An Honest Discussion About Perfect Pitch.
Perfect pitch. All musicians are familiar with the term. Most have even met someone with the ability. It garners vast amounts of attention in conversations among musicians and in the general public, and yet, the ability remains amply misunderstood. The definition of perfect pitch from the Urban Dictionary provides unique insight: “A rare talent so confusing that even those who have it don't understand how it works or how others can't have it.”1
Despite the complications in understanding the phenomenon, a few phrases are tossed around frequently. The first things—and probably, the only things—you will hear about perfect pitch are 1) only 1/10,000 people have it, 2) that it is impossible to develop after you are more than 5 years old, and 3) it grants the individual unmatched musical abilities, making it basically a superpower available only to the fortunate few. These factoids are often repeated to aspiring young musicians by their parents (or others) to discourage them from pursuing their interests. While perhaps being well-intentioned (or perhaps not), the problem with this kind of thinking is twofold. First, these statements are false. Demonstrably. Second, they’re degrading—not only to persons without perfect pitch, but also to people with the ability. These statements collectively accomplish the purpose of isolating individuals with perfect pitch by labeling them as aliens or freaks of nature, and pressuring them into trying to make careers out of music (even if they don’t want to); while simultaneously alienating the vast majority of hopeful musicians from their love of music, as their talents will never rival that of their perfect pitch peers. The result is hurt feelings, and high emotions. Perfect pitch is the unspoken third thing you can’t talk about at the dinner table (after politics and religion), and it’s not difficult to see why.
The purpose of this article is to put an end to the nihilistic, antihuman, and eugenicist myths surrounding perfect pitch so we can all grow up and stop being the miserable, back-biting, comparison-driven musicians we know we are, and we know we shouldn’t be.
Perfect Pitch Isn’t Immutable
First, some definitions. One of the first things I found in my research into perfect pitch is the confusion caused by the apparent difficulty in defining what, exactly, this ability is. Is it merely the ability to name a pitch without a reference tone? Or is an immediate response necessary to be deemed as possessing the ability? If someone can identify a pitch by comparing the tone heard to a favorite song of theirs, does this still count? This question seems to provide the rationale for providing two separate terms about the ability to name pitches, one, perfect pitch or absolute pitch (AP), the other, pitch memory (PM). AP possessors are able to identify tones instantly without using any external reference, while pitch memory is the ability to identify tones with the aid of an external reference (in this case, a memory).
However, this distinction seems a little odd to me. Assuming that PM possessors are slower in their ability to identify tones than AP possessors, the only quantifiable difference between these two abilities would be the speed with which they identify a tone. How would we classify, then, a PM possessor who could identify tones as quickly and as accurately as an AP possessor?
Many researchers insist that there have been zero confirmed cases of my posited scenario, but even the most cursory inquiries on the internet reveal a startling amount of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Are these all baseless? Perhaps. But even if we assume all of these cases are moot, a recent study’s findings suggest that perfect pitch can’t be confined to the dichotomous “you either have it or you don’t” thinking that seems to be popular.2
This only makes sense, as is demonstrated by the fact that children fewer than 5 years old can develop the ability. If this is the case, then the learning of perfect pitch is innate to the human brain. It’s not as if infants are born with certain intellectual capacities that disappear as they get older. One might argue that brain plasticity is this special ability, but research suggests that the act of learning new things itself increases brain plasticity, and thus isn’t unique to infants.3 Think about it, infants need to learn everything from how to breathe, to how to use their fingers, to where their mouth is on their face. If we learned as much on a daily basis as infants do, mightn’t our brain plasticity be comparable?
This isn’t the only trendy belief that falls by the wayside, either; Katherine Reis et al.’s paper, “Individual differences in human frequency-following response predict pitch labeling ability,” appears to refute the long-held view that auditory encoding is non-plastic.4 The study uses a measure known as “FFR” (frequency-following response) to compare abilities among possessors and non-possessors of AP. Their study suggests that one can improve their “FFR” score by undergoing musical training, and that this same “FFR” is a strong predictor of someone’s ability to correctly identify notes. One of the study’s co-authors makes an excellent point in an interview “Perfect pitch was long thought to be a rare ability that only some children could acquire if they had the right musical training in early childhood. However, this study provides further evidence that while the differences in people’s ability to categorize notes are real—and related to cognitive processing—our brains develop in tandem with the skills we practice over our entire lives. So, when it comes to pitch learning, practice, in a sense, really does make ‘perfect.’”5
The ability to develop this talent seems obvious upon closer inspection. After all, who decided that “perfect” pitch is the ability to classify 12 distinct notes? What about 24? 48? If we decided to change our 12 tone musical system to one with vastly more pitches, would AP possessors be able to retain their abilities? If we found a point at which AP possessors struggled to identify notes, would greater exposure to music written in this system increase their abilities? I suspect it would. Likewise, non-AP possessors should be able to increase their pitch identification abilities with musical training, as is corroborated by the aforementioned study.
