Perfect Pitch

[Slash]

I've seen this advertised in guitar mags. It is said to be a course
that trains you to recornize pitches by ear. Anyone tried this course
before? I'll like your opinion.

,--,--'. .-,--. . . .-,--.
`- | |-.,-. ' | \,-.| ,-.|-..,-. '|__/,-.,-.,-.
, | | ||-' , | /| || | || ||| | .| ,-|| ||-'
`-' ' '`-' `-^--' `-'`'|-'' ''' ' `' `-^`-|`-'
| ,|
http://home.pacific.net.sg/~slash
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1001

[Super-Steve]

Nope, but my music Prof in college said perfect pitch was something
anybody could learn, just takes a lot of practice.

When I was in college and constantly practicing I could name the exact
pitch of any particular beer bottle blown. Amazed my friends, who
often would pay for more beer.

This is not something you need to pay for (except for the beer at
first), just practice at it. I don't even think you need to think
about it that much, just make up your mind to learn it and go for it.
The beer won't hurt you very much if you take it easy on it, too.

Cheers,
SS

[Super-Steve]

On Tue, 24 Dec 1996 04:24:26 GMT, jsh...@ix.netcom.com (John Sheehy)
wrote:

>
>That's not necessarily perfect pitch, though. The bottles have fixed
>characteristics that don't vary with the amount of air/liquid in them,
>and their effects on the waveforms are different relative to the
>fundamental for various notes, giving them variations on a timbral
>theme. True perfect pitch would mean that you could identify the
>frequencies of sine waves played on speakers with flat frequency
>response and 0.000 harmonic distortion, and no room effects either.
>
>In the strongest cases, it is not just the ability to identify notes, it
>is the ability (or curse, as some who have it have described) to hear
>the frequency of a note in a more meaningful way than it's relationship
>to other notes.
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Nope. You are wrong. Perfect pitch as defined by a profesor in good
standing with an acredited colege is simply the ability to accurately
identify a specific pitch, not a waveform or tonal envelope. lMost
EMPTY 12 oz. bottles hovered right around F#/G above middle C, shape,
applied air pressure and level of intoxication being contributing
factors. Pints and metric bottles are another story. Usually quite a
bit lower pitch, as I recall. Being also a flute maker, I do know
about these fundamental things, so quit tryn'ta bs me, dude.

You produce a perfect audible sine wave with 0.0000 % THD and I'll
tell you anything you want to know about it. Fact is, you can't.
Perfection of this sort is only a dream.

SS

[John Sheehy]

nu...@biz.ness (Super-Steve) writes:

>Nope, but my music Prof in college said perfect pitch was something
>anybody could learn, just takes a lot of practice.
>
>When I was in college and constantly practicing I could name the exact
>pitch of any particular beer bottle blown. Amazed my friends, who
>often would pay for more beer.

That's not necessarily perfect pitch, though. The bottles have fixed

[Super-Steve]

On Sat, 28 Dec 1996 04:25:18 GMT, jsh...@ix.netcom.com (John Sheehy)
wrote:

[chop]
>College professors are just people who decided they wanted to be
>teachers. They are not right about everything, and they often disagree.
>
This is true, but what they do tend to agree upon becomes the accepted
definition. What you were talking about seems to me to be something
related to "perfect pitch" but off into another "realm" of tonal
identification. the accepted definition of perfect pitch is the
ability to identify specific singular pitches.

>>identify a specific pitch, not a waveform or tonal envelope. lMost
>

>That's exactly *why* I'm saying that not all cases of note ID are due to
>perfect pitch. Every different pitch on an instrument winds up with a
>different set of partial envelopes, and a person repeating a note to
>themself can sample the resonance of their throat and cranium because of
>similiar effects.

