Talk:Absolute pitch/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Upgrade rating

This is the best material I have read on absolute pitch. It is certainly an example of good Wiki scholarship. We might want to consider promoting it. Piano non troppo (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's great. The article seems problematic. Some people have the ability to relate frequencies of compression waves to note names they learned that belong to an arbitrary tonal scale or tuning system. This article is full of music jargon and _almost_ ignores the fact that the names given to different frequencies vary by _tuning method_ and there really is nothing perfect about matching a frequency to a note in a tonal scale. The perfection would have to be in the ability to recall the frequency, not in the ability to peg the frequency to a learned naming convention. Tuning systems 98.161.2.12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Nature vs Nurture

Are we getting into this again? I suppose it was inevitable once the previous discussion was archived. aruffo (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I havn't seen the previous discussion. Do you have evidence that the two studies I cited were "fatally flawed", or do you just assume so? Gregcaletta (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The "fatal" flaw in the experimental design of both Nering's thesis and Rush's dissertation is that they only had two groups: training and no-training. Every study back to 1899 shows that anyone can gain some note-naming ability irrespective of the "method" employed. Therefore it would be necessary, in studying the effectiveness of a particular training method, to have a third group trying to memorize notes using a different system, or a fourth group trying to learn but with no "system" at all. By statistically comparing these groups to the group using the method under consideration, it could be seen whether any success in note-naming could legitimately be attributed to the method or if it was just because people were making an effort. Without this comparison, and in the face of all prior evidence, it cannot be concluded from either Nering or Rush's work that the training method caused the results.

Secondly, but no less fatally, the data blatantly fail to support the conclusion that anyone "learned perfect pitch." Rush's study is available on-line... if you look at that study, and look at the actual data results on page 154, you see that the experimental subjects were, in post-test, able to correctly name an average of 25 out of 120 notes (20%). While this is an improvement from the pre-test, and it's better than the control group, it doesn't quite compare to the 120 out of 120 typical of absolute pitch ability.

Rush separates out the best performers (page 194) because it's interesting, but it's not statistically valid. Imagine testing a new drug on 26 patients; of these, 4 show improvement and 1 seems to get well. If you ignored the 21 who didn't get better, and looked at the results only for these healthy five, it might look like the drug cured them-- but there are 21 failures whose data say otherwise. Even then, I'd draw your attention to Rush's actual numbers on page 202. If you take out the best performer, "Subject T," the average of the remaining 4 patients drops to 47 out of 120 correct responses-- and then if you look at the self-reports on page 400 you'll see that "Subject T" attributes his success to having abandoned the Burge training midway through (in favor of a melody strategy, like Pitch Paths, and this fact is buried in Rush's writing somewhere but I don't feel like searching for it right now).

Nering's data are no different. Her experimental participants achieved 30% accuracy in naming notes after a year of training. Any of Nering's conclusions about "learning perfect pitch" suffer from the same errors (lack of a second experimental group and post-hoc sampling bias).

So to answer your question.. no, I'm not assuming, and this is what I'm considering as evidence. aruffo (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So why not include these results in the article, and the reader can decide what to make of them? You are right that these results don't prove that everyone who attempts the Burge program will gain perfect pitch or that the Burge program is better than other programs. However, they do show that it is possible to develop the ability to some extent in most people and to a large extent in some people, and isn't this worthy of inclusion in the article? Gregcaletta (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason not to include these two studies is right there in your question: "these results". The only valid statistical result in either of these studies is that "people who practiced naming notes got better at it," and there are published studies that already show that result-- Cuddy and Meyer immediately spring to mind. I agree that this point is worthy of inclusion... and that's odd... this article used to say this, somewhere, and now it doesn't. But these two unpublished studies are not the sources to use. I don't know where the old discussion got archived to (or where any old discussion gets archived to) but it would probably save time and repetition if you dug it up and checked it out. aruffo (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. If you could help me find those two particular studies that would be appreciated. However, my main problem is not the omission of this particular fact, but rather the fairly unjustifiable statement which follows in the paragraph, "no adult has ever been documented to have acquired the ability", a slightly toned down version of what it actually says in the cited article, "no adult has ever acquired the ability". I mean, what proof could they possibly have for that? The answer is they can't because it is impossible to prove a negative. So wouldn't you say this statement is "fatally flawed" also? Gregcaletta (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You'll be surprised.. the statement is actually true and justifiable. The published literature on absolute pitch is an astonishingly small body of work. The statement about no adults learning perfect pitch is easily supported by reading every document ever published about absolute pitch (which I have done, and which only takes a few months to do). The writers who say that no adult has ever acquired the ability are writing to a scientific audience who will understand that the "documented" is implied-- that no matter where anyone looks in the scientific literature, no evidence will be found to contradict the statement. You're right that this doesn't necessarily mean that no adult has ever learned perfect pitch, but if some adult has, it's never been documented anywhere. (Cuddy's article and Meyer's) aruffo (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC) (belated signing)

Interesting. I don't have absolute pitch and I have tried the Burge program. I have to say I have to say that I think it would be possible to develop the ability using the method; I just think there are almost no adults would have the patience for it. If you do the method properly, you are supposed to do at least 10 minutes practice a day, along with your normal music practise, and you are supposed to spend as many days as you need on one lesson until you can identify 20 notes correctly in a row. The lessons start very simple, using relative pitch, and work there way up in difficulty until you are tested on all 12 notes including chords played rapidly. In other words, it would be impossible to get to the end of the course without developing the ability; it might just take years to do so. I worked on the exercises for a few months, but then travelled overseas and didn't have access to an instrument, and haven't been bothered to start over gain. I had already started to become aware, though, that each note has a particular quality to it, it's just very subtle. I just find it strange that the scientific community seems to assume that it is impossible to acquire the ability. I mean, even if you worked on it for hours each day for years in a row, I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't be able to develop it up to the level of the ability in "naturally occurring" cases. But even if you didn't acquire the ability, you still wouldn't have proved that it was impossible to do so, and yet that seems to be what the scientific community (and this article) assumes. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It may seem that people are assuming that, but it's not so. The sole scientific fact is that no evidence exists to show that any adult, anywhere, at any time, by any method, has learned absolute pitch ability. While this is obviously not an encouraging fact, it is not conclusive. A person who honestly believes that it is impossible to learn absolute pitch is ignorant of the facts. They deserve the reply given by Westley in The Princess Bride: "You're just saying that because no one ever has." No credible scientist would say outright that absolute pitch cannot be learned.

Whether or not a method seems plausible in its approach is immaterial, as it is pure opinion. You can say that you think a method will probably work; another person can say they think the method probably won't work. The only fact of the matter is that none of them has ever delivered. Every scientist who has ever tested any adult learning perfect pitch-- including Rush and Nering-- has shown that note-naming ability can always be improved, but not to the extent of acquiring "unqualified" absolute pitch ability.

As I recall, prolobe.com posts statistics from its members-- while this is not controlled scientific data-gathering, it might give you an idea of what people are up to. Prolobe users are fairly persistent. aruffo (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, fair enough. I just think it is unfortunate that "no adult has ever been documented to have acquired the ability" seems to imply that this is not simply due to the fact that there is a lack of documentation in general, although there is a lack. That prolobe.com website seems to have lots of members who have acquired the ability, some to a very high consistency, and yet we can't include it because no scientist has ever tested one of them beforehand, and then again afterwards, and then had the results published. Or hypothetically, hundreds of people could have acquired the ability using the Burge method, and it still would not be "documented". Gregcaletta (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well said. That's the problem in one. ...Now that I think about it, I tried an experiment when I was at Indiana University in 2007, and I've got the data somewhere. It was the first experiment I conducted, so the design was very poorly controlled, but I tried to train people to learn absolute pitch using a melody system, and found essentially what I expected.. everyone learned to name notes, but the musicians did far better at it, and the non-musicians found the whole process too tedious to keep going. I wonder where I saved that data..? aruffo (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Argh.. I found the data, and I'm disappointed that I didn't know enough about scientific procedure, when I was running it, to realize that I would definitely want two control groups-- one for musicians, one for nonmusicians. The control group of nonmusicians (who just practiced naming notes) improved slightly, but this was not significant. The experimental group of nonmusicians (who used melodies) also improved, and this improvement was by itself significant-- but not significantly different from the control group. The musicians improved more than the nonmusicians or the control group... but the difference between their improvement and the nonmusicians' is so wide that it invalidates any comparison between the musicians and the one control group (who were all nonmusicians). Drat! aruffo (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds a bit complex for me. I'm not exactly sure what it shows but interesting results anyway. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised though that some of the most high profile studies seem flawed even to me (I haven't finished my degree yet). For example the California study, they say "we also observed that absolute pitch aggregates in families, indicating a role for genetic components in its development". It doesn't necessarily indicate that at all, surely? I mean, an equally valid (and simpler) explanation for the fact that it aggregates in families is the parents are musical, and thus initiate the children into music at an earlier age, greatly increase the chance that they will develop perfect pitch. I also kind of find it kind of funny that they say "we learned that absolute pitch (perfect pitch) ability is a discrete perceptual trait, not simply the one end of a continuous "normal" distribution of pitch ability". This is a valid finding, I guess, but I would have thought it was obvious by the definition of absolute pitch. I mean, either you can tell the difference between the tastes whisky and rum, or you can't; it's not going to fall on a "continuous" scale or a "normal distribution". And I get the impression they think that this fact of discreteness too implies a some kind of binary deterministic gene. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes.. for a long time I've thought "genetic" absolute pitch research was silly for exactly that reason. As recently as 2002 (Brown et al, "Early Music Training and Absolute Pitch", Music Perception 19, 595) people were still making the suppositional argument "well you don't need musical training to have AP, therefore AP must be genetic." Recently, though, somebody did something worth mentioning.. now that I think about it, its findings should probably be written into this article (aren't they already? ...no, they don't seem to be). Gitschier and some others located different families whose members had AP and, comparing their DNA, found a correlation between them in a particular gene. I don't understand exactly how their research works, but an abstract can be found here. On the one hand, I would be willing to believe that there is a genetic component, especially if that genetic component promotes the hyper-development of the left planum temporale... on the other hand, the same gene they identify as associated with AP ability is also associated with susceptibility to colorectal cancer, so go figure. aruffo (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is highly likely that the variation of genes would create a variation amongst brains and that some brains would therefore be slightly susceptible to the acquisition of absolute pitch. However, I would expect overall significance of this factor to be very slight, perhaps even negligible. The fact that the California study assumes a genetic link, and then after having assumed its significance, sets out to verify the existence of the link, which makes the study hugely susceptible to confirmation bias. Also, I find that in general with establishing genetic links there is a huge tendency towards assuming that correlation necessitates causation. For example, in an international study there would certainly be a correlation between asian genes and absolute pitch but this is more simply explained by the fact that they speak tonal languages; it does not necessarily imply any causal link. The same could happen with a US study. For example, if wealthy people are more likely to acquire the ability due to being more able to afford instruments and tuition, then you would find a correlation between the ability and the genes of ethnic groups which happen to have higher incomes on average. Again, it does not imply a genetic link.

