absolute and relative pitch

TC3 · 2026-01-06T19:17:05+00:00

I was interested in the absolute pitch and relative pitch discussion in the “what makes piano hard” thread but didn’t want to thread drift with a massive pos...

ShiroKuro

keystring we cross-posted. There are literally 60 seconds between us.

Great minds post alike?? 😃

iternabe

ShiroKuro pianoloverus Perfect pitch implies you can identify any note played or sing a particular note on request.

this is the key question to me, is this the definition of perfect pitch?

I think what pianoloverus describes here is a core part of it, because it explains perfect pitch as the ability to identify a single note, or the ability to produce a single note, given the note name.

Yes. I would think this is the minimum requirement of perfect pitch (aka absolute pitch): face away from the teacher's keyboard so you cannot see it, the teacher play a single note anywhere on the keyboard, you should be able to name that note exactly (e.g. G5, Bb3, etc.) and instantly.

keystring

iternabe face away from the teacher's keyboard so you cannot see it, the teacher play a single note anywhere on the keyboard, you should be able to name that note exactly (e.g. G5, Bb3, etc.) and instantly.

The ability to recognize a pitch distinctly, and the ability to give a name to a pitch, are two separate things. As I wrote before, naming is a means for testing an ability.

pseudonym58

keystring Not to belabor the point, but it amounts to the same thing, practically speaking. You know what it is, but you have to have a way of identifying it to someone else. Hence the name. Here's a funny thought, though. Before there was a scientifically measurable and accepted standard of pitch, different people's notions and understanding of a particular note would have varied somewhat. Today if you have perfect pitch and you go an "authentically baroque" or other historical music concert, it might actually be somewhat annoying to hear all of those "off" pitches, unless you're used to it, of course.

keystring

pseudonym58 keystring Not to belabor the point, but it amounts to the same thing, practically speaking. You know what it is, but you have to have a way of identifying it to someone else. Hence the name ....

So we're sort of in agreement. It's an important point however because the first order of business is the ability to distinguish a pitch as a pitch - a pear as a pear rather than some kind of fruit. Some may have that, some may not. The naming part is a way of testing that ability. A person might have the ability but didn't learning naming it, and then the test would give false results. Or - naming is an aspect of it.

pseudonym58 Before there was a scientifically measurable and accepted standard of pitch, different people's notions and understanding of a particular note would have varied somewhat

That is where the naming bit gets in trouble somewhat. If someone time traveled from the Baroque period, they might call something C which a modern person with equal pitch-recognizing ability would call B. But both are still able to hear a distinct pitch as a distinct pitch.

These two ways of perceiving notes - relative and absolute - may have implications in how a person processes music, and that in turn my affect ways of teaching certain things. (I've seen this discussed.)

BartK

Interesting discussion.

My understanding is that what you can learn as an adult is termed "pseudo-absolute pitch" where you can have some kind of longer term memory of pitches.

But I think real absolute pitch acquired in childhood is qualitatively different. I read somewhere a comparison to seeing colors. When you see blue you automatically know it's blue. You don't have to compare it to another color and say that "it's a slightly higher frequency than green". You just know it and you can picture it in your mind without reference to the physical world. I think most people wouldn't even know whether one color is a higher or lower frequency than another color. We have these conceptual boxes for what is red, blue, green, etc. that are triggered automatically and immediately in our mind. I think people with true absolute pitch have a similar perception of pitches.

iternabe

BartK

iternabe

Oh that brings up another question... do you know if Schumann had perfect pitch?

In the first edition of his Album for the Young op. 68 he included a preface titled "Advice to Young Musicians" where he writes:

Endeavour early to distinguish each several tone and key: Find out the exact notes sounded by the bell, the glass, the cuckoo etc.

So I was wondering if he meant that we should learn to distinguish the absolute pitch of those things.

pianoloverus

keystring So we're sort of in agreement. It's an important point however because the first order of business is the ability to distinguish a pitch as a pitch - a pear as a pear rather than some kind of fruit. Some may have that, some may not. The naming part is a way of testing that ability. A person might have the ability but didn't learning naming it, and then the test would give false results. Or - naming is an aspect of it.

Learning the of a note that one can distinguish so that one can name it is so elementary that I don't think this distinction really important.

iternabe

BartK I do not know. If Schumann meant that, I sure hope that's a suggestion of what student should strive for, but not a minimum requirement.

