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

[Docbop]

1 hour ago, MathOfInsects said:

Maybe hip-hop beds might be finally be making tonality less interesting than time-based organizations, but as soon as that's actually true, AI is going to reinforce tonality again and it's back to square one. 

 

People bitched about Hip Hop because in the beginning is was all sample based.   Now we have AI which is just computer farms storing thousands of recordings and theory books then putting it into databases, Then on request selecting bits base on keyword input and  putting into a digital food processor and spitting it out.  With Hip Hop at least all the selection, modifications, creation of additional music, and assembly is done by humans.  

[CyberGene]

This may have already been discussed in the thread but around Beethoven's time some instruments, especially brass (and probably woodwinds) could only play well the diatonic tones of a limited number of keys. Maybe that was also a factor when choosing key?

[Floyd Tatum]

20 hours ago, Dave Bryce said:

I’m very much inclined to agree with this.  (that each note in the western 12-tone system has its own distinct tone colour).

<snip snip>

dB

 

Dave, I don't think I have that experience myself, but I can't argue others' subjective experiences.   If that's your experience, then that's your experience.

 

The only thing that I question about this (and I'm not being belligerent here, just enjoying thinking about the logic aspects of it),   is this:   How can notes have their own tone colours, when they're completely arbitrary?   Maybe it's more like, there's a continuous spectrum of changing tone colour (similar to the colour spectrum), and we (westerners)  slice out 12 pieces of that spectrum per octave, at arbitrarily chosen frequencies, and give them names.    If you see what I mean.

[AnotherScott]

 

To whatever extent notes may have their own tone colors, I wonder if rather than being intrinsic to the note, it's may be more that it's intrinsic to the note as it sounds on a particular instrument (i.e. higher notes on an instrument can sound different from lower notes in ways other than pitch, and the character of those changes can be different on different instruments), and/or in combination with other notes (i.e. due to temperment tunings, the fifth of C-to-G is a slightly different interval than some other fifth might be).

 

On 12/7/2023 at 10:22 PM, dazzjazz said:

Eb is mellow sounding and F# is buzzy.

So to my first thought above, is this mellow-vs-fuzzy distinction something you hear only on piano? Of do those pitches have that same mellow-vs.buzzy character if you hear them played on a violin or a trumpet? Or even sung by a human voice?

 

On 12/7/2023 at 10:22 PM, dazzjazz said:

For years I’ve perceived that as you move around the cycle of fifths you can hear the sound quality get brighter as you add sharps and warmer you add flats. 

And to my second thought above, since you're talking about "adding" accidentals, your motion of moving around the circle of fifths isn't one of individual notes, but chords or played patterns, and again, if you hear that difference (esp. on a "fixed pitch" instrument like a piano, i.e. where the pitch can't be subtly changed as you play by slight changes in your breath or finger position), I'm wondering to what extent that might be a function of the temperment tunings which means that it's not merely the pitch of the root. but also the intervals themselves are subtly changing. (Not even considering stretch tuning here, either.)

[Dave Bryce]

6 hours ago, Floyd Tatum said:

 

Dave, I don't think I have that experience myself, but I can't argue others' subjective experiences.   If that's your experience, then that's your experience.

 

It certainly is. Becomes even more obvious when I hear chords.

 

6 hours ago, Floyd Tatum said:

 

The only thing that I question about this (and I'm not being belligerent here, just enjoying thinking about the logic aspects of it),   is this:   How can notes have their own tone colours, when they're completely arbitrary?   Maybe it's more like, there's a continuous spectrum of changing tone colour (similar to the colour spectrum), and we (westerners)  slice out 12 pieces of that spectrum per octave, at arbitrarily chosen frequencies, and give them names.    If you see what I mean.

 

No idea.  I just know it’s been something that’s a part of what I hear when I listen to music for as long as I can remember.

 

FWIW, I do not claim for that sense to be reliable enough that it could be called “perfect pitch’, but I am very good at hearing chords and intervals.  I can quite frequently learn the chord intervals in a tune as it goes by (even if it’s the first time I’ve heard the tune), but I usually identify the chords more by their numeric relationship to each other than by key.

 

3 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

To whatever extent notes may have their own tone colors, I wonder if rather than being intrinsic to the note, it's may be more that it's intrinsic to the note as it sounds on a particular instrument (i.e. higher notes on an instrument can sound different from lower notes in ways other than pitch, and the character of those changes can be different on different instruments), and/or in combination with other notes (i.e. due to temperment tunings, the fifth of C-to-G is a slightly different interval than some other fifth might be).