However, the most frustrating thing is that even if there is a significant genetic link -- it certainly at least remotely possible -- would it not be far more useful and interesting to focus the immense resources of the University of California or the effectiveness of certain methods or environmental factors, particularly among young children? Anyway, I think I have seriously violated WP:notaforum by now, but please let me know if any more evidence on the "environmental" side comes to your attention! Gregcaletta (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Contextual pitch memory

How do studies of contextual pitch memory fit into this article? I mean studies that show that people consistently sing songs from memory in the same key that they learned them. Daniel Levitan discusses his experiment where subjects were asked to sing their favorite songs from memory; they consistently sang these songs at or very near the original pitch of the song (This is Your Brain on Music, p. 149). Blacking and other researchers have seen this phenomenon in other cultures as well.

I also wonder about instrument-specific pitch memory. My brother, a professional pianist, can identify any note when played on a piano. But he can't reliably identify a pitch when played on another instrument (violin, or wind instrument). Has this ever been studied?

Is the ability to identify a pitch in isolation really so different from the ability to remember a pitch or a key within a musical context? --Ravpapa (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this study (http://perfectpitch.ucsf.edu/study/). I think it still counts as having perfect pitch (if he really can identify the notes consistently on the piano). I would have thought he could learn to identify the notes on other instruments fairly easily if he practices it. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The question about "musical context" is a different one. This article shows there have been studies showing that most people have some kind of absolute reference for remember the keys that their favourite songs are played in, it just doesn't count as Perfect pitch unless they can consistently identify notes when played at random. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

History of study and terminologies

Hello. After saving this comment, I'll save a change to the article, comprising a new sub-section on the history of study and terminologies. On the whole, I like this article. And I especially like the liberal utilisation of references. There is almost always far more information on a given subject than can possibly be cited, so a range of material to launch into further exploration if I choose to or need to, is one of the criteria by which I judge an article or book. On looking at this article, I noted a citation tag next to the statement that recording (or documenting) of absolute pitch became more common for musicians of the 19th century. Two things occurred to me regarding the sentence and the tag. Firstly, it occurred to me that the tag may be there because the editor interpreted the sentence to mean that audio-recording of 19thC musicians became more common ('recording' having become narrower in contemporary popular meaning than the broader use which an academics or older generations might use the term). However the correct interpretation is of course 'documented', and I thought to change the term so there is no misunderstanding. But this would not change the underlying challenge, that of providing some sort of citation to the effect that from a certain era in history, documentation of absolute pitch became more common. And with this challenge, comes related questions, such as when did the term absolute pitch come into use? Was it circa 19th century? Was it recognised but known by different terminology prior to that? Etc.

This leads to the new sub-section which I have created. Research, ideas and knowlege always have a history, and knowing something of that history is often very enlightening, including opening up awareness of material one never previously realised existed, and which are germane to the subject one is studying. So I created the section and added a few citations. It will be possible to expand it further, but I don't have the time. Others may want to, and I would advocate that. But even should it remain undeveloped, at least there is something there. Regards Wotnow (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Recently arisen evidence or new locus?

See this diff. A glance at the abstract of the reference does not give any hint that this is a newly arisen locus. I suspect that the evidence is the newly arisen item. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Benefits and detriments

The "possible problems" section was getting confused with the "musical talent" section... I disambiguated the two in a way which would leave in the new Deutsch reference. aruffo (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Some more 'possible problems'. They are from my experience so I wasn't sure how to add them to the page.

- In a major recording studio, the playback was significantly flat (about a semitone I think), so it was unbearable for me to listen to. It seems a whole other thing in another key - there's things I might play in one key (on piano) that I would never play in another. And C7 just seems and feels very different to B7, etc. No-one else in the band was bothered in the least.

- Learning transposing instruments. e.g. trumpet/clarinet in Bb. They call a Bb 'C'. I just can't do that. I have to call C 'C'. So reading trumpet music, I had to transpose down a tone - read a C, think 'Uh, C, that means Bb, play a Bb'. People without perfect pitch happily call Bb 'C' etc.

- Playing songs in another key (as singers often require) is possibly harder for people with perfect pitch, as our relative pitch isn't - can't be - so developed as in those who have to get by on it, like blind people having more advanced space-sensing abilities from sound, which people with sight never need or exercise. 110.20.158.134 (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying - have experienced these same things myself. If you can find some decent reliable sources saying the same thing, go ahead and expand the article, citing them. Personally, I've learned over the years to deal with this (most of) this stuff, but it can still be a challenge. Antandrus (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

So how perfect is "perfect?"

With all the science lingo here, I see mostly music-talk, and a lack of sound-talk. (perception V. physics) Not a problem in itself, but... I believe that with a tuning fork or electronic tuner, any dummy can tune say, a guitar to within 1 Hz or better? Can a person with absolute pitch do that? (That question's why I read this article.) I see one place that could imply that 1/4 tone (ho-hum, often over 100 Hz?) is considered "perfect." If the answer is buried somewhere in the article, I think it should (also?) be in the opening definition paragraph. While "tone" and "pitch" to me imply a specific frequency, this is seemingly not part of their definitions, (following the hypertext). This needs to be spelled out or expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.87.34 (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

YES. I would augment the above with the following: The article asserts that (without needlessly getting into the difference between pitch and frequency) possessing absolute pitch means that someone can identify a pitch from the current western twelve-tone scale, and that, in so doing, recognizes that say, 440 hertz is A4, and vice-versa. There are two obvious idiocies with this definition. First, why would absolute pitch have anything to do with a western twelve-tone scale? And second, in the real world (where most of us dwell), we know that as the difference between two things becomes smaller, the mechanism to recognize the difference must become more precise (and in most cases it takes longer to decide as well). Not to mention that a second is a completely arbitrary unit of time, therefore Hertz is a completely arbitrary unit of frequency.

So it is pretty obvious that what is really going on (my own wild assertion based on my own experience with music and physics) is humans (and probably other animals) vary in ability to recognize absolute pitch. Humans who can recognize absolute pitch within say, 20 cents (the musical kind--see the wiki page), and have the training to label pitches according to the western twelve-tone scale based on A4 = 440 hertz, meet most or all of the colloquial definitions in this article. But there is no clear line dividing humans into two groups as the article suggests, because there is no exact number of cents or labeling ability that establishes such a line. Mdlayt (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Mechanism?

Is it known how perfect pitch works? Have any experiments been done on how to recalibrate? For instance, a flute can be moved out of tune by changing temperature, or gas-mix. What environmental changes would make someone with perfect pitch go out of tune?

Also, how do different musicians perform together when their internal tunings are different? (for example, A440 and A442). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 06:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Accomplished/Important musicians not having it.

Pasternak knew Scriabin (I think Scriabin was a friend of the family), and he records in his autobiography that Scriabin did NOT have perfect pitch, and apparently felt very bad about it. I no longer have a copy of P's autobiography and i can no longer read Russian! But perhaps someone who curates this site can check it..?

There is another thing I would like to hear more on, from the experts. I have heard a lot of anecdotal evidence that people with perfect pitch typically lose it in their 60's. And - an interesting detail - part of the anecdotage is that when you start losing it you start hearing things *sharp*. A colleague of my parents reported this experience. I think it happened to Glazunov - there is a lot about Glazunov in Shostakovitch's [alleged] memoir *testimony* (which is where i read it). My ex's piano teacher had perfect pitch and when she started losing it she heard things sharp and it drove her bananas listening to piano music she used to play, beco's the fingers were in the wrong place! I had perfect pitch from my teens until about 10 years ago (i am now 72) and towards the end i heard things sharp too. I have never seen anything in the literature about it. And i would like to.

