Quick question; have you noticed any emotion rising as you attempt to gain absolute pitch?

Sure: hope, disappointment, confusion, frustration, excitement, triumph, despair, pleasure etc.

Hadn't thought about emotional aspects, though.

I have next to no sense of time. I was blown away when I found out that other people do. When I started trying to teach myself to guage time, like just starting with 10 minutes, I felt an overwhelming aversion to doing it.

I can link that up with other aspects of my personality where I cant handle being pigeon holed or caged in any way. I wonder if personality can influence the skills you have access to.

I had* an absolute pitch as a kid, before any musical training. I don't remember how my first music teacher diagnosed it (since of course I didn't know notes and couldn't yet play any instrument at five), but there must be some standard tests. Pretty soon, once I learned to associate notes to sounds, the notes would just pop into my head when I heard them, sort of like how you recognize letters when you see them on a page.

My sister, who also started learning to play early and, unlike me, went on to train as a professional musician, did not have an absolute pitch. She practiced much more than I did, and she acquired some degree of proficiency in associating notes to sounds, but not to the degree that I had always had. When she was practicing for a college entrance exam, she even had me drill her on identifying notes, intervals and chords. She could recognize notes pretty well, but only after hearing a reference note or chord. She never acquired an absolute pitch.

* I used the past tense here, because as I was approaching middle age my hearing went "out of tune." (This is not uncommon.) This actually makes a difference to how I hear music. It's hard to describe the feeling; it is somewhat disorienting. At some point I realized that my inner pitch became very close to the so-called Baroque pitch, which is almost half a tone lower than the modern pitch. I was listening to a period instrument recording - and suddenly everything fell into place, the notes were ringing out in my head like they used to. Even knowing this, it's not easy for me to gauge the modern pitch. Somehow the shift makes me uncertain about my bearings.

A musical/literary anecdote: The Russian poet (and future Nobel laureate) Boris Pasternak was a gifted musician in his youth. He wanted to be a composer, but he agonized over his lack of a perfect pitch, which he thought was a major handicap. One day he got to meet his idol Scriabin and played some of his compositions for him. Afterwards, while they talked, the famous composer went to the piano and played back some of Pasternak's music from memory... but to the latter's astonishment he played it in the wrong key! It was then, Pasternak later recalled, that he realized that Scriabin didn't possess the vaunted perfect pitch either.

Exceptionally, that is, such a pattern as Three Blind Mice might be first appreciated as properly obtaining only in a particular key (probably starting at a particular place on a particular instrument), and any transpositions of it counted only and specifically (by both parent and infant) as such: as transpositions of the original pattern. — bongo fury

There are, I think, different types of musical memory. I may accurately recall some music shortly after hearing it, or often a day later, together with its original pitch. But in time I may retain the memory of the melody, while forgetting the original pitch. If then I recall or look up the key or the first note, then I can reconstruct what the original music must have sounded like in my head. This is not unlike hearing someone talk: you may retain the words longer than the way they sounded like when you heard them.

I have next to no sense of time. I was blown away when I found out that other people do. — frank

They do?? I too was unaware. At the scale of whole minutes, at any rate. I've known someone claim to have "absolute tempo", presumably involving measurement of time intervals of up to a second or two. I always guessed (without as yet researching it) that his level of precision in such a skill couldn't be radically better than most people's, but could only be, merely, even better. An absolute sense of tempo (however imperfect) seems fairly normal.

Such a state of affairs would seem to fit with my (makeshift and hopefully unoriginal) theory of Early Unlearning: we don't lose a nascent sensitivity to absolute tempo, because we aren't encouraged to completely ignore differences between slower and faster renditions of a pattern. (Whereas we are, with rare exceptions, encouraged to completely ignore differences between higher and lower renditions. We wouldn't criticise - nor praise - anyone's performance of a vocal solo on the grounds it was in an unusual key, even if we noticed.)

As for a sense of minutes-long duration, I suppose I would have guessed that at least half of a typical person's estimations of a ten- or twenty-minute interval would be out by at least a quarter, but it might be shown that they could probably train themselves to improve considerably. I'm not sure I can think of any situations at all where thus not needing to consult a clock would pay benefits. What are they? I think my emotional reaction to the training program would be like yours: intense aversion! Are there enthusiasts?

