OT? Perfect pitch: Sorry, it ain't perfect

[Floyd Tatum]

I've mentioned this before, but the topic came up again for me, so I thought I'd say it again.  A better name for "perfect pitch" would be "pitch memory".   Why?   Because the concept of A=440hz is completely arbitrary - there's nothing in nature that defines an A above middle C as being 440 hz.   If you read the history of the development of this standard, you come to understand that it was simply an agreed-upon reference point after many years of argument about which pitch should be chosen.

So, how does so-called perfect pitch work, then?  I don't know how some brains can do it, but simple logic tells me that someone with pitch memory has a certain special kind of memory that remembers pitches.   That ain't me - I have relative pitch, very good relative pitch, in fact, but ask me to sing middle C out of the blue, and I can't do it.

I wonder if anyone has researched whether a pitch-memory person can identify both an A=440hz and say, an A=435hz tone as being different from each other.    Or, identifying an A440 note as being different from an A439 note.   It's a fascinating subject, fer sure.

In addition to being called perfect pitch, it's also called "absolute pitch" and "positive pitch".   Why not just call it what it is: pitch memory.

 

[mate stubb]

Agreed. I used to be able to name pitches accurately on well tuned American instruments. But a neglected instrument whose tuning had slipped could mess me up.

 

Now that I am semi retired and not playing music much, I find my pitch sense is slipping. I'm sometimes a half step off if I test myself. 

[KuruPrionz]

I have a good sense of pitch, I'm glad it isn't "perfect". 

Music is Art, Art is tension and release. I play guitar and can/do intentionally play notes that are not in the tempered scale. 

Those notes speak a language that is important, not just to me but also to many artists. 

I play a bit of fretless bass when I'm recording, it is certainly and intentionally NOT a perfect pitch instrument. Music expression exceeds the tempered scale. 

 

Most piano tuners use "stretch" tuning, which is definitely not perfect but sounds right for piano.

 

The pitch of a string is affected by tension, length, weight of the wire used, velocity of the motivating force (hammer, pick, bow) and strings simply do not keep accurate "perfect" pitch even if tuned that way. Bells change pitch depending on where and how they are struck. 

 

We are all very used to hearing the sounds that analog musical instruments create. In European musics, they have the tempered scale and the just scale. In the Middle East, they have more notes per octave, still more in India, where the movable frets and multiple tuners on a sitar enable it to play ragas traditionally and the sarod is simply fretless so any note can be played (as can the instruments of the violin family).

 

I would think that true perfect pitch would be more of a hinderance than a blessing. 

 

[Docbop]

Then orchestras in US typically use 442 and get into orchestras in other countries they use other of values for A.  So it's a moving target. 

[MathOfInsects]

I think you might be misunderstanding what perfect pitch is. Or rather, finally understanding.

 

It's not that there's anything "C" about a certain Hz.

 

It's that, when those Hz hit our ears, we send that wave info up into our brains, and we then "hear" it as pitch, and then we assign names to those pitches. (Pitch perception and the Hz that trigger it are two different but related things.) If we're raised in the Western tradition, our brains form affinities for the 12 pitches of our octave. This isn't from "science" or "nature" or anything, it's purely from repeated exposure, and because of the plasticity of our brains, we adapt to this repeated exposure.

 

If your brain were tracked via fMRI, and I played you the 12 pitches of our Western octave, you could literally watch 12 different regions in your brain light up in recognition of these pitches. This is "local" to our Western tradition, and is different for people raised in different scale or music traditions. (Same is true with visual stimuli, by the way).

These regions are not exact. In fact, we "correct" for them to bring the sounds we hear in line with those expectations--meaning,  we can practically get 49 cents toward the next half step up before we get the "next" little affinity region to light up. We "default" to those 12 pitches, in the west. As a language analogy, it is a bit like deciding to hear "dahh!" or "..aad!" as "dad!" when our kids yell it at the playground, since we recognize the known word that it mostly is.