And while we are on the topic of famous people with/without perfect pitch there is the delightful story of John (aka Johnny) Dankworth who was arrested for speeding, and his defence was ` I can't have been speeding: my gearbox was doing A-flat`. This was felt to be hilarious, but it seems to me that if you have perfect pitch and you know your vehicle so that you know the noises it makes then that is absolutely a way of knowing how fast you were going.

from tf@dpmms.cam.ac.uk

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.67.199.162 (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The article lists some examples of musicians that are known or at least it is documented that they probably had absolute pitch recognition. It would be good if some examples can be given of the opposite phenomenon. Are there well-known accomplished musicians that do not have/had the ability? This not only fills a possible curiosity of some people (me for example) but also shows to what extend it is not known (as it is written in the article) the correlation between absolute pitch and musical accomplishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.216.170 (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of musicians, even the most famous, do not have it. But I agree it would be good to have some examples if anyone has a citeable source. Speaking from personal experience (which can't go in the article), when I taught classes for music majors in a large well-known music school, maybe one person out of fifty had it, and they generally were the most talented; however they were outnumbered by super-talented people who did not have perfect pitch. As for specific examples, my Oxford Companion to Music article on absolute pitch lists Wagner and Schumann as two 19th-century composers who did not have it. Antandrus (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. This article does not provide a "list" of people who had absolute pitch. If you look waaaay back far enough in the history of this article, you will find just such a list, but that list was removed as trivia. What the unsigned writer above appears to be referring to is the section "Correlation with Musical Talent", which names four specific artists. The point in their being mentioned is not to provide a random assortment of names, but to be representative contemporaries of three specific historical eras. This article already specifies that AP is not required for a musician to be "skilled". If a list of random names is to be generated to make this observation concrete, it would be necessary first to specify the contextual criteria for their inclusion. In other words, for this article, it is not relevant whether any particular celebrity did or did not have AP. If, however, a certain person's possession or non-possession of the ability is/was of encyclopedic or historical note, then there would be an argument for its inclusion. aruffo (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but that's a pointless idea. The vast majority of humans, even musicians have no perfect pitch. (I do! :D) That'd be a long long list. Bad idea. Bazzasayslol (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Absolute pitch → Perfect pitch – As stated in the lead, this is the more common name. See WP:COMMONNAME. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Compare the Google hits: 450,000 for "absolute pitch," 2,310,000 for "perfect pitch." Also consider the colloquial phrase "pitch perfect." --BDD (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – the article is on the technical topic of absolute pitch. In scholarly papers, it's most often called that. The term "perfect pitch" is widely used, but not always for this concept. Using it as the article title would not satisfy the "precision" provision at WP:TITLE. And I can find no source that connects the colloquial "pitch perfect" to the topic of this article. Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME is one provision, to be weighed against others. "Perfect pitch" is inaccurate as a term in this case. The perception of pitch without reference to other pitches is by definition a matter of absolute perception as opposed to relative perception. There is nothing "perfect" about it! The raw Google hits reported above give no relevant information about usage, since they are only wild estimates (as always with large-number reports on Google). And the phrase "perfect pitch" may be used in different senses; and some usages may be popular, inaccurate, and not encyclopedic. This Google ngram report (for books only) shows the numbers to be far closer. Compare these Googlebook searches, for a scientific and therefore encyclopedic context:

"absolute pitch" audiology: 123 genuine hits (click to last page)

"perfect pitch" audiology: 41 genuine hits

Noetica^Tea? 23:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose a "perfect pitch" is something a pitcher throws in baseball that is perfectly in form. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. No other topics on Wikipedia compete for the title (as evidenced by the lack of a disambiguation page), and "perfect pitch" is clearly the more common term colloquially. I have some sympathy for the argument that the preponderance of specialist sources use "absolute pitch", but most readers will not know the subject by that name, and so will not receive the immediate reassurance that they are at the correct article that our titling guidelines are supposed to provide. Powers ^T 19:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You're sounding more like Born2cycle every day: no need for precision, just go with a common name... Dicklyon (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I could say similar about your position: no need for clarity, just go with the technical term. Powers ^T 21:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. [[Perfect pitch]] redirects here, and has a bold text appearance in the first sentence of the lead. That looks like immediate reassurance to me. In my anecdotal world, people saying "perfect pitch" could be talking about either absolute pitch or outstanding relative pitch. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • If having a redirect and a bold-text appearance in the lead were all that we needed, we could title every article with a sequential database ID. Yet we don't, and for very good reason. Powers ^T 21:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Straw man on a slippery slope? Unpersuasive. Here we have an accurate descriptive title, with a redirect from a popular term. I see no problem with that. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm not engaging in either fallacy. You indicated that having a redirect and a bolded reference in the first sentence was sufficient to satisfy the goals of our article naming policy. I was merely pointing out that there must be more to it than that, because otherwise we could name articles anything we wanted to so long as the common name existed as a redirect and had a bolded reference in the first sentence. On the contrary, we choose our titles more carefully than that, and for very good reason. Powers ^T 14:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pseudo AP

This is a response to Seokhun. The unsourced statements have now been sourced, clarified, and supported, as requested. As Levitin (2008) indicates, there is no evidence, in any published form, that actual AP ability can be learned. Rather, any adult who tries can learn to name some notes, after a few weeks, irrespective of the "method" employed, and this "pseudo-AP" is not comparable to absolute pitch ability (see Meyer, 1899; Maryon, 1916; Brady, 1970; Cuddy, 1970; Nering, 1991; Rush, 1989; Crozier, 1997; Russo, Windell, & Cuddy, 2003; Miyazaki, 2006). aruffo (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is a person named David Lucas Burge who claims to have learned Absolute/Perfect Pitch during the ninth grade. His entire story can be found here: http://www.perfectpitch.com/chapter1.htm . I believe the story is genuine, and that is confirmed by feedback from people who have tried his Perfect Pitch course: http://www.perfectpitch.com/success.htm . Now, you could argue that David was not an adult when he learned Perfect Pitch, but I'm pretty sure that at least some, if not several, of those people who have given feedback to his Perfect Pitch course are/were adults. And, it's generally thought that Perfect Pitch can only be learned during the first three-four years of an individual's life; David was not that young. I'm on Seokhun's side. See also http://www.perfectpitch.com/research.htm . HeyMid (contribs) 10:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. David Lucas Burge has made rather strident claims in his advertising materials. Those claims have not been supported. The two theses that Burge presents as having "proved" his claims, which you have referred to here, not only fail to do so, but actually provide evidence to the contrary (see earlier discussion on this same page). aruffo (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The section on Pseudo AP really needs to be rewritten (or even removed.) The statement "there are no reported cases of an adult obtaining absolute pitch ability through musical training; adults who possess relative pitch, but who do not already have absolute pitch, can learn "pseudo-absolute pitch", and become able to identify notes in a way that superficially resembles absolute pitch" contradicts the earlier statement regarding no external standard on what AP actually means and sounds like a "no real Englishman" argument. Identification of pitch-class is a simple matter of memory and recall; I don't see why stories such as Burge's are treated as sensational or controversial. In the Nature vs Nurture section it is written "all adults who have undergone AP training have failed, when formally tested, to show "an unqualified level of accuracy... comparable to that of AP possessors." Who determines what level of accuracy is necessary to qualify as "real" AP? There is no mention of any quantitative distinction because "real" and "pseudo" AP. Clarissimus (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The words "external standard" don't refer to the definition of absolute pitch, but rather to an "external" reference tone. The word "external" is actually unnecessary, because there are studies testing whether absolute listeners use internal reference tones, and they don't. I just made a quick grammatical edit to the article which I hope will clarify that matter... I'll write more here in a moment. aruffo (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I also just flipped the other sentence around, because it did say the wrong thing. As written, as you quoted it, it implied that all adults who have undergone AP training have been formally tested-- which of course they have not. Rather, when formal testing has been done, all adults tested have failed to demonstrate AP ability. You ask who determines the necessary level of accuracy; the referenced article (Takeuchi & Hulse, 1993) is a review article that will point you to the accuracy tests that have been done, but I think you'll find the best measurements in Miyazaki's work. I believe that it was he who came up with the term "pseudo AP"... but even then, he used it differently than is used in this Wiki article. Miyazaki observed that "real" absolute listeners identified tones with almost-perfect and lightning-quick accuracy. Another group of Miyazaki's listeners were slower and less certain in their judgments, and Miyazaki implemented a cutoff of 90% accuracy for these "pseudo" absolute listeners. But even this is greater than the "pseudo" absolute-pitch skill that has been gained by adults who trained to learn it. I don't have the exact figures to mind right now, but I seem to recall that accuracy tended to max out at 25 or 30 percent, at best, and only for a rare few, besides. Furthermore, those tests which were performed were solely of whether individual notes could be named, separately from any musical context, and did not test any other skills (such as those mentioned at the beginning of the Wiki article). In short, the difference between the demonstrated skill of "born-with" AP possessors and the measured results of those who attempted to learn AP is not a close call. aruffo (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Studies have shown that perfect pitch may not be so attributed to genetics, but may rather be attributed to the use of a tonal language. Is it possible to fluently learn speaking a tonal language as an adult, if you haven't learned one already? HeyMid (contribs) 10:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Linguistics - East Asia

The use of the term "East Asia" is totally wrong in that passage.

1. Vietnam is Southeast Asia, not East Asia. The article makes people think Vietnamese is linguistically related to Chinese because both countries are in "East Asia", which is not the case (both claims).

2. Japanese and Korean are rather pitch-accent languages than real tonal languages. The distinction is made in the penultimate sentence, but completely ignored in the rest of the passage because "East Asia" seems to be China and Vietnam. --2.245.89.47 (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

In the context of dividing Asia into E-W, then Viet-Nam is most definitely "east Asia." It is only when using a N-E-S-W division that "south-east Asia" is the proper term. The article neither intends to show that Chinese and Vietnamese are directly related, nor does it. The linked terms will take the reader to the appropriate language article and there won't be any confusion, Anon IP. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Claim that a majority of people have absolute pitch, with new study in the World Futures Journal

Under WP:BRD I have reversed a recent rewrite of the article which used the study "Non-Verbal Paradigm for Assessing Individuals for Absolute Pitch" from the World Futures journal -- a study which makes the extravagant claim that 53% of all people have absolute pitch using a novel "non-verbal" methodology. A change this massive will need consensus. Is this journal a reliable scientific source? Whether or not it is, it seems to me that this study should be mentioned, if at all, in a section on special studies on absolute pitch. Consensus has been that absolute pitch is a relatively rare phenomenon, certainly using a conventional definition. Antandrus (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Absolute pitch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.aruffo.com/eartraining/copp.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.utm.utoronto.ca/fileadmin/w3trehub/publications/006.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513025334/http://www.nslij-genetics.org/apbib/ to http://www.nslij-genetics.org/apbib/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Speculation about whether historical composers had perfect pitch in "musical talent" section

Should include the fact that most historical musicians lived in an environment where there was no defined pitch standard. Especially if a musician travelled, played at more than one organ/piano etc. , then there would be no absolute pitch to learn. Organs were often retuned with a gradual raising in pitch for example; tuning was done in a very "ballpark" way in absolute terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.2.196.77 (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Absolute pitch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://psyche.ge.niigata-u.ac.jp/Psyche/Miyazaki/Papers/Miyazaki2004.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060912000200/http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~gandour/publications/neurp_98.pdf to http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~gandour/publications/neurp_98.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706185225/http://ego.psych.mcgill.ca/labs/levitin/research/Levitin-PandP-1994-56-414.pdf to http://ego.psych.mcgill.ca/labs/levitin/research/Levitin-PandP-1994-56-414.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810004816/http://www.icmpc8.umn.edu/proceedings/ICMPC8/PDF/AUTHOR/MP040009.PDF to http://www.icmpc8.umn.edu/proceedings/ICMPC8/PDF/AUTHOR/MP040009.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Perfect pitch

Perfect pitch (perfect pitch) is a separate phenomenon, which is actually not to be confused with absolute pitch. Discussions regarding perfect pitch's nuances and differences should be listed below with absolute specificity regarding the variations of pitch that the person can demonstrate with their natural voice without any type of technologic enhancement.

