Back on topic ...

Perfect pitch cannot exist, since pitch naming is arbitrary; what ppl describe as perfect pitch is, in reality, relative pitch. Paul, above, points to this fact too.

If you were (and it were possible) to ask a Parisian from 1750 to give you an 'A' on a keyboard instrument, it is likely that the A would be around 413hz. If, in the same year you travelled to Venice, then the 'same' A would be somewhere around 465-475hz. In Leipzig, the A would be perhaps nearer 485hz. In fact Bach was forced to re-frame certain organ pieces because of pitch differences in various German cities and indeed because of different organ tuning systems being used in their cathedrals (including instruments with 19 keys per octave btw). Concert pitch was not fixed at A=440hz until 1955, and all the evidence and research points to pitch being on the rise again.

Also, as some ppl have mentioned above, Pianos are rarely tuned to pure equal temperament - not only is this damn tricky to achieve, but it may be undesirable too. Also, woodwind instruments and many brass instruments are actually tempered (in the manufacturing process) so are not 'in' equal temperament either.

BUT we are talking about tiny differences here - differences that some ppl do claim to be able to sense. I would suggest that they are the product of poorly tuned or poorly made instruments, or simply due to register/tessitura of instruments rather than the product of true differences in pitch relationships between keys in any equally tempered system.

Once you stray away from the musico-facist system that is equal temperament, you enter into another realm of musical possiblitites and sound worlds. Compare for example a just intoned perfect fifth with an equally tempered one, or more remarkable still a just intoned major triad with an equally tempered major triad; one is bright, stable and pure, the other is dull, lifeless and unstable. In tuning systems other than equal temperament, keys do have different characteristics (because the relationships between the pitches in each key are different). That is why, in much musical discourse from the 18th and 19th centuries you read that 'D' is often referred to as the key of vengence, or that A is the prefered key of seduction arias.

Sorry about the ramble fellas... I'll get back into my cave now

Does just intonation really produce different relationships between relative notes in different keys????!!!

I wish I could comprehend the mathematics behind that!!!

Thanks Rousseau.

So do you think an awful lot of tunes, particularly I'm thinking most twelve bar blues classics for instance, would be enhanced by using just intonation??
Tony

--------------------
[Type your personal signature here]

If you've got a dual-oscillator analogue synth (or a modern digital/soft equivalent),
any fewl can readily hear the difference between equal-tempered and "pure"/"just" intervals. They sounds as different as monkeys and donkeys. Or sthg.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Well, the thing is that traditionally - and by traditionally I mean from Pythagoras up to the adoption of equal temperament - the goal was to have as many pure intervals in any given tuning system as possible. Pure intervals are stable, bright, mathematically justifiable (and significant philosophically and numerologically) amongst other things.

However, the problem is that the nature of sound and the way in which sound is manipulated musically are uncomfortable bedfellows. If for example you generate your intervals and scales by tuning pure fifths (ratio 3:2) this was advocated by Pythagoras and you go through the entire circle of 5ths sequence (ie. C G D A E B F# and so on). You end up with a B# some 7 octaves above your starting point which on an equally tempered piano would be the same note 7 octaves higher. But in fact, because of the nature of sound, the B# is not sonically/enharmonically equivalent to a C, but is a note which deviates from C by 23.5 cents (a quarter of a semitone - this is called a pythagorean comma). In fact, the so called circle of fifths is a spiral.

If you tune by fourths, then the deviation is greater by some 41 cents (almost a half a semitone).

Now, the idea in arranging your intervals in any tuning system other than Just intonation, is to judiciously eliminate these commas by dividing them up between various intervals. So, imagine the scenario. You have a piece of 18th century music in front of you on the desk of your harpsichord that is in C major. So, the most important keys in the piece will obviously be I, IV, V. So you'll want all of those keys and the triads formed on those degrees of the scale to be as pure possible - because these triads will be stable, bright and will make for strong and definitive modulations and will reinforce the sense of being in the tonic key. BUT by deciding that you'll have pure fifths between C and G, and between G and D and between F and C, and pure thirds between C and E, F and A, and G and B will cause you to make compromises - sometimes radical compromises - elsewhere. Now, you would find that if you tried to play a triad of Ab major the likelyhood would be that it would be unusable (the Ab and/or the Eb would be tempered away from pure in order to give priorities to the pure fifths and thirds in your primary triads.

There are thousands of different tuning systems - some regular and some irregular. The regular ones (mean tone temperaments) will average out the comma (usually the syntonic comma) across the scale; the irregular ones (Well Temperaments) will privilege some intervals over others (as described above).

This means that different tuning systems give different keys within them different characteristics, because the
pitch relationships are different. Moreover, the moments of tension (such as dominant 7th chords, diminished triads, modulations, cadences) will all be heightened or refined.

Now, Just Intonation is not really a temperament at all, merely a system of tuning in which all of the intervals are represented by ratios of whole numbers - and as a result the intervals are mathematically pure. And there are absolutely no compromises. You would certainly be able to hear huge differences by tuning all your intervals pure and playing 12 bar blues patterns!

Also, if you're interested, there's a guy in the states whose name escapes me for the moment who has built a Just intoned guitar with a weird coloured fretboard; Harry Partch built his own instruments of course, and composers like Terry Riley, Lou Harrison, James Tenney, Ben Johnston have all composed pieces specifically for Just Intoned instruments. Also, look up the Just Intonation Network - they have loads of info and some comparison sound files to listen to. The maths can be quite frightening - but if I can get to grips with it (and I'm crap at maths) then anyone can.

Now I really should shut up. I hope I haven't bored too many ppl rigid. Shiraz always makes me ramble.

Thanks for the reply man!!! I'm just dashing a few lines as I have to sleep!
I visited the Just Intonation Network and I found it really interesting. I just wish they had more on there.

I listened to the mp3s for comparison and was struck even before I read the accompanying PFDs by just how out of tune some of the tempered intervals really sound!!!!

I am really keen on the idea of taking plenty of modern music based in one key and playing it on justly tuned instruments- like blues etc.

Also, If I am right here, if a piece of music did have a few key changes would it not be possible to devise, using today's synths a tuning system specifically for that piece music so as to encompass as many whole numbered ratios as possible?????

Also... since you seem to know your stuff... in the pfd next to the MP3 downlaods on the Just Intonation Network site what do the symbols that look like a C with a line through mean?? And why are all the figures next to Tempered a whole no. whereas next to Just they aren't????? It baffles me.

--------------------
[Type your personal signature here]

Oh,sorry,I meant 'multitude of prats',not 'moltitude of prats'.
Sorry about the typo.

Quote Rousseau:

---

Back on topic ...

Perfect pitch cannot exist, since pitch naming is arbitrary; what ppl describe as perfect pitch is, in reality, relative pitch. Paul, above, points to this fact too.

