I was interested in the absolute pitch and relative pitch discussion in the āwhat makes piano hardā thread but didnāt want to thread drift with a massive post! I thought Iād start a thread, in case thereās any interest. Otherwise, feel free to let it die. š
For context, my background in music:
ā¢ Formal lessons on saxophone from mid-grade school through high school, mostly classical but supplemented with some self-learning in jazz
ā¢ Formal lessons on upright bass from mid-high school through early college, both classical and jazz. I started college as a music major (both classical and jazz) but had to go in a different direction when I developed severe RSI issues
ā¢ A lot of self-learning on guitar and piano, various genres
From my formal music schooling, I understood the terms thusly (and loosely):
ā¢ Absolute pitch involved identifying the specific pitches in isolation from other pitches. For example, someone plays a note on the piano and you respond āthatās a B-flatā
ā¢ Relative pitch involved identifying something about the relation between two or more pitches, such as intervals (āthatās a perfect fourthā) and chords (āthatās a minor seventh chordā)
Per the other thread, I would not have thought of tuning a guitar to piano pitches as either, rather than simply āpitch matchingā for lack of a better term. However, the more I think about it, it does seem like one application of relative pitch: you are identifying the intervals of unison or octave! So Iāll allow it. š
Both my classical and jazz instruction involved a lot of training of relative pitch, and it was generally understood that most people were capable of learning it to some degree or another with enough effort. There are probably some people completely incapable, perhaps because they have the aural equivalence of total color-blindness, but it certainly seemed that anyone with any aptitude for music at all (i.e., every music major accepted into the program) could learn it, though some people did so faster and probably to a higher level than others, just like anything at all.
Where Iāve seen more controversy about is absolute pitch and whether itās 1) something you are born with or 2) something youāre not born with and therefore will never have. The common conception seems to be the former, but Iām here to tell you thatās just not true. My jazz instruction involved absolute pitch training, and something I was able to learn despite not being born with perfect pitch. As I mentioned, I didnāt get super far with it before I had to change my academic plans, but I absolutely (ha!) did pick up the amount that I was expected to learn at my relative (ha!!!) academic level. Of course, itās been ā¦ goodness ā¦ thirty-five years, and I didnāt practice it at all during that time, but Iāve been testing myself a bit recently, and there are still the dregs of it in my dusty old brain. š Iāve even been walking by the piano, whistling what I think is an A and then hitting an A key, and Iām getting it most of the time. When I do miss, Iām no more than a half-step off (and usually less than that).
Of course, I think the main issue in the ācontroversyā is that the two choices I listed above are a false dilemma. Iām guessing itās more of a continuum, and Iām probably somewhere in the middle: not quite the āsavantā absolute pitch that we generally associate with the term, but with enough natural ability that it can be trained. Different people are going to fall on different spots on that continuum, include those that may never get it. Good news: I donāt actually think absolute pitch is all that important outside of specific contexts, so not having it isnāt exactly a handicap.
Thoughts?