My daughter, who we think might have perfect pitch, says that she doesn’t like one of our local radio stations because they play everything pitched up slightly. I can’t tell, myself. Would there be some reason why a station would do this?
It shortens song length so more time for commercials.
It also makes songs sound a bit “peppier” and “brighter.” Even among songs that are played at the same tempo, there’s been a pitch drift with orchestras tuning slightly higher over time for that “brightness.” The standard concert A is 440 Hz, but many orchestras tune to 442 or 444, and some even slightly higher.
In the case of radio, I don’t have perfect pitch so I haven’t really noticed, but I assume advertising time would have something to do with it if it is true, with the “pep” of a song being played slightly faster as perhaps an almost subliminal way to distinguish themselves from the competition. I’ve only noticed it on Youtube in particularly egregious examples. For example, this summer I was camping with my kids and wanted to hear a bunch of Police songs, and I pulled this up. It took me a little of active listening, but very soon I figured something was really, really wrong, so much so that I just couldn’t listen to the rest of the mix. But that is a pretty serious shift in pitch. (OK, checking it on the guitar, I guess it’s only about a half step, but it seems really different to me.)
SNfaulkner is correct. This was common back in the 1970’s in the glory days of Top 40 radio. Play say 15 songs in an hour…shorten each by say four seconds, and viola! you have 60 extra seconds of time to sell. Jam in two thirty second spots, and that is two extra commercials per hour. In a large market, let’s say thirty seconds costs you an average of $100.00…that’s $200 additional ad revenue in an hour. $4800.00 per day…times five days a week (not counting weekends–rates are cheaper)…equals $24,000 a week…times 52 weeks in a year, and it equals $1,248,000 a year.
It adds up.
Yeah, pitch drift and all that aside, the main reason would be advertising dollars.
Many people who have perfect pitch consider it a curse rather than a blessing, precisely for reasons like this - the inability to enjoy any music that is off-pitch but still in tune with itself.
I don’t have perfect pitch, but I do have a good musical memory. Back in the 70s, this was standard for the hits, but not for songs that were no longer in the top 40. I remember hearing one of those and thinking it sounded wrong because I was used to the speeded up version.
It amuses me that the Sirius / XM satellite radio channel “70s on 7” will slightly speed up some (but not all) songs. They don’t have commercials, so there’s no need to make more room in this manner (and I’ve never noticed this being done on any of their other channels), but as they do try to sound like a 1970s Top-40 radio station, I imagine that they do this as part of the “feel” for the channel.
And it was all over the place in the Baroque era:
It’s actually one of the reasons why historically informed performances sound really different from traditional (i.e. by and large “Romantic”) interpretations.
I’ve heard that, too.
Perfect pitch is a fun trick (“Hey, that exhaust pipe is burping an A# !”) but not really useful, and actually sometimes unpleasant as you point out. Relative pitch - the ability to distinguish intervals whithin a set of notes is less impressive but actually vital for a musician.
I’ve also heard that it doesn’t bother many musicians/people who do have it, so it must be more an individual thing, and I get the feeling there may be a little bit of a sour grapes component to it. Like I said, I most definitely do not have perfect pitch, but listening to those Police songs pitched up a half step drove me crazy (they were also slightly sped up, though, so I’m sure I’m reacting to that, too.)
You’re right about relative pitch being the more important skill, but it’s quite damned impressive what people with really good perfect pitch can do. Like watch this kid, especially when we get to the complex chords at about the minute mark. I’d love to have those kinds of aural skills! (The guy playing the piano, Rick Beato, is a rather wonderful musician/multi-instrumentalist who does not have perfect pitch, but has great relative pitch and chops. There is also another interview with his son Dylan if you click on one of the links on the right with him talking about perfect pitch (I can’t remember which link). Dylan is one of those who says he is not bothered by pieces being off their established key.
If you like music and theory and all that, you should check out Rick Beato’s channel. They’re just information dense.
Yeah, it’s probably an individual thing.
I know some people who have perfect pitch and just can’t listen to certain interpretations of a Baroque work because “the pitches are all wrong”. What they mean is that the notes are in the right relationship with each other but not at the “right level” i.e. too high or too low. It’s a bit like seeing a perfectly rendered picture of the sky except that it’s green.
I don’t have anything resembling perfect pitch, but I know for SURE that the radio station I have on my shower radio (metal and classic rock) speeds up and slows down songs all the time. I can totally hear that the speed is not what I am used to at all. There’s one song that I hear every so often (I’m sure it’s Metallica) that is very blatant. Can’t remember the track tho.
When music was edited on tape, speeding up a song raised the pitch but with digital editing, it’s trivial to speed up a song while maintaining the pitch. I have no special knowledge of what radio stations do but it seems to me that if they are raising the pitch it would be for its own reason–not a side effect of something else.
When I worked at an AM rock radio station in the 1970s, we sped up every song, unless there was a specific reason not to. It wasn’t so much to make more time for commercials as to give us an overall “brighter” sound than out competitors.
When we really wanted to make more time for commercials, we’d chop a verse or instrumental bridge out of songs, cut the introduction or fade the ending out more quickly.
How do they feel about Werckmeister temperaments and Indian music?
Wow, that’s horrible. Part of it is the overall audio quality, but it has clearly been speeded up (sped up?).
Are we talking AM or FM?
Even people without perfect pitch can hear pitch ups pretty easily if they remember a song a certain way. (It’s just that people with perfect pitch can tell with a song they’ve never even heard before if it’s in between keys.) Or, with me, voices. I can always tell when someone uses a PAL recording of a movie. Everyone has a slight chipmunk quality to their voice that sounds wrong.
But I don’t get why they’d pitch it up these days. We can speed up without the pitch up now, with rather good results. They do it on TV all the time with older shows, to get in more commercials. Pitching up makes it even more obvious. Maybe they just have older equipment?
Actually, the comments about it sounding “brighter” may come into effect here, as mentioned by a couple of posters. I also seem to have read that stations did this in 70s, too, not just for more ad space, but to distinguish themselves from the competition.
Yeah, I just did a quick tempo check of “Every Breath You Take” and the original is at about 118, and this versions is about 123 bpm. Looking online for a BPM-pitch calculator, that looks to be about 3/4 of a half step. Checking with “Roxanne,” I get similar numbers. So my estimate of a half step is about right. It pretty surprising to me how relatively little that shift is, yet it sounds horrendously off to my ears. Sting’s voice, especially, just sounds weird. The recording quality doesn’t help, either, but that’s not what I’m reacting to.
Looks like through the comments plenty of people have noticed, but judging by likes to dislikes, it seems many people haven’t (or just like it despite the pitch and tempo change.)