HeartKeys

I often hear the term “perfect pitch” defined in numerous ways, and it eventually becomes a rabbit hole of semantics. 🙂

I’ve heard people say I have perfect pitch, which definitionally is absolutely untrue.

I prefer the terms “universal pitch” which from I understand is ability at any point to identify a frequency and identify that note point blank with no other relative aid. Such as hearing a police siren or baby crying. Versus “oh this is in the key of x, because Chopin’s Etude is in key of y, and this is diminished third from that key.”

To me I’m pretty “glad” to not have that uncanny ability for universal pitch because anecdotally I’ve seen folks get perturbed when a note is off. And of course the fact/probability of losing that ability with age, which can be daunting to said person.

On a separate note (no pun intended), my wife has way less “pitch ability” than me, yet plays and sounds much better than me on the piano. Of course, I can do the “show off” stuff that impresses laypeople (at stores playing popular music by ear, with no regard to control, technique etc), but she’s the actual “true pianist” and her lack of pitch (compared to me) clearly has no impact on her artistry, technicality, output of her product.

keystring

pianoloverus Learning the of a note that one can distinguish so that one can name it is so elementary that I don't think this distinction really important.

Yes, it's important to be able to name a note. We're talking, however, about two ways of processing pitches and the existence of an ability. The ability can exist without the name part. However, the name part is a way for another person to test for the ability.

pianoloverus

keystring I can't tell from your comment if you're agreeing or disagreeing with what I wrote.

keystring

pianoloverus keystring I can't tell from your comment if you're agreeing or disagreeing with what I wrote.

Expanding, or 2nd angle, maybe.

diretonic

I’d break it down into three levels of cognisance with grey areas in between; no pitch, some pitch, lotsa pitch.

Amusia: you can sing a melody you’re familiar with but intervals are all over the place though perhaps some semblance (but not always) of the direction of melody, up or down. Or, someone plays or sings a note and asks you to sing the same note and you’re way off.

Relative pitch: Someone plays a note on the piano. You can sing it with reasonable accuracy. You instinctively know the diatonic musical scale and given a reference note can find your way to another named degree of the scale (1 up to 8). Of course there will be levels of ability, speed/accuracy/chromaticity but I’m sure it’s possible to progress. Knowing the names of the notes isn’t necessary, solfege will do.

Absolute pitch: You hear a pitch and you can name it. You’d need to know the names of pitches to show you can do it. I wonder about precision. Does someone with perfect pitch know if an A is dead on 440hz or not? I think such an ability could be an unsettling nuisance. I’d have thought 10hz either way would qualify as perfect enough.

Years ago I became obsessed with a jazz piano track I wanted to play. I’ve been transcribing ever since but as a first effort with lots of traps I couldn't figure out, and with unsatisfactory tools (this is 1960, just a 45 single), trying to locate and home in on various sections required hundreds of plays over several weeks. But I noticed soon after, having heard the damn thing so much, I could play the original track in my mind’s ear, then check with the piano or track, and get dead on the key of F (a few Hz either way).
I tried this yesterday, recalling the tune, and I was about 1 tone out. I attempted it today, tried to focus and got it close, and again two hours later.

On the other hand when listening to music, I have no sense of the key whatsoever instead falling back to relative i.e. I,II,V etc but of course I could establish the key by stopping the track (which would confuse), then summoning my recall of F.

If you’ve been playing or listening to something to death yourself, try it out. Can you pitch the key or the melody? Accurately?

A couple of things. I wouldn’t call this perfect pitch, even if you can consistently hit the mark dead on. Maybe a relative of 'perfect'. Also, when listening to a piece of music, can you always pitch the key? Even if you have good relative pitch? Some cannot. They can sing the tune, in tune, but can't identify 'doh'.

pseudonym58

diretonic considering it was 1960, too bad it wasn't a 33⅓ RPM LP. You could have set the phonograph speed to 16⅔ and played it at half speed. 😁
Perhaps you remember, by the late 1970s/early '80s, Marantz (among other companies) made a cassette recorder/player that could effectively play at half speed. I remember that being a tool which was in great demand by musicians, especially jazz musicians.
A jazz pianist once told me that in transcription, at least for the first pass, you wanted to listen for the sound and character of the chord rather than the specific voicing, in identifying its quality (major, minor, augmented, etc).
There are people who tend to hear extended chords as combinations of more than one chord rather than a single base chord with extensions (7, 9, 11, 13, plus alterations and suspensions). I have often found it difficult to comprehend either way, since my perception tends to flip back and forth depending on the voicings of the extended chord.
More to the point: in some ways, I would imagine this gives people with perfect pitch an advantage: being able to identify the various actual pitches helps in being able to define the chord.

rsl12

pseudonym58 There are people who tend to hear extended chords as combinations of more than one chord rather than a single base chord with extensions (7, 9, 11, 13, plus alterations and suspensions). I have often found it difficult to comprehend either way, since my perception tends to flip back and forth depending on the voicings of the extended chord.