Are there enthusiasts? — bongo fury

The guy I knew said he learned it from watching TV. Episodes of some show would be exactly 30 minutes long, so he developed a sense for 30 minutes. He said he could stack them up to around 3 hours after which his accuracy would fall off. I wouldn't have believed it, but I witnessed it.

Another oddity about him was that when he watched TV, he was mainly watching the production, like how they staged shots and what the camera was doing. I don't do that. I become immersed in a fake world and my emotions signify that part of me believes in what's happening.

He said he could stack them up to around 3 hours after which his accuracy would fall off. — frank

Was it about enduring a daily grind? Punctuating the passage of time with commercial breaks, maybe? Or how did he need not to rely on a clock?

I become immersed in a fake world and my emotions signify that part of me believes in what's happening. — frank

Yeah, I learned that other people see the plot twists coming a mile off. Sometimes you're meant to, as well, but I'm just not watching in that way. D'oh.

Was it about enduring a daily grind? Punctuating the passage of time with commercial breaks, maybe? Or how did he need not to rely on a clock? — bongo fury

That's a good question. He came from a very poor background and he worked flea markets with his mother as a child. Maybe there just weren't any clocks in that environment? I don't know.

Yeah, I learned that other people see the plot twists coming a mile off. Sometimes you're meant to, as well, but I'm just not watching in that way. D'oh. — bongo fury

:grin:

I had* an absolute pitch as a kid, before any musical training. I don't remember how my first music teacher diagnosed it (since of course I didn't know notes and couldn't yet play any instrument at five), but there must be some standard tests. — SophistiCat

I suppose piano teachers, especially, are always aware of the issue when engaging a young child. Because it may be the critical stage of development. But also because a keyboard is discussed as a diagram of the pitch dimension?

When she was practicing for a college entrance exam, she even had me drill her on identifying notes, intervals and chords. She could recognize notes pretty well, but only after hearing a reference note or chord. She never acquired an absolute pitch. — SophistiCat

Haha well here's where my admiration for absolute-pitchers gets distinctly tainted: by envy or musical insight, possibly both...

identifying notes, intervals and chords. — SophistiCat

Why intervals? Just to help find the notes? Or is it the other way round?

Is music about notes or about the intervals between them? ... is obviously a silly question, I appreciate that. But in that case, why the "only" in,

She could recognize notes pretty well, but only after hearing a reference note or chord. — SophistiCat

Funny how "absolute" still doggedly associates with "perfect", as in,

She never acquired an absolute pitch. — SophistiCat

... as though that was the ultimate aim?

Ok, maybe the plain fact is that note recognition facilitates interval recognition more efficiently than vice versa. Perhaps I will soon find out. :grin:

But in time I may retain the memory of the melody, while forgetting the original pitch. — SophistiCat

Ah! The relative-pitcher feels distinctly less envious at hearing this, an apparent admission of inertia in grasping the interval information. :wink:

Fascinating observations, thanks :smile:

I suppose piano teachers, especially, are always aware of the issue when engaging a young child. Because it may be the critical stage of development. But also because a keyboard is discussed as a diagram of the pitch dimension? — bongo fury

It was violin in my case.

Why intervals? Just to help find the notes? Or is it the other way round? — bongo fury

Intervals have a distinctive sound to them that has to do with the size of the interval rather than the pitch (that is with modern equal temperament). Once you learn what each interval is called (minor third, perfect fifth, etc.), you can learn to identify them by hearing, regardless of the pitch. Same with standard three-note chords. Such basic music theory and ear training are part of a classical musician's training.

I wouldn't overstate the importance of pitch recognition. I don't know if it's much more than a minor convenience for a musician or a party trick. There are any number of very fine musicians who didn't have a perfect pitch as an innate ability. Also, identifying the pitch of a note is not the only and not the most important ear skill. For example, while I can (could) easily identify individual notes or melodic lines, I am not that good at harmony - most professional musicians are probably much better at it than me. Another sort of discrimination is the purity of the tone: I may be able to identify a tone that is "close enough" to a standard pitch, but a more sensitive ear can pick up finer differences. An experienced conductor can instantly spot a slightly off-key note somewhere in a hundred-strong orchestra or choir.

Intervals have a distinctive sound to them that has to do with the size of the interval rather than the pitch — SophistiCat

Amen to that. And they, not the absolute pitches, define the patterns. At least for most people, notably young children learning to identify musical patterns.

(that is with modern equal temperament). — SophistiCat

But not without? Perhaps you just mean: a relatively unbewildering range of distinct intervals (with equal temperament)?

