suzuki Method have perfect pitch, or at least a pretty high proportion.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 04:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I got the "1 in 2000" number from http://perfectpitch.ucsf.edu/pppress.html, which says: "An estimated one in every 2,000 people has perfect pitch; among musicians, the rate is 15 percent, according to the researchers." Again, this would seem to indicate a very strong correlation. I confess I did not read the rest of the article, but if it there are reputable studies showing that the incidence of perfect pitch amongst musicians is greater than among the population in general, then probably the article should at least say that "some studies indicate a correlation..." or some such wording. (I am assuming that perfect pitch cannot be learnt - this would skew the argument, since someone who already had musical ability would probably be much more likely to learn it.) Matt 11:41, 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)

Claims of absolute pitch training

<Comment Removed Due to Advertising>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.67.77.153 (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

This anonymous user seems likely to be a sock puppet. I don't know all the Wiki rules for discussion pages, so I don't know how often discussion pages are used for advertisements and self-promotion... or if anybody really cares. Is there a policy about it? In any event, results of "perfect pitch" training have been demonstrated to be highly correlated with existing musical ability, regardless of the approach or "method" attempted; if this anonymous user is not a sock puppet, and this apparent ad copy is not a fictional result, it is more likely that this person had supernormal musical skills to begin with. aruffo 23:16, 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).

Cognition, sensation, et cetera

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)

Sir, the paper by Ross et al. (2005) is not an empirical one. The paper by Braun and Chaloupka (2005), however, is an empirical one. These authors clearly found that AP is based on a sensory memory. Quote from the abstract (see PubMed): "Analysis of 4619 responses in a pitch identification task revealed an internal tone-scale representation, based on the norm-tone scale re A4=440 Hz, with an octave-circular pattern of strongly and weakly represented tones." Actually, we have a close analogy in color perception. Identification of the color "pink" would not be possible without a sensory memory of this color. It is vital to understand that both sensory memory and cognitive memory are necessary conditions for AP. Therefore, I would like to ask you to reinstall my edits of this section. DiMare 01:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The paper by Braun and Chaloupka is a case study. The authors themselves write on page 89, "As to the question of a possible generalization of these findings, one must of course exercise caution, because this is an N = 1 study, with the subject exhibiting a strong categorization and a personal pattern in her responses." For this reason alone I'd hesitate to make strident changes to the Wiki article based on only this study, as the authors cannot "clearly find" anything and, indeed, spend an entire section (section 4.2) wondering what could actually be going on. The empirical data show one thing only-- that the CBZ drug creates a shift in this one subject's judgment of tone identification-- and in fact, now that I'm looking at this even more carefully, I see that the authors draw a conclusion from their data which appears to be quite different from the one you're ascribing to their work: "if a frequency with a precise octave circularity is independent of a corresponding sound exposure, such as from musical instruments with exact octaves, then it would have to be considered as a property in the human auditory system." In this view, pitch identification would not be not a sensory memory but rather an anatomical hard-wiring which absolute musicians have somehow learned to access.

The Wiki article section already acknowledges that absolute pitch ability involves "needing memory of the frequency," and the analogy to color has already been made. The point of the article, as written, is to assert that absolute pitch ability is the act of cognition performed on the tonal representation; although the article explicitly acknowledges the need for tonal memory in absolute pitch judgment, it is nonetheless possible to remember and even recognize absolute tones and other sounds without being able to assign them to a musical category, and this would suggest that tonal memory (whether symbolic or sensory), while certainly necessary for absolute pitch ability, is not exclusive to it.

I'd be hesitant to reinstall the edits, and I hope you see why; if you think there are important points which should be added and supported, though, let's figure out what they are and how to support them, yes? Maybe you'd want to add a new section to the article. aruffo 05:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see you want to have it point by point. Here it goes:

(1) The section title "Absolute pitch as a difference in cognition, not elementary sensation" is definitely wrong and misleading. This would apply to relative pitch, but NOT to AP. To investigate the sensory imprinting of tones in APers, you need case studies, like the one of Braun and Chaloupka. The imprinting was shown to be highly specific and completely beyond the awareness of the tested subject. It is the precognitive component of AP. Without such imprinting AP could not exist.