AP Possession Not Genetic, Actually
Now onto the nefarious claim that AP possession is genetic. The evidence on this topic is summarized in a systematic review with the words: “some people appear to have a polygenic genetic predisposition to AP development but the relative contribution of this is unknown and good quality research is needed in this area.”6 So, in other words, the best we can say about the genetic component of AP possession is that it might contribute (but we don’t know in what way or to what degree), we don’t know what the component is because it’s made up of more than one gene (how do we know this, exactly? We’re all of a sudden just ruling out the possibility of any discrepancies being explained by environmental differences?), and the evidence in support of these two propositions is based on some studies with limited sample sizes. These findings seem tenuous to say the least…
Furthermore, it’s not even true that genetics is the best predictor of absolute pitch acquisition. The FFR factor identified in a previously mentioned study more reliably predicts AP acquisition than age of music onset, and tonal language experience, both of which individually predict AP development more reliably than genetics.7 In fact, this difference is so startling that “combining the behavioral and electrophysiological (FFR) predictors yields a model that is worse than [one] based on only electrophysiological predictors.” This tells us that including the age-old assumption of “developing absolute pitch requires that a child have musical training before the age of 5” hinders the ability to predict pitch identification proficiency. So it’s really not that great of a metric anyway. Who would’ve thought.
If this weren’t enough, the twin study designs that were used to identify the genetic components of AP possession are critically and fatally flawed, despite their overwhelming popularity in scientific publications.89And if THAT is not enough for you, consider the fact that the said twin study method was designed by the same man who coined the term “eugenics” and who was the inspiration for the push to institute selective breeding.10 Seriously, can we let up with the nonsense about AP possession being genetic?
On the Alleged Rarity of AP
Before I ever even got involved in music—nay—before I could even define perfect pitch, I knew that only 1/10,000 people had it. But given the frequency with which this number is thrown around, there is surprisingly little evidence to corroborate it. I couldn’t find a single serious study of any kind to support this statistic. Even an article from Psychology Today on perfect pitch is conspicuously missing a citation for the number.11 If you find one, let me know.
One recent review found that 4% of music students had the ability.12 This is a lot more than the 0.01% suggested by the common statistic, although with the obvious stipulation of music students not being the general public. Another point of interest is that according to an interview with a Dr. Howard Nusbaum who has studied auditory learning for years, “people with perfect pitch can be found in the general population, if you know how to look for them.”
None of this gives us a definitive answer about the actual rate of AP possession, but in light of the above points of how malleable absolute pitch is as an ability, that might not be surprising. Indeed, we know that most people begin singing their favorite tunes within 1 or 2 semitones of the recorded pitch, and if most people retain some vestige of the ability even without musical training, defining who has absolute pitch and who does not can’t be ascertained reliably.13
AP Not Related to Musical Ability
Personally, the only individuals I’ve met who insist that AP possession is a strong indicator of musical ability have also had minimal exposure to musical training. Usually, they’re the people who know someone who is a musician, but they’ve never actually tried to learn an instrument. Or how to sing. Or how to read sheet music. This, of course, does not prevent them from making a huge racket about their minimal “expertise,” however. As anyone who is aware of the basics of music knows, AP is considered to be generally useful among musicians, but it is actually relative pitch (RP) that is regarded as the indispensable skill.
A systematic review of studies pertaining to absolute pitch further refutes this idea by demonstrating that some AP possessors have trouble developing RP, but this seems to be due to an over-reliance on their absolute pitch, rather than an inability to develop RP altogether.14 AP possessors, like everyone else, must learn to develop RP through deliberate effort and practice.
Now to touch on the famous historic figures who are alleged to have the ability. Although Beethoven, Mozart and Chopin are all commonly cited as having the ability, Mozart is the only one for which we have first-hand, contemporaneous evidence. An anonymous individual published a letter describing what certainly seems to be a demonstration of absolute pitch:
“Furthermore, I saw and heard how, when he was made to listen in another room, they would give him notes, now high, now low, not only on the pianoforte but on every other, imaginable instrument as well, and he came out with the letter of the name of the note in an instant. Indeed, on hearing, bell toll, or a clock or even a pocket watch strike, he was able at the same moment to name the note of the bell or time piece.”
