#1
ive seen in some musician magazines some big adverts for tutorial cds you can buy which apparently give you perfect pitch in about a month or something. does anyone know how these work, or whether they are a big scam? just interested.
i need to get a better signature.
#2
Oh boy, the ones with **** face on them?
Quote by fukyu1980
LOL ! muther fuker i was gonna say that LOL!
#3
i honestly think theyre a bit of a scam, honestly all they do is the exact same thing u would do with an instrument, im pretty sure they just play the tone and tell you what it is and to start humming notes and checking yourself on your instrument... in all honesty, its a $130 cheaper if u just try to yourself... theres a website that plays notes and chords and stuff and u guess them but i lost the link so anybody who has it PLEASE post it or pm it to me... but back to eartraining, just slowly build up recognition of steps like major second major third minor third perfect fourth... i reccomend picking up The Complete Idiots Guide to Music Theory cause it teaches you a lot about this and actually comes with a free eartraining course
Quote by GibsonPuppeteer
I've had the tiny ones in my mouth and accidentally swallowed a bit of the liquid, you should be all right.


Quote by xDie_Romanticx
just dont get it in your eyes and wear gloves
#5
Quote by jimmiew
i honestly think theyre a bit of a scam, honestly all they do is the exact same thing u would do with an instrument, im pretty sure they just play the tone and tell you what it is and to start humming notes and checking yourself on your instrument... in all honesty, its a $130 cheaper if u just try to yourself... theres a website that plays notes and chords and stuff and u guess them but i lost the link so anybody who has it PLEASE post it or pm it to me... but back to eartraining, just slowly build up recognition of steps like major second major third minor third perfect fourth... i reccomend picking up The Complete Idiots Guide to Music Theory cause it teaches you a lot about this and actually comes with a free eartraining course


Sounds pretty spot on dude. That website sounds really helpful I'm gonna go look for it.

EDIT: Nevermind, I think Matt found it. Cheers dude!
Quote by fukyu1980
LOL ! muther fuker i was gonna say that LOL!
#6
I have the CDs from perfectpitch.com and I can say they are really good, it really opens up your ears
#7
how about the ear training software earmaster pro? what do you think of it people?
Quote by MyGuitarAndMe

voodoo child - jimi hendrix (good song by a crap guitarist)
nothing else matters - metalica (closest they'll ever come to true metal)
can't stop - rhcp (john is not god)
fix you - coldplay (the shredding is top)
#9
Quote by UNIe
I have the CDs from perfectpitch.com and I can say they are really good, it really opens up your ears



oh yea? can you elaborate about them, please?
"I see my light come shining from the west down to the east
Any day now, any day now I shall be released"

Know any good teachers in NY, especially skilled in teaching ear training? Tell me
#10
Quote by sirpsycho85
oh yea? can you elaborate about them, please?


Well, the guy in those cds explains about his so-called "color hearing",how to perceive and develop it and gives various exercises for that. He plays everything on piano, but also gives exercises for guitar and other instrument players, so it's kinda nice that you learn everything on your guitar, not with some kind of midi files, etc.
#12
Thats a load of crap. Perfect pitch is something you're born with or you're not, you can't learn it. You can, however, get close, but i can't see what good those cds would do, its better just to train yourself to recognise pitches, intervals, chords etc whilst practising.
#13
perfect pitch isnt an essential skill, to be honest. haydn, wagner and stravinsky didnt have it, i dont think hendrix or clapton had/have it. bill bailey has it, but he's hardly one of the musical elite...
#14
Quote by blue_strat
but can you now instantly identify any pitch played to you?