---

What you wrote about is very interesting,but I did not understand that one part. How can perfect pitch be relative pitch? Perfect pitch does not take other tones as points of reference,which is what is done in relative pitch. I have read what Paul said before about his friend. His friend is not wrong...the pitch that he recalls in his mind is a bit out of tune,but it's still the tone he says it is.
Not to try to convince you,but again,these pitches ,for people with perfect pitch ,are within a RANGE. It could be that one hears in his mind an A that it's slight flat or sharp than the tone played at 440 hertz,but it is still an A,and not some other random tones. It's not a G,or a D,because these notes have a different 'colour' to them. Yet,it's more of a feel than a sound,and it's called 'colour' only for lack of a better term.

If you play a pitch on an instrument where you are able to perform a portamento of some sort,or a fretless instrument like the violin,and you play a D,then you play a D a bit sharper (let's say a quarter of a tone up),it still has the 'colour' (loosely called that) of D ,and not of E. But if you keep going sharper,the 'colour' D will start to get mixed up with the colour of E. So the D has a range,and the E has a range,therefore they can be a bit sharp or flats : the tones are still the ones named by the people that can name them. By the way,this 'naming' process is simply an experiment,not the main advantage of perfect pitch.
And also,even the degree of skill in perfect pitch itself,has a range. At the very primitive and most basic of perfect pitch,there is COLOUR AWARENESS. This just means that one ,as he's listening to the different notes,is aware that they have different 'colours'. Yet it is too abstract to him/her ,and he's only aware,but cannot name them.

Then there is COLOUR DISCRIMINATION :that's the ability to listen,and without looking, accurately discriminate the 12 pitches of the chromatic scale ,WITHOUT comparing pitches with pitches,there and then.
There is 'Spectral discrimination'...the ability to discriminate ,to some degree,BETWEEN the tones of the chromatic scale.
Then there is 'Aural Recall' ,which is the ability to imagine pitches,and knowing exactly what the pitches are,without even hearing them at all. This is how someone like Vivaldi ,or Back,or Mozart ,and all these masters,could compose merely out of memory,just by playing pitches in their mind and composing in their mind. I think that is not too unfounded to say that they did that ,at least to a very good degree.
How else could a composer like Palestrina invent a fugue for 8 voices?And what about the music that has even more than 8 different voices?
I mean,how can one be sure that it does sounds good,unless they play it on the instrument? How do you try out your music with 8 voices on the organ or the piano? It cannot be done on keyboard,let alone on the violin. Yet,someone like Paganini or Vivaldi(to make an example) composed much music where an entire orchestra would be involved,and their instrument was the violin,not even a keyboard, on which to compose the music with. Did these composer think 'ok,I am only a violin virtuoso,let's see how my Symphony no. 133 sounds,I'll just call the orchestra now and ask them to play it for me,so I get an idea of whether it sounds very good or not'.

What I mean is,they were too prolific,too productive and too masterful to just try out every single part...I am convinced that they could write the music down simply while playing the exact pitches in their minds. Some people have only one of these 'levels' of perfect pitch (I have only colour discrimination and SOME aural recall...I almost always can think out a tone,and that tone will likely be standard B...I have a rather good,trained relative pitch,but nothing more.Still all useful,though.)
Some people can name the tones almost always without failing (which is rarer) and the others recognize ONLY certain tones exactly,maybe 4 or 5 of the chromatic scale.
Or,some people recognize all the pitches of the entire chromatic scale,but ONLY on their own instrument (let's say piano.)
When they hear the same pitches on another instrument,like brass,they get the pitches wrong...because their attention is diverted and confused by the TIMBRE of the instrument. This,for them,has the effect of obscuring the 'colour' of the note.

People that say that 'relative pitch is what you really want' do not understand (no offence) that relative pitch is an ENTIRELY different skill. There you compare notes,hear them as they interrelate to each other. You hear how a note RELATES to another. Not how ONE note sounds on it's own.
In perfect pitch ,each note is recognized without comparing them to another note,EVEN if another note was playing. The interrelation between notes is entirely irrelevant.That is why it's also called 'absolute'...
Relative pitch is an entirely intellectual activity : you call this chord a min7b5 ,and you know that the basic chord has a root,a minor seventh,a flat fifth,a minor third etc. in whatever order. Then when you are familiar with the chord,you know it's a min7b5 and not a diminished seventh chord or something else. That's what relative pitch can do. It cannot make you hear an Dmin7b5. Only a min7b5 chord.

Conversely,a person with highly refined perfect pitch,does not need to learn the structure of the chord on an intellectual level,at all : he could be able to hear all the notes distincly,and know that it's a chord that it's spelled A,C,Eb,G. He hear the notes from an 'absolute' view,and just nails them away as he/she hears them. The result is that this person spells the correct chord in a entirely natural way. He or she could not even know what a minor seventh is.

Another thing :even the person with a very highly refined RELATIVE pitch,is always SLOW in response. Because he/she has to THINK that 'ok that seems a min7b5 chord. Sure?'
He/she will not answer immediately,and is not as fluid and effortless as the person with refined perfect pitch...the latter will not think about it,but will respond and know almost immediately.
Laugh if you want,but that's what Bruce Lee meant when he said 'Don't think...FEEL'. Because the THOUGHT slows you down,it will not make the action as fluid as someone that just responds immediately,without interruptions,or thoughts,of any sort.
Of course you cannot have it all natural.
With this,I am not saying that Relative pitch is inferior,or superior,to Perfect pitch,and this is my point: they are just 2 different skills,each one having his advantages. Certainly,having even one of them,could never be a disavantage.
If you read about the experiments conducted by various researchers,plus hear directly what both people with refined perfect pitch and relative pitch say,you'll see that it does not make sense to say that perfect pitch 'does not exists' or that one is better than relative pitch.
Of course I won't insist : you are entitled to believe whatever you deem suitable,just as I do. I just thought I would mention the above stuff...sorry about the lenght of it,I try to make it short, but I find it difficult...BTW,nice user name

Regards,
Don

Rousseau,I wrote:
'you'll see that it does not make sense to say that perfect pitch 'does not exists' or that one is better than relative pitch.'

I meant to say :
'you'll see that it does not make sense to say that perfect pitch 'does not exists' or that is better or worse than relative pitch.'

Sorry about the confusion.

Don, logically 'pefect pitch' (or what some ppl call Absolute Pitch) cannot exist and is therefore a misnomer. It should be called relative pitch - actually relative in two senses: relative to a particular reference (old piano etc); and culturally/historically relative.

The problem is that we are not really dealing with small differences here - mere 'coluration' as you put it. Taking my example of an 18th century parisian with so called perfect pitch again. You ask him to give you an 'A'. And what he gives you is his A at perhaps 415 hz which is about a whole semitone lower than our 'A' (which as all research indicates is substantially on the rise so is unlikey to be at 440hz anyway), or what we would 'hear' if we had so-called perfect pitch as either an Ab or a G# (depending on context, and also instrument/tuning etc).