Interesting. Unless arpeggiated, I cannot imagine hearing an extended chord as a combination of chords, though I do sometimes think that way when playing (upper structures and suspensions in particular).

More to the point: in some ways, I would imagine this gives people with perfect pitch an advantage: being able to identify the various actual pitches helps in being able to define the chord.

I don't know... Does perfect pitch mean you can pick out the individual notes of a chord better than someone with only relative pitch?

diretonic

pseudonym58 considering it was 1960, too bad it wasn't a 33⅓ RPM LP. You could have set the phonograph speed to 16⅔ and played it at half speed.

A while before trying to figure out this recording (Little Suzie, Ray Bryant if you're interested) a relative had seen fit to gift me some cash which I quickly splurged on a reflectograph tape recorder - a cheapo ferrograph for those as ancient as me - which had 7.5 and 3.75 ips, so I was able to mess about with half-speed but found it only useful for improvisation lines in the mid/upper register. Chords, in particular rootless LH chords an octave down, aren't practicable. We're so lucky these days to have speed change with unaltered pitch.

pseudonym58 A jazz pianist once told me that in transcription, at least for the first pass, you wanted to listen for the sound and character of the chord rather than the specific voicing, in identifying its quality (major, minor, augmented, etc).

I don't separate the voicing from the character.

https://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/3641899/function-of-a-chord-in-you-dont-know-what-love-is.html#Post3641899

pseudonym58 There are people who tend to hear extended chords as combinations of more than one chord rather than a single base chord with extensions (7, 9, 11, 13, plus alterations and suspensions)

Yes, compound chords are a useful short cut when learning ♭9, #9, ♭5, #5 etc. Not so much for 7,9,11,13.

pseudonym58 More to the point: in some ways, I would imagine this gives people with perfect pitch an advantage: being able to identify the various actual pitches helps in being able to define the chord.

I touch on this in the thread I linked above. Identifying notes or chords? Choose your own poison, often a bit of both for me.

diretonic

rsl12 I don't know... Does perfect pitch mean you can pick out the individual notes of a chord better than someone with only relative pitch?

I think that's an open question. If perfect pitch means knowing, without error, a single note e.g. a true A =440 it's possible that a jumble of jazz dissonance would handicap the listener. But if you can identify a chord from its character - or at least its basis (domiinant 7, minor 6 etc etc) it's a small step to pick out embellishments of that basic chord using only relative pitch since you've already got 'doh'.

pianoloverus

diretonic I don't know... Does perfect pitch mean you can pick out the individual notes of a chord better than someone with only relative pitch?

I think that's an open question. If perfect pitch means knowing, without error, a single note e.g. a true A =440 it's possible that a jumble of jazz dissonance would handicap the listener. But if you can identify a chord from its character - or at least its basis (domiinant 7, minor 6 etc etc) it's a small step to pick out embellishments of that basic chord using only relative pitch since you've already got 'doh'.

To the best of my understanding someone with only relative pitch can't pick out the notes in some totally random chord the way at least some people with perfect pitch can.

ranjit

For me, I've found the answer is that this is a false dichotomy. Instead, it is a trichotomy! (lol)

Relative Pitch: Remembering intervals. There are 2 things here: 1. the ability/potential to hear the difference between pitches, which may not be trained, and 2. the trained ability to hear exact intervals specific to a given temperament. Most people can learn this.

Pitch Memory: Remembering the exact pitch of certain things, but as the actual sound, not in a representational way. For instance, you could imagine someone's voice in your head, or your car starting up, or a tuning fork, at the right pitch, but it's a memory, much like imagining a picture, which doesn't stay in your memory long term. Everyone has this to some degree, but it can be very slight.

Absolute/Perfect Pitch: "Seeing" pitches as pitch classes, much like colors. This is a "permanent" ability. It can degrade with age, etc. but it's not like a "memory", it's much like seeing the color "red" which you will basically never forget. Less than 1 in 1000 people has this, and it might be possible to train in children who have very strong pitch memory to begin with.

« Previous Page Next Page »