 

I’d be inclined to agree with that.  For example, it’s pretty easy for me to hear something like an open E, A or G chord played on a guitar because of the way they’re voiced/the interval relationship of the notes in the chords.  It’s also pretty easy for me to identify something like a low E on a guitar.

 

dB

[AROIOS]

On 12/7/2023 at 11:34 AM, MathOfInsects said:

...About as close as nature gets to a pure sound like a sine wave is the cursed mosquito...

(Fourier Transforms aside,) mosquitos sound nothing like sine waves. They're much closer to sawtooth.

(Non-pure, of course) Sine waves are less rare in nature than people usually make them out to be. Ocarina sounds pretty close, as do other non-reed woodwind instruments (e.g. piccolo).

[CyberGene]

If you can describe a sound as buzzing, it’s saw, not sine 😀

[AROIOS]

On 12/9/2023 at 12:43 AM, MathOfInsects said:

Are you referring to the Cm thing? I’m afraid it’s not. Much is written about this. He wrote in Cm over and over again, at a time when his contemporaries rarely touched it. I can’t remember if it’s primary-source or secondary-source, but he’s reputed to have overtly said something about the weight of that key, harmonically.

[MathOfInsects]

Correct, mosquitos are saw waves (which you can't non-fourier transform out of being sine waves, but that's beside the point). The conversation had been about sine waves, so I was just pointing out that the closest nature comes to any pure wave (like the sine waves we'd been discussing) is the mosquito. Wave size is a psychoacoustic factor too; I imagine ocarina waves are larger than our heads and give us locational information that mosquito buzzes do not. 

[MathOfInsects]

42 minutes ago, AROIOS said:

I'm not sure why this comment prompted such skepticism; it's practically like the initial PP issue in how uncomfortable it seems to have made people.

I entered grad school in 2009 for both Master's and PhD programs. Some time in that initial two years (the MA portion of the program) we had some required core curriculum stuff around the "canon," which is one of the topics I teach now. The program itself is pretty suspicious of the EAM traditions, but starts out with a grounding in it, among other topics. 

At some point during that initial 2 years we ended up in a discussion around this preference of Beethoven's. It was taught as fact (him saying this) by Someone Who Should Know, but I cannot swear to you I read it with my eyeballs -- only that we dove into it for a bit, including others' writings on it. The program is also partial to topics like psychoacoustics, so we spent a not-minor bit of focus on this, but it's going back 15 years now and I don't want to claim I read it from the master's own pen. (In my initial post, I consciously said something like, "...is reputed to have said..." just to be sure.)

Hopefully that clarifies...?

[dsetto]

I agree with the concept of the continuous spectrum of changing tone colour; and I would continue the application of this analogy of the colour world to support the tone colour perceptions of our culture-based, parsed-out pitch name “stops” along that continuous spectrum. 

 

As visual colors evoke a feeling, I would think so do pitch “colours”, or pitch frequencies. 

(I believe they do with me, but I am limited by my bias.) 

 

If I were raised by wolves, and had no interactions with any aspect of humanity, I would see a wide variety of colors. Blood, and sky, and water, and cloud, leaf and bark, and soil and wolf, and tooth, and tongue. These would shape my perception of other colors I encounter. Comparisons, associations would stick around, my memory, for my safety, for my pleasure. These associations, these mental notes, would be a “thought name”. Stored in, and recalled from my memory. 

 

My ability to see the 10AM cloudless blue sky is absolute. My ability to associate its relationship to the drinkable water, in a treeless stream is relative.

 

….

Returning to this forum, this thread, the original post. 

 

As voiced, when discussing this concept closely, I like the usage of 

Absolute and Relative 

 

I use the name perfect pitch, cause that’s what my world calls it. I instantly translate it to absolute pitch, by memory so instant, I forget it’s memory. 

 

…

Regarding A, 440Hz, arbitrariness and nature, completeness and culture. 

 

The name of a note is human assigned, and as such, is arbitrary outside the human sphere. The pitch of a note is a result of oscillations of a particular frequency, and exists in and outside of the human sphere. 

 

The pitch sounding in nature is not arbitrary. It’s perception is not arbitrary. 