(2) "Absolute pitch is an act of cognition..." This wrong. The behavioral responses of APers are as automatic and as fast as reflexes. Nowhere in science are such things called cognition.

(3) "... and exposure to the common range considered a note. (A note in modern tuning can vary in its exact frequency.)" This contains no clarity at all.

(4) "... colour blue by its frequency ..." First, BLUE is a bad example, because most children learn it simultaneously with speech acquisition. PINK is usually learned much later, and thus a helpful contrast to AP. Second, BLUE is not elicited by a frequency, but by many possible frequency combinations.

(5) "deliberate exposure" is wrong. Most children learn AP by accidental exposure and also without being aware of it.

(6)"in a given culture" is unclear and not relevant.

Again, I strongly suggest that you reinstall my edits. I am a research scientist, and I have been writing technical texts both for colleagues and for laypersons for many years. I know what I am doing. If you find a flaw in my text, I am curious to see it. Otherwise please consider accepting what I wrote. DiMare 18:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I took another look at the Wiki section and it seemed that the article section as written wasn't really doing a very good job of supporting its title. I revised it a bit, and I'd encourage you to take another look at it with the idea that the heading is not "wrong and misleading", but simply that the section is intended to make a point that is separate and different from the issues you want to bring up.

It's not up to me to reinstall or approve anyone's edits. If you were to write something into the article which is supported by available research, then attempts to remove your edits would not be met with tacit acceptance but with resistance and (in extreme cases) retribution. I took initiative to remove statements which were either left unsupported or were contradicted by the research which was claimed to support those statements; that, and not my or anyone's personal judgment, I would offer as the reason the reversion will probably stick. There may indeed be issues to raise about preattentive processing and memory store in absolute pitch ability, which seems to be your interest, and it may be that the article is lacking in exactly these points; all that Wikipedia asks is that you support whatever statements you wish to make with appropriate and accurately represented citations. aruffo 21:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh! You know, reading what's been added as a new section makes me realize that this article has completely overlooked the fact that while an absolute listener's auditory system is not functionally distinct, their neurological anatomy is. Musicians and non-musicians have differing brain development; within the "musician" category, absolute and non-absolute are also markedly different. I was startled to realize that this article doesn't even mention the words "left planum temporale"! aruffo 04:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We do not know yet whether the auditory system is functionally different between APers and non-APers. The difference may lie outside the auditory system, inside it, or both. The differences in brain anatomy that you mentioned are significant in group data. But it's like the brain differences between the sexes. In most cases the variation within a group is much larger than the variation between groups. So, I would suggest that we keep AP related anatomical differences out until something definite is known about the functional implications of these differences. DiMare 16:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What prompts you to conclude we don't know this? Admittedly, the research on absolute pitch is generally sparse compared to other musical topics, but anatomy (auditory and neurological) has been a major interest within the absolute-pitch literature. I think you'd have to ignore, overlook, or dismiss quite a few papers to suggest that we "do not know yet" that the auditory system is the same but the neurological anatomy (and activation) is different. aruffo

The neocortex is not organized in a way that would permit the separation between purely auditory domains and purely linguistic domains.DiMare 00:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I see what you're getting at. I'd have to look again at the "quite a few papers" I've mentioned to be more certain of how conclusive they are. What's your take on the planum-temporale asymmetry, then? aruffo 00:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