Once you learn what each interval is called (minor third, perfect fifth, etc.), you can learn to identify them by hearing, regardless of the pitch. — SophistiCat

Yes, although very much not regardless of the context if you are a relative-pitcher. In other words some combinations of intervals are much more easily navigable than others. Whether this is true also for absolute-pitchers I don't recall. Although I vaguely recall the question having been asked.

And by learning to identify intervals, you learn to identify musical patterns at different pitches as the same pattern. (If they are the same pattern of intervals.)

(And perhaps, by learning to identify musical patterns at different pitches as the same pattern, you learn to identify intervals.)

Such basic music theory and ear training are part of a classical musician's training. — SophistiCat

Indeed, and the question arises, whether the aim is to develop the ability, ideally like Scriabin's, to play by ear based on recognition of intervals, or whether progress is generally to be measured rather against the standard of absolute pitch, ideally like Mozart's:

She could recognize notes pretty well, but only after hearing a reference note or chord. She never acquired an absolute pitch. — SophistiCat

I wouldn't overstate the importance of pitch recognition. I don't know if it's much more than a minor convenience for a musician or a party trick. — SophistiCat

But you wouldn't want to understate the importance (for composing and improvising, at least) of developing the ability to play by ear, would you? Isn't that what the ear training is for?

:up:

I am embarked on a mission to try and acquire the musical version of the enhancement. Anyone with an interest in such attempts, active or theoretical, current or lapsed, is welcome to share their observations here. — bongo fury

I would think that perfect pitch could be acquired by exercising the extremes of your vocal range. Once you determine what the note is at the very limit of your vocal range, either high or low, you can repeat that note, as the limit to your capacity, and know that it is the note which you have determine is your limit. Mine seems to be around D, both high and low. Though I haven't worked on it to the extent required to acquire perfect pitch, I have an affinity for songs in a key of D, and can often recognize them as playing at the extent of my vocal range. Once you can produce a specific note on demand, the rest is a matter of learning the intervals, musical training.

But you wouldn't want to understate the importance (for composing and improvising, at least) of developing the ability to play by ear, would you? Isn't that what the ear training is for? — bongo fury

Playing by ear does not really require perfect pitch because the same tune can be payed by ear in any pitch. The problem though, is that if you sing a song, and start on a note which is inappropriate for your vocal range, you'll find that the song might go outside your range, and by then you are in the middle of singing the song. This is where perfect pitch and knowing your vocal range, is very helpful. to make the quick decision required of what pitch to start the song on. It's convenient for Christmas carolers to have someone with perfect pitch for the lead in.

I would think that perfect pitch could be acquired by exercising the extremes of your vocal range — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes! This was an option I early considered, because a stimulus for the mission was being asked my vocal range by the leader of a choir I was enquiring about joining, and this reminding me that I had no idea, and this suggesting the possible connection that you mention. But then I realised that the extremes of my physical range are not only very fuzzy points on the line - which by itself not at all disqualifies them as an improvement on my even fuzzier mental notions - but would likely also quickly shift outwards by dint of the exercise itself. Maybe if and when I have absolute pitch and choirs are allowed to sing again, and I thereby get a more reliable gauge of my range, I might usefully connect the two.

Meantime, I'll try to describe my method (such as it is, outlined broadly above) in more detail, soon. Still, interested to hear of any attempts at this method that you mention.

I have an affinity for songs in a key of D, and can often recognize them as playing at the extent of my vocal range. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ah but this very common claim of singers has always bemused me. Is there an assumption that melodies are generally bounded above and below by a key (or "home") note? (E.g. that the lowest and highest notes of a melody in D are probably a D and a higher D?) Or by some other particular step in the scale, a certain distance from home? Otherwise, how on earth is the choice of key supposed to determine how comfortably your range will contain both of the (and any) melody's bounds? :chin:

Once you can produce a specific note on demand, the rest is a matter of learning the intervals, musical training. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yep. My working hypothesis is that early and continued learning of the second skill usually trashes any early learning of the first. If I can, in my own case, rekindle the first, it'll be interesting to try and assess the degree and kinds of mutual support or interference between the two.

Playing by ear does not really require perfect pitch because the same tune can be played by ear in any pitch. — Metaphysician Undercover

Absolutely, hence @SophistiCat's example of Scriabin, and my chiding him for looking past that model to Mozart's, when it comes to ear training.