The difference between an absolute pitch is even diminished to the respect of the time the pitch and how often it is invoked to separate the difference between a misperceived assumption for an additional absolute pitch discovered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C400:B4D4:467:CADA:BBB5:DFD0 (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Should the definition be more neutral and simplified ?

I think the only defintion of AP should be the first sentence "Absolute pitch (AP), widely referred to as perfect pitch, is a rare auditory phenomenon characterized by the ability of a person to identify or re-create a given musical note without the benefit of a reference tone."

I guess there is researcher which have set different level of accuracy and "sub-abilities" on their defintion. Using the most elitist criterium (those who enable to states that 1 person of 10,000 have it and that an adult cannot get it by training) seems arbitrary. For me what is called "pseudo AP" should be the defintion of AP and what is suggested as true AP may be called "perfect AP" (or simply say some study using more selective criterium show that ... ) .

Anyway, suggesting there is an elite at birth and if you are not born with the gift you can only be a false AP, without precising the criterium is annoying and does not seem scientific. The french wikipedia page as exemple does not have this idea. --Samuelboudet (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Huge Euro-American Bias

The idea that the "general" definition of perfect pitch should include the given laundry list of abilities is, besides being ridiculous, culturally biased.

If people with perfect pitch are "distressed" when hearing or playing Baroque music in which the pitch standard is A=415Hz, are we to assume that everyone who lived in the Baroque era and happened to have perfect pitch was perpetually distressed by the music they encountered every day? Or that no one in the Baroque era had perfect pitch? Both conclusions are equally absurd.

What of the many non-western cultures that either don't have a pitch "standard", or that don't use western scales, intervals, or pitch designations? There are Indonesian Gamelans in which no pitch used by the ensemble will be found on a piano tuned in 12-tone equal temperament. Microtones and macrotones that have no "names" in western musical notation notation abound. Again, are we to assume that no native Indonesian or African musician ever had perfect pitch, or that if they did, they were consequently "distressed" by their native music?

Even in western musical culture there are significant groups working outside 12-tone equal temperment -- virtually any trained organist or early keyboardist works with a multitude of tuning and temperament systems: Pythagorean; mean-tone; Werkmeister; etc., etc. -- are we to believe none of these have perfect pitch? Or that they are distressed by music occurring anywhere but on their chosen instrument?

This article is based on long-standing myths regarding perfect or "absolute" pitch. The truth of the matter is that no such thing exists, per se. What is called "absolute pitch" is nothing more than a person with a well-developed sense of relative pitch, who has at some point in their life memorized one or more reference pitches.

This whole article needs to be scrapped and redone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the idea is that small kids who develop AP get it by hearing music all the time, and getting to recognize pitches the same way the rest of us recognize phonemes in our native languages. They don't have a frequency counter built into their head or anything like that. Different languages have different phonemes and AP basically means having also having some native "phonemes" that ceme from pitches rather than from language. So someone in the baroque era would acquire the pitches they were surrounded by, and similarly for people today, whether they are around A=440 or gamelans or whatever. I do wonder what happened in the era when musical tuning was often not very accurate, e.g. your local ensemble or church organ might have A=430 and the one down the street might have A=425. I think some Baroque instruments go as low as A=415. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

You offer an interesting perspective on the topic. Do you have any sources that agree with you? As you may already know, at Wikipedia we can't write what we believe to be correct, only what reliable sources tell us. So, if you have any such sources, you should tell us here, and include them in the article. Ravpapa (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Rick Beato (composer, producer, etc.) discusses it in this video:[1] I'll leave it to you whether that's RS for the article. His son Dylan has AP and he has a lot of demonstration videos of it. Look for "rick beato absolute pitch" in youtube search. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

D. Deutsch's writings also discuss this extensively.[2] Some of them are already cited in the article. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I watched Rick Beato's video. IT certainly qualifies as a reliable source. But I didn't see anything there that supported the contentions you make in your post above. He doesn't discuss cultural bias, or the issue of different frequencies for the same pitch. In fact, I didn't hear anything in the video that isn't discussed in the article.

This is not to say that the points you raise are invalid. On the contrary, I find them interesting and relevant. Maybe you can provide some quotes from the Deutsch article (which I admit I didn't read)? Ravpapa (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The stuff in my post about phonemes basically summarizes what Beato says about them, I think. He doesn't talk about instruments tuned to different pitches and I mentioned that I wonder (and don't know) what happened in that situation. Deutch's page that I linked is readable and not very long. It or one of the related ones mentions that AP can be "fooled": if you play music (say from a recording) that starts out in the correct key, but then speed it up gradually (over a few minutes), an AP listener won't notice the gradual pitch change, and afterwards will think that proper tuning sounds out-of-tune. I don't know how long the effect is supposed to last. That might also be relevant to multiple tunings.

I watched a couple more of Beato's AP-related videos but not all of them, and that might have come from one of them. Deutsch has written a lot of publications about AP but the page I linked is a good place to start. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

These look interesting: [3][4] 173.228.123.207 (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:DUE, we should give examples in terms of western music notation as it is by far the most widespread system of pitches (especially as east Asian music uses a subset of them). That I (being someone with absolute pitch) would perceive a problem with baroque tuning is largely because I have been trained to think of standard tuning as "right". It's important to indicate that the skill of AP is dependent on how one acquires the notion of being "in tune".--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Couple of anecdotes: some people with AP have problems with Baroque pitch, but some others apparently just adapt after a couple of days and hear 415 Hz as A. I do wonder if anyone with AP in the modern era has successfully managed to hear 392 Hz as A, though. (I can do it for a few seconds, but then I seem to snap back to 415-ish. Could be just lack of practice, though.) Double sharp (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Definition criteria

Recognition of pitch seems to be an ability irrespective of any knowledge of musical notation. Thus it should be defined independently of notation. Once so defined, it can be registered for some purposes in terms of a particular notation system. Errantius (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Errantius: How does the current definition in the article require a notation system?--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jasper. All of the criteria are for the person being able to name a note, tone or pitch. Errantius (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, not the fourth one. Also, this is independent of any particular notation system (for example, the German system uses "B" for B-flat and it would not be wrong), not dependent on a single one. It's like how we have freedom to pick a coordinate system in general relativity.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I was talking about dependence on some notation system, whatever it might be. Presumably absolute pitch can be detected by playing a series of notes one of which differs so slightly that only somebody with absolute pitch would notice and be able to say which one was different. Errantius (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is very good but it does need more information about the history of it. Margaritamanrique7 (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Issues

The article is not so good. I had to correct some fundamentally flawed, albeit basic, information. It might help if people who actually possessed perfect and/or absolute pitch wrote the article. It's like a jackass penning the Wikipedia article on 'Genius'.

Regrettably, I've come to expect this from Wikipedia. If an article is too learned, or too controversial, or steps on somebody's toes, it is harshly reviled and, moreover, charged with lack of citations should a bold statement like "Paris is the capital of France" be put forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4B00:C200:A8B1:FBD8:4ED0:8ABD (talk • contribs)

Could you be more precise on why the article is flawed? It is difficult to determine the flaws without specific examples and what needs to be changed. It appears that your statement (which may be valid) is vague in nature, but I am willing to examine sections of the article to change, but need examples or specifics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurisdicta (talk • contribs) 16:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense for Wikipedia to have editors write entirely based on experts in the field. Expertise could certainly be useful, but someone can't add information because of their professed expertise. Such claims couldn't even go well-checked with the current number of Wikipedians that stand. Wikipedia has a structure of rules to follow, and citations are the best way to do so. If there are no reliable sources, than it is almost always either wrong or unnotable. Making sure their are reliable sources help to make sure false information is at a minimum, and whenever possible, it is best to be on the conservative side of removing information. With your "Paris is the capital of France" example, there are reliable sources. If you have any problem with information in this article, provide sources, or explain in your edit summary why the previous content misinterpreted or incorrectly used/ignored the sources. Otherwise, any edits that are non-trivial to the substance of the content may be challenged. This is not to say that there aren't problems with this article nor that you aren't justified in making edits the way you plan on doing or already have done (I'm not a regular editor of this article, so I wouldn't know), but regardless all edits must be clearly justified. One cannot assume epistemic superiority and ignore the need for basic rules.TheGEICOgecko (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

K-Pop-related edit requests

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2021

Notable recent musicians with absolute pitch-add Heeseung of korean boy group Enhypen <IP removed> 18:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2021 (2)

Notable recent musicians with absolute pitch-Heeseung (희승)[2] of Korean boy group ENHYPEN <IP removed> 16:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Chlod (say hi!) 16:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Heeseung from Enhypen absolute pitch edit request on 18 May 2021 (3)

Adding Heeseung from South Korea Boy group ENHYPEN to Notable recent musicians with absolute pitch Source https://www.wowkorea.live/album/381799.html <IP removed> 16:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (6)

TWICE member Dahyun has been noted as a recent musician/artist with perfect pitch on Wikipedia for many years. However of recent days, it has been removed. This should be restored onto the page to avoid any future lack of information. TZn109 (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

We do need a better list though, so we should discuss a reliable sourcing update

All the controversy above and in some other places on the internet have at least raised a good point that the list on this page needs to be improved. Even with the reliable sourcing that is currently included for the names, I don't think it's good enough. We should look through reliable sources from the past few years and see what would be the best weighted inclusions. And, for all of you coming from elsewhere, the policy of due weight is how we determine whom to include on such a list, as there are obviously thousands of possible options. The proper weighting for a small list of 5 or 10 names would be to include only the biggest and most well known names as supported by the highest quality of reliable sources, which have specific focus on their perfect pitch.