From the first page results of a Google search for Absolute Pitch Planum Temporale the most interesting hit seems to be this one: [1] Further, this brain area very well highlights the problems of separating auditory and linguistic brain. DiMare 01:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Um. So are you saying you have not yet read any of the papers describing the functional anatomy of either the auditory or neurological systems of absolute musicians? aruffo 07:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that at all. I said "In most cases the variation within a group is much larger than the variation between groups. So, I would suggest that we keep AP related anatomical differences out until something definite is known about the functional implications of these differences" (see above). DiMare 15:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I get the impression that you are not familiar with what we do "know" about the auditory and neurological anatomy of absolute listeners. I'm not yet sure how that may be relevant to the points you want to make, nor does it seem entirely clear what points you are trying to make, but you're making very strong, strident, and unequivocal statements and it's difficult to tell whether you're speaking from your hypotheses or from your knowledge of the literature. aruffo 18:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the subsection on "sensory memory" because it exaggerates what is known and misrepresents the articles it cites. Specifically, only some AP possessors show advantages for certain notes over others (the Miyazaki study). Second, the carbamazepine-induced pitch shift has been shown in only a few people in the world (two to my knowledge) and so this can hardly be taken as evidence of anything universal. Third, the findings of Miyazaki don't say anything about whether the "sensory memory is shaped by experience; the findings could result from the decreased signal-to-noise ratio in memory for tones that are less frequently encountered. Finally, the notion of sensory memory is in some respects a false distinction from cognitive memory. AP has been shown decisively (by Zatorre) to be a labelling phenomenon, not a difference in perception or memory per se. I feel that this article needs to stay away from speculation and only report what is known and agreed upon by the majority of researchers in the field. DanielLevitin 03:44, 26 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)

Movin' out

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)

Carbamazepine

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)

The possible mechanisms of the drug on pitch perception is discussed in Braun and Chaloupka (2005) in more detail than in any other paper. The drug affects the central nervous system (CNS), and the auditory system is an integrated part of the CNS. Irrespective of the details of drug action, the breakthrough reported by Braun and Chaloupka (2005) is the evidence for a fixed individual pitch memory. This evidence should be referenced in the article. DiMare 16:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "fixed individual pitch memory"? It may be that these case studies aggregately support what you're suggesting, but I'm not exactly sure what you're suggesting or how the research shows it. Maybe if I understand what you're getting at I can dig through these case studies and help you put it together. The assertion needs to be fleshed out, in any event; the statement that CBZ downshifts by one semitone is incorrect, and I'm fairly sure that a single case study may "provide evidence for" but doesn't "make clear". aruffo 16:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The authors call it "patterned tone memory" (section 4.1). It is a personal variant of the general bias to have the tones ACDEFG more strongly represented than the other six tones. The amount of pitch shift due to Carbamazepine slightly varies across octaves. But the point is that the specific personal "patterned tone memory" remained unaffected by any pitch shifting. See first paragraph of section 4.1 of the paper. DiMare 22:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the authors use that phrase. I still need some help understanding how that is meant to contribute further to this Wiki article. The authors of this paper are primarily making a point about octave circularity (thus the paper's title), and what they say in section 4.1 seems essentially to reiterate what the Wiki article is already saying-- namely, that an absolute listener's pitch judgment is separate from the incoming stimulus, performed on the incoming stimulus as a separate act of cognition. aruffo 23:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The Carbamazepine evidence make this difference to the Wiki article: Without it we had the knowledge about the memory pattern due to the ACDEFG bias. But we did not know if this bias was the result of a total imprinting on all parts of the auditory system, or a partial imprinting on some part(s) of the auditory system. With the Carbamazepine evidence we now know that the imprinting is locally limited, and not general, within the auditory system. Carbamazepine shifts pitch, but it does not shift the memory pattern that underlies absolute pitch. This shows for the first time that absolute pitch is based on a specific and locally limited memory component within the auditory system. DiMare 23:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sight reading

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

Finding Others With The "Gift"

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

I'm reasonably sure there's a Yahoo group-- closed to those without absolute pitch-- that's been around for a number of years. Y'might want to try there..! aruffo 19:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"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

Not a bad idea. aruffo 08:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Nature or Nurture as a Specious Argument

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)

Absolute Pitch and the Guitar Capo.

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)

440 A

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.