 

All "perfect pitch" means is that someone has made the cognitive connection between that affinity region and the name we've decided to give the pitch that triggers it. It is not magic, and we all have the capacity for it. Speakers of tonal languages like Chinese nearly all have some version of perfect pitch, because the language uses pitch-space as part of its construct.

 

We also essentially ALL have pitch memory, musicians and non-musicians alike. When you sing or hum or whistle a song you've heard--whether you're a musician or some dweeb shopping at Ralph's--you will sing or hum or whistle it either at the correct pitch (most of the time) or within a half step of it (most of the rest of the time). Perfect pitch just means that the pitch recognition has not only a sound component, but a "name" as well.

 

 

[CEB]

My wife always impressed me.  I would take her into music stores and she would shop for sheet music, usually contest pieces for the children.  She would sightread the pieces and sing it in correct concert pitch. Her sense of pitch is scary.   My personal theory based on her and other great horn players I’ve worked with is horn players have a higher sense of pitch memory and accuracy because they operate in a monophonic world. 
 

I have no idea what the correct labeling semantics are for this  … I’m just a honky tonk piano player. 

[Steve Nathan]

2 hours ago, Floyd Tatum said:

I've mentioned this before, but the topic came up again for me, so I thought I'd say it again.  A better name for "perfect pitch" would be "pitch memory".   Why?   Because the concept of A=440hz is completely arbitrary - there's nothing in nature that defines an A above middle C as being 440 hz.   If you read the history of the development of this standard, you come to understand that it was simply an agreed-upon reference point after many years of argument about which pitch should be chosen.

So, how does so-called perfect pitch work, then?  I don't know how some brains can do it, but simple logic tells me that someone with pitch memory has a certain special kind of memory that remembers pitches.   That ain't me - I have relative pitch, very good relative pitch, in fact, but ask me to sing middle C out of the blue, and I can't do it.

I wonder if anyone has researched whether a pitch-memory person can identify both an A=440hz and say, an A=435hz tone as being different from each other.    Or, identifying an A440 note as being different from an A439 note.   It's a fascinating subject, fer sure.

In addition to being called perfect pitch, it's also called "absolute pitch" and "positive pitch".   Why not just call it what it is: pitch memory.

 

You have no understanding of what is (mis-named) Perfect pitch.  The name leads you to believe it is discerning the difference between 500hz and 5003hz.  Perhaps you might try a little research of your own before spouting on a topic with just your opinion and no basis in the science.

[MathOfInsects]

17 minutes ago, Steve Nathan said:

You have no understanding of what is (mis-named) Perfect pitch.  The name leads you to believe it is discerning the difference between 500hz and 5003hz.  Perhaps you might try a little research of your own before spouting on a topic with just your opinion and no basis in the science.

Yep.

[KuruPrionz]

48 minutes ago, MathOfInsects said:

I think you might be misunderstanding what perfect pitch is. Or rather, finally understanding.

 

It's not that there's anything "C" about a certain Hz.

 

It's that, when those Hz hit our ears, we send that wave info up into our brains, and we then "hear" it as pitch, and then we assign names to those pitches. (Pitch perception and the Hz that trigger it are two different but related things.) If we're raised in the Western tradition, our brains form affinities for the 12 pitches of our octave. This isn't from "science" or "nature" or anything, it's purely from repeated exposure, and because of the plasticity of our brains, we adapt to this repeated exposure.

 

If your brain were tracked via fMRI, and I played you the 12 pitches of our Western octave, you could literally watch 12 different regions in your brain light up in recognition of these pitches. This is "local" to our Western tradition, and is different for people raised in different scale or music traditions. (Same is true with visual stimuli, by the way).