 

Calling the peri-440Hz region an A is from a culture. Recall of the name is memory. Experience of the sound in nature is not memory. It is en vivo, live, now. The perception of “now” is not a memory, even as it is informed by memory, and so quickly becomes memory. 

 

Seeing a color, hearing a sound in the shared physical world, is an experience, and is not, in isolation, an act of memory. 

 

The physical experience is informed by memory. The experience can be conjured up in the personal memory. 

 

Perception of a pitch, en vivo, is not a memory. As such, in my opinion, usage of “memory” is not appropriate.

 

I don’t think I have a problem with the usage of “perfect pitch” as a name for the ability to: 

- hear an oscillation of a given frequency, aka a pitch. 440Hz in nature. 

- process the pitch (in ear-brain nature) 

- associate the results of the processing, via memory, to a culture-ascribed name (mind) 

 

Before this thread, I preferred absolute, for the concept of perfect pitch. As it is well distinguished from relative pitch. 

 

But, perhaps “absolute” fails, word-wise, in that there is some “relativeness”, some “continuous spectrum-ness” when summing up the experience of all the individuals. And here, maybe perfect is relatively less perfect, more ‘sliding-scale continuous’ than absolute. Absolute being pretty intense in its lines. 

 

And while, I personally am not in favor of adding a 3rd term, “memory”, which IMO errs grievously in masking the experiential, now aspect of sensing a physical world thing (a color, a sound) I can see how the various distinct employments of memory in the various distinct stages associated with the process of perfect pitch can inspire one to promote the role of memory to nomenclature status. 

 

I don’t know what positive in positive pitch is referring to, but if perfect and absolute are forever oscillating, and the oscillation wants a name, I prefer positive over memory. 

[Floyd Tatum]

Ok, I finally do have a real question to ask.  Math of Insects, you, and some others, have stated that the terms "Perfect Pitch" and "Absolute Pitch" refer to slightly different things.   I have tried to read all the posts about that, and maybe it's my thick head, but I haven't seen a clear explanation of how they differ (clear to me, that is).

When I google those terms, every link I find equates them as being two terms for the same thing, i.e., the ability to a) hear a pitch and know what note it is, and b) be able to produce a pitch on demand (not just any pitch, obviously, but someone asks you to sing an Ab, and you can do it).

So, MOI (or anyone for that matter), would you mind taking another crack at explaining the difference between PP and AP?

 

[Floyd Tatum]

13 minutes ago, dsetto said:

I agree with the concept of the continuous spectrum of changing tone colour; and I would continue the application of this analogy of the colour world to support the tone colour perceptions of our culture-based, parsed-out pitch name “stops” along that continuous spectrum. 

 

As visual colors evoke a feeling, I would think  so do pitch “colours”, or pitch frequencies. 

(I believe they do with me, but I am limited by my bias.) 

 

If I were raised by wolves, and had no interactions with any aspect of humanity, I would see a wide variety of colors. Blood, and sky, and water, and cloud, leaf and bark, and soil and wolf, and tooth, and tongue. These would shape my perception of other colors I encounter. Comparisons, associations would stick around, my memory, for my safety, for my pleasure. These associations, these mental notes, would be a “thought name”. Stored in, and recalled from my memory. 

 

My ability to see the 10AM cloudless blue sky is absolute. My ability to associate its relationship to the drinkable water, in a treeless stream is relative.

 

….

Returning to this forum, this thread, the original post. 

 

As voiced, when discussing this concept closely, I like the usage of 

Absolute and Relative 

 

I use the name perfect pitch, cause that’s what my world calls it. I instantly translate it to absolute pitch, by memory so instant, I forget it’s memory. 

 

…

Regarding A, 440Hz, arbitrariness and nature, completeness and culture. 

 

The name of a note is human assigned, and as such, is arbitrary outside the human sphere. The pitch of a note is a result of oscillations of a particular frequency, and exists in and outside of the human sphere. 

 

The pitch sounding in nature is not arbitrary. It’s perception is not arbitrary. 

 

Calling the peri-440Hz region an A is from a culture. Recall of the name is memory. Experience of the sound in nature is not memory. It is en vivo, live, now. The perception of “now” is not a memory, even as it is informed by memory, and so quickly becomes memory. 

 

Seeing a color, hearing a sound in the shared physical world, is an experience, and is not, in isolation, an act of memory. 

 

The physical experience is informed by memory. The experience can be conjured up in the personal memory. 