Yes. Though you may also find that baroque recordings often use a lower pitch (there is some evidence that the pitches used in that period were lower in general, though there was no "standard" like A440 in use), which often includes a harpsichord. Organ recordings are rarely at A440. In anything without a piano there is no natural reason to favour any particular tuning standard, and I would say that recordings tuned to A440 are in the minority in general. The thing about the piano that doesn't really happen with any other instrument is that the way it is tuned, the piano tuner has to use a different set of calculations depending on what A is tuned to, this isn't a whole lot of extra work, but it is enough that a piano tuner wouldn't arbitrarily pick another pitch to tune to unless this was specifically requested. - Rainwarrior 06:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Losing Absolute Pitch

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)

Perfect pitch might be loseable

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

There has been at least one study correlating absolute pitch and autistic tendencies (such as this one). I don't know of any evidence to show that people can lose the ability; although there are reports of pitch sense "going flat" in old age, VT Wynn has also surveyed some musicians whose pitch sense appeared not to drift with age. aruffo 16:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Recognizing frequencies, ear vs eye

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)

Although the function of the ear as frequency analyzer is well-known and, you'd think, self-evident, there seems to be adequate neurological evidence to show that pitch is actually "assembled" in the brain from the stimuli presented. It would seem to be a straight pass-through, zapped from hair cell to tonotopic map, but these days it doesn't appear to be that simple. aruffo 04:37, 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)

The high quality of this article

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)

As someone who has been around for far longer, I feel this article is a piece of shit which covers a SINGLE medical viewpoint. Apparently you gotta be a music student to have absolute pitch. 62.106.50.16 (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Or to be clearer about this, this is a perfect example of a "circlejerk article" where a bunch of know-nothing wikiexperts congratulate each other for agreeing with each other while completely ignoring logic or article quality. Not that this is the only one. Correction crusade away! 62.106.50.16 (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolute pitch test link?

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)

There are plenty of "absolute pitch testing" pages that can be easily found with a simple web search. Commercial or not, there is nothing notable about yet another such test which would warrant its inclusion in an encyclopedic article. aruffo (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

perfect pitch

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

how to say it understandably

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)

Depends on which issue you mean. If you can tell which it is by context -- say I play a few chords in E major on the piano, and you can tell it's a G# -- that's one thing; if you can tell the difference in pitch between G# and Ab on, say, a violin, which can play a difference in pitch, then that's an awareness of intonation systems other than equal temperament. (If so, I know exactly what you are talking about, because I have "absolute" perfect pitch too.) If you play that Ab as an upper neighbor to G, in the key of C minor, that Ab is a slightly different note from the G# you play in E major, neatly in tune with the open E string, --even if you're playing with a piano. It's something I don't feel comfortable adding to the article since it's probably original research on my part -- but I'd tell a student she was playing out of tune if I heard the Ab instead of the G#. Is that kind of what you mean? Antandrus (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean.OnFire4Jesus (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2008 (EST)

The Naturalist Point of View"

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)

Link revert

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)

Octave circularity

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)

The following sentence in the article is definitely incorrect; "where "tone chroma" is a psychological interpretation of a fundamental vibratory frequency". Chroma has nothing to do with a a fundamental vibratory frequency. It is a category for a class of many bands of fundamental frequencies. And these bands are in an octave distance. In other words, chroma is the octave circularity of a pitch quality. This quality is not restricted to APers. Therefore there is no interest anywhere for "a study on absolute listeners' octave circularity". DiMare (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Unpublished speculations do not serve as legitimate references. If references cited by a speculative essay have relevant data to contribute to an article, then it is that data, and not others' guesswork regarding that data, which should be described and referenced.

I doubt that anyone would refute your claim that octave circularity exists and that a single psychological category of "chroma" appears to be shared by tones of different octaves. The 1965 study referenced here is not making any statement about octave equivalence. Rather, it demonstrates that listeners' judgments are made upon the fundamental frequency of a tone as opposed to other tonal qualities. In that regard, this article's sentence is not "definitely incorrect", but has been scientifically demonstrated to be definitively correct: absolute listeners are, somehow, psychologically interpreting tones' fundamental frequencies. The fact that fundamental frequencies in different octaves are interpreted to be in the same category is irrelevant to this particular assertion.