Super contributions, thanks all :cool:

Ah but this very common claim of singers has always bemused me. Is there an assumption that melodies are generally bounded above and below by a key (or "home") note? (E.g. that the lowest and highest notes of a melody in D are probably a D and a higher D?) Or by some other particular step in the scale, a certain distance from home? Otherwise, how on earth is the choice of key supposed to determine how comfortably your range will contain both of the (and any) melody's bounds? — bongo fury

Since I could somewhat accurately hit a high D, I attempted a low D, to get two full octaves of range. The low D is a bit difficult, and I might have done better to try for the higher E to get my two octave range, but I didn't. In any case, D is the only key that I can get two full octaves, and this is why I like it.

In any case, D is the only key that I can get two full octaves, and this is why I like it. — Metaphysician Undercover

I can't agree there. Your two-octave vocal range is between one D and another D, yes. (Let's suppose.) But a melody spanning all or most of this range is no more likely to be in the key of D than in any other one of the 12 available keys. It might be, for example, Danny Boy, which (if I recall it accurately) you could sing only in G (starting on your low D) or in Ab or A or Bb. But not D. So your vocal range can't determine a preferred key or keys, without reference to a particular melody. You can't say, in general, "the key of D is best suited to my range".

But yes, this song would (because its span is approaching two octaves) be a particularly good example of a melody that you must be careful to begin at a suitable pitch. I remember a David Stafford piece wittily referring to the later highest note as "your money note". If you tried the song in D, you would need to start on an A and later on lurch from the A above it, all the way up to the F# just outside your range.

In fact, later trouble can arise from an unsuitable starting note whatever the span of the melody, so this,

This is where perfect pitch and knowing your vocal range, is very helpful. to make the quick decision required of what pitch to start the song on. It's convenient for Christmas carolers to have someone with perfect pitch for the lead in. — Metaphysician Undercover

is always true.

:ok:

I can't agree there. Your two-octave vocal range is between one D and another D, yes. (Let's suppose.) But a melody spanning all or most of this range is no more likely to be in the key of D than in any other one of the 12 available keys. It might be, for example, Danny Boy, which (if I recall it accurately) you could sing only in G (starting on your low D) or in Ab or A or Bb. But not D. So your vocal range can't determine a preferred key or keys, without reference to a particular melody. You can't say, in general, "the key of D is best suited to my range". — bongo fury

I don't think it's an issue of spanning the range, it's an issue of how the tones within that range are employed. The key note, the tonic, is the note which provides resolution to a musical phrase. When there are two full octaves there are three distinct tonic notes, just like there are two tonic notes in one octave. This provides the composer with more opportunity for the approach to the resolving note. So for example, if a song was composed in the key of F, but was limited in availability of notes, to two octaves of D, then the composer could not approach the high F because it's out of range of available notes. Although the composer would be able to go below the lower F, down to the lower D and come back up to that F, the fact of having no access to the third (high) F would limited the composer's possibilities in a much more serious way by having a whole bunch of notes above the second F with no point of resolution up top.

By the way, I didn't say that the key of D is best suited to my range, I said that I tend to like songs in the key of D. This is probably because composers will tend to utilize that extra D note more often when composing in the key of D than when composing in some other key. When composing in another key, they might be heavily utilizing a note which is out of my range.

When there are two full octaves there are three distinct tonic notes, just like there are two tonic notes in one octave. This provides the composer with more opportunity for the approach to the resolving note. — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting theory.

If you compose, you will see that the possibilities for composition are significantly influenced by the relationship between the key chosen, and the physical constraints of the instrument (or instruments) employed. In this case the instrument is the human vocal cords.

I imagine I am standing in a circular dancehall, drapes around the walls obscuring the whereabouts of doors and other markers; I then direct people (my imaginary friends) to line up with me and dance, facing a particular way; then I judge my degree of satisfaction that I am facing North, maybe adjust my orientation accordingly, dance a little more, etc.... then I consult a pocket compass to evaluate my various adjustments. Progress uncertain... shall update here. Hope others will too. — bongo fury

I'm pretty sure I can report progress, albeit entirely devoid of scientific significance. I really ought to have done some prior testing to see where we were starting from. I always tended to assume the distribution of my errors was flat over at least an octave: that I was as lacking in absolute pitch sensitivity as possible. But also I never regarded the skill as musically important so never bothered checking how nearly this was actually the case.