Here's where the problems really start though. Now, you ask that same guy for a C# and what he will give you would be something about a semitone than what we would recognise, BUT depending on his point of reference (say he's memorised his spinet) and its temperament (could be any one of hundreds of tuning schema) then this C# may be a pure major 3rd
(ratio of 5:4), or it be may one of a spectrum of other 'major 3rds' - it would almost certainly be something different to an equally tempered major 3rd (which is larger than 5:4 btw).

Ultimately, you can see the logical contradition. Perfect pitch cannot be natural and historically/culturally contingent simultaneously. It's only a memory thing -=I know because I have perfect pitch

Just don't get me started on that Vivaldi geezer...

Quote maskedwarrior:

---

I listened to the mp3s for comparison and was struck even before I read the accompanying PFDs by just how out of tune some of the tempered intervals really sound!!!!

I am really keen on the idea of taking plenty of modern music based in one key and playing it on justly tuned instruments- like blues etc.

Also, If I am right here, if a piece of music did have a few key changes would it not be possible to devise, using today's synths a tuning system specifically for that piece music so as to encompass as many whole numbered ratios as possible?????

Also... since you seem to know your stuff... in the pfd next to the MP3 downlaods on the Just Intonation Network site what do the symbols that look like a C with a line through mean?? And why are all the figures next to Tempered a whole no. whereas next to Just they aren't????? It baffles me.

---

Masked warrior, the C with-a-line-through-it-symbol is a CENT - or 100th of an equally tempered semitone. This is conventionally how the intervals in tuning systems are expressed since they cannot normally be expressed as whole number ratios. An octave consists of 1200 cents. And in 12TET, a semi tone = 100 cents. So a major 3rd = 400 cents; a 'perfect' fifth = 700 cents etc. In just intonation, the major third (5:4) is actually 386.xx cents; a perfect fifth (3:2) is 702 cents.


There are some well implemented alternative tunings for most synths and soft synths these days. Indeed Cubase can do this quite well on the fly as a midi plug in. Also, once you have a tuning table (with all the cents listed for each note) then if you have a user definable tuning option, you should be able to slot the numbers straight in.

Cheers

Quote Rousseau:

---

(which as all research indicates is substantially on the rise so is unlikey to be at 440hz anyway)

---

I would have thought with the advent of electric tuners and so many synths incorporated into just about all walks of music that the chances of this happening are small Rousseau. How could it happen in this day and age?

Thanks for fillng me in about cents!!

Rousseau, do you see colours associated with notes as a PP bod?

--------------------
[Type your personal signature here]

Quote Rousseau:

---

Don, logically 'pefect pitch' (or what some ppl call Absolute Pitch) cannot exist and is therefore a misnomer. It should be called relative pitch - actually relative in two senses: relative to a particular reference (old piano etc); and culturally/historically relative............................
Just don't get me started on that Vivaldi geezer...

---

Vivaldi geezer? How insensitive and gratuitous. I can understand the fact that you are not obliged to like his music,but to say this of a master whose style was copied all around Europe...
Even J.C. Bach studied Vivaldi's scores. But obviously that has no meaning to you whatsoever. He must have been really bad as a musician,if you think he was 'a geezer'...which makes me wonder how many HUNDREDS of concertos for violin,cantatas,oratorios,etc. you wrote? He had a few cliches,no one is perfect. But a 'geezer' . I can't imagine Vivaldi drinking bier in pubs, shouting angrily in football stadiums and beating people up .

Yes,let's not get started

You keep saying that 'perfect pitch does not exists',and that it's 'relative'. I am not convinced of what you said. For relative pitch we mean comparing interrelations between notes,we don't mean retaining them into memory. Memory is only a natural consequence. Don't we use memory for everything we do? Then what sense does it make to say that in perfect pitch or relative pitch we use memory?
When one trains in relative pitch,one takes ,for example,2 different intervals,listens carefully,and compare them, one with the other. That's the relative part of it. The term has been already exploited in that way,you can't change it,unless you start correcting everything people wrote about it. Also,if we start calling perfect pitch relative,then what relative pitch should be called? Would this not confuse matters even more?

We can call it perfect,relative,or Joe...'labelling something does not make it real' (not my words,but they make sense,I think). The names are there merely to allow us to differentiate one thing from the other. But if you have trained in relative pitch,and,as you say,you have perfect pitch,you are the FIRST person that say that they have anything in common.


And yes,I understand the point that you made before about the 18th parisian church organist. The fact is that ,while THE NAMES of the notes were different,THE NOTES THEMSELVES were not.
Even if the note A of 300 years ago was out of tune ,compared to the tone we today call A, the 'colour' of all these notes ,be they sharp,or flat,did NOT change. Let's say that the sharper A of 300 years ago sounded like the B of today.
Whether we call the note A ,or B,or C ,or Z or Joe again,the NOTE itself is the same one. That one note SOUNDED ALWAYS THE SAME,be it 300 years ago,or modern times...it's only the way we CALL the note that changed.


Do you mind if I ask you a few questions about your perfect pitch? This has nothing to do with the fact that you hate Vivaldi that bad



1. Do you recognize all the tones of the chromatic scale? Or a few of them? If so,which ones?

2. Do you recognize them immediately as you listen to them?

3. How different does A sounds compared to B,to you,in your own words?

4. Can you recognize the key of a piece immediately?(without playing it,of course)

I don't want to bombard you with too many questions,but it would be great if you would elucidate on the above point.Thanks

Quote maskedwarrior:

---

Quote Rousseau:

---

(which as all research indicates is substantially on the rise so is unlikey to be at 440hz anyway)

---

I would have thought with the advent of electric tuners and so many synths incorporated into just about all walks of music that the chances of this happening are small Rousseau. How could it happen in this day and age?

Thanks for fillng me in about cents!!

Rousseau, do you see colours associated with notes as a PP bod?

---

MW,

The research points, principally, to 'classical' orchestral music, instrument makers, and indeed singers.

I only see colours if I've drunk too much vino...

Quote maskedwarrior:

---

Quote Rousseau:

---

(which as all research indicates is substantially on the rise so is unlikey to be at 440hz anyway)

---

I would have thought with the advent of electric tuners and so many synths incorporated into just about all walks of music that the chances of this happening are small Rousseau. How could it happen in this day and age?

Thanks for fillng me in about cents!!

Rousseau, do you see colours associated with notes as a PP bod?

---

The 'colours' in perfect pitch have nothing to do with visual colours. This is another misconception,unfortunately: people with perfect pitch do not associate notes to colours. In perfect pitch,the 'colour' it's a feel of some sort,like another sense other than sight,and even hearing. It's only loosely called 'colour' ,because the feeling is very hard to describe,unless you hear it for yourself.