It seems as though you are proposing a new concept based in octave circularity, rather than redefining what has been long known about chroma judgment. You might want to create a separate statement about octave circularity and its specific effect on absolute judgment. I personally think it's fascinating that absolute listeners do not perceive "height", and I would assert that "height" is a psychological interpretation of timbre which, to an absolute listener, is entirely separable from the fundamental "chroma", but my assertion is still speculative (I have only anecdotes, and the hard data doesn't directly support the assertion). I suppose you could dig up some of the papers demonstrating absolute listeners' octave errors if you wanted to add something about octave circularity. aruffo (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

1) Something that is published on the web is not "unpublished".

2) Again, this sentence is wrong: "where "tone chroma" is a psychological interpretation of a fundamental vibratory frequency". First, we are dealing with frequency bands that are 100 Cent (=1/12 octave) wide. Second, a chroma is a category for many octave-spaced bands.

3) Octave circularity is by no means a new concept. It is a more appropriate term than the older terms octave constancy and octave equivalence. Also, that AP is chroma related and not pitch-height related is an old concept. I was not proposing anything new here. I just wanted to improve the article, which was wrong concerning a crucial feature of absolute pitch. If somebody finds a better improvement than the one that I added, please go ahead and install it. DiMare (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between "published" as you're defining it-- content placed by anyone into public view by whatever means-- and "published" in the scientific sense, which is a consequence of the peer-reviewed evaluation of the scientific validity of presented data and/or theory. Many things that are "published" on the web are not scientifically legitimate writings; those which are can typically be identified as published by some particular entity, such as the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America or Perception & Psychophysics.

Please read the 1965 paper. The sentence you're highlighting correctly summarizes the evidence presented in that paper. That evidence has not been contradicted since, nor is it negated by octave equivalence, nor is it influenced by the fact that a fundamental frequency may itself fall within a measurable categorical range. I am not aware of any new evidence which suggests that the longstanding understanding of chroma judgment has been thrown over, or is in any way invalidated by, the observation that tones standing in 2:1 ratio are placed into the same chromatic category.

Now that I think to look, I am surprised that this article doesn't even contain the word "octave", if only because octave errors are a commonly-observed phenomenon in absolute judgment... nor is anything said about the effects which occur at the high and low ends of the auditory spectrum. Perhaps something should be written about octaves in absolute judgment or the like. aruffo (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm... really, come to the point, nobody really knows exactly what "chroma" judgment truly is; chroma judgment can be clearly and confidently pronounced on a sound stimulus even in the complete absence of a "fundamental" frequency. It's more accurate to say that it's based on pitch (as opposed to other qualities) without making a necessarily-unsupportable claim about what aspect of the pitch is exclusively responsible or how the pitch is neurologically synthesized. aruffo (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

1) There is no rule, either in Wikipedia or anywhere else, which says that only sources in peer-reviewed journals may be referenced. The reasons for this are fairly obvious and well described in the relevant literature. What we need is reliable and useful information that reflects the current state of knowledge. As to pitch circularity, I found no better source than the one by Braun. If anybody finds a better source, please let us know.

2) The source “Korpell (1965)” is not suitable in this context. This author carried out experiments concerning the issue of f0 pitch vs. spectral pitch, which then apparently were misinterpreted. Further, in 1965 there was no knowledge at all on the “mechanism (!) of tonal chroma".

3) The difference between “pitch height” and “pitch chroma” is a vital one for the understanding of AP. Therefore I strongly suggest that my – very moderate – edits are kept untouched until arguments for a potentially better version are presented on this discussion page.

DiMare (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I see where you're going with the pitch versus chroma thing, and if I'm understanding you correctly I agree that that's an important distinction. However, the direct application of any model of octave circularity in absolute judgment is not supported by the literature (in fact, Shepard tones strongly suggest that it's a general perception, not specifically an absolute one), but the separation of tone height and tone chroma definitely is. I'll dig that up and add it. In the meantime let me make you aware of Wikipedia's rules for reliable sources. A self-published webpage is explicitly disallowed as a reliable source.