>
>>EMPTY 12 oz. bottles hovered right around F#/G above middle C, shape,
>>applied air pressure and level of intoxication being contributing
>>factors. Pints and metric bottles are another story. Usually quite a
>>bit lower pitch, as I recall. Being also a flute maker, I do know
>>about these fundamental things, so quit tryn'ta bs me, dude.
>

>You're very credential-oriented, aren't you? Well, credentials don't
>mean shit to me, nor your "I make flutes, so shut up, you nobody"
>implications. The world is full of experienced people who don't have
>the slightest clue what they're doing but keep the ball rolling with a
>game of "Monkey see, monkey do".
>
No, you are very, very wrong about me, I am not credantial oriented at
all - I don't have any degrees or credantials to speak of and frankly
think very many people with them are full of it (not all of them,
though). I certainly did not intend to imply anything close to what
you put in quotes, I only was trying to say that since I make flutes I
am fairly familiar with some of the tonal quality stuff you were
writing about.
>And how am I BSing you? You're the one doing all the BSing. You're
>talking big talk but not saying anything. You didn't even understand my
>point. BTW, scaling the bottles in size, rather than filling them with
>water, would get you closer to a perfect pitch test.

It sure seemed to me that you were bs-ing with all your convoluted
almost technical sounding stuff, which I didn't think applied at all
to the subject of perfect pitch.
Some people DO have healthy senses of humor. The beer-botle story,
while true, was primarily meant to entertain (btw, all the bottles
were empty). The "don't bs me dude" thing may have been out of line a
bit on my part, but you seem to be on the verge of losing your
bindings over this. I apologize if I inadvertently offended you or
others with ANY of my postings, but I honestly think there are a HELL
of a lot of people in this ng that need some big humor transfusions.
You're so damned serious, so easy to offend, so quick to call names...
>

> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

BTW John, we most likely actually agree on more things than we
disagree about, but there is a LOT of misunderstanding going on and we
have not communicated about the other things.

Cheers,
Steve

[John Sheehy]

nu...@biz.ness (Super-Steve) writes:

>On Tue, 24 Dec 1996 04:24:26 GMT, jsh...@ix.netcom.com (John Sheehy)
>wrote:

>>That's not necessarily perfect pitch, though. The bottles have fixed

>>characteristics that don't vary with the amount of air/liquid in them,
>>and their effects on the waveforms are different relative to the
>>fundamental for various notes, giving them variations on a timbral
>>theme. True perfect pitch would mean that you could identify the
>>frequencies of sine waves played on speakers with flat frequency
>>response and 0.000 harmonic distortion, and no room effects either.
>>
>>In the strongest cases, it is not just the ability to identify notes, it
>>is the ability (or curse, as some who have it have described) to hear
>>the frequency of a note in a more meaningful way than it's relationship
>>to other notes.

>Nope. You are wrong. Perfect pitch as defined by a profesor in good

>standing with an acredited colege is simply the ability to accurately

College professors are just people who decided they wanted to be

teachers. They are not right about everything, and they often disagree.

>identify a specific pitch, not a waveform or tonal envelope. lMost

That's exactly *why* I'm saying that not all cases of note ID are due to
perfect pitch. Every different pitch on an instrument winds up with a
different set of partial envelopes, and a person repeating a note to
themself can sample the resonance of their throat and cranium because of
similiar effects.

>EMPTY 12 oz. bottles hovered right around F#/G above middle C, shape,
>applied air pressure and level of intoxication being contributing
>factors. Pints and metric bottles are another story. Usually quite a
>bit lower pitch, as I recall. Being also a flute maker, I do know
>about these fundamental things, so quit tryn'ta bs me, dude.

You're very credential-oriented, aren't you? Well, credentials don't
mean shit to me, nor your "I make flutes, so shut up, you nobody"
implications. The world is full of experienced people who don't have
the slightest clue what they're doing but keep the ball rolling with a
game of "Monkey see, monkey do".

And how am I BSing you? You're the one doing all the BSing. You're

talking big talk but not saying anything. You didn't even understand my
point. BTW, scaling the bottles in size, rather than filling them with
water, would get you closer to a perfect pitch test.

>You produce a perfect audible sine wave with 0.0000 % THD and I'll

>tell you anything you want to know about it. Fact is, you can't.
>Perfection of this sort is only a dream.

Of course, but if one *did* have real perfect (or better yet,
"absolute") pitch, they would be able to identify pitches in such a
context, which is what I said.

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><