These regions are not exact. In fact, we "correct" for them to bring the sounds we hear in line with those expectations--meaning,  we can practically get 49 cents toward the next half step up before we get the "next" little affinity region to light up. We "default" to those 12 pitches, in the west. As a language analogy, it is a bit like deciding to hear "dahh!" or "..aad!" as "dad!" when our kids yell it at the playground, since we recognize the known word that it mostly is.

 

All "perfect pitch" means is that someone has made the cognitive connection between that affinity region and the name we've decided to give the pitch that triggers it. It is not magic, and we all have the capacity for it. Speakers of tonal languages like Chinese nearly all have some version of perfect pitch, because the language uses pitch-space as part of its construct.

 

We also essentially ALL have pitch memory, musicians and non-musicians alike. When you sing or hum or whistle a song you've heard--whether you're a musician or some dweeb shopping at Ralph's--you will sing or hum or whistle it either at the correct pitch (most of the time) or within a half step of it (most of the rest of the time). Perfect pitch just means that the pitch recognition has not only a sound component, but a "name" as well.

 

 

I do understand that perfect pitch is NOT the same thing as the European tempered scale. That scale was created so keyboards could play in all keys, slightly out of tune. 

In general, scales are a human invention and pitches proceeded it by a considerable margin. Animals have always created pitches and pitch shifts and they don't care about dots on paper at all. 

I used to go out around 3am when the mockingbirds were singing in Fresno. If you whistled a little "riff" the nearby birds would mimic it and that would spread like ripples in a pond in all directions. One of the first delay effects. 

Different breeds of dogs (including coyotes and wolves) have their own calls. Cats have their own calls. Whales have their own calls. These calls have pitches, some calls have "scales" all their own. 

Indian Ragas have what Europeans would call "micro-pitch" scales that are improvised on to create their beautiful, complex music. 

Someone with true perfect pitch should be able to pinpoint the exact frequencies of all the above sound easily. 

I don't know of anybody who can do that. If they could, playing the tempered scale would probably cause them to suffer from the inaccuracies, especially the incorrect 5th. It's only been "corrected" by a small amount but it isn't the true harmonic fifth that exists in nature and in the natural physics/harmonics of notes. 

Complex subject, deep dive into something that won't change and won't change how modern humans create music for the most part. 

[MathOfInsects]

17 minutes ago, KuruPrionz said:

 

Someone with true perfect pitch should be able to pinpoint the exact frequencies of all the above sound easily.

I'm not sure where this idea came from, but it's completely incorrect. (I explained what the term refers to.)

 

Pitch is not the same thing as frequency, and "perfect pitch" is not frequency-related. While frequency itself is not unrelated to pitch, one is an aspect of the physical world, and one is a mental interpretation/construct. It's important to understand that distinction, to understand what "perfect pitch" is.

[KuruPrionz]

20 minutes ago, MathOfInsects said:

I'm not sure where this idea came from, but it's completely incorrect. (I explained what the term refers to.)

There is more than one definition for "perfect pitch", it is also known as "absolute pitch".

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/absolute-pitch#

absolute pitch

nounMusic.

the exact pitch of a tone in terms of vibrations per second.

Also called perfect pitch.  the ability to sing or recognize the pitch of a tone by ear.

 

We are both correct, there is no absolute definition that cannot be re-defined by changing one's perspective on the meaning of the word ""perfect". 

[MathOfInsects]

1 hour ago, KuruPrionz said:

There is more than one definition for "perfect pitch", it is also known as "absolute pitch".

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/absolute-pitch#

absolute pitch

nounMusic.

the exact pitch of a tone in terms of vibrations per second.

Also called perfect pitch.  the ability to sing or recognize the pitch of a tone by ear.

 

We are both correct, there is no absolute definition that cannot be re-defined by changing one's perspective on the meaning of the word ""perfect". 

That source is conflating two separate things. Absolute pitch (as they have described it) means one thing, and it is not the same thing as perfect pitch. I am sorry, but you are not correct about this. It is not subject to opinion, and is not open to interpretation. It means something very specific. I am perceiving that there is a misunderstanding of what it means, but that misunderstanding is not just another truth. It is incorrect. I am sorry to be so direct, but it is important to me to keep the conversation in the realm of fact.