Quote Don Chishiotte:

---

Quote Rousseau:

---

Don, logically 'pefect pitch' (or what some ppl call Absolute Pitch) cannot exist and is therefore a misnomer. It should be called relative pitch - actually relative in two senses: relative to a particular reference (old piano etc); and culturally/historically relative............................
Just don't get me started on that Vivaldi geezer...

---

Vivaldi geezer? How insensitive and gratuitous. I can understand the fact that you are not obliged to like his music,but to say this of a master whose style was copied all around Europe...
Even J.C. Bach studied Vivaldi's scores. But obviously that has no meaning to you whatsoever. He must have been really bad as a musician,if you think he was 'a geezer'...which makes me wonder how many HUNDREDS of concertos for violin,cantatas,oratorios,etc. you wrote? He had a few cliches,no one is perfect. But a 'geezer' . I can't imagine Vivaldi drinking bier in pubs, shouting angrily in football stadiums and beating people up .

Yes,let's not get started

You keep saying that 'perfect pitch does not exists',and that it's 'relative'. I am not convinced of what you said. For relative pitch we mean comparing interrelations between notes,we don't mean retaining them into memory. Memory is only a natural consequence. Don't we use memory for everything we do? Then what sense does it make to say that in perfect pitch or relative pitch we use memory?
When one trains in relative pitch,one takes ,for example,2 different intervals,listens carefully,and compare them, one with the other. That's the relative part of it. The term has been already exploited in that way,you can't change it,unless you start correcting everything people wrote about it. Also,if we start calling perfect pitch relative,then what relative pitch should be called? Would this not confuse matters even more?

We can call it perfect,relative,or Joe...'labelling something does not make it real' (not my words,but they make sense,I think). The names are there merely to allow us to differentiate one thing from the other. But if you have trained in relative pitch,and,as you say,you have perfect pitch,you are the FIRST person that say that they have anything in common.


And yes,I understand the point that you made before about the 18th parisian church organist. The fact is that I doubt very much that ,while THE NAMES of the notes changed,THE NOTES THEMSELVES did not.
Again,we can call the note A : B,C , Z or Joe again. But that note in perfect pitch SOUNDED ALWAYS THE SAME,be it 300 years ago,or modern times...it's only the way we CALL the notes that changed.
Even if the note A of 300 years ago was out of tune ,compared to the tone we today call A, the 'colour' of all these notes ,be they sharp,or flat,did NOT change.

Do you mind if I ask you a few questions about your perfect pitch? This has nothing to do with the fact that you hate Vivaldi that bad



1. Do you recognize all the tones of the chromatic scale? Or a few of them? If so,which ones?

2. Do you recognize them immediately as you listen to them?

3. How different does A sounds compared to B,to you,in your own words?

4. Can you recognize the key of a piece immediately?(without playing it,of course)

I don't want to bombard you with too many questions,but it would be great if you would elucidate on the above point.Thanks

---

Don,

Blimey, I thought I wrote too much

You're still not seeing the logical contradiction here. The 'A' has changed - the fact that it is now 'fixed' at 440hz is ONLY a product of history, culture and expediency. One is not born with precise frequency recognition merely an ability to remember a reference pitch. Since this reference pitch is arbitrary, it follows that everyone with so-called 'perfect pitch' will be recalling different pitches based upon their own formative experiences. This is a clearly a learned phenomenon, not an innate one.

Now to your questions...

1. If you're referring to the artificially derived equally tempered chromatic scale then yes. But I know it is not, in itself, a naturally occuring phenomenon; I know that these notes have been culturally and historical determined to enable composers to play in a full range of keys on keyboard instruments.

2. How does one define immediate? I'm pretty sure there is some underlying comparative memory process at work, although I might think that I'm recalling pitch names instantly.

3. Depends what 'A' you're talking about and what 'B'. Are we talking about equal temperament or some other culturally and aesthetically determined configuration of pitches? Or perhaps we're talking about a pitch with a ratio of 9:8?
And then, what is our reference pitch? A at 440, or A at 380 (which sounds quite like an F) or A at 480?

4. Yes, I can tell by looking at the key signature. But seriously, if it's recorded then you can easily be fooled if the playback mechanism is at the wrong speed of course. Often, at concert, it's quite easy to tell which keys are being used - and not just by looking at the programme and factoring in the composer and the conventional structural properties of that style and genre of music

Hi Don Chishiotte, I am confused. To quote one of your earlier posts, you say

Quote Don Chishiotte:

---

I do not think that a note has a natural 'perfect' frequency...I have read that the A of today was not the A of five hundred years ago. It was almost a different note. It's just that this sound today ,we call it A.

---

...but now in your latest response to Rousseau you write

Quote:

---

You keep saying that 'perfect pitch does not exists',and that it's 'relative'. I am not convinced of what you said.

---

and you go on to talk about the "colour" of notes, whatever their demonination throughout the ages, as being absolute. How can we possibly know such a thing?
I know it's just your casual opinion Don, but I think you should find some kind of evidence to back that up.
I am not picking on you, I just think your points are becoming a little blurred and I'm having difficulty understanding you.

From what I understand both you and Rousseau seem to be saying the same things.

Or are you saying that the "colours" that some people expereince are, in your opinion, an example that "PP" does exist? Maybe then we should think about naming the notes based on these rarely gifted people's perceptions?? If so this is interesting as, and who knows, these rarely gifted people could be picking up things about frequencies that all of us percieve, just on a more subliminal level.
If it could be demonstrated that these "coloured" notes were percieved universally amounst those so gifted there could be a strong case for abandoning the notion of relative tuning altogether.

Maybe there are certain truefrequencies interlaced into nature itself that we would all find more pleasing to listen to???

Deep, I know
TOny

ps. I don't think Rousseua was 100% serious about the Vivaldi thing

--------------------
[Type your personal signature here]

Hi Tony,no problem,I will answer to your questions to the best I can. Yes,things got confused,I understand. But in reality they are rather simpler.
But first I would like to know: when you reply to a post,how do you separate a part of the post of the original poster,then you add your comment,then you take another part and comment on it ,etc? Just as you did in your last reply.

Thanks
Don

ok,it does not matter,I'll just copy and paste...
I said:

'I do not think that a note has a natural 'perfect' frequency...I have read that the A of today was not the A of five hundred years ago. It was almost a different note. It's just that this sound today ,we call it A.'

