14

It is said here that 1 in 10,000 people have absolute pitch. I wonder if there is any serious poll that could confirm this.

Do you know any study that could tell how common/uncommon it is to have absolute pitch ?

Benjamin Crouzier
  • 369
  • 1
  • 3
  • 8

2 Answers2

9

Those numbers are a rough estimate, and only applies to US citizens.

Wikipedia has a thorough overview of the relevant information, here. The most salient points:

  • Absolute pitch seems to be a cognitive act. It's a property of our brains, and not our ears
  • Most people exhibit some ability or sub-components of absolute pitch
  • Absolute pitch appears to be trainable to a very high degree. It can be taught/learned.
  • Different populations have different percent exhibition for absolute pitch - some estimates for chinese speaking populations go as high as 40-50%.

So, two answers to your question:

  • 1/10000 is a rough estimate for US citizens exhibiting absolute pitch
  • Since absolute pitch is trainable, and most people exhibit some components of it, it's unlikely we can get better than a very rough estimate.
blueberryfields
  • 938
  • 1
  • 7
  • 11
  • 2
    Just to support this answer: When you've listened to the same song a million times, you'll probably find yourself humming it, or "hear it" in your head. When you've done this many times you'll often find that you've remembered the pitch correctly. This is also a great way to practice it - to just regularly check if you're humming the right tone by checking it on the piano – Saebekassebil Aug 22 '12 at 20:04
  • 2
    Most people asking about "perfect pitch" have this idea that it is genetic and innate. The evidence seems to deny this possibility. It is very difficult to disentangle language and training from the phenomenon. – horatio Aug 28 '12 at 17:15
  • @horatio: It is also very hard to deny evidence of it being a "given" ability, with friends having it and so on. As usual, it is a blend. Some people definitely has a natural talent in this area, while some never will obtain it. I have seen no evidence to the contrary. Like most things, it can be trained, but the starting point is very different for different people. – Meaningful Username Mar 27 '14 at 15:11
  • 2
    @MeaningfulUsername: I am absolutely certain your friends who you think exhibit this have training in it. I know non-professional people who play games trying to guess (named) pitch of notes. The fact is that if one has the words to describe the pitch, they have training. The earliest studies in children suggest that (a) people have a natural ability to identify pitch in some manner, and (b) people who are raised without tonal languages gradually "lose" the ability. Now couple that with the answer above regarding trainability. – horatio Mar 27 '14 at 15:19
  • I think we can both agree that proving something doesn't exist can be difficult, and you will note that my point was by the time anything concrete can be tested, it is almost too late to know: "it is very difficult to disentangle language and training from the phenomenon." – horatio Mar 27 '14 at 15:23
  • @horatio: So the concept of being naturally good at something does not exist? Talent is a myth? My friend and I grew up together, started playing at the same time. He always was better at recognizing pitch. We speak the same language. It is not black and white, but to deny that there are differences in peoples potential is as bad (possibly worse) as saying it is all due to genes. – Meaningful Username Mar 27 '14 at 15:35
  • 1
    Where do you see me denying personal differences in people? This is the typical binary discussion that many people have about these types of things. "Perfect pitch" is distinct from "fast-processing relative pitch" in every single discussion I have seen on the topic, including scholarly articles. "Better at recognizing pitch" is not Perfect Pitch. The topic here is not about actualizing potentials, it is about how common is something that hasn't been established to exist. – horatio Mar 27 '14 at 15:40
  • @horatio: So your point is that no one has perfect pitch without training? I can buy that. But if someone achieves it with minimal training (just listening to music perhaps) while someone else needs many hours of dedicated training to achieve the same level, it's a matter of semantics. In my view. I guess you can draw a parallel with drawing. You need to train, but some people will advance quickly to levels others will never achieve. – Meaningful Username Mar 27 '14 at 15:47
  • 2
    My point it that might never know because language and training in and of itself is required to test it: the biological facility is not accessible without priming it. I think this differs quite a bit from your summation? – horatio Mar 27 '14 at 15:55
  • Ok. There is a possibility that I have learned something from this discussion, and that I see what you mean. – Meaningful Username Mar 27 '14 at 16:08
  • 1
    Just to add to horatio's initial comment, I came across a study on perfect pitch among people who learn languages with tones, Chinese and Taiwanese in particular. It was found that "perfect pitch" was very high among the people tested, even if they had no musical ability or training. But this does not mean they were not trained. Their language requires pitch identification and replication for communication. So, in a sense they were "trained" from infancy. –  Mar 29 '21 at 20:56
0

This is less a music question than a behavioral science question, and there is a self-diagnosed issue with much such research is focused on a sample set that is "WEIRD": Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic.

There is no reason to believe that the proportion of people with perfect pitch in a university with researchers studying the brain, which often has a school of music which might attract people with perfect pitch wanting to participate in scientific studies for pizza money, has any relation to the proportion of the same generally.

Dave Jacoby
  • 13,207
  • 2
  • 35
  • 66