|
|
|
|
|
by danbmil99
1983 days ago
|
|
I think he's wrong regarding perfect pitch. Relative pitch would be enough to be able to "auditorize" (like "visualize" but for sound) works in his mind. Having studied music from an early age when as he says his hearing was superlative, he would have internalized the timbre of each instrument through its playable range, and could use that knowledge to choose what (absolute) pitch to choose for various passages. He would not have to "hear" the absolute pitch in his head; melody and harmony are invariant to transposition. That said, he may have had perfect pitch, but that in itself would not enable him to hear a complex orchestral piece in his head. BTW none of the Beatles had perfect pitch. |
|
In that context the timbre of pretty much every non-keyboard instrument would be the only real reference point for how a melody might sound - a bassoon from a maker in Vienna may have been a quarter-tone sharper than one made in Dresden, but they would have had a recognisably similar tone colour when playing eg an E flat.
That’s not to say a freakishly good ear might not have been able to distinguish a Dresden pitch from a Viennese - but as you say, that’s not material to composition. Knowing whether that that E flat will sound confident or mournful would be way more relevant to how it’s used in a phrase and ultimately what key to set the piece in.