I meant that only the name and the tuning,changed. But not these 'colours'. The problem is that we are meshing perfect pitch things with tuning,or note nomenclature. All that is interrelated only in a consequential way. Does the way perfect pitch works,changes as the names of the notes change,or as tuning change? No,it does not. There is that absolute element to it. That is why you have to understand how perfect pitch really works,in order to understand what I mean.
You could call A the tone at 440 hertz,or you could call A the tone at 480 hertz. You can call it whatever you like. The WAY we call it,changes absolutely nothing. This is a SOUND. We can call it a certain way,then a different way. The sound that we are naming,will not change. Only our definition of it, does.
Then it happens that for example the A of 300 years ago was a tone lower (or whatever) than the A of today. So? They are still 2 different tones,although we called both of them A !
So,in the above,I was referring to the definition,not to SOUND itself. Suppose that we had here an 18th century person. And suppose that he,in the 18th century ,called B ,what we call now A. To us would be A,to him would be B.
But then we play only the tone to him,and we ask him to forget the names. We play him back our A and his B.
I think that the result would be obvious: to us and to him,our A and his B are exactly the same tone.

So I meant that there is not a 'standard',a yardstick,to which we CALL the tones,but the fact is that if I forget the names,and hear a note at 440 hertz,it has a 'colour'.Then, I play the note a whole step higher,it has a different colour. Is not this absolute?
So the NAME is uninmportant. As far as colour is concerned,it is heard by the sound of the note,not by the name one calls the note with. Does that makes sense to you?
You might ask: 'Why then,you hear A at 440 hertz,then you hear the note a whole step above,and say it has an 'absoluteness' to it,a distinct colour,and yet,300 years ago ,another person would hear A tuned at a different frequency,and still hear the same 'absoluteness' ,i.e. colour?'
Because the sound that we now call A,has a RANGE,and the sound that was called A ,two centuries ago or whatever, was WITHIN THE SAME RANGE. The colour of that RANGE,never changed!
I know it is confusing,and unfortunately I cannot tell you more. You need to see this thing for yourself...unfortunately for me it's a lot easier to understand than to explain. We are meshing here definitions (in a sense illusion) with the things themselves,with what is real. Again: definitions vs. the fact that the sound does not move,or changes. We just tune it up or down,and give it a name.
But I still hear an E ,and I hear an A,and these 2 notes to me sound different. They have,yes,a different 'colour'.
You need to see this colour thing for yourself in order for you to make any sense of what I am saying,really.
I'll comment on another point that you wrote,although unfortunately I cannot comment on everything. But here is what you wrote:

'If it could be demonstrated that these "coloured" notes were percieved universally amounst those so gifted there could be a strong case for abandoning the notion of relative tuning altogether.'
This HAS already been demonstrated. To all people with perfect pitch, an F# sounds like an F#. It's not that to one of them sounds one way,and to another person sounds another way. That would truly suck! I for one would start killikg all the people that talk about perfect pitch!
But the F# sounds the same to these people with perfect pitch. So you see,there IS something absolute about it. What is NOT absolute,are the names change,the tunings change ,etc.
This is because ,as I have said,in perfect pitch an A note has a RANGE. Can be a bit sharp,or a bit flat. It's still A.
A bit sharper or flatter,it is still an A. Why? Because,when it becomes TOO sharp or TOO flat,it starts MIXING with the RANGE of the note directly above or below : B or G.
Hope that was of any help,but frankly I doubt it,the way I write is too convoluted...as I said,for me it's easier to understand than to write about it.
Check out the Lucas Burge perfect pitch stuff,see if you can borrow it,or buy it used,make a backup,and resell the original. Whatever...it's an expensive course,but it's very interesting. That is all I can tell you.
I can back up all I have said: the colour thing,range,etc.I did not learn this by myself,I learned it off the Lucas Burge method. I can hear some of these colours. They are there,but it's more about how the note FEELS to you,nothing to do with red,blue,yellow,etc
And all the rest,I have learned by directly reading the many researches and experiments ,that you can read on the internet. And still the rest,I have learned it by direct personal experience. I am not Bach,or even someone with full perfect pitch,but I have a glimpse of it,and it's more than a passing one...I spent many hours asking myself many questions. I think this is enough of a back-up,to me at least...just as I said before: see for yourself.

Or you can choose to just forget about it all and be concerned with the music only. Your choice.
One last thing I want to comment about...you said 'Maybe there are certain truefrequencies interlaced into nature itself that we would all find more pleasing to listen to???'
Don't get too bogged down with science...be what it may,in the end all you should care about is how good your music sounds,if you are a musician. That's all I personally really care about.
Ouch...my back hurts,really too much writing. I don't think I will post again,it really takes too long,but I will be back to read it. I am curious about Rousseau answers to my questions earlier.
And yes,he MEANT the Vivaldi thing.But hey,no point in debating about it. Good luck.

Quote Don Chishiotte:

---

But first I would like to know: when you reply to a post,how do you separate a part of the post of the original poster....?

---

Hi Don, for the above I used the QUOTE button next to reply on your post. The actual commands are(DELETE THE STARS!!!) [q*uote="Don Chishiotte"] and to end [/q*uote].
You can just put [q*uote] for a nameless quote, as I think I did on one of them, with [/q*uote] to finish again. (REMEMBER TO DELETE THE STARS I PUT IN AS I HAD TO FOOL THE BROWSER INTO NOT QUOTING MY INSTRUCTIONS TO YOU!!!!)

Back to the point- I am sure that similar things have been done(and I wonder, if you know of any, whether you could point me to it) but I imagine some sort of experiment with a sample group of postulated PP folks. I'm not thinking of your regular PP gang either, but those born with an innate abilty to "see" notes, gained not through tutelage but through instinct. Infact people with no musical eduaction/background would be best. To these folks would be played a steadily climbing note (probably played on a synth for clarity). They would be asked to push a button when for them the colors/emotions/feel became strongest. They could probably request an engineer to move the pitch up and down until they were entirely sure the sensation was as bright as possible. They would have to repeat this about ten times or twenty times each all the way up an octave, charting every sensation or change in sensation they felt. From these an average would be taken for each person and from this an average for the group as a whole.

Would this result- given, and only given, that the results were reasonably grouped together in the first place and not so sporadic as to be misleading- constitute these "true" pitches we are currently discussing? I'm guessing if it all worked out nice and tidily the results would show 12 uberpitches, although this is supposing that all participants are so sensitive as to pick out all twelve tones.

I doubt it would be so simple in reality.

Has this been done???

--------------------
[Type your personal signature here]

Hi Tony,thanks for explaining to me the quote stuff! I just have still to look at it,it seems that I just keep putting it off Thanks

Admittedly,I have read only in a passing way the details of the kind of research that you would like to know about. The reason is that I think I know what I need to know,as I have said from the start. Is really nothing new to me. What I mean is that I am really not too interested too much in the science of equal temperament or the history of it...as I have said,I only care about perfect pitch,relative,everywhere else,etc etc,if they are of any immediate use for my music,and if I can use it.
The only thing I lack as far as this type of knowledge about perfect pitch,is asking questions directly to someone that has perfect pitch (not just a bit of it...I have that too).