 

Perception of a pitch, en vivo, is not a memory. As such, in my opinion, usage of “memory” is not appropriate.

 

I don’t think I have a problem with the usage of “perfect pitch” as a name for the ability to: 

hear an oscillation of a given frequency, aka a pitch. 440Hz in nature. 

process the pitch (in ear-brain nature) 

associate the results of the processing, via memory, to a culture-ascribed name (mind) 

 

Before this thread, I preferred absolute, for the concept of perfect pitch. As it is well distinguished from relative pitch. 

 

But, perhaps “absolute” fails, word-wise, in that there is some “relativeness”, some “continuous spectrum-ness” when summing up the experience of all the individuals. And here, maybe perfect is relatively less perfect, more ‘sliding-scale continuous’ than absolute. Absolute being pretty intense in its lines. 

 

And while, I personally am not in favor of adding a 3rd term, “memory”, which IMO errs grievously in masking the experiential, now aspect of sensing a physical world thing (a color, a sound) I can see how the various distinct employments of memory in the various distinct stages associated with the process of perfect pitch can inspire one to promote the role of memory to nomenclature status. 

 

I don’t know what positive in positive pitch is referring to, but if perfect and absolute are forever oscillating, and the oscillation wants a name, I prefer positive over memory. 

 

Kudos for a very eloquent post!

 

[MathOfInsects]

2 hours ago, Floyd Tatum said:

Ok, I finally do have a real question to ask.  Math of Insects, you, and some others, have stated that the terms "Perfect Pitch" and "Absolute Pitch" refer to slightly different things.   I have tried to read all the posts about that, and maybe it's my thick head, but I haven't seen a clear explanation of how they differ (clear to me, that is).

When I google those terms, every link I find equates them as being two terms for the same thing, i.e., the ability to a) hear a pitch and know what note it is, and b) be able to produce a pitch on demand (not just any pitch, obviously, but someone asks you to sing an Ab, and you can do it).

So, MOI (or anyone for that matter), would you mind taking another crack at explaining the difference between PP and AP?

 

Perfect pitch is properly called absolute pitch. But the term “absolute pitch,“ also has some other meetings, for example whether a scale system has a commonly agreed-upon pitch reference, or whether the tradition itself is relative. As I read the definition that was posted, it seemed it was describing that second circumstance, but really meaning the first one. I can go back and read it again and see if it still strikes me that way.

[Floyd Tatum]

29 minutes ago, MathOfInsects said:

Perfect pitch is properly called absolute pitch. But the term “absolute pitch,“ also has some other meetings, for example whether a scale system has a commonly agreed-upon pitch reference, or whether the tradition itself is relative. As I read the definition that was posted, it seemed it was describing that second circumstance, but really meaning the first one. I can go back and read it again and see if it still strikes me that way.

Thanks!

[AROIOS]

On 12/10/2023 at 1:29 PM, MathOfInsects said:

...mosquitos are saw waves (which you can't non-fourier transform out of being sine waves, but that's beside the point)...

That's more of a philosophical statement. Kinda like those audiophile urban myths claiming digital can never "fully" replicate analog sound.

The point of FT in audio engineering is to emulate ANY waveform. While Square and Saw require infinite series of Sine waves in FT in theory, most "simulations" are more than good enough for our biology. Audio in the real world pretty much never drops from full blast to 0 "instantaneously", nor does the processing in our ears and brains.

 

On 12/10/2023 at 1:29 PM, MathOfInsects said:

...I imagine ocarina waves are larger than our heads...

Not sure I understood what you meant. Were you referring to its wave length?

[AROIOS]

On 12/10/2023 at 1:38 PM, MathOfInsects said:

I'm not sure why this comment prompted such skepticism; it's practically like the initial PP issue in how uncomfortable it seems to have made people...

😃 It was a silly joke. I don't know the first thing about Beethoven's approaches or intents, nor had I ever digged his music. You can safely ignore anything I say about him.

[mauriziodececco]

On 12/7/2023 at 7:42 PM, funkyhammond said:

 

It's actually not that complex to define, physically. It's simply the fundamental frequency, i.e. the lowest frequency partial/harmonic of all the harmonics in the complex waveform. It's cool that brains can pick that out and correlate that with perceived pitch. It's also very cool that our brains perceive the addition of harmonics as just adding some kind of "tone colour" to that pitch.

 

But I guess there are exceptions even with the fundamental. Like if the fundamental and next harmonic up are at about the same amplitude.

