Comment by thinkpad20 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by thinkpad20 | Hacker News Reader

I think it's overly simplistic to group people into those who have perfect pitch and those who don't. Of course, I don't know if the article makes this claim, but I think a lot of people tend to view perfect pitch as a binary ability -- either you have it or you don't. But speaking personally, I have "sort of" perfect pitch (imperfect pitch? semi-perfect pitch?), by which I mean that I can sing and/or recognize the pitch of certain notes from memory, but not any arbitrary note, not under all circumstances, and not instantaneously. If I'm not right on the money, I'm usually at least within a semitone or two. I can do it reliably enough that I'm convinced it's not just a fluke when I get it right, but on the other hand it's not at all "perfect." Moreover, the recognition happens too slowly to be practical in real time; usually it involves audiating part of a song that I know has certain notes, and using them as reference pitches. Perhaps if I dedicated more time to it I could get it more accurate or faster, and maybe even develop proper perfect pitch.

All that being said, while having true perfect pitch would probably open up new ways to appreciate and understand the music I'm listening to, I think that relative pitch is a far more useful skill -- nigh essential for many genres.

For what it's worth, I have the exact same skill as you down to all of the details. I can remember many songs in their original key, sing them / whistle them within a few cents usually, identify the key of many notes most of the time, but by no means 100% of the time perfectly. It's probably something that could indeed be trained to be more "perfect", but as someone who does have "pretty good" absolute pitch, I still consider it a parlor trick. It's fun now and again, but it doesn't really help much with my music. Perhaps that's because I don't transcribe Bach concertos.

On the other hand, I completely agree that relative pitch has to be on point. I don't see how it's possible to be an effective musician without it. Being able to intuitively know intervals, certainly if you're a singer, is indispensable.

Could this be the genetic predisposition aspect at play? I'm a complete idiot musically but my perception of sounds seems to be better than most (I can tell facial expressions from voice only,or sometimes just the sounds of their saliva, when others can't). I can't hold a tune, or rather I have no idea if I am holding a tune. I have wondered if I had acquired the luck part without the training required for the skill part.

Interestingly I get asked about my musical background a lot, because of my daughter's ability, whose conversations with her teachers have been beyond my comprehension for years now. While she also lacks perfect pitch, there seems to certainly be something going on. Her Mandarin teacher asked if she was raised around Chinese speakers from an early age because her ability to hear and match tones is something you generally can't just pick up the way she did.

My sense of absolute pitch decays with time. If I've been practicing my instrument a lot, then I can maintain absolute pitch for maybe a few days, e.g., recognize what key something is in. After a month, e.g., on family vacation, it's gone.

But I can always recognize intervals just fine.

That strongly matches my personal experience.

I think it's probably more likely that absolute and relative pitch are different capabilities, with most people innately biased one way or the other. But I don't think they're mutually exclusive. And I'm pretty certain some people have low capability in both.

I find the obsession with perfect pitch to be pretty overwrought. Much like I often find some people to be overly obsessed with synesthesia as a mystical source of artistic creativity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com