The researches and experiments on PP that you can find on the internet,are overwhelming. I have 500 mb of web pages stored on my hd...they are all about PP and RP research.
Although I have read only the ones I can understand...I hate too many diagrams and formulas. But some of the researches are acessible to anyone,and very interesting,have a look here and throughly browse the site,it will keep you busy for weeks. This one of them http://www.aruffo.com/eartraining/index.html

You will also find direct experiments of people with PP compared to people that trained in RP. All interesting

Hi Rousseau. Sorry,but I'll ask the questions again,in a more accurate way. Please let's not dilly-dally about 'artificially derived equally tempered chromatic scale' mumbo jumbo : I have a Korg Triton here with me,standard tuning,standard temperament,standard sound (a piano),standard everything. Let's simply take this as basis for my questions,please? Just let's keep it simple,I would not ask you to hear the pitches in some other temperament other than the one they use to make songs for the radio,here and now. Just standard stuff. Standard is standard,is it not?

1. If someone plays notes at random for you on a piano synth,are you able to recognize and name these pitches (without looking),such as ''This is F#. This is A'' etc? And if you are,are you able to recognize all the pitches of the chromatic scale,or only some of them? If some of them,which ones?

2. How different does A sounds compared to B,to you,in your own words? Please don't throw in ratios 9:8 etc etc,I am neither interested nor knowdgeable about it. The B and A that I mention are the ones in standard tuning.
Unless you use a particular tuning,so that the B and A that I mean,are not the ones that you mean? I mean A and B at 440 hertz etc etc. Simple.

3. Do you recognize the key of a song starting to play ,a SIMPLE song with no modulations,as it is playing? Yes or no,sorry,I don't care about tapes at the wrong speed. Also remember that tapes are a thing of the past...almost no one plays tapes nowadays,sorry.

Also,no,to me 'knowing the style of the composer' and getting an idea of the key is not perfect pitch. I only mean recognizing keys,by LISTENING and KNOWING. No tapes,no instruments,no historical facts,no styles,nothing ,other that your ear and the music that plays. Can you name the key as 'this song is in D' or 'this song is in F' accurately?

By the way,you contradicted yourself. You said that 'But seriously, if it's recorded then you can easily be fooled if the playback mechanism is at the wrong speed of course'.
And why,may I ask? If a song is playing at a lower speed,and it's playing in B ,let's say,instead of C,you should be able to answer 'it's in B'. If it's playing at an higher speed and the song is in D,one with perfect pitch answer that the song is in D.
So the speed of the tape is almost entirely irrelevant,unless it was playing so slow ,that one hears only mush,or so fast,that one hears a screeching sound.
Do you see your contradiction?
Another thing: answering accurately in naming pitches and keys,does not means 100 per cent success every single times,but almost always the answer should be accurate. If one plays an E,almost always one should say 'it's an E' ,if one plays A# ,then the answer should be 'A#'.
Oh,and by the way...all these tests are repeated many times. Nothing too complicated: you either know that it's an E,or you don't. You don't think 'is it too high? Is it too low?' Also,you don't singe any tones ,in an attempt to try to understand what pitch is playing. (This is called 'vocal tension pitch' NOTHING to do with perfect pitch). You just LISTEN and KNOW,in a prompt and immediate way,almost all the times,without hesitation. You might be more familiar with certain tones,but I still expect that you know INTIMATELY at least some.

You might make some errors here and there. It can happen. But there should always be a factor: you are not guessing,you just know...

For example,if you get the pitch wrong,the right one should not be more than one tone apart. More likely it's 'only' a semitone apart,if it's an occasional mistake.
Also,you do not 'memorize' anything. Again,you KNOW what the pitch is,or you dont.If you can do all that,you have perfect pitch,if you cannot,and you are memorizing,comparing,looking at the style,this,that...sorry to delude you,you don't have perfect pitch. I hope you really have it,though...I am not trying to appear better,or worse...do you see my point? It's not a scoring game,only an attempt to discern whether what you say about having perfect pitch,it's true,or not. And that is where I can learn something,as I have never asked questions to other prople with PP.
Please answer the questions in a serious,concise and clear way. I am very grateful if you do. It is not much to ask,is it? You don't have to demonstrate me anything,just answer the questions as whether you can or you cannot do what I have mentioned. Thank you

My god, if this thread gets any worse I'm gonna have to start quoting Derrida.
You won't like that

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

And I'll get started with Adorno, be warned...

Quote Don Chishiotte:

---

Hi Rousseau. Sorry,but I'll ask the questions again,in a more accurate way. Please let's not dilly-dally about 'artificially derived equally tempered chromatic scale' mumbo jumbo : I have a Korg Triton here with me,standard tuning,standard temperament,standard sound (a piano),standard everything. Let's simply take this as basis for my questions,please? Just let's keep it simple,I would not ask you to hear the pitches in some other temperament other than the one they use to make songs for the radio,here and now. Just standard stuff. Standard is standard,is it not?

1. If someone plays notes at random for you on a piano synth,are you able to recognize and name these pitches (without looking),such as ''This is F#. This is A'' etc? And if you are,are you able to recognize all the pitches of the chromatic scale,or only some of them? If some of them,which ones?

2. How different does A sounds compared to B,to you,in your own words? Please don't throw in ratios 9:8 etc etc,I am neither interested nor knowdgeable about it. The B and A that I mention are the ones in standard tuning.
Unless you use a particular tuning,so that the B and A that I mean,are not the ones that you mean? I mean A and B at 440 hertz etc etc. Simple.

3. Do you recognize the key of a song starting to play ,a SIMPLE song with no modulations,as it is playing? Yes or no,sorry,I don't care about tapes at the wrong speed. Also remember that tapes are a thing of the past...almost no one plays tapes nowadays,sorry.

Also,no,to me 'knowing the style of the composer' and getting an idea of the key is not perfect pitch. I only mean recognizing keys,by LISTENING and KNOWING. No tapes,no instruments,no historical facts,no styles,nothing ,other that your ear and the music that plays. Can you name the key as 'this song is in D' or 'this song is in F' accurately?