 

Well, i know that the discussion moved on, but a bit of technical information can be interesting, so i'll add it, feel free to ignore :).

 

A long time ago, i was working a Ircam, on the Max family of software; one of the things Max was user for were interactive algorithmic compositions; essentially, a Max program reacted to what the musicians were doing, trying to follow them on the score, and adding sound or effects or lights or whatever. Pitch recognition was an important part of the process.

 

I am sure that there have been many progress since then (almost 30 years ago :), but at the time the algorithm (called cepstrum if i rember well) used was not based on the above definition, but on the analysis of the harmonics structure; the algorithm applied an FFT to the FFT of the signal; if the spectrum of the original signal jave a  periodic content it means that the original signal have a regular harmonic content, and probably something that can be perceived as a pitch; so, by taking the spectrum of the spectrum, the fundamental of this spectrum tell you the regular distance between the harmonics in the original signal spectrum, and so the pitch. Sorry if it sound complicated, it actually is :). In other words, instead of looking to the fundamental, that may even not be there at all, you look at the harmonics, and see if they are organized as if harmonics of a given fundamental. It worked well for monophonic instruments, woodwinds and brass, usually.

 

I think it should more of less work also with instruments like a piano where you actually have three (very close) fundamentals and three set of harmonics.

 

What the actual ear/brain does i have no idea, i am computer scientist :).

 

Maurizio

 

PS: final point, not especially important: pitch is not frequency, pitch is the base 2 logarithm of frequency; hopefully, because the fact that the harmonic structure is linear with frequency and the the pitch perception is logarithmic is what "allows" complex harmonic structures.

[MathOfInsects]

5 hours ago, mauriziodececco said:

 

Well, i know that the discussion moved on, but a bit of technical information can be interesting, so i'll add it, feel free to ignore :).

 

A long time ago, i was working a Ircam, on the Max family of software; one of the things Max was user for were interactive algorithmic compositions; essentially, a Max program reacted to what the musicians were doing, trying to follow them on the score, and adding sound or effects or lights or whatever. Pitch recognition was an important part of the process.

 

I am sure that there have been many progress since then (almost 30 years ago :), but at the time the algorithm (called cepstrum if i rember well) used was not based on the above definition, but on the analysis of the harmonics structure; the algorithm applied an FFT to the FFT of the signal; if the spectrum of the original signal jave a  periodic content it means that the original signal have a regular harmonic content, and probably something that can be perceived as a pitch; so, by taking the spectrum of the spectrum, the fundamental of this spectrum tell you the regular distance between the harmonics in the original signal spectrum, and so the pitch. Sorry if it sound complicated, it actually is :). In other words, instead of looking to the fundamental, that may even not be there at all, you look at the harmonics, and see if they are organized as if harmonics of a given fundamental. It worked well for monophonic instruments, woodwinds and brass, usually.

 

I think it should more of less work also with instruments like a piano where you actually have three (very close) fundamentals and three set of harmonics.

 

What the actual ear/brain does i have no idea, i am computer scientist :).

 

Maurizio

 

PS: final point, not especially important: pitch is not frequency, pitch is the base 2 logarithm of frequency; hopefully, because the fact that the harmonic structure is linear with frequency and the the pitch perception is logarithmic is what "allows" complex harmonic structures.

Whoa, I didn’t know this. Do you know Miller?

[jazzpiano88]

6 hours ago, mauriziodececco said:

I am sure that there have been many progress since then (almost 30 years ago :), but at the time the algorithm (called cepstrum if i rember well) used was not based on the above definition, but on the analysis of the harmonics structure; the algorithm applied an FFT to the FFT of the signal; if the spectrum of the original signal jave a  periodic content it means that the original signal have a regular harmonic content, and probably something that can be perceived as a pitch; so, by taking the spectrum of the spectrum,

 

Just a small correction.   After computing the power spectrum, a log operation is performed following an inverse Fourier Transform.

It has two effects -- (1) displaying the harmonic features on a time scale (after the inverse transform, you're back in the time domain), and (2) removing the low frequency envelope that is present in the spectrum, thus making the harmonic pitch analysis much easier.   Possibly the Max SW did something different, but this is the "cepstrum".

 

Very interesting stuff and brought back fond memories of doing some speech analysis in coursework!

[RABid]

On 12/6/2023 at 1:12 PM, CEB said:

horn players have a higher sense of pitch memory and accuracy because they operate in a monophonic world. 