[Steve Nathan]

 Again, why some musicians feel the need to dismiss this ability is beyond me.  It's not a reflection of your worth as a musician.  In my experience, people who don't have it have the most difficulty understanding what it actually is.  And contrary to other posts here, it is science, and not memory based.  All human babies are born with the ability to recognize pitches as many languages are pitch dependent. The same sound (word) at two different pitches have two different meanings.  The ability stays with people in those regions, and falls away in most others over the first few years of life.  It's centered in an area of the brain, and some people (for whatever reason) have more electrical activity in this area, and are born with, or develop more matter in this area.  Typically it is characterized by an innate hyper sensitivity to frequencies in the environment.  I can't walk into a room without noting the "pitch" of the Air Conditioning and the hum of the refrigerator. I can't pass a power box or a lawn mower without noting the pitch of its hum.  Early in my marriage, when my wife woke me and said "what's that sound", I replied "which one".  Naming notes is just a byproduct, not the feature.  My father suspected  that I could do that as early as 2 years of age, and set about to confirm it.  He saw that I would see products on the grocery shelf and sing their jingle, and he thought I was singing it in the same key as the TV commercial.  He began writing down the keys of commercials, and then later would ask me to sing the Micky Mouse theme or the Sara Lee jingle, and I always sung them in the original key.  Within a year or two I was the entertainment at parties, naming all the notes in cluster chords he'd play on the piano.  In the west, we default to the 12 tones.  438,440, 442 all sound like A.  500 505 and 493 all sound like C.  Sort of like the way we recognize many similar colors as Green or Blue.  Red/Orange/Yellow/green/violet etc, all  being mixtures of RGB, but we lump anything that looks red into the red pile and dozens of similar purples as purple.  

[Stokely]

All I know is, my older son was (and to a point, still is) a whiz when it comes to pitch.

When he was really young he could be in the other room and like Rain man telling you how many toothpicks were on the ground, tell you what note you were playing on the piano.  Every time, no notes played before.

Weirdly, he must have had a C major scale in his head because sharps and flats would sometimes throw him...A# he said once "B!....wait...that's not right....A!...wait...."

He kinda lost some of it (I've heard that happens with kids) but he'll still hear me humming something and say "wrong key, dad"     

I tend to think being on pitch has a lot of memory stuff happening.  A song like Renegade for example...I sing the intro before the band comes in with harmony, and if you asked me right now at home to start singing it I bet I'd be right in key.  And not even the "real" key, we drop everything a half step   So it's muscle memory I guess.

[MathOfInsects]

21 minutes ago, Steve Nathan said:

 Again, why some musicians feel the need to dismiss this ability is beyond me.  It's not a reflection of your worth as a musician.  In my experience, people who don't have it have the most difficulty understanding what it actually is.  And contrary to other posts here, it is science, and not memory based.  All human babies are born with the ability to recognize pitches as many languages are pitch dependent. The same sound (word) at two different pitches have two different meanings.  The ability stays with people in those regions, and falls away in most others over the first few years of life.  It's centered in an area of the brain, and some people (for whatever reason) have more electrical activity in this area, and are born with, or develop more matter in this area.  Typically it is characterized by an innate hyper sensitivity to frequencies in the environment.  I can't walk into a room without noting the "pitch" of the Air Conditioning and the hum of the refrigerator. I can't pass a power box or a lawn mower without noting the pitch of its hum.  Early in my marriage, when my wife woke me and said "what's that sound", I replied "which one".  Naming notes is just a byproduct, not the feature.  My father suspected  that I could do that as early as 2 years of age, and set about to confirm it.  He saw that I would see products on the grocery shelf and sing their jingle, and he thought I was singing it in the same key as the TV commercial.  He began writing down the keys of commercials, and then later would ask me to sing the Micky Mouse theme or the Sara Lee jingle, and I always sung them in the original key.  Within a year or two I was the entertainment at parties, naming all the notes in cluster chords he'd play on the piano.  In the west, we default to the 12 tones.  438,440, 442 all sound like A.  500 505 and 493 all sound like C.  Sort of like the way we recognize many similar colors as Green or Blue.  Red/Orange/Yellow/green/violet etc, all  being mixtures of RGB, but we lump anything that looks red into the red pile and dozens of similar purples as purple.  