Well, I must confess, I stopped it about half way though, because I was spending too much time on it instead of practicing technique on the guitar, so I kinda put it away for some time and just forgot about it! Now, that this thread reminded me that, I think I'll go back to it, because it really helped me in some ways (I can sing now, woohoo) ;]
#15
no it does not work. you can not develop perfect pitch, you're born with it or not. BUT you can develop relative pitch, and I'm pretty sure thats what that program does.
#16
and also perfect pitch can be annoying. my friend has it and sings in choir, and lets face it, all choirs go somewhat out of tune during accpella singing, and even if its not a whole half step, and really bothers him, its like screeching to the ears
#17
Yeah, try to develop relative pitch. Perfect pitch, you're born with, nothing can do that for you( And if somehow there IS a way to learn it, it sure as hell won't come in one month!). Plus, if you have relative pitch you can still be as good as someone with perfect pitch.
"Isn't it amazing anything's accomplished
When the little sensation gets in your way
Not one ambition whisperin' over your shoulder
Isn't it amazing you can do anything " - Gord Downie

From the song " Fireworks"
#18
IMO, perfect pitch is not something you're born with. However, very few guitar players have it since it requires a very long time of practice. Why most people think that it's something you're born with, is that you need to learn it since you're very young. Most of the piano players have perfect pitch, because most of them learn their skills since they were like what, five?


Very few guitar player learn how to play before the age of ten. This is why most of the guitar players don't have perfect pitch. If you're really dedicated, you can actually develop perfect pitch, with massive training. Only with practice can you get this. But this actually applies to everything in guitar. Practice Practice Practice!
Last edited by KIDRoach at Mar 21, 2007,
#19
Quote by KIDRoach
IMO, perfect pitch is not something you're born with. However, very few guitar players have it since it requires a very long time of practice. Why most people think that it's something you're born with, is that you need to learn it since you're very young. Most of the piano players have perfect pitch, because most of them learn their skills since they were like what, five?


Very few guitar player learn how to play before the age of ten. This is why most of the guitar players don't have perfect pitch. If you're really dedicated, you can actually develop perfect pitch, with massive training. Only with practice can you get this. But this actually applies to everything in guitar. Practice Practice Practice!



There have been studies proving that perfect pitch is somthing one must be born with. It actually has a name, but I seem to have forgotten it. So, perfect pitch cannot be trained. However, Relative pitch can be. Perfect pitch has nothing to do with the instrument, rather the brains ability to differentiate pitches. I have a friend that has perfect pitch, he could tell you the note that your computer sounds when it is turned on.
Quote by DeathDealer
you people are daft



"You rise as high as your dominant aspiration, you descend to the level of your lowest concept of yourself. Free your mind and your ass will follow." Funkadelic


Member #7 of the Peavey is Amazing Club
#20
I'm glad I don't have perfect pitch. it's a pain enough as it is.
I'm constantly adjusting the damn innotations to my guitars.
And i get stupid picky on a guitar when I buy.
Having locking trems..is freanken fun.
I there such a thing as a perfectly tuned guitar?

If you play or listen to music long enough your relative pitch increases.
#21
from Wikipedia

Nature or nurture?
Many people have believed that musical ability itself is an inborn talent. Some scientists currently believe absolute pitch may have an underlying genetic basis and are trying to locate genetic correlates; most believe that the acquisition of absolute pitch requires early training during a critical period of development, regardless of whether or not a genetic predisposition toward development exists. The "unlearning theory," first proposed by Abraham, has recently been revived by developmental psychologists who argue that every person possesses absolute pitch (as a mode of perceptual processing) when they are infants, but that a shift in cognitive processing styles (from local, absolute processing to global, relational processing) causes most people to unlearn it; or, at least, causes children with musical training to discard absolute pitch as they learn to identify musical intervals. Additionally, any nascent absolute pitch may be lost simply by the lack of reinforcement or lack of clear advantages in most activities in which the developing child is involved. An unequivocal resolution to the ongoing debate would require controlled experiments, which are both impractical and unethical.

Researchers have been trying to teach absolute pitch ability for more than a century, and various commercial absolute-pitch training courses have been offered to the public since the early 1900s. It has been shown possible to learn the naming of tones later in life, although some consider this skill not to be true absolute pitch. No training method for adults has yet been shown to produce abilities comparable to naturally-occurring absolute pitch.