So…if of all the great composers the only rock-solid evidence we have for any of them having absolute pitch is for Mozart, AP possession is therefore not a requirement for musical greatness. Even if there were reliable evidence that the other two aforementioned composers had absolute pitch, there would still be glaring omissions of other great composers. The verdict is in, absolute pitch doesn’t effect overall musical ability.
Some Alternatives to the “Color” Comparison
Many AP possessors describe their abilities as being immediate, reflexive, and innate. They also frequently describe the ability to associate mental imagery with a note, though this is not true for everyone, and could be a completely different, slightly more obscure phenomenon known as synesthesia (which is a whole ‘nother topic for a whole ‘nother day). Most commonly, the go-to analogy for comparing their abilities to most other people is color recognition. This is understandable, as pitch and colors both have frequencies, but I think this is missing the forest for the trees. Not only can most people identify colors without help (which is already a fundamental difference); but human beings don’t think of colors in terms of frequencies, nor do AP possessors think of pitch as frequencies. After all, even AP possessors’ tuning standards can change if they’ve listened to “detuned” music for long enough.15 Rather, we think of both in terms of the words we use to describe them. In this light, let’s try a new comparison, this time in terms of learning a new language.
A common strategy for learners of another language is to relate words in the new language to the original language. We might call this the creation of an “external language reference,” sort of like what persons with pitch memory use to assist them in pitch identification. After thorough practice, the student will become fluent in the second language, and will eventually be able to dispose of most or all of these external language references, thereby internalizing the language. Might not pitch memory and perfect pitch function in largely the same way? Perhaps all perfect pitch is is an internalized reference to pitch. This would explain the common description that perfect pitch is innate, immediate, or reflexive (much like how I consider my ability to speak in English to be innate, immediate, and reflexive), and explain the ability to improve pitch recognition ability with training.
Another possibility:
Referring back to my point about children not having any innate special abilities that adults don’t have, another possible counterargument would be that children having a “blank slate” could also serve as this special ability. For instance, children learn audio processing strategies in their early years that they then use their entire lives. They also learn their “handedness” at this age. However, just because someone is right-handed, this doesn’t exclude their ability to learn how to do things with their left hand. Similarly, one audio processing strategy doesn’t necessarily exclude another from being developed. Perhaps we could think about absolute pitch as a “left handed” audio processing strategy. This is evidenced by experiments which show different areas of brain activity in functional brain imaging scans in AP possessors versus non-AP possessors. The fact that AP possessors sometimes struggle to develop RP, and vice versa, is explained in this context.
Of course, none of these metaphors are without their limitations, but the old analogy of “color perception” has long lived past whatever usefulness it once provided. Let’s move on to other ways of explaining this phenomenon, please.
Conclusion
All of this isn’t to say that AP possessors do not have remarkable pitch identification abilities. To the contrary, it is immediately obvious to even the most casual observer that this is the case. The point is only that these abilities aren’t arbitrarily bestowed to some according to a nebulous combination of “genetics,” “having music lessons before the age of five,” “tonal language experience,” or maybe some other things like liking the color purple or being able to roll your tongue like a burrito. The truth is much more gracious, and a lot less alienating: pitch identification abilities belong on a spectrum; AP possessors aren’t aliens, nor are non-AP possessors second-class citizens. With this in mind, maybe we’ll be able to put those dinner-time conflicts to rest.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=perfect%20pitch
https://online.ucpress.edu/mp/article-abstract/27/2/89/62439/A-Distribution-of-Absolute-Pitch-Ability-as?redirectedFrom=fulltext
https://www.healthline.com/health/rewiring-your-brain
Individual differences in human frequency-following response predict pitch labeling ability
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/why-cant-we-identify-music-notes-well-colors-perfect-pitch-study-offers-clues
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4951961/#CIT0008
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4951961/#CIT0008
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343488230_The_debate_over_twin_studies_an_overview
https://thegeneillusion.blogspot.com/2020/06/its-time-to-abandon-classical-twin_21.html
https://slate.com/human-interest/2011/08/the-methodological-confusion-of-twin-studies.html
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/articles/200607/the-mysteries-perfect-pitch
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0305735619856098
https://www.mic.com/articles/109692/turns-out-people-who-claim-they-have-perfect-pitch-are-not-so-special-after-all
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4951961/#CIT0008
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797612473310