I just took another look at the 1965 paper myself, and its results are unequivocal: given musical tones whose overtone series belong to pitch class 1, and whose fundamental frequency belongs to pitch class 2, absolute listeners definitively and unambiguously identify the tones as belonging to pitch class 2. This is the pitch class represented by the fundamental frequency. I'm not sure I understand how this has been misinterpreted, as you claim-- can you explain the misinterpretation? aruffo (talk) 21:29, 21 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)

Hm.. I think I do understand what you're getting at about octave circularity as it relates to absolute pitch: non-absolute listeners appear to estimate a "height" measured along a unidimensional continuum, while absolute listeners make categorical judgments based on pitch class. I would agree with you that this statement would be meaningful to an article about absolute pitch, and we should probably figure out how to do so.

In doing so, it should be our duty to guide ourselves into statements which can be directly supported by the available data. The apparent fact that absolute listeners seem not to make direct judgments of "height" and, further, appear to perceive height as a separable quality of tone, does not mean that "height" does not influence their judgment. Flattening at the high end and "muddiness" at the low end of the spectrum seem to indicate as much. Indeed, what is height, and how is it measured? According to the experiments in pitch height conducted by Patterson et al (2002 and others), height can be readily defined as the spectral envelope; the missing fundamental illusion clearly demonstrates that the spectral envelope can serve as a pitch-class value; it is a known fact that absolute listeners find it more difficult to judge pure tones; ergo-- especially if agreeing with your assertion that the 1965 data is wholly invalid, and acknowledging the known end-effects I've just mentioned-- it is probable that "height" can be an influential or even critical factor in absolute judgment. In essence, although pitch is made as a categorical judgment, it is inaccurate to assert with confidence, let alone with certainty, that this categorical absolute judgment is unrelated to the quality of "pitch height".

You are completely missing the point about self-published sources. For one, "...are largely not acceptable" is the first and primary phrase of that quotation, and should not be omitted or overlooked. The reason for this should be plain: anyone, especially in today's age, can produce and disseminate any content they please, jammed full of whatever wild claims they choose to make. Peer review is not a blessing of approval, but a rigorous test of scientific validity. If you are trying to suggest that this fellow's ruminations should be deemed more valid than others because he is an "expert", then the argument for its inclusion is not based on its content at all, but exclusively about his supposed expertise, which is an appeal to authority argument-- a common logical fallacy. Look at the content of that webpage. Published or not, it is speculative. It is his guesswork, suggested by, but not directly supported by, the available data. There is therefore no reason why his unpublished speculations about the nature of pitch space should be included any more than, say, my own, which is also based on published research (see June 1 [[2]]), or any more than anyone else's speculations-- except by appeal to authority. Encyclopedic content should not be included, and is not made magically valid, "because X said so". I say again: if claims and speculations are borne out by published data, then it is the data which should be described and cited.

For these reasons principally, I have performed another reversion. Although, as I mentioned, I agree with you that this is an assertion worth exploring and potentially a valuable modification of this article-- and I'll go with you on the inconclusiveness of the 1965 article-- it is not appropriate to have in this article either an unpublished reference or speculative claims which are not directly supported by available data. aruffo (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

1) Yes of course, APers can estimate the exactness of musical intervals as good as other musicians. But this ability is not part of the AP ability. It is a general ability that is part of normal hearing. AP is an additional ability, and this additional ability is restricted to judgments concerning the chroma circle of pitch.

2) Octave circularity as an essential part of the mammalian auditory system is an established empirical fact. It is not theory, let alone speculation. It is not possible to understand AP without appreciating this fact. I will add it to the article.

DiMare (talk) 15:05, 23 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)

1) Acoustic frequencies < ca 30 Hz and > ca 5000 Hz are not pitch-relevant. They are audible, but indifferent to the perception of pitch. Some people say that pitch "freezes" outside of this range.

2) A straight line is one-dimensional. Any other figure on a plain, such as a curve, a circle , a square, etc, are two-dimensional. Balls and cubes are three-dimensional. Because the chroma scale returns to any given zero value after passing through an octave, it must be two-dimensional. [In music theory the combination of the height scale (straight line) and the chroma scale (circle) is described as a three-dimensional (cylindric) scale. But this should perhaps not be dealt with in this article.]