For children aged 2-4, however, recent observations have shown a certain method of music education to apparently be successful in training absolute pitch, but the same method has also been shown to fail with students 5 years and older, suggesting that a developmental change in perception occurs which favors relative learning over absolute and thus supporting the theory of the "critical period" for learning absolute pitch.



I know i'm not right, but just to prove that i'm not wrong either.
Last edited by KIDRoach at Mar 22, 2007,
#22
Here's a good write up from Grove.

The ability either to identify the chroma (pitch class) of any isolated tone, using labels such as C, 261 Hz or do (‘passive’ absolute pitch), or to reproduce a specified chroma – for example, by singing or adjusting the frequency of a tone generator – without reference to an external standard (‘active’ absolute pitch (AP): Bachem, 1937; Baggaley, 1974; Ward, 1982). Both skills may be called ‘tone-AP’. Absolute pitch may also involve recognizing whether a familiar piece is played in the correct key (passive), or singing a familiar song in the correct key (active); this skill is known as ‘piece-AP’.

Cognitively, both tone- and piece-AP involve two separate sub-skills: long-term pitch memory and an appropriate form of linguistic coding for attaching labels to stimuli (Levitin, 1994). True tone-AP requires individual internal pitch standards for all 12 chroma. This template can shift with age by as much as two semitones (Vernon, 1977; Wynn, 1992); shifts can also be induced neurochemically (Chaloupka, Mitchell and Muirhead, 1994). A musician with only one absolute pitch reference (e.g. a' = 440 Hz) and good relative pitch has ‘pseudo-AP’ (Bachem, 1937); so has an experimental participant who internalizes several, but not all, pitches of the chromatic scale (Cuddy, 1970). The labels used in tone-AP are musical note names; in piece-AP they are names of pieces and texts of songs.

The popular term ‘perfect pitch’ is misleading. Musicians claiming tone-AP are not necessarily better at discriminating tones of almost the same frequency, or at perceiving small deviations in intonation, than other musicians (Bachem, 1954; Burns and Campbell, 1994). AP possessors can typically tune pitches to within 20–60 cents of target frequencies (Rakowski and Morawska-Büngeler, 1987). In passive tasks, they regularly make semitone errors (Lockhead and Byrd, 1981; Miyazaki, 1988), and are not necessarily better than other musicians at identifying octave registers (Rakowski and Morawska-Büngeler, 1987; Miyazaki, 1988). There is nothing ‘perfect’ about absolute pitch.

Nor does absolute pitch appear to correlate with other musical skills. Composers with tone-AP (e.g. Mozart, Skryabin, Messiaen, Boulez) have not written indisputably better or worse music than composers without it (e.g. Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Ravel, Stravinsky: see Slonimsky, 1988). While tone-AP is sometimes an advantage (helping horn players to imagine tones before playing them, singers to perform atonal music and theorists to follow large-scale tonal structures by ear), it can also be a hindrance (e.g. when playing or singing in a key other than written). Regarding relative pitch, musicians with tone-AP can be less skilled than other musicians, calculating intervals and chords from note names rather than hearing them directly (Miyazaki, 1991–2, 1993–4). Moreover, their constant awareness of musical pitch labels can detract from their enjoyment of music.

Only about one person in 10,000 claims to have tone-AP (Profita and Bidder, 1988). The distinction between possessors and non-possessors is not clearcut: the former can usually label 70–100% of randomly selected middle-range piano tones (Miyazaki, 1988), while the latter identify up to 40% of the tones – well above the chance level of 8·3% (Lockhead and Byrd, 1981; Miyazaki, 1988). This is not surprising given that neurological information on absolute pitch is available at all levels of the auditory system (Moore, 1977). Even songbirds (Hulse, Cynx and Humpal, 1984), wolves (Tooze, Harington and Fentress, 1990) and monkeys (D'Amato, 1987–8) demonstrate absolute pitch memory.