I wish my experience had been the same. I knew I could do this from the youngest age, and my mother and grandmother--both successful musicians!--were dismissive of it, so I sort of questioned it in myself for years after that. Only when I got to college and someone else had it, was I sure enough that that was the name for the thing I had.

I picked my grad program literally because of the university's association with a well-known researcher into this topic (Diana Deutsch), and took a deep dive once I got there. A friend of mine is co-author of some her papers on the topic. This has been a healthy obsession of mine both as a musician and as a so-called "academic."

I get what you're saying, but there isn't really a line with "memory" on one side, and "science" on the other. "Memory" is just a short-hand way of saying something science-based. They're not opposites of one another. They are two aspects of the same thing(s).

If, when we were learning language and sound, someone sang the note names to us, on pitch, we would all grow up associating that name for that pitch. That association is what perfect-pitch is. 

 

The difference in percentage between Westerners and tonal language speakers with perfect pitch is significant--massive. It's solely because we weren't given names for the thing we were hearing. We all have (had) the potential for this.

It's fascinating to see the difference in responses in this thread between the two (so far) who experience this, and those who don't.

That nonsense about the people who go crazy because the whole world is pitches, etc...no. You just hear a thing and know the name for it. It's not a super-power, it's just a thing you can do. Any of us could have done it. I think that for myself, having a musical family at all stages of early development probably helped it happen.

 

[funkyhammond]

It does seem that 'absolute pitch' is the scientific/technical term for what most people call 'perfect pitch'. And that is different from the concept of 'relative pitch' (although there are obvious connections). To answer the OP, there is no reason to add yet another term to try to explain the same thing. It will just confuse people even more. And 'pitch memory' could mean different things. Relative pitch also involves memory, for example. I've never heard the term "positive pitch" but that's just another reason not to add even more terms to the already confusing mix. 🤪

 

Anyway, here is a brief explanation of the terms from a U of Chicago prof: https://www.myscience.org/en/news/wire/perfect_pitch_explained-2021-chicago

 

The wikipedia article on absolute/perfect pitch also mentions a study that found that 20% of people with absolute pitch showed a genetic overlap with having synesthesia/ideasthesia. Now that I find fascinating.

[MathOfInsects]

12 minutes ago, funkyhammond said:

It does seem that 'absolute pitch' is the scientific/technical term for what most people call 'perfect pitch'. And that is different from the concept of 'relative pitch' (although there are obvious connections). To answer the OP, there is no reason to add yet another term to try to explain the same thing. It will just confuse people even more. And 'pitch memory' could mean different things. Relative pitch also involves memory, for example. I've never heard the term "positive pitch" but that's just another reason not to add even more terms to the already confusing mix. 🤪

 

Anyway, here is a brief explanation of the terms from a U of Chicago prof: https://www.myscience.org/en/news/wire/perfect_pitch_explained-2021-chicago

 

The wikipedia article on absolute/perfect pitch also mentions a study that found that 20% of people with absolute pitch showed a genetic overlap with having synesthesia/ideasthesia. Now that I find fascinating.

That's an excellent overview. Thanks for posting.

While "absolute pitch" is used as a formal term for "perfect pitch," it has meanings beyond the one we mean when we say "perfect pitch." That dictionary.com definition was referring to a different sense of the term--the one that says that culturally, we "Agree" to call this frequency a particular name, and build a scale system where each component of it is a specific frequency. (As opposed to relative traditions.) Then they conflated that with "perfect pitch," which is the ability to identify (really, just know) by name what pitch is being suggested by the sound someone hears. 