DiMare (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, for this usage, the common and intuitive term "musically relevant" would be more appropriate than the exotic term "pitch relevant"?

Apparently I failed geometry. Of course a line is one-dimensional and a plane is two-dimensional, and a value is non-dimensional. Stupid of me. But with that being the case, it underscores even more fully the nonsense of "two-dimensional" pitch chroma. Chroma judgment is linear (from C through B-flat). Chroma can only be a circle or plane if it possesses a second dimension: "height". There is no "return" from one C to another unless you are claiming that C4 is in fact different from C5, and that that difference is height. It is patently nonsensical to say that chroma judgment is fully dependent on the dimension of height and, simultaneously, independent of height. aruffo (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I only made a minor edit, because the brain estimates pitch, not frequency. If you like we may keep out the dimension differences. Just in case of interest, in the chroma dimension "C" returns to "C". If you consider both the chroma dimension and the height dimension, "C4" progresses to "C5". It is like adding "height" to a square and getting a cube. DiMare (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor Aruffo's Conflict of Interest

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)

I am the proprietor of the sites mentioned. This editor's accusation of conflict of interest is incorrect and unfounded, but mainly irrelevant. The burden of proof is upon the person who wishes to add or restore content (see WP:V), and as I believe the link to the complete bibliography of absolute pitch research satisfies WP:LINKS I will offer that proof here with a point-for-point analysis of the Wikipedia policy.

CRITERIA FOR EXCLUSION

"Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations"

All second-party material is in the public domain.

"Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."

A full historical bibliography is too much detail for any Wiki article, featured or otherwise.

"Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research"

All research is published.

"Links mainly intended to promote a website."

The link fails to meet criteria for website promotion as specified and detailed in WP:LINKSPAM.

"Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising."

The linked page contains no advertisements, solicitations, products for sale, nor any links to products for sale. Its purpose is to be a bibliographic reference, not bait to lure customers.

"Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article."

A complete history of any topic bears direct relation to that topic.

"Links that are not reliably functional, or likely to continue being functional."

aruffo.com is registered for some years to come, and I have no intention of allowing it to lapse.

"you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent."

This is the most contentious criterion for exclusion and is addressed below.

"Avoid undue weight on particular points of view"

A complete scientific bibliography presents all available points of view.

CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION

"Is the site content accessible to the reader?"

Yes. Scientific references are summarized in plain English.

"Is the site content proper in the context of the article?"

Yes. It is an exhaustive history of the topic.

"Is the link functional and likely to remain functional?"

Yes. I have no intention of abandoning aruffo.com.

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail"

Applicable. A complete bibliography of every paper published regarding absolute pitch would be too much detail for this article. The information is completely accurate. If an issue of neutrality existed it would be found in my summarizations of some of the data; I assert that my summaries are sufficiently neutral.

"Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

Applicable. This bibliography provides ALL information available from knowledgeable sources about the subject of the article.

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)

how come there isn't a single refernce to David Lucas Burge's Perfect Pitch Ear Training SuperCourse?

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)

So they claim. Are there any reliable sources to back that up? I don't mean any promotional literature for a profit-making entity: I mean a serious, peer-reviewed study in a scholarly journal, or equivalent. Antandrus (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No, there are not. As the prior discussion implies, the only two writings that approximate reliable sources (a thesis and a dissertation, neither of which are published) both fail to show an effect of training. aruffo (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

first of all, you can mention him anyway, as someone who claim whatever... secondly, i personally know about five people who has tried that and succeeded, this i obviously not a reliable source, but that makes me believe it's true.. where can i search for reliable sources for that?--93.173.148.129 (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The research clearly shows that a person who attempts to learn how to name notes, by ANY means, will become successful at doing so within about four to eight weeks. It is an ordinary human capacity, and cannot be attributed to any particular training method. The ability as so acquired requires constant practice and cultivation, and even then does not bestow any musical behaviors recognizably similar to those who "naturally" possess the ability. The only justification for mentioning any specific training method in an article about absolute pitch would be if it somehow produced significant results different from the ordinary human capacity for learning to name notes-- and no method has been reliably demonstrated to do so. aruffo (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)