Andrys Basten wrote:

>David Runnion wrote:
>
>>You know what? I wouldn't bother.  Lots of better ways to spend your time.
>>I am a perfect-pitch skeptic, myself.  I don't have it and don't miss it.
>>I think it is a parlor trick that has very little useful or practical
>>application, and while Mr. Burge claims he can teach it, I sincerely doubt
>>that; I think it is something you are born with, you have it or you don't,
>>like double-jointedness.  The only possible usefulness is possibly for a
>>choral conductor to give pitches to his group in rehearsal without the aid
>>of a piano.

As a choral conductor (God, I detest that segregating term) rather, a
conductor who most often works with choirs, and who does not have perfect
pitch, I assure you that my pitch memory AND my A440 tuning fork make all
of my rehearsals with The Helios Ensemble completely piano-less.  In the
very, very rare instance when simply sitting down and playing a harmonic
progression saves vaulable and expensive rehearsal time, I don't touch a
piano at all.

Andrys says:

>It's no accident that most successful conductors have it - it does not
>hurt them nor do they use it for giving pitches.  And I don't at all think
>you're "born with" it -- I think it's experience matching sounds to places
>on an instrumnent and to tones named for you.

Where have YOU been Andrys.  There is no evidence to say that MOST
successful conductors have perfect pitch.  Many do not.  I don't, and my
conducting is quite successful.  I think that one certainly is born with
it.  I have been trained very well and can sight read practically any
piece without aid of an instrument.  I have been around choirs, pianos,
orchestras and what not for 36 years now and I have not developed the
ability to pull a pitch out of the air.  It's a natural phenomenon and
those who "develop" it are off by a half step or so more often than they
are on.

>But with this, anyone with good musical training AND perfect pitch can play
>back most things they play EASILY with the correct chords, etc., and can
>play pieces they know in their heads, in almost any key you want (including
>accompanying notes).

I dispute this also.  I have been able since I was a small child to do what
you describe above.  More often than not though one of two things happens:
1) If I do not have a recording handy which I can reference, I play the
correct notes and chords in the wrong key.  Usually I gravitate to a key
which is the easiest to negotiate on the instrument (the piano in my case).
If I have a pitch reference, I fumble around till I match up and then play
the right notes and harmonies.

>Conductors will use it to hear new scores in their heads with absolute
>certainty -- while you can do it with relative pitch to whatever extent
>you do, the certainty is the thing.

I am afraid that this doesn't fly either.  I can hear scores in my head
with absolute certainty regardless of the key.  This is especially true of
music before 1800 when pitch was different from locale to locale, usually
dependent on the local organ and its tuning.  Put any 4 part motet in my
hands and I will sing every note with minimal mistakes from sight.  The
key is really irrelevant.

>I've sung next to people with excellent relative pitch who had difficulty
>being sure what the next note or interval really should be when the piece
>was in 5 flats or sharps and the accidentals came on heavy.  And that is
>not uncommon.

This is not because of their ear training though.  This is because they do
not fully understand harmony and have no idea where their note fits in a
given progression if said progression is complicated.

>Those of us with perfect pitch and good musical training can sing a modern
>piece 100% accurately and probably in very good pitch.

I quite disagree.  I know musicians who have perfect pitch and can sing
a solo line, but are lost in an ensemble.  Again this is related to
understanding of harmony, not pitch sense.

>I like being able to look at a score and know right away how the piece
>sounds.  I am also useful in chamber groups when a middle instrument is
>playing the wrong note and no one else knows what happened.  For those of
>us with that sense of pitch it's clear and there's no question or tooling
>around with relative pitch.

Sorry Andrys, again this can happen with training.  I can do what you
describe in my sleep.  And I have far from perfect pitch.

Spake Dave:

>>Relative pitch, now, that is a different story.  That is the ability
>>to recognize intervals.  It is more important to hear that an F# is
>>out-of-tune in relation to the A you just played, than to know that it is
>>simply out of tune.

I don't think that the ability to recognize intervals is all that
important.  Again, knowing where your note functions in the harmonic
structure is far more useful, especially to a singer.

In reality, again especially where singing is concerned, the secret to
being a successful sight reader lies in none of the things that have been
discussed above.  It truly lies in knowing and having digested a broad
repertoire in many styles.  Eventually, you know how Bach "goes" and you
know how Brahms "goes" and thus when you come upon pieces in a given style,
the reading becomes much easier.  The formulas are familiar and you plug
them in to a new work.  My teacher at the U of North Texas has perfect
pitch.  Sometimes he sings a little out of tune because of distractions,
vocal training (or a lack of) or the fact that he uses both baroque and
modern pitch frequently.  He can still pull an A out of ether.  In many
ways, Dave is right, it is a bit of a parlor trick.  While it may be a
useful tool to those who have it, I don't miss it at all and I can do the
conductorial parlor tricks with the best of them.

Kevin Sutton