By the way,you contradicted yourself. You said that 'But seriously, if it's recorded then you can easily be fooled if the playback mechanism is at the wrong speed of course'.
And why,may I ask? If a song is playing at a lower speed,and it's playing in B ,let's say,instead of C,you should be able to answer 'it's in B'. If it's playing at an higher speed and the song is in D,one with perfect pitch answer that the song is in D.
So the speed of the tape is almost entirely irrelevant,unless it was playing so slow ,that one hears only mush,or so fast,that one hears a screeching sound.
Do you see your contradiction?
Another thing: answering accurately in naming pitches and keys,does not means 100 per cent success every single times,but almost always the answer should be accurate. If one plays an E,almost always one should say 'it's an E' ,if one plays A# ,then the answer should be 'A#'.
Oh,and by the way...all these tests are repeated many times. Nothing too complicated: you either know that it's an E,or you don't. You don't think 'is it too high? Is it too low?' Also,you don't singe any tones ,in an attempt to try to understand what pitch is playing. (This is called 'vocal tension pitch' NOTHING to do with perfect pitch). You just LISTEN and KNOW,in a prompt and immediate way,almost all the times,without hesitation. You might be more familiar with certain tones,but I still expect that you know INTIMATELY at least some.

You might make some errors here and there. It can happen. But there should always be a factor: you are not guessing,you just know...

For example,if you get the pitch wrong,the right one should not be more than one tone apart. More likely it's 'only' a semitone apart,if it's an occasional mistake.
Also,you do not 'memorize' anything. Again,you KNOW what the pitch is,or you dont.If you can do all that,you have perfect pitch,if you cannot,and you are memorizing,comparing,looking at the style,this,that...sorry to delude you,you don't have perfect pitch. I hope you really have it,though...I am not trying to appear better,or worse...do you see my point? It's not a scoring game,only an attempt to discern whether what you say about having perfect pitch,it's true,or not. And that is where I can learn something,as I have never asked questions to other prople with PP.
Please answer the questions in a serious,concise and clear way. I am very grateful if you do. It is not much to ask,is it? You don't have to demonstrate me anything,just answer the questions as whether you can or you cannot do what I have mentioned. Thank you

---

Don,

The problem is that you seem to be hung up on this myth that perfect pitch is innate, it isn't it is learned. Or let me be more precise. The ability or predisposition to remember and recall pitches (seemingly instantaneously) may be a skill that some ppl do not have. Now, you acknowledge that pitch names are arbitrary, and are historically and culturally determined. But you seem to not want to acknowledge that this fact means that in order to recall or name a pitch, you have to have always already learned its sound.

Hi Rousseau. The problem is that you were only a waste of time,as far as perfect pitch goes. As I suspected. Have it your way...believe whatever you like,I have gained my own part of experience in this area,by studying and practicing perfect pitch and ear training in detail,for many months,every single day,except some break of 3 or 4 days that I took occasionally.I am not hung up on anything,it is you that have neither knowledge nor any real experience about perfect pitch.
If you cannot do what I have asked you to do,you don't have perfect pitch,I don't care about the conjectures and the idle talking.

You say that pitches can be memorized. This is getting old...as I said before,everything we do involves memory,so it's not such a revelation to think that we memorize pitches,right?
But you cannot consciously 'memorize' the 12 pitches of the chromatic scale,by merely sitting down and listening only to the fact that they are higher or lower than a certain one,etc...this is RELATIVE PITCH,not PERFECT PITCH. Perfect pitch involves listening from a different perspective...
But if you are so sure of what you say,then why did you not moemorize all pitches,all keys,all chords,all noises ,etc etc
It could not be more perfect than that,now could it?

Don, Rousseau has perfect pitch in every legitimate sense of the term. He will be too modest to tell you that he has vast experience and knowledge in this area, gained from many, many years of study to the highest level.

When you see a z, do you know instantly, innately and without effort that you are looking at a z? Of course you do. When you hear an A do you know that it's an A? Yes, you do, if you have perfect pitch. But the note A (440) is an arbitrary label - you have 'remembered' the pitch, you can recognise and quote it without reference to anything else. But, like character recognition, it is a facility of memory. If you were dislocated from your current time and place, the chances are that the A you recognise would not be called A in your new location. You would have to recognise it as Ab, or Bb or something in between. Note names are not universal constants. The note A is what we, in our location and culture, call the sound created by a 440hz signal. You could just as easily call it Jeff.

Some people can remember pitches and some people can't. I promise you, the phenomenon is fundamentally to do with memory, and with some people becomes second nature.

I and my sons heard a train whistle. 'What note is that?', I asked. F#, they instantly replied, and they were right. But they only know it's an F# because they remember the pitch F#. They didn't have to reference it to anything, in the same way that they know the letter z when they see it, and in the same way that they think in English rather than French etc etc. They don't have to think, they just know. And they know because their learning, memories and associations give them that knowledge.

I feel that I have made every effort to understand where you are coming from. Perhaps there is some sort of language or cultural barrier that is impeding our understanding of each other in some way, I don't know. But Rousseau has explained everything to you - please think about his posts and all will become clear, I promise!

PS Rousseau: I have sent you a Private Message in relation to another thread

--------------------
"Over fifteen years without a slogan"

Edited by Paul (The_Music_Tech_Ltd) (14/01/07 05:08 PM)

PS - there certainly are people who experience colours or smells when hearing certain notes or keys. This is an old, and by now quite well understood phenomenon called synaesthesia. It seems to be associated with 'crossed wiring' in the brain and has no significance in a universal context. Most 'sufferers' show no common correlations: the key A minor to one person will represent red, to another green, to another purple with a whiff of marzipan. I am not aware that many 'sufferers' are disabled by this, and it seems that, to a greater or lesser degree, it's not that uncommon.

--------------------
"Over fifteen years without a slogan"

Quote Don Chishiotte:

---

Hi Rousseau. The problem is that you were only a waste of time,as far as perfect pitch goes. As I suspected. Have it your way...believe whatever you like,I have gained my own part of experience in this area,by studying and practicing perfect pitch and ear training in detail,for many months,every single day,except some break of 3 or 4 days that I took occasionally. I am not hung up on anything,it is you that have neither knowledge nor any real experience about perfect pitch.
If you cannot do what I have asked you to do,you don't have perfect pitch,I don't care about the conjectures and the idle talking.

You say that pitches can be memorized. This is getting old...as I said before,everything we do involves memory,so it's not such a revelation to think that we memorize pitches,right?
But you cannot consciously 'memorize' the 12 pitches of the chromatic scale,by merely sitting down and listening only to the fact that they are higher or lower than a certain one,etc...this is RELATIVE PITCH,not PERFECT PITCH. Perfect pitch involves listening from a different perspective...
But if you are so sure of what you say,then why did you not moemorize all pitches,all keys,all chords,all noises ,etc etc
It could not be more perfect than that,now could it?

---

Don,

Rousseau's reply makes perfect logical sense, try to read it slowly.

The problem is clearly with you method.

Lets see. We know you have gained a lot of experience in this area by practicing perfect pitch and ear training in detail, for many months every single day, (except some breaks of 3 or 4 days) by inserting an anal probe attached to a violin string, that a close collaborator of yours would modulate to various pitches using a suitable bow. You would then proceed to guess said pitches.

This has obviously attained some results otherwise your remarkable level of knowledge in this area could not be explained.