Still, if I can acquire the skill reliably, say to the nearest quarter-tone, then my unreliable memoir of the process might conceivably be worthwhile. Now that I'm hitting in that window as often as not, but with enough fuss and bother (going into a bit of a trance - certainly no hope without silence) that an observer might well judge it hopeless, I'll begin reporting on all of the (usually) handful of trials each day. Data!

But please feel free to interject with any thoughts at all...

Day one, Friday 20th Nov: 23.20 (approx 5 weeks in)

Last of maybe 5 trials today. I think a couple of the others were out by at least a semitone. A couple of hours since the previous one. Plenty of "noise" (earworms etc.) in my head. However, the imaginative process is becoming easier, in ways that I'll try to describe, though probably gradually. It still takes at least half a minute of concentrating, often several. The actual "pocket compass" I'm using is youtube on my phone, specifically G4 as announced in the first chord here: https://youtu.be/PuFwt66Vr6U.

On this occasion, dead on. :smile: However, on visiting again after 10 mins of texting here, to get the link address, I was down a semitone :yikes: Because concentrating less, maybe. On the mistaken assumption or hope that less concentration would be needed after only 10 mins. Will try to describe the concentration, when time allows.

Day 2, Saturday 21st

9.40: slightly flat. Half or quarter of a semitone. Variability of this order is probably good enough to count as absolute pitch if translated into the ability to correctly identify notes played.

(Assuming, that is, that tunings of pianos etc. are concentrated, e.g. as a normal curve, around a stable point, which is the case (A4 = 440Hz), but increasingly compromised by the fashion for authentic performance, with the troublesome consequence mentioned by @SophistiCat.)

Arriving here from the position of being frequently unsurprised to mistake pitches as much as an octave apart, this degree of precision - falling short as it does of being likely to have an opinion on whether a tuned piano is sharp or flat of some standard - would impress me as a step change from relative to absolute. The analogue, say, of being able to recognise red, though not reliably identify its shades.

Whatever degree of precision should indeed transpire in this report over the coming days, it'll be another matter to translate it into an ability to identify notes played, especially in a musical context, where I would expect the usual relative pitch skills to interfere too much. But we shall see.


11.05: Dang, I just spoilt the opportunity for another trial by checking the above link, upon which it played. Still, this raises the question for how long I will feel the absolute sense of the G, and whether the sense if still present is illusory. While writing these words I have lost the (feeling that I have maintained the) sense and then recovered it. So it's moot which of the two questions this will address, but, here goes: yes, dead on, but 10 minutes after accidental exposure to the target.

13.08: Aware of a clear image of the music lingering mentally from earlier, whilst chasing trains and not thinking to start other images. (If the discussion turns philosophical, I will have to put some of those words in quotes!)

(I ought to have clarified by now that the youtube clip I use for feedback is also the "line dance" that I imagine performing (hearing), and then assess for feelings of correctness (of absolute pitch)).

Often, such an immediately present image has tempted me to feel correctness but proved unreliable (e.g. even recently out by a tone or more). However, even though a "reveal" always terminates an opportunity to test a concentration effort, one wants to know if practice has begun to make the less effortful images more reliable. The evidence for that is uncompelling in a case like this one, where the image may be intact from earlier on. Anyway, I succumbed to temptation and the result was dead on.

15.00: Back of the mind full of different music for a while, then called my attention as it landed on the target music in (probably as a result of the music currently playing) what seemed like a too-high key. This isn't a feeling I can remember having (or hardly ever) before a week ago. Still, it is the feeling I've been trying to find and train. This time I found the too-high feeling quite pronounced, but starting the image a third below was, I wouldn't say definitely too low, but kind of disorienting, and since I got the same (lack of) feeling at only a tone below, I went for a semitone below, "played" it, wasn't sure, but went for that, and it was dead on, or very close.

I'm not sure the reason but, this morning, I found myself daring myself to "play" extended "images" of the Ravel in wrong keys, but declined, for fear of trashing the ability gained thus far. That could be a later experiment, no doubt.

22.12: Pleased to say that after an initial judgement (on an initial image) that I was too high, and then the same vague dissatisfaction as earlier upon going down one semitone, I managed to imagine something in between the two, and it came out true :)

Now my worry is that this will read like the potentially alienating account of an absolute pitcher. If that's what I've nearly become, then I will be sorry for not getting started earlier with the careful reporting. On the other hand, there is more I can explain about the "concentration" process, albeit perhaps in retrospect. Also, I seem to remember that absolute pitch that depends on a particular instrument or recorded sound is recognised as a relatively poor relation that might well stay poor. So there's grounds for pessimism, if needed ;)

00.35: Roughly a semitone too high.