Which is also why this person, even if they had an article on Wikipedia about them, would not qualify, as an example. At the same time, however, we should make sure to diversity the list and not just have American names (which is why Lea Salonga is a good person to include, but again, we need better overall referencing). So, I think the main focus of discussion right now is to figure out who the top quality sources are talking about when it comes to perfect pitch and proceed from there.

As the person introducing this thread, i'll go ahead and start with something that honestly surprised me. In looking for sources, I found out why Charlie Puth is included on this list, he just has a ton of reliable source coverage, particularly about his perfect pitch.

• Yes, Charlie Puth has perfect pitch. He’s also a piano major, Rachmaninov stan and jazz improvisor - Classic FM
• Charlie Puth interview: Being bullied for pitch perfect talent and Selena Gomez's advice on dealing with negativity - The Independent
• Charlie Puth Shows Off His Perfect Pitch, Plays Musical Genre Challenge on 'Fallon' - Billboard
• Do these Live Lounge covers prove Charlie Puth has perfect pitch? - BBC

And that's just a small selection for him. So I guess he should still be included. Silverseren^C 16:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Silver seren: the current selection isn't meant to be a list of all people with absolute pitch, only those whose abilities have been covered extensively. If we do have a list, I'd suggest making it a separate article, as many people have perfect pitch so it would dominate this one. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course. That's not what I was suggesting though. I was suggesting improving the small 5 person list we have in this article so that it has better reliable source inclusion, as what is there now isn't the best. And we should have a diversity of backgrounds in our examples, rather than only including American singers and musicians. Silverseren^C 16:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There would be thousands. I think a smallish list of the most notable, as it is now, is fine. I'm honestly a little surprised we don't have an article such as List of people with absolute pitch. Antandrus (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I would be iffy on such a list surviving an AfD since it seems like it would be really broad. You'd need a couple full length books and academic papers on people with absolute pitch as a backbone for such a list article, I feel. Silverseren^C 17:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Another suggestion: V from BTS, also known as Kim Tae-hyung, seems to have coverage of his perfect pitch as well:

• King of Absolute pitch BTS's V impressed Grammy winner Sumi Jo with his perfect opera singing techniques - Allkpop
• 조수미 “방탄소년단 뷔, 절대음감 놀라워…듀엣하고파” (Jo Su-mi “BTS V, the absolute pitch is amazing… I want to do a duet”) - Kyunghyang Shinmun
• BTS V: Here's What Makes The Fan-Favorite Vocalist A Rare Type Of Guy - Business Times
• 방탄소년단 뷔, 뮤지컬 무대가 기대되는 이유..조수미 "태형이는 굉장해!" (BTS's V, the reason why I'm looking forward to the musical stage) - Star News

Apologies for the rough Google translation of the Korean news titles. Silverseren^C 17:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add Eddy Chen from TwosetViolin in the perfect pitch. He has proved in videos that he has perfect pitch, all of which has been mentioned above. That is literally a proof and he is a very notable musician. Ishita Bose (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ishita Bose: Do you have in-depth reliable sources discussing as such, as represented in the examples for Charlie Puth and V from BTS above? Silverseren^C 19:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason why we keep getting repeated requests to add one individual

Okay, I think I know why we are getting a flood of requests to add Eddy Chen -- he asks us to. Start this video about 8:20 (or watch the whole thing, these guys are extremely entertaining). Antandrus (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, there's like 8 different threads on their subreddit going on concurrently about this, one entirely about me, amusingly enough. It's pretty obvious the people commenting don't understand the due weight requirements or even what qualifies as a reliable source, since they seem to be trying to use Youtube follower stats, the existence of a clothing line, and other things like that as arguments. It's pretty much the usual sort of fan POV pushing stuff we always have to deal with. Silverseren^C 20:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Silver seren: Saying this as someone with AP, I've put up a {{warning}} at the top to hopefully discourage further attempts. The fans clearly don't even bother to read our policies: it's not that Eddy isn't famous. It's that the claim "Eddie has AP" only has self-published sources supporting it, which are categorically not suitable, especially as this is a WP:BLP situation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the edit notices will likely be ignored, and all that we can really do is condense the duplicate requests into one section (see this archive for other places where this has been effective). Primefac (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that Wikipedia is super vulnerable to these kinds of edits as YouTube does affect the general public like seen before and does put Wikipedia, a encyclopedia known for being freely edited by people, a risk of being put against many people trying to change an article. I really do like Twosetviolin but under the influnce of their subscribers, their little sayings does have major influence. JeffreyViolin (talk) 3:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Primefac, Since the current edit notice on this talk page is not visible to people making edit requests from the main article (which seems to be the majority of people adding requests), using the page notice template would probably be more suitable as it allows for the people making edit requests to see the warning. Hopefully more people become aware of it now. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Definition of reliable, independent, and significant sources

This is being used as the reason to deny Eddy Chen from being added to this wikipedia page. I'm curious what your definition of "reliable, independent, and significant sources" is, because I find it hard to believe that this blog post about Kofi is very significant or reliable since its writer is unknown in the music world and the only perfect pitch evidence comes from his brother through a blog writer... Is that seriously significant? 😂 Furthermore, Charly's "reliable" source is completely based on hear-say, though that is considered more substantial than Eddy's countless videos demonstrating his absolute pitch. I think this page is not being maintained well or with "good faith." If Eddy Chen isn't added, then I see no reason why the more unreliable musicians are allowed to stay referenced. Sp3nsar (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Sp3nsar, Primary sources are not suitable for these types of claims. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

So I ( as an unknown musical name, on an unknown blog ), can post about hearing people say Eddy has perfect pitch, and that'll qualify as substantial evidence? I respect Wikipedia of course, but you have to see the flaw in this. Currently, only a few musicians are supported by actually substantial and reliable evidence, so if someone makes a random blog post, that should be more than enough? This system seems weak. Sp3nsar (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

First of all, the All About Jazz does not appear to be merely a blog, it consists of a range of staff members that shows demonstrated experience in the music world. Whether or not that website is widely recognized is not the priority as there is no concrete evidence that the source is unreliable as of now. Meanwhile you seem to base your argument solely off of the videos that TwoSet published themselves, which is and obvious violation of WP:RS. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 19:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Good point, hence why i've now shorn up Charly Garcia's references with proper ones directly discussing their perfect pitch. And i've removed Kofi Burbridge, as I could find no other coverage of such a topic on them to any significant degree. Silverseren^C 20:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• @Sp3nsar: I have absolute pitch myself. So I do not personally doubt that Eddy has it as well; this is not why he is being denied a mention here. It is not verifiable with reliable, third-party, significant sources that he is. The video conveniently ignores the concept of WP:DUE weight. Even one reliable source, if it's not of the utmost high quality and significant, would also not be enough to add him here, though it would be fine to add it to the TwoSet Violin article (again, presupposing the existence of something that has not been demonstrated). Also, calling out the reliability of the sources used to justify others' listings here, i.e. WP:OSE arguments, i.e. appeal to hypocrisy, is not a valid argument to add him.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

TwoSet Violin-related edit requests

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

add Eddy Chen from the TwoSetViolin YouTube channel 71.163.147.12 (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Chlod (say hi!) 02:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (2)

wanted to add Eddy from TwoSetViolin , he proved that he has perfect pitch , but he has been removed twice . The first time is by a wiki user named " Geni " who is not convinced he has perfect pitch and believed that TwoSetViolin is not real musician I suspect that that user removed him the second time too . can prove you , in a TwoSetViolin video , they once clearly mentioned and proved that Eddy has perfect pitch. Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mFq3r42YaA&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58NtV5N4JNc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaOySImzXEQ&feature=youtu.be And please lock the Geni " user out , he might be an anti-fan , and he might change it again repetitively . Jennifernguyen2711 (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jennifernguyen2711:  Not done Sorry, this would be WP:UNDUE weight. Only notable people may be added to the list.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd say Eddy Chen is notable all right, seeing as we have an article. What we lack are independent RSes confirming the perfect pitch claim. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 15:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Though you could make that claim about hundreds and hundreds of musicians and singers that have Wikipedia articles. And in a list in this article of just about 5 people, there is no due weight reason for Eddy Chen or pretty much any of their contemporaries on Youtube or elsewhere to be included. Particularly for the independent RS reason you cite, especially when the article that has been linked below and on the page previously for including him is a list of 30 different people. Why is Eddy a special name to pick out of that list? There's certainly no special focus on him in that article to support such an action, so it doesn't meet the due weight expectations. If Eddy was particularly noted in detail in reliable sources for his perfect pitch, then there'd be an argument to be made. Silverseren^C 16:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jennifernguyen2711, and welcome to Wikipedia! We have multiple rules and guidelines when it comes to adding in content to articles. In this context however, there is no reliable source that can prove Chen has perfect pitch, besides a few self-published YouTube videos about themselves — which commonly can't be accepted into an article that isn't about themselves (since we do sometimes allow self-admitted statements from the subject of an article). Because of this, we can't accurately verify the information being added, and as such, we can't keep the content on Wikipedia. Likewise, the addition of Chen wouldn't be proper for this list, as secondary, reliable, and independent sources that recognize him primarily for having absolute pitch do not exist. Unfortunately, the links you provided are equally as unreliable, and we don't normally use YouTube as a citation in the first place.