However, it seems that you have developed some serious side effects (possibly due to damaging overtones reaching the cerebellum): overly blown self esteem, a propensity to rudeness and new age rantings and a tragic taste in music and hairdos, just to mention a few. These side effects could be ameliorated by several applications of Nitroglycerin ointment - a newly described treatment for several painful rectal conditions with psychological repercussions.

In our study Ignis Fatuus and Aural Hallucinations Among Spandex Wearing Musicians we describe several cases of levator spasm or proctalgia fugax responding to topical application of nitroglycerin, the most salient being that of a Def Leppard fan who had undergone similar training to yours and as a result imagined he could transcribe Stravinsky's neo classical oeuvres backwards whilst listening to Hindemith on headphones - even though it must be said that conclusive evidence awaits completion of a controlled clinical trial.

So, please forget perfect pitch and on with the Nitroglycerin, I would not want to alarm you, but your case could be considered to be extreme.

Good luck!

Dr. Gobuzli

Quote:

---

I and my sons heard a train whistle. 'What note is that?', I asked. F#, they instantly replied, and they were right. But they only know it's an F# because they remember the pitch F#. They didn't have to reference it to anything,

---

Right, and Bach would have called it a G, not an F#. Sure you would not contradict Bach? Why, because his A was 435, not 440.

I do understand what Rousseau means. You cannot judge any pitch if you do not have some reference. The only absolutes in pitch are the ratios like the thirds and octaves.

I do not doubt there are people that can recognise instantly the 1955 standard pitch of a played note (know some like that). For these people playing old baroque temperaments is hell because the notes they play do not correspond to what they expect to hear. Or like a carrilon that has the G where a piano has the C...

But I understand this makes only much sense to those that do play in other temperaments than equal tempered.

--------------------
Expert in non-working solutions

Quote Paul (The_Music_Tech_Ltd):

---

PS - there certainly are people who experience colours or smells when hearing certain notes or keys. This is an old, and by now quite well understood phenomenon called synaesthesia. It seems to be associated with 'crossed wiring' in the brain and has no significance in a universal context. Most 'sufferers' show no common correlations: (italics added) the key A minor to one person will represent red, to another green, to another purple with a whiff of marzipan. I am not aware that many 'sufferers' are disabled by this, and it seems that, to a greater or lesser degree, it's not that uncommon.

---

Not to take sides or anything but I don't think you guys should be so quick to attach blanket scientific terms to things (Paul) and so readily scoff at "new age" hocus pocus (Gobuzli)!!!

An example of this is above: Paul- unless you can provide some evidence for the above (italicised) statement, on the face of it, there is no particular reason to take your word over Don's is there???

I am not saying that I believe there are these ultimate pitches as Don seems to imply there are, but I do not rule it out either because, really, in the absence of DIRECT EVIDENCE who are we to assert what's true and what isn't? Not very scientific if y'all ask me!!!

I do think Don's tendency to miss the point and be a bit rude should be pointed out, but don't in the same breath bash him for his new-age thinking.I don't think it is fair to dismiss people as being tree-hugging flakes because they have the courage to specualate.

It's very easy to be smug behind supposedly established principles of science but I myself have learned it is wise not to be quite so certain about anything.

Don is being a bit over the top though and should express himself more reservedly.
Tony

--------------------
[Type your personal signature here]

JEEZ! I just spent half an hour replying to this and then, with one accidental click, managed to change page and lose the lot! Will try and answer again later, when I have more time. Sorry...

--------------------
"Over fifteen years without a slogan"

Donkey Shot is a mentalist.
I believe this is an objective statement.
I have spent many years studying the interweb, for many hours, everyday (maybe the odd 3 or 4 days off here and there) and I believe I can recognise a mentalist innately when I read one.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Man it is so annoying when that happens!

--------------------
[Type your personal signature here]

Quote feline1:

---

Donkey Shot is a mentalist.
I believe this is an objective statement.
I have spent many years studying the interweb, for many hours, everyday (maybe the odd 3 or 4 days off here and there) and I believe I can recognise a mentalist innately when I read one.

---

Yawn.....at least Don's a mentalist. Not quite as BORING as you are. After all, all you do is just stepping in,saying your boring line,and leave. Then after a day,you do it again,and again. Are you doing this to practice some interweb skills? They say that repetition helps

Quote Gobuzli:

---

Don,

Rousseau's reply makes perfect logical sense, try to read it slowly.

The problem is clearly with you method.

Lets see. We know you have gained a lot of experience in this area by practicing perfect pitch and ear training in detail, for many months every single day, (except some breaks of 3 or 4 days) by inserting an anal probe attached to a violin string, that a close collaborator of yours would modulate to various pitches using a suitable bow. You would then proceed to guess said pitches.

This has obviously attained some results otherwise your remarkable level of knowledge in this area could not be explained.

However, it seems that you have developed some serious side effects (possibly due to damaging overtones reaching the cerebellum): overly blown self esteem, a propensity to rudeness and new age rantings and a tragic taste in music and hairdos, just to mention a few. These side effects could be ameliorated by several applications of Nitroglycerin ointment - a newly described treatment for several painful rectal conditions with psychological repercussions.

In our study Ignis Fatuus and Aural Hallucinations Among Spandex Wearing Musicians we describe several cases of levator spasm or proctalgia fugax responding to topical application of nitroglycerin, the most salient being that of a Def Leppard fan who had undergone similar training to yours and as a result imagined he could transcribe Stravinsky's neo classical oeuvres backwards whilst listening to Hindemith on headphones - even though it must be said that conclusive evidence awaits completion of a controlled clinical trial.

So, please forget perfect pitch and on with the Nitroglycerin, I would not want to alarm you, but your case could be considered to be extreme.

Good luck!

Dr. Gobuzli

---

Dr. Gobuzli,you need a doctor yourself. Try to insert an anal probe in your ears,and viceversa. It could help you to gain perfect pitch via your bum

I think Vivaldi totally sucks.
He's the worst composer ever.
And he had bad hair, not as bad as Jason Becker but just about.
Anyway, thats my two cents...

I think the tone of this thread has lowered. You all seem to have resorted to throwing insults at eachother, you mindless t*ssers.

--------------------
[Type your personal signature here]

Quote maskedwarrior:

---

I think the tone of this thread has lowered.

---

Oh really? Were are you getting that impression from???

I think it's such a shame that a thread should start out so well- full of intellectual theory, discussion and analysis- and wind up the domain of childish subintellectuals to sling mud and stones at eachother.

So regretable, and yet so common in this world.

I mourn; a single tear clings to my cheek as I contemplate what a tragic species we truly are.

Tony (the humourless) has spoken

--------------------
[Type your personal signature here]

Paul, please post your reply and breath some life into this dying beast!!!

--------------------
[Type your personal signature here]