There is a greater issue there. As keyboardist we know that when we hit a key for C, it will be C. When playing a sax, when you play a C you also have to listen and notice if you need to adjust your embrasure to raise or lower the note to correct pitch. It pushes you to develop an ear.

[jazzpiano88]

32 minutes ago, RABid said:

On 12/6/2023 at 12:12 PM, CEB said:

horn players have a higher sense of pitch memory and accuracy because they operate in a monophonic world. 

There is a greater issue there. As keyboardist we know that when we hit a key for C, it will be C. When playing a sax, when you play a C you also have to listen and notice if you need to adjust your embrasure to raise or lower the note to correct pitch. It pushes you to develop an ear.

 

Imagine the trombone player!

My all state High School buddy used to joke with me that he counts the cycles on his lip to get on pitch so accurately.

We'd be working on advanced algebra assignments together, and he'd take a hit and then play some licks on the trombone for inspiration.

[mauriziodececco]

On 12/14/2023 at 6:58 PM, MathOfInsects said:

Whoa, I didn’t know this. Do you know Miller?

Yes, i worked with Miller Puckette for a few years (before he left Paris for San Diego)  and Eric Lindemann; i met David Ziccarelli a couple of times. First on Max/Fts on the ISPW, later on the software only project that became finally jMax. Great time. 

 

About the cepstrum, i probably lost a couple of details since the time 😉; actually i worked on the software infrastrutture (Max itself) and not on the application.

 

I miss those time quote a lot 😜

 

Maurizio

[AROIOS]

On 12/14/2023 at 4:51 AM, mauriziodececco said:

...pitch is not frequency, pitch is the base 2 logarithm of frequency...

Small nit: I think by "pitch" you meant "note".

[mauriziodececco]

15 hours ago, AROIOS said:

Small nit: I think by "pitch" you meant "note".

Well, if you look around internet you’ll find many slightly different definition of the terms; on a nice answer on Quora, for example, a guy define the note as a kind of event or object, that have two attributes, pitch and length. And then go on saying that pitch id the perceived highness of a note, and can be defined as a frequency or a name. In the context where i was working, pitch was intended as a continuous value, corresponding to semitones/cents away from a more or less arbitrarily reference note  (a C0 of some sort). This value is continuous, like frequency, and correspond to a specific note when close enough in the specific scale you are using. Ok, this is a very physical/mathematical and arbitrary definition of the concept, but since it was used in writing software, it had to be.

 

But outside the terms and their definition, the point i was making is that the human hear/brain is not sensible to frequency or more precisely to differences between frequencies, but to the logarithm of frequency, or more precisely to ratios between frequencies.

 

Maurizio

[Floyd Tatum]

On 12/11/2023 at 9:49 AM, Floyd Tatum said:

Kudos for a very eloquent post!

 

I don't agree with all of it, but I think it's eloquently written.

[adamcz]

Interesting to see how common it is to gradually lose perfect pitch as you age. I had perfect pitch my whole life until age 40 at which point I am now frequently a half step off. I would liken perfect pitch to seeing a tree and knowing it is green. So it’s weird that I hear a note and feel confident that it’s an f# when it really isn’t. Certain sounds “ground” me back to accuracy, like open strings on the bass, a trumpet half valving into a high Bb, or a flute playing C#.

 

The combination of having and losing perfect pitch has made me shy away from transposing instruments. I bought a C trumpet last week so that I can “hear” all my instruments in the same key and add some consistency to a facet of music making where I feel less secure. 

[16251]

I was listening to a Jackie McLean album and wanted to ask a question about pitch.  I like him and have some of his albums (based on who is playing piano,) but his pitch hurts my ears.  Even to my less than perfect pitch ears, he sounds sharp.

 

Q - anyone that know Jackie's music and have a strong pitch experience trouble listening to people that play out of tune?

[AROIOS]

9 hours ago, 16251 said:

I was listening to a Jackie McLean album and wanted to ask a question about pitch.  I like him and have some of his albums (based on who is playing piano,) but his pitch hurts my ears.  Even to my less than perfect pitch ears, he sounds sharp.

 

Q - anyone that know Jackie's music and have a strong pitch experience trouble listening to people that play out of tune?

It seems to be a feature of many "serious" jazz recordings, along with terrible recording/mixing quality.

In contrast, I don't recall ONE Pop Jazz recording that's out of tune.