Day 3, 08.50: Two semitones too high :yikes:

11.05: Mind alighting onto image, let's test straightaway for the hell of it. Most of a semitone too high.

11.30: Insufficient intermediate noise, but after some proper concentration... i.e. "playing" an image at different points in a zone, trying to move based on vague intimations of possible too-high-ness or too-low-ness, got a possible intimation of just-right-ness, testing positive. :up:

11.55: Now, testing an image lingering on... feels a bit low if anything... Ok, half a semitone down, hmm. Drift, maybe? Will Google later on in the process, but any knowledge welcome.

18.37: ouch, a tone up. Thought I felt the just-right-ness. So much for that.

21.55: Just noticeably sharp. Played a few candidate locations in the zone, without much preference emerging. Tried a "reality kick", if I can put it like that. Recalling, that is, and trying to anticipate and produce, that feeling of "reveal" which mocks all different predictions. And allowing that anticipation to determine the pitch of the next play of the image. Letting the image start where it (hopefully is beginning to know where it) wants. Repeatedly restarting the image is a feature of the method (as it stands currently) and probably benefits from the target music starting with the target pitch and on a main beat. That could be why I chose the clip, not at all sure.

Day 4, 16.05: Phew! Lot of struggling, not sure I wasn't blind-guessing the intimations of up or down. But made several relatively fine adjustments, and was dead on.

21.40: Similar session. Restarting the image less than a semitone higher or lower is harder than moving it up or down by all of the step. For reasons that relative and absolute pitchers can probably agree. Reasons of the target being a large pattern of related tones rather than a single tone. Glad the effort paid off both times today. Mustn't assume...

Roughly a semitone too high. — bongo fury

Two semitones too high — bongo fury

If you set your target note at the upper limit of your range you wouldn't be having this problem.

:smile: Test and report :up:



Day 5, 08.30: Just noticeably flat.

12.50: Dang, at least a semitone sharp. Sad to relate, I was allowing myself to think that the images I was starting were interestingly non-specific pending a seconds-later specification of pitch. That reminds me, a potential flaw in the whole method is that all of the too-high and too-low feelings are illusory, and all the just-right trials are resulting purely from some overall matching of image to reality, potentially insensitive to the transposition in pitch.

14.55: Quick one... bad idea, semitone down.

16.20: Fairly quick. Case of, is this good enough? Or, this, up a semitone? Half way between... dead on.

20.30: Same.

20.40: Attempted similar after random intermediate YouTube tracks... down 2 semitones :yikes:

And if you were producing the highest note your body was capable of, you wouldn't be coming up flat either.

:smile: Test and report your progress. :up:

Truth be told, I have no interest in developing perfect pitch. It would require substantial work and would serve very little purpose to me. I would never substitute the autotuner. Maybe it might impress some (a small class of people) as a party trick, but that's not my MO. Nevertheless, I am interested in your own tales of success and failure; hopefully the former, for your sake.

But what happens if it turns into one of those things, where you invest substantial time and effort, and still find that your "absolute" is not quite perfect. After all that time and effort, quitting wouldn't seem right, especially since you're making progress. So of course, more time and effort will better your skill. But then it's still not perfect, so you're inclined to invest more time and effort. At what point do you say "my absolute best is never going to be perfect, so I ought to quit wasting my time"?

Haha, too right :up:


Day 6, 11.05: Most of a semitone sharp.

14.50: Ouch, semitone down. Quick one, too confident.

17.20: Just noticeably sharp.

18.30: More like it.

I guess it's just what playing music is like in general. You work long hard hours to learn a piece, practise, practise, pracitse. Still, you'll make mistakes, so you need to practise more. You never reach perfection so you always need to practise more. But at some point you say good enough, and quit practising.

Hopefully exactly like that :smile:


Day 7, 08.50: Nice one. Was tempted to test whether the vividness of a current earworm, whose proper location I happened to recall, indicated that it was in that proper location. But a quick test of the target image pitched according to that hypothesis delivered a too-low feel. So I went up a semitone then down very slightly, the feels subsequently vindicated.

21.05: Cool.

22.55: Most of a semitone too high.