[jazzpiano88]

I have something related to perfect pitch but not sure what you would call it.    I know what the white notes are and can hum them because I know what they sound like.    If someone said hum a C#, I would need to make the mental jump to hum a C and then use relative pitch to get there.  I don't have a C# sitting in my memory of sounds.

 

It's not as reliable now as I've gotten older.   Some say age make you lose it.   I used to have trouble playing transposed  because my internal pitch was inconsistent with what I was playing and I'd end up playing the right keys, non transposed, creating a train wreck.

[Floyd Tatum]

3 hours ago, Steve Nathan said:

You have no understanding of what is (mis-named) Perfect pitch.  The name leads you to believe it is discerning the difference between 500hz and 5003hz.  Perhaps you might try a little research of your own before spouting on a topic with just your opinion and no basis in the science.

 

Ok, maybe I have no understanding of it.   What did I get wrong?

[Floyd Tatum]

38 minutes ago, funkyhammond said:

It does seem that 'absolute pitch' is the scientific/technical term for what most people call 'perfect pitch'. And that is different from the concept of 'relative pitch' (although there are obvious connections). To answer the OP, there is no reason to add yet another term to try to explain the same thing. It will just confuse people even more. And 'pitch memory' could mean different things. Relative pitch also involves memory, for example. I've never heard the term "positive pitch" but that's just another reason not to add even more terms to the already confusing mix. 🤪

 

Anyway, here is a brief explanation of the terms from a U of Chicago prof: https://www.myscience.org/en/news/wire/perfect_pitch_explained-2021-chicago

 

The wikipedia article on absolute/perfect pitch also mentions a study that found that 20% of people with absolute pitch showed a genetic overlap with having synesthesia/ideasthesia. Now that I find fascinating.

 

I just read that University of Chicago page, and it seems to line up exactly with my original description.

 

The point I was making, is these people who can sing an "A" on cue, are remembering a pitch that is arbitrarily chosen, and then given the name "A".   That, to me, seems to be the crux of the thing.   It's not like there's an objective "A".   So, the people that can sing an "A", are able to remember the pitches of the "A's" they've heard, within some range of hertz or cents.   The range of hertz/cents is the thing I questioned.    This all seems readily apparent. 

[funkyhammond]

2 minutes ago, MathOfInsects said:

While "absolute pitch" is used as a formal term for "perfect pitch," it has meanings beyond the one we mean when we say "perfect pitch."

Sure, but isn't that always the case with a technical/scientific term vs. a more basic colloquial term? I'm still always going to call it "perfect pitch" when talking to most people because that is the term they know. At best, I would just make a brief note that it's called "absolute pitch" by scientists. 

[Floyd Tatum]

2 hours ago, MathOfInsects said:

That source is conflating two separate things. Absolute pitch (as they have described it) means one thing, and it is not the same thing as perfect pitch. I am sorry, but you are not correct about this. It is not subject to opinion, and is not open to interpretation. It means something very specific. I am perceiving that there is a misunderstanding of what it means, but that misunderstanding is not just another truth. It is incorrect. I am sorry to be so direct, but it is important to me to keep the conversation in the realm of fact.

 

So, are you saying that there is an objective pitch "A", that is something different than, say, a sine tone at 440 hz?   (or 442, or however "A" is defined in your part of the world)?     That would be news to me.   Can you point me to a source for your definition?

[MathOfInsects]

4 minutes ago, Floyd Tatum said:

 

So, are you saying that there is an objective pitch "A", that is something different than, say, a sine tone at 440 hz?   (or 442, or however "A" is defined in your part of the world)?     That would be news to me.   Can you point me to a source for your definition?

I don't understand what you are asking, and your quote from me is a couple of things run together. Can you ask that differently, or else clarify?