Anyone is free to edit Wikipedia, but sometimes we do have to add restrictions to keep the quality of the wiki. Geni is a Wikipedia administrator, and is well-versed in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. They're not an anti-fan, they're just enforcing the Wikipedia guidelines. Likewise, I and other editors do the same. It's all for the sake of keeping the quality of the article and the wiki as a whole. I hope you understand, and I've scattered links across this message so you can learn more about how content writing on Wikipedia works. Chlod (say hi!) 04:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (3)

Jonah69420 (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Twoset violin

 Not done See above. Chlod (say hi!) 11:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (4)

Notable recent musicians with absolute pitch include Charlie Puth, Kofi Burbridge, Lea Salonga, Michael Jackson, Eddy Chen from TwoSet Violin, and Mariah Carey. BakerOfBreddy (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Please stop. Repeated requests are not going to work. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (5)

In Notable Sources add Eddy Chen from Twosetviolin. 183.83.137.17 (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done No reliable source provided. Chlod (say hi!) 15:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (7)

Add Eddy Chen from two set violin as a notable example of having perfect pitch 94.12.163.244 (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2021

Add Eddy Chen from Twosetviolin to the list of notable cases of people with perfect pitch. 86.17.195.224 (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 16:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2021

Eddy Chen of Twosetviolin has perfect pitch 125.209.158.82 (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. Chlod (say hi!) 04:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2021

In honorable mentions, may you please add Eddy Chen from TwoSetViolin, as he does have perfect pitch, and has proven it many times. 2603:9008:1A00:39C6:874:2480:9653:CFE8 (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Chlod (say hi!) 01:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the Spanish page for absolute pitch does indeed list Eddy Chen (from 2set as seen above) as an individual with Perfect Pitch. Another source brought to us by the twoset subreddit is https://theviolinchannel.com/vc-vox-pop-do-you-have-perfect-pitch-born-with-it-question/.

As a compromise, maybe it can be said that "Eddy Chen has claimed to have perfect pitch.

 Not done: This would still be undue weight to the contents of the article, which only includes verified and notable cases of perfect pitch, and not those who simply claim so. Likewise, the Spanish Wikipedia does not have the same quality standards as the English Wikipedia. Many mundane and sometimes non-notable topics exist in other wikis. Fortunately, we have high standards for the quality of our content and inclusion in a different language wiki does not warrant incluson on the English Wikipedia. Chlod (say hi!) 02:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2021

Add EDDY CHEN's name to the list of notable figures with absolute pitch. Pumped poison (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. firefly ( t · c ) 16:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Request to add Eddy Chen to notable musician with perfect pitch category

Hello, I am writing to request that Eddy Chen of the YouTube channel TwoSet Violin once again be listed among notable musicians with perfect pitch on the Wikipedia English page. He is a professionally trained musician (violinist), well known within the classical world and he has perfect pitch. He is noted on other Wikipedia non-English pages. It seems he was listed on the English page at one point and then removed.

He is one of the two musicians who make up TwoSet Violin. While Eddy is not a pop artist, he and Brett Yang definitely have notoriety and are considered a popular classical YouTube channel phenomenon within the classical world. Within the classical industry, they are world renowned. They have traveled the world performing concerts internationally with many sellout performances in every country they tour. They are known and have fans on every continent. A rarity within the classical industry, Eddy Chen’s (and Brett Yang’s) channel has over 3 million subscribers and growing. Not even the most successful prodigy violinists in the world come close to that many subscribers on their YouTube channel. As a matter of fact, many professional world-class violinist obtain new fans because of Eddy and Brett’s YouTube channel.

They are so popular that they have many non-classical music fans who have only come to know about classical music and the violin in particular because of Eddy and Brett’s channel. Those fans not only watch but also subscribe and faithfully watch their YouTube channel weekly. Eddy (and Brett) have inspired non-classical people around the world to take an interest in learning an instrument and classical music.

They have been in the arguably most prestigious classical magazine in the world, The Strad, and were also featured on the cover. When anything of note happens with either Eddy Chen or a Brett Yang (of TwoSet Violin) it is noted in Strad magazine.

Eddy Chen is a classically trained professional musician with a bachelors degree in music from the Queensland Conservatory in Australia. Eddy Chen, an Australian, has performed in professional orchestras in Australia. Further confirmation of this can be confirmed at TwoSet Violin’s official website.

Their YouTube channel has had guests who are fans of their channel such as world-class violinists Hillary Hahn and Ray Chen. They have been invited into the vaults of the most prestigious institutions which holds and sells the most expensive Stradivarius violins in the world. Because of their notoriety and influence within the classical community, this year 2021, Eddy Chen (along with Brett Yang) were invited to be guest co-hosts of the most prestigious world renown Menuhin competition.

Regarding perfect pitch, Eddy is known for it within the classical community. There are several YouTube videos in which he has proven not only his perfect pitch abilities, but also music theory education.

Again, although not a pop artist, within the classical world Eddy Chen more than qualifies to be on your list as a notable, musician with perfect pitch. I am hoping that you will restore his name to the list. Thank you in advance for your serious consideration of my request. JustWonderingFC (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, JustWonderingFC. Much like most things on Wikipedia, we require reliable sources for your claims. I see none here, and thus I am inclined not to believe anything you said. YouTube videos are, in most cases, not reliable sources. Claiming YouTube videos exist for the fact without proof holds no weight. Likewise, there are no independent, significant, and reliable coverage of his perfect pitch. If you can prove that his perfect pitch specifically is widely covered in those sources, then he will be added. Otherwise, this is no better than the 10 other requests we've already received about this. Chlod (say hi!) 02:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Brace yourselves

Youtuber asks to be included, again. 122.172.48.27 (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

That is unfortunate. As per the notice above, further edit requests should be immediately reverted for disruptive editing. intforce (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm on the verge of unsubscribing from them, honestly. This is getting ridiculous. They are just trying to get people to vandalize Wikipedia. My respect for them has really bottomed out. Silverseren^C 17:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh no. Not this ... again. Antandrus (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Pain. Chlod (say hi!) 03:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Some source(s) on Eddy Chen

I'm basically here on behalf of someone else. They provided two sources but I believe User:Silver seren has somewhat addressed them from one of the YouTube comment threads I saw, though not very clearly. I'm just gonna put the sources here as they've not been brought up here before, and can also serve as a record.

The first one is obviously considered unreliable by Wikipedia standards per WP:MEDIUM. But I'll just throw it here so no one has to bring it up here ever again.

• https://maimislang.medium.com/these-music-nerds-are-what-the-world-needs-now-a81d3f5bd70d - Medium

The second one is an article on a website called "[ink.]".

• https://www.inkmedia.org/post/perfect-pitch-everything-you-need-to-know - [ink.]

Personally, I've never heard of this website before so I don't know how credible it is. The author of the article, Bryan Carmichael, is stated to be "the Deputy Editor-in-Chief for [ink.] magazine."[5]

So what do you guys think? Though from what I can read in the above discussions, it doesn't seem like using it as a singular source for Eddy would be sufficient, even if the article is deemed reliable. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The second source is a classic example of WP:CIRCULAR and non-reliable by all means. The author quotes two Wikipedia articles directly, and mentions almost the same people that are mentioned on this article. intforce (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

That's true. I didn't notice that. I think the author might've taken the Wikipedia page on 14 February 2021 where Eddy's name was still there. Well, I guess that settles the problem. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have a question : so when a celeb come in an interview in an article, whatever the reputation of the article, and says "Yes, I have perfect pitch", this isn't "self published source" even though the action is the same? Nobody controls what he says and test it, so what? What is the difference between that and a self published article? A second question : Do you understand that wikipedia EN is read mostly by people who are not americans celebrities? because what I see here is a formidable case of "let's show our own american talents and let's provide an foreigner's exception to justify that no, "we are not self centered at all!" I understand the rigor needed in source checking and fact checking, but what you are doing this is favoritism. Sources that you justify are also circulars OR self-made. The responsability of those hang in press editors but those do not fact check when someone say "I have perfect pitch". They take it for a truth and then... you do the same. That's not rigor, that's lack of rigor if that's something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:6825:EA00:3D0F:555F:D85F:D34F (talk)

When someone mentions they have absolute pitch, it is deemed as a primary source, not a self-published source. The cause of the undue weight with having Eddy Chen on the page is that the inclusion criteria for those on the list don't only claim that they have absolute pitch, but their absolute pitch has been studied and verified by reputable sources (thus being secondary, not primary). If you'd like to claim that the provided sources on the article are also circular references, then please provide evidence than make baseless accusations. The burden of proof is on you. Lastly, if you're accusing Wikipedia of being biased against American artists, note that the list includes two Asians, one Argentinian, and two Americans. I myself am an Asian editor, and don't believe that the inclusion of Eddy is possible without the proper sources. Chlod (say hi!) 09:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. It is not my claim. My claim is that some cultures have more weight than others and strangely enough, when one must remove "weight", it's not the american who claims he has perfect pitch without having any neutral source nor any peer reviewed sources, nor any objective test. The guy only claims, some believe him SO you believe him. It's the guy who isn't from the American establishment who is removed, even though, factually, the conclusion is the same : they both claim, one to a source who relay the claim, the other through their own channel, but it is only claims, nothing else. In that regards, all those who are considered AP through their own claims, whatever the source, should be removed. I don't thing Eddy Chen should be added, but I think any other who have not been through objective testing should be reomoved. Factually, "Wikipedia" (meaning the very small group of people managing this perticular page) isn't coherent and giving favours to self-claimed AP just because he is an american celebrity and has access to press that can relay his message while some others like Eddy Chen don't. But the result is the same : it is still self claiming without any objectivity. It's just press, nothing else. And yet you trust it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:6825:EA00:3D0F:555F:D85F:D34F (talk)

