While working at the music and neuroimaging lab at Beth Israel/Harvard Medical School in Boston, I developed a quick online way to screen for the tonedeafness. It actually turned out to be a pretty good test to check for overall pitch perception ability. The test is purposefully made very hard, so excellent musicians rarely score above 80% correct.
I can’t try this out right now, but you have a go! Via Duncan who (besides having way too much time on his hands these days) tells me he scored an impressive 77,8%.
November 14th, 2006 at 1:47 pm »
I also scored 77.8%. “Excellent musical abilities”.
Hmmm..anyone else get the same score?
November 14th, 2006 at 1:58 pm »
88.3% here.
Woot.
November 14th, 2006 at 4:48 pm »
86.1% Correct. Weeee!
Say what?!
November 14th, 2006 at 5:27 pm »
80.6% Correct.
Not bad, considering the garbage truck came to pick up next door while I was taking the test.
November 14th, 2006 at 7:58 pm »
86.1% Correct
November 14th, 2006 at 9:37 pm »
83.3% Correct.
Damn, that is one tough test!
November 14th, 2006 at 10:14 pm »
61.1% Correct
Mainly an immediate memory issue I guess.
I cannot differenciate two 20-note suites heard for the first time if only two are swapped in the middle.
November 14th, 2006 at 10:17 pm »
92.6% and I was on top of your MOM
drinking vodka.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:04 pm »
110% - wasted on everclear and vicodin, riding a unicycle.
top THAT, bitches!
November 15th, 2006 at 1:40 am »
was there a saddle on the unicycle? ouch!
November 15th, 2006 at 4:00 pm »
61 something. that test is screwed…
November 15th, 2006 at 4:35 pm »
77.8% too
November 15th, 2006 at 9:38 pm »
80.6%. I think most of the phrases are not the same, the trick being finding the few which *are* the same.
November 16th, 2006 at 3:11 am »
I guess I don’t have the latest, hottest version of Flash media that they’re promoting…
And I wasn’t going to “join” or “sign up” for any of their (spam generating) free downloads…
So I guess I’ll never know.
But I don’t think it’s possible to be tonedeaf and have perfect relative pitch…
November 16th, 2006 at 8:52 am »
Hey!!! No Trance-Fusion thread? I suppose everyone here had already heard it as a bootleg, but still, Bob Ludwig and GZ’s liner notes could generate discussion. Like, given the modified “Reuben and the Jets” and WOIIFTM, “You Are What You Is” CD and some others, we can all accept that FZ had some lapses in the mixing/mastering aspect of his work. The only tools I can think of that Bob Ludwig could use to “correct” Trance-Fusion are EQ and multi-band compression. How bad could the original master have been? Aren’t overwhelming tom rolls part of the FZ guitar solo aesthetic? Should they be retained to respect “authorial intention”? What can we take from the fact that GZ ends her liner notes with a remembrance of FZ spitting on a portrait outside a hotel elevator– an act of juvenile vandalism. Is GZ’s observation that the spitting went “unnoticed” more likely attributable to the general unwillingness of people to intervene in acts of petty vandalism, when all they really want is to get to their hotel room without being put upon by a pair of assholes wrapped up in their own hostile little world with its own secret language? Does the clunky bass riff from Marqueson’s Chicken/” ‘Trance-Fusion’ itself” break the momentum of live versions of “Marqueson’s Chicken” and the CD “Trance-Fusion” as well, but somehow work despite itself? Isn’t it inevitable that there is someone in the world named “Chunga”, and not an example of eerie, supernatural coinky-dink?
I like the CD a lot - especially track 2. More ‘75-’77 solos!!!
November 16th, 2006 at 11:07 am »
Haven’t bought it yet, though it should be in shops about now. Anyway, there already is a page dedicated to Trance-Fusion reviews.
November 16th, 2006 at 2:25 pm »
Chicken?
November 20th, 2006 at 4:22 am »
damn i only got a 72%. who was complaining about having to sign up or download some shit? cripes meng, download the flash player, it won’t kill ya, I PROMISE!!!
cheers!