[Floyd Tatum]

2 minutes ago, MathOfInsects said:

I don't understand what you are asking, and your quote is a couple of things run together. Can you ask that differently, or else clarify?

Well, you said "Pitch perception and the Hz that trigger it are two different but related things".   That suggests that identifying an "A", let's say, has nothing to do with its Hz.   How are pitch perception and the Hz that trigger it different?   I've always thought they were essentially the same thing. 

[MathOfInsects]

3 minutes ago, Floyd Tatum said:

Well, you said "Pitch perception and the Hz that trigger it are two different but related things".   That suggests that identifying an "A", let's say, has nothing to do with its Hz.   How are pitch perception and the Hz that trigger it different?   I've always thought they were essentially the same thing. 

Ah, got it. Not "nothing to do with it," but also not one-to-one like (for example) it is with the eyes. 

Give me twenty minutes to finish teaching this lesson I am secretly posting this during and I will come back say more. I need better focus to answer that comprehensively. 

[funkyhammond]

6 minutes ago, Floyd Tatum said:

I just read that University of Chicago page, and it seems to line up exactly with my original description.

 

The point I was making, is these people who can sing an "A" on cue, are remembering a pitch that is arbitrarily chosen, and then given the name "A".   That, to me, seems to be the crux of the thing.   It's not like there's an objective "A".   So, the people that can sing an "A", are able to remember the pitches of the "A's" they've heard, within some range of hertz or cents.   The range of hertz/cents is the thing I questioned.    This all seems readily apparent. 

 

If you're interested about the range of frequencies, maybe try the wikipedia article. It discusses more about that and other things. 

[Floyd Tatum]

3 minutes ago, funkyhammond said:

 

If you're interested about the range of frequencies, maybe try the wikipedia article. It discusses more about that and other things. 

 

I just read that Wikipedia article.    I see nothing there (besides a lot of fancy words, i.e., bafflegab) to convince me that "absolute" or "perfect" pitch is essentially anything other than the ability to remember pitches at a certain frequency, or perhaps within a certain range of frequencies (i.e., an "A" somewhere around 440hz).    Nothing there explains exactly how some people are able to do it.       I said all this in my original post.    Why is there so much argument about this?   I don't get it.

 

[Steve Nathan]

34 minutes ago, Floyd Tatum said:

 

Ok, maybe I have no understanding of it.   What did I get wrong?

Over many years at the KC, I have tried to explain what it is in my experience, but I'm never successful in achieving understanding.  Long ago, I equated this topic to asking Louis Armstrong to explain "What is Jazz".  In my 72+ years on this earth, I have yet to meet anyone without it who gets it. And I know from the many times this topic rises here, that that answer is totally unsatisfactory, but I have nothing else. 

[Floyd Tatum]

3 hours ago, Steve Nathan said:

You have no understanding of what is (mis-named) Perfect pitch.  The name leads you to believe it is discerning the difference between 500hz and 5003hz.  Perhaps you might try a little research of your own before spouting on a topic with just your opinion and no basis in the science.

I didn't say pitch memory was the ability to discern the difference between 500hz and (sic) 5003hz (pretty sure you meant 503).   I said, "I wonder if anyone has researched whether a pitch-memory person can identify both an A=440hz and say, an A=435hz tone as being different from each other.    Or, identifying an A440 note as being different from an A439 note."   I was posing a question.

[Floyd Tatum]

3 minutes ago, Steve Nathan said:

Over many years at the KC, I have tried to explain what it is in my experience, but I'm never successful in achieving understanding.  Long ago, I equated this topic to asking Louis Armstrong to explain "What is Jazz".  In my 72+ years on this earth, I have yet to meet anyone without it who gets it. And I know from the many times this topic rises here, that that answer is totally unsatisfactory, but I have nothing else. 

 

Is it something other than remembering a frequency (or within a small range of frequencies)?