The others are included in the article because they're covered by reliable sources, which is why we believe them. If your issue is that Americans have more access to press sources, that's not our problem. If there was another non-American person with absolute pitch that has a significant amount of coverage from sources of the same (or better) caliber, then they will be allowed on the article. This is dictated by policy and applies to the entire wiki. Chlod (say hi!) 10:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The said source isn't the problem here. The problem is what it claims. That's not reliable. In the said sources, the guy claim "I am .. and I have perfect pitch". Then the press article is published. Then you publish "the said guy has perfect pitch". A claim by a person becomes a truth in this article. How isn't that your problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:6825:EA00:3D0F:555F:D85F:D34F (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Which "guy" are you referring to here? As far as I know, all the cases documented on this article have sources that does not claim (in first-person) that they have absolute pitch, but that they have it, without any weasel words. Statements by the person themselves are invited on the subject's own article, not this article. I don't see how it's "false" if there is widespread coverage of their absolute pitch. Are you insinuating that every single press source (which, by the way, more than 1,228,108 pages cite) is unreliable because they come from press sources? The situation you stated is exactly the reason why we don't have Eddy Chen on this article — he's just claiming the fact, and it's not actually relayed as fact by a reputable source. Chlod (say hi!) 10:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok we really have something to set straight : I don't care about Eddy Chen. I Saw their video and I considered that since I am interested in knowledge treatment, I was willing to check the wikipedia page to see if this wasn't too much of a storm, especially because I know how sourcing works and I already understood why Eddy Chen was removed. But the problems I saw is that there is no real objectivity here. Your treatment of "sources" isn't efficient and doesn't represent how any objective treatment of sources is done. Whatever the mass of press article you find, this will change nothing if all those articles are pointing to one original source and this original sources content things that doesn't fit the claim the wikipedia page is doing. Whatever the "guy" I talk about, just check yourself any sources given for every person mentionned. You click, you see the subject saying "I have perfect pitch", sometimes the interviewer asking "so make me an A" and then the only thing the subject proves is that he has relative pitch because he know his A (like any musician !) and some other notes relatives to it . (Which isn't perfect pitch as considered in this specific perfect pitch wikipedia article, or else every musicians have perfect pitch !) then the press article is quoted by other press articles, and then others, and then others, producing mass, but the original content, the original source is still not reliable. I am strangely chocked when I see that your only argument for removing a guy from the list of "people who have perfect pitch" in an article is the "circular" source or self-sourcing, but when you check the others sources, there is no rigor in those, nothing. No objective testing, nothing else than claims that are repeated, sometimes deformed, and then considered as truth here. You wrote to me about "burden of proof" but I have no claims, you have. Wikipedia claims that those persons, all of those persons have perfect pitch. What I see is that it was mostly american stars who claimed to have perfect pitch and have been tested for relative pitch (which is what every musicians have...) and than some "non american" stars have been added to fill the gaps. Burden of proof is on your side, you showed sources that are at best doubtful. Your claim is void. (And when I say "your", it is not yours personally, it's the claim of the wikipedia managers who managed this part of the AP page), there is nothing to back it up since what is used doesn't prove perfect pitch OR is just claims from the interested parties. I would even argue than self-serviced sources may even be more rigorous than any press saying "this guy has perfect pitch" because some may (and that's not the case with Eddy Chen) use protocoles that are more rigorous (and it's not difficult) than any press interview with a circus demonstration. You wouldn't use any sources with interviews of David Copperfield to show that man can go through the Chinal Wall, even if it has footages in it. Why would anyone use intervews of any person to prove that he or she has perfect pitch? No objective point of view = false claim at best. Sorry, this was longer but I hope I was complete enough so that nothing more personal will be held against me, nor any biais where you would consider that I may want Eddy Chen back on the list. I hope it is clear now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a03f:6825:ea00:3d0f:555f:d85f:d34f (talk • contribs)

There is no "American establishment" operating in the shadows to subvert content. Nor are there "managers" on Wikipedia who dictate what may and may not be in this article. What we have are reliable sources backing up people's claims. For instance, a source for Charlie Puth states "Does Charlie Puth have perfect pitch? He does! Puth said he developed the rare skill – to recognise and produce any given note, on cue – around four years old.". This is a plain and unambiguous statement of fact. This is not Charlie Puth talking about himself; this is ClassicFM, a reliable source, talking about Charlie Puth. Similarly the source for Kim Tae-Hyung (known also as V) states "V also has the perfect pitch or the absolute pitch. He has the ability to identify any note that he will hear without the use of any reference tone." This is a plain and unambiguous statement of fact. This is not V talking about himself, this is Business Times talking about V. We do not use self-published sources in any situation whatsoever to source plain statements of fact that may be reasonably challenged. We do not care that it may be rigorous, because we have no way to prove the rigour. The reason we require sources to be all three of reliable, independent and secondary is that no independent, reliable sources would stake their reputation over false claims. Now, if you think that some particular sources are not reliable, you are welcome to give specific examples rather than vague complaints of a shady "establishment" keeping out non-Americans from this article. That way, instead of being shocked, you can get the warm, fuzzy feeling of actually having helped the encyclopaedia. Kind regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 15:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove V (Taehyung) from notable absolute pitch members.

The referenced sources are insufficient to quantify the artist having absolute pitch.

The first source is a YouTube video which comments on his ability to perfectly sing the pitch of a single note, this is a feat that comes easily when practised.

the second source is a business insider article which provides no credentials.

There has never been any official statement/claim, nor has there been prolonged evidence to show that this user has absolute pitch. 79.66.213.235 (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

After reading the Korean article it seems like this entire thing is based of the words of an opera singer named Jo Sumi. I have not been able to find any other mention of this, not even from Taehyung himself, so I am suspicious of the validity of this statement as it seems like just an offhand comment and not a fact. If anyone has additional sources that aren't just from this one singer I would be willing to change my mind but as of now I don't think her word without proof is enough to claim he has perfect pitch. I agree that he should be removed.Callmeashy (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Jacob Collier

Musician Jacob Collier has absolute pitch, and there are many sources supporting that. His name should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 09:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC) (talk • contribs)

you need to add sources first. 11Jasejusttestingzapppp (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2021

please add eddy chen Hiohihoihioih (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Shakey

There is no definitive scientific evidence that such a thing as "absolute pitch" exists. Relative pitch can be demonstraged, and it is hightly culturally biased. This article need a severe rewriting, but editing is either turned off or broken. Somebody who can, please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk • contribs)

What do you mean? play any note on a piano with my back turned to it, and I'll tell you what note you played. That's absolute pitch. Not sure what you are getting at. Antandrus (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2021

please add eddy chen if this is not enough proof then take of charlie puth it makes sense --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTyFqMMXPDQ Hiohihoihioih (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: YouTube is not a reliable source. The person also has to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Please Add Eddy Chen of Twosetviolin

Please add Eddy Chen of Twosetviolin to under “Notable cases” His channel, Twosetviolin, has over 3 million subscribers, and his personal channel has over 100 thousand subscribers. There been numerous videos on his YouTube channel, which prove how he has perfect pitch, which you might not consider a reliable source, but there is no denying the point. It makes no sense that Charlie Puth is listed, when it is clear that Eddy Chen is just as good as, or even better than him. Check recent video where Eddy and Brett react to a video of Charlie Puth demonstrating his perfect pitch skills, where they expose him for the few mistakes that he made. There is no denying that Charlie Puth has perfect pitch, but if he deserves to be on this Wikipedia page, then so does Eddy. Sources: https://maimislang.medium.com/these-music-nerds-are-what-the-world-needs-now-a81d3f5bd70d https://www.inkmedia.org/post/perfect-pitch-everything-you-need-to-know https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Creator/TwoSetViolin — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnotherLingLingWannabe (talk • contribs)

@AnotherLingLingWannabe:  Not done These sources are all either self-published or user-generated content, both of which aren't allowed on Wikipedia. We can only add things that are reliably sourced here. The reasons you've given have already been refuted before as well (see Talk:Absolute pitch/Archive 2#TwoSet Violin-related edit requests). If you can accurately prove that there is significant coverage of Chen's perfect pitch which is not from blogs or wikis, then feel free to request an edit again. Chlod (say hi!) 16:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Tonal language has nothing to do with absolute pitch

As a person with perfect pitch, and also being a native speaker of a tonal language namely Chinese (Mandarin), I think it is pretty non sense to relate tonal language to absolute pitch. Tonal languages work in a relative-pitch way. Just imagine, how can it be possible for an absolute-pitch language to be spoken by people with different voice types? The pitch of the tones not only varies between people, by can also varies pretty vastly for the same speaker depending on the mood, the intonation, and plenty other factors. The point is, there is no fixed pitch assigning to the tones. Sure, the portion of Chinese music student having perfect pitch is pretty high, but that's only because of the way fixed-do solfege is taught here in China. And although it might not be very obvious, when a note is played, the Chinese absolute pitch students would hear the syllable of the fixed-do solfege being sung by the instrument, which in essence, is a type of Synesthesia that links the fixed-do syllables with frequencies of the pitch. From my conversations with native English speakers with perfect pitch (who are not from China), this is fundamentally different how their absolute pitch works. If you want me to provide any academic reference, sorry I can't. I'm just here telling my experience and pointing out what I think is wrong according to a Tonal language speaker with perfect pitch whom I know very well, namely myself. My reference source is myself. 星球统领 (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for prompting me to think about this. It would be an interesting discussion to have on a forum whose topics included music, linguistics, and cognition. Unfortunately, Wikipedia article talk pages do not fit that description.

