Just wanted to share some thoughts on the subject, see if it could start a discussion here.
Disclaimer: I didn't properly research any sources, these are just my thoughts coming from my own experience.
It seems to be a "somewhat common knowledge" (can't list any sources tho), that there are more people with absolute pitch among tonal language native speakers. The associated typical explanation is that tonal language as a first language develops a better sense of pitch, because people have to be mindful of the pitch all the time since their childhood.
I think this explanation is not exactly correct. I'll base my thoughts on the Chinese language mostly, of which I have some basic knowledge. So when I say "tonal languages" is means "Chinese and probably other tonal languages".
1. Usually the tones are described as variations in pitch. However those are variations in relative pitch, hence, if anything, tonal languages should stimulate the development of relative rather than absolute pitch.
2. Despite being totally widely spread, I believe the idea that tonal languages are about (relative or absolute) pitch is not really correct. I would even dare to call it a misconception. a) The pitch is almost a byproduct of the "more fundamental" features of pronunciation, the main one being the register, which is rather about the type of tension of vocal chords, affecting the timbre (and pitch as a byproduct) b) besides the "pitch" or the register, it's also about the dynamics of the syllable (crescendo/diminuendo and similar) c) AFAIK tonal language speakers have no problem understanding whispered voice, which seems to confirm that it's not (or not mainly) about the pitch, but about the other two mentioned features
3. The absolute pitch studies seem to suggest that absolute pitch is developed with a reference to a particular instrument, where timbral variations among the notes seem to work as anchors for the memories of specific pitches.
Now, it would be logical to assume, that tonal language native speakers develop the habits of being mindful of the register (timbre) and dynamics, rather than the pitch per se. But wait, aren't those exactly the features needed for the absolute pitch?
Absolute pitch and tonal languages
-
- KVRian
- 634 posts since 21 Jun, 2013
Absolute pitch is not a synonym for musical talent. In the real world it has almost no uses. I guess it can speed up transcription, but so does regular practice and good memory. Even in non-tonal contexts, relative pitch works wonders.
Once the reference is established, relative pitch works very fast, the limiting factor becomes the memory itself.
And for all intents and purposes, good pitch memory can substitute absolute pitch. If you can remember sounds, you can use their mental image to infer absolute pitch via the relative pitch. Since it's not an external reference, it passes the definition for absolute pitch.
I, myself, don't have absolute pitch, but I can imagine how the piano would sound if I press a key and use that mental sound to identify the pitch without using external reference. Takes less than a second and is pretty reliable. Not 100% reliable, but never more than a semitone away. Most of the time I don't even think about pitches, I just know them. When it comes to identifying chords it's a lot more complicated. I can recognise common voicings that I know really fast, but anything unusual is hard.
So the most beneficial thing for transcribing chords is actually knowing them ahead of time and practising them in all 12 keys. And knowing all the intervals from the root. I.E. thinking not G E A D, but 1 6 9 5. In piano, thinking in relative terms is extremely beneficial, because the layouts for chords change in different keys. Practising intervals separately will enable more efficient processing in the long term.
Thinking about that, learning a tonal language to gain absolute pitch is almost like a disadvantage. You want good tonal memory, that's for sure, but having a strong relative pitch is arguably better than absolute.
Most of the music schools teach solfeggio in a way that does not develop good relative pitch. They should teach numbers instead of letters and get rid of useless baggage like enharmonics and work on the intervals themselves in most direct way possible. And build scales and chords on the strong foundation of intervals, not the other way around.
As for the topic itself, as far as I remember, there are 2 "types" of absolute pitch. One that works through memory (and timbre) and true "zone" absolute pitch. The "zone" type is most likely innate and can't be gained. That is the type that will cause headaches when something is not in perfect tune like A=432Hz. They also may experience troubles with intonation, because their ears are hardwired to certain pitches and they may think "good enough" when it's 15 cents lower or higher than needed. Also the type than can recognise what notes do you exactly play when you place you whole arm on the piano. "zone" absolute pitch is truly rare and it's not an indication of any musical gift whatsoever. Chances are that the "greats" with absolute pitch just had a very good persistent memory of pitches and not actual "zone" type.
Once the reference is established, relative pitch works very fast, the limiting factor becomes the memory itself.
And for all intents and purposes, good pitch memory can substitute absolute pitch. If you can remember sounds, you can use their mental image to infer absolute pitch via the relative pitch. Since it's not an external reference, it passes the definition for absolute pitch.
I, myself, don't have absolute pitch, but I can imagine how the piano would sound if I press a key and use that mental sound to identify the pitch without using external reference. Takes less than a second and is pretty reliable. Not 100% reliable, but never more than a semitone away. Most of the time I don't even think about pitches, I just know them. When it comes to identifying chords it's a lot more complicated. I can recognise common voicings that I know really fast, but anything unusual is hard.
So the most beneficial thing for transcribing chords is actually knowing them ahead of time and practising them in all 12 keys. And knowing all the intervals from the root. I.E. thinking not G E A D, but 1 6 9 5. In piano, thinking in relative terms is extremely beneficial, because the layouts for chords change in different keys. Practising intervals separately will enable more efficient processing in the long term.
Thinking about that, learning a tonal language to gain absolute pitch is almost like a disadvantage. You want good tonal memory, that's for sure, but having a strong relative pitch is arguably better than absolute.
Most of the music schools teach solfeggio in a way that does not develop good relative pitch. They should teach numbers instead of letters and get rid of useless baggage like enharmonics and work on the intervals themselves in most direct way possible. And build scales and chords on the strong foundation of intervals, not the other way around.
As for the topic itself, as far as I remember, there are 2 "types" of absolute pitch. One that works through memory (and timbre) and true "zone" absolute pitch. The "zone" type is most likely innate and can't be gained. That is the type that will cause headaches when something is not in perfect tune like A=432Hz. They also may experience troubles with intonation, because their ears are hardwired to certain pitches and they may think "good enough" when it's 15 cents lower or higher than needed. Also the type than can recognise what notes do you exactly play when you place you whole arm on the piano. "zone" absolute pitch is truly rare and it's not an indication of any musical gift whatsoever. Chances are that the "greats" with absolute pitch just had a very good persistent memory of pitches and not actual "zone" type.
