Talk:Absolute pitch

Semitone/Half step?

Semitone = Half step in the States. Should it be notated or change? Ich 00:47, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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".^[1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 pitch and perfect 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Start here: [1]. Biograpy? Watch this: [2]. Last but not least, the famous Mozart portrait studies: [3] and [4]. 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)[reply]

It is/was as follows (Hyacinth 07:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)):[reply]

This is a list of people possessing absolute pitch.

Fictional characters:

See Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of people with absolute pitch. Hyacinth 07:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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...)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

^ Ward, W.D. and Burns, E.M. (1982). "Absolute Pitch". In D. Deutsch (Ed.) (ed.). The Psychology of Music. Orlando: Academic Press. pp. 431–452. ISBN 0-12-213562-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[1] Ward, W.D. and Burns, E.M. (1982). "Absolute Pitch". In D. Deutsch (Ed.) (ed.). The Psychology of Music. Orlando: Academic Press. pp. 431–452. ISBN 0-12-213562-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[1]