Even so, I hope it is not too much of a transgression to say that absolute pitch is not a factor in recognizing melodies: For example, Jay Ungar's well-known (in the US, at least) "Ashokan Farewell" is usually played in D major, and happens to sit well under the fingers on a violin when transposed to F. The same melody can be played with equal convenience on a viola in G or B flat. All four versions are easily recognizable as the "same" tune, especially by someone with even middling relative pitch. Of course, a listener with absolute pitch would also notice the specifics of the different keys, but I believe they would still hear the similarity. Thanks again, Just plain Bill (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

New study

[6] If of use to the article. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Eddy Chen has absolute pitch

I have been watching a Youtube Channel called TwoSetViolin. One of the two violinists has perfect pitch. I have seen a post on Reddit, where he was added to the Wikipedia page, but was removed. I would like to know why, and can he not be reinstated? Life in my head (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Life in my head: Please see /Archive 2#TwoSet Violin-related edit requests Chlod (say hi!) 12:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2021

Add Eddie Chen to the list of modern notable people with perfect pitch. He is of the channel twoset violin, is famous, and he has perfect pitch as demonstrated on their channel. I do not know any of the others in the list, but I and many others know of Eddie Chen 2601:200:C002:1250:0:0:0:D8C5 (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for obvious reasons already said time and again. Chlod (say hi!) 01:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Should we add an edit filter to filter out unsourced claims?

I think that we should add an edit filter which will automatically flag edits that add Eddy Chen to the list of notable people with perfect pitch. When I was requesting to extend the page protection, the administrator that had replied to my request had hinted about possibly investigating into creating an edit filter as it would be a lot easier than having people manually revert the edits. Jeuno (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, this problem has become too widespread with too many people trying to add Eddy Chen without verifiability time and time again. All it needs is to catch terms such as "Eddy Chen" or "TwoSetViolin". The problem is always the same and therefore should not be too hard to stop. Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 06:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I've actually decided to request an edit filter that will at least warn an IP user before they save their edit request (although disallow is probably the better option personally) so that there is a popup that asks them if they truly want to save their edit request or not. Jeuno (talk) (contribs) 10:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

That could work, though I'm not sure how we could make it more clear. Near the section of markup where people insert other notable individuals, there's an invisible comment about reliability that people must notice as well. If they visit the talk page, there's a warning immediately visible and also an editnotice should they decide to edit it. These alerts are everywhere so I don't understand why people wouldn't be aware of this. We may need an editnotice for the main article as well if we want to make absolute sure that people are actually getting the message. Should that fail, I'd say that carrying out the original planned edit filter would be best. If people can't follow guidelines themselves, we need to start enforcing it. Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 06:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The extra annoying part is when they do it to other language versions. I've been trying to keep an eye out for that, but there's a lot of other language Wikipedias with an article on this subject. Silverseren^C 06:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I've also gone ahead and requested the editnotice to the talk page be re-enabled as it expired in the new year. The number of unhelpful edit requests about Eddy will likely increase with this large, almost obnoxious banner gone, so I'm hoping for the best. Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 06:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2022

Can you make an addition in notable cases. Please include Kim Taehyung of BTS. Please find the reference articles https://www.btimesonline.com/articles/146368/20210215/bts-v-heres-what-makes-the-fan-favorie-vocalist-a-rare-type-of-guy.htm

https://us-central.koreaboo.com/lists/bts-v-scientific-rarity-facts/

https://www.allkpop.com/article/2021/02/king-of-absolute-pitch-bts-v-impressed-grammy-winner-sumi-jo-with-his-perfect-opera-singing-techniques Million90 (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. "Please do not add new edit requests to add Eddy Chen of TwoSet Violin or anyone else to the list without first obtaining consensus in favor of doing so and supplying reliable, independent, and significant sources supporting such additions. All such requests will be denied in accordance with our verifiability, due weight, and biographies of living persons policies." (Bolding is mine.) --Ferien (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2022

Add Jungkook from the band, BTS, to Notable persons with absolute pitch. (He was wrongly removed recently, please correct this mistake). This was proven on BTS Run episode 150, where Jungkook demonstrated his absolute pitch ability in a music game and BigHit entertainment confirmed this in the subtitles, as well as the other BTS members. In addition, Kim Youngdae a music critic, who wrote a book on BTS: (BTS: the Review), stated in the book that Jungkook has absolute pitch (perfect pitch). Also, Brother Su (a producer and composer who has worked with BTS), stated that Jungkook has absolute pitch. Please correct this mistake and add Jungkook back to the list of notable people with absolute pitch. Thank you. Moniinicole (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See discussion above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Absolute Pitch

Jungkook from BTS has Absolute pitch. 2409:4073:4E06:DBBF:0:0:AD08:BB09 (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See previous discussions. The notice at the top of this page also prohibits adding new edit requests about new notable cases unless both consensus has been formed and reliable sources can be found. Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 09:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Absolute pitch and synesthesia

I wonder if anyone has found a correlation between these two phenomena? Ravpapa (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Good question, and I've wondered too, having met a bunch of people with both (besides myself). The study referenced in the article (note 25) is quite interesting. I'd also love to know if the exact correlations are random, or -- F-sharp is kind of a forest green, right? Antandrus (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Without noticeable absolute pitch, I conceptualize F# in context, mostly D or G major or E minor/dorian. Definitely a secondary color, but not orange, leaving green (in E?) and purple (in D or G?). Have not considered how B minor or A (major or dorian) might fit into this framing. I think this graphic came from a mix of thinking, sensing, and unknown subliminal prompts, probably ephemeral and particular to yrs truly, Just plain Bill (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you. Ravpapa (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove the "Notable cases" section

The selection of notable recent musicians in the "Notable cases" section is highly WP:OR. We are not in a position to decide which popular musicians are to be included in the list. There are hundreds of artists with popular pitch that can be proven with reliable sources. I propose we remove the section entirely. The first paragraph of the section can be integrated somewhere else in the article. intforce (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Plenty of article subjects regarding human abilities have case examples. And we have direct policy for how we do inclusions, with things like WP:DUE. And we base inclusion on several factors, including direct and extensive reliable source discussion of the person as having the ability and the notability of the person. Hence why the short list only includes some of the most well known singers in the world with the ability, with a partial eye for presenting a diversity of examples and not just US-based people. Silverseren^C 13:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Curating a hand-picked selection does not fall under DUE, that's OR. For one, it would never occur to me to include someone like Charlie Puth in the same sentence as Michael Jackson. DUE would be comparing sources that each list multiple notable musicians with absolute pitch. intforce (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

[ec] I, for one, will not lament its disappearance. Too many issues with establishing notability and arguments from popularity, not to mention BLP concerns. Keeping the first paragraph seems sensible. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Intforce: @Silver seren: @Just plain Bill: I was about to add an entry and was surprised to find that there is no List of people with absolute pitch. Would anyone be opposed to such a list article? ili (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

IMO that isn't a bad idea; however, it would likely create a new way for fans of people with supposed AP but who aren't listed on the page, to start trying to add them. Provided that the section was removed from this article, the need for protection and editnotices would be dumped onto the new list. Those are just my thoughts, though. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 00:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

No objection to creating such an article. Not creating it avoids the need for ongoing curation / maintenance. I am unlikely to keep more than an occasional eye on it. Just plain Bill (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think creating this article is okay, and likely a good idea. Maintenance would be a pain -- it could have thousands of names -- but as long as each has an RS it would be okay, and that would avoid the problems we have here. It's a perpetual problem on Wikipedia where an article lists a few "examples" of something or other, and then those examples grow like a weed patch as every visitor adds their own example. Antandrus (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It is rare that I disagree with Antandrus but in this case, I think a list of people with absolute pitch is worse than superfluous. For the following reasons:

• There are many notable people who undoubtedly had absolute pitch, but their ability is not documented to a level sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. Jascha Heifetz. Almost all of the great composers - certainly any composer who has written a piece in D flat major. Stravinsky. The list goes on. What is the significance of a list like this when it includes Charlie Puth (excuse my ignorance) and ignores Johannes Brahms?

• Is there a list of notable people who are color-blind? Who are dyslectic? Who were born with 11 fingers? What is the significance of such a list? I know that Wikipedia is enamoured with the insignificant, but this is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Ravpapa (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Ravpapa: There are, in fact, lists of people with color-blindness or dyslexia. But I understand your complaints as much as I understand the usefulness of such lists. ili (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, how astonishing! Just goes to show what I know. I never did know what Ian Botham and Taj Murow had in common. Ravpapa (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• I realize now that the article was deleted in 2006: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with absolute pitch ili (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Excellent - thanks for finding that - so now we have a precedent. Mindspillage's comment is significant: it was already spun off from an overlong list in the article. So I don't think a standalone list is a good idea. Now I'm back to thinking we should just get rid of the 'notable cases' section entirely. It's not particularly useful, it will keep growing, mostly as this-or-that popular musician announces or demonstrates their pitch, etc. Antandrus (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Moving the content (a single link, to the new list article) to "See also" left the section empty, so "Notable cases" is gone. For now... Just plain Bill (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, thanks - I hadn't even noticed that there was a new list article! Maybe it's okay now. Looking at the deleted version, it's just an unreferenced list of names (Joseph Stalin? um.) Antandrus (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with deleting the list, mostly because there are so many classical musicians not on it, such as Itzhak Perlman, Pinchas Zukerman, Arther Rubinstein, Daniel Barenboim, Glenn Gould, Sviatislov Richter, and Johann Sebastian Bach (he had to have had absolute pitch because, at the time he composed the Well Tempered Clavier, part 1, he had no access to an instrument), and there are many, many more. I would guess that these names could comfortably appear with Michael Jackson on the same list, however, the current list is so woefully inadequate that it lowers itself to the level of a joke. Rosinlr (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Add Jungkook back to the list of people with absolute pitch.

He was incorrectly removed. The current credible sources have already been listed, including Jungkook proving this ability on camera, in episode 150 of the variety show, “RUN BTS”. In addition, Charlie Puth (who is already listed as one of the artists with absolute pitch) has just recently confirmed on camera in multiple interviews, that Jungkook also has absolute pitch. They recently worked together on the song “Left and Right”, released on June 24, 2022. This is new and updated information. Please add Jungkook’s name since it has been confirmed by Charlie Puth that Jungkook has this ability. Moniinicole (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)