Clearly, tone-AP must be learnt from exposure to music containing fixed pitches, coupled with knowledge of pitch labels (Wedell, 1934; Levitin, 1999). Chroma identification rates are higher, and response times lower, for white piano keys than for black (Miyazaki, 1989–90; Takeuchi and Hulse, 1991), presumably because white keys occur more often in piano music and have simpler labels (see Rosch, 1975). Similarly, piece-AP relies on repeated exposure to pieces played in the same key. Tone-AP may also be ‘unlearnt’ during musical acculturation in which familiar music and pitch relationships are regularly transposed into different keys; this may explain its rarity (Abraham, 1901–2; Watt, 1917).

Like language, tone-AP usually develops during a critical period in early life (Ward, 1982). Musicians who start musical training early are more likely to acquire tone-AP than those who start late (Wellek, 1938; Sergent, 1969). Younger children acquire piece-AP more easily than older children (shown by singing a song in its regular key: Sergeant and Roche, 1973). Tone-AP can be acquired in later life, but only with considerable motivation, time and effort (Meyer, 1899; Cuddy, 1968; Brady, 1970). Late acquirers of tone-AP are generally less spontaneous and accurate in their identification of pitches; they tend not to develop a complete internal chroma template, filling the gaps by means of relative pitch.

Both infants (Clarkson and Clifton, 1985) and adults (Wedell, 1934) seem able to perceive pitch absolutely within a range of about three semitones. According to the ‘innateness hypothesis’ (Révész, 1913; Bachem, 1937) newborns vary in their predisposition to acquire tone-AP, that is, to reduce this range to one semitone and apply chromatic labels. This hypothesis has not been confirmed experimentally. Even if it were, it would not provide unequivocal support for innateness: newborns have at least four months of prenatal auditory experience (Lecanuet, 1995). The search for an absolute-pitch gene (Profita and Bidder, 1988) or brain centre (Schlaug and others, 1995) may be in vain, given that, in a learnt skill, ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ cannot easily be separated (Jeffress, 1962) and that absolute pitch involves several neurally separate sub-processes (pitch perception, classification, labelling, storage in long-term memory, retrieval from memory: Levitin, 1999).

Absolute pitch can be enhanced by association or integration with other perceptual or cognitive parameters (Siegel, 1974; Zatorre and Beckett, 1989). For example, tone-AP is enhanced by linking pitches to colours (chromaesthesia: Peacock, 1984–5; Rogers, 1987). Musicians with tone-AP tend to identify the tones of their main instrument more reliably than other timbres (Lockhead and Byrd, 1981), suggesting an intrinsic cognitive link between pitch and timbre. For similar reasons, piece-AP, involving complex, meaningful sound objects, is more widespread than tone-AP: musicians not claiming tone-AP can recognize whether a familiar piece is played in its correct key (Terhardt and Seewann, 1983–4), and non-musicians can sing well-known tunes in the same key on different occasions (Halpern, 1989; Heaton, 1992), or in the keys in which they learnt them (Levitin, 1994), at levels considerably exceeding chance. Piece-AP is further facilitated by the use of everyday linguistic labels rather than abstract note names.

Tests for absolute pitch should be designed to prevent other parameters from facilitating tone recognition. It is impossible to rule out the use of relative pitch (Ward, 1982; Costall, 1985), although slow reactions can be reliable evidence of its use (Bachem, 1954). Use of timbre can be completely eliminated by randomly varying the spectral envelope of presented tones, or by having participants sing their responses. Because the pitch of a pure tone depends on its intensity (Stevens, 1935), results of absolute pitch experiments using pure tones should be interpreted with caution.


Cited: Parncutt, Richard and Daniel J. Levtin. "Absolute Pitch" The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians ed. S. Sadie and J. Tyrrell (London: Macmillan, 2001).