Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning High 3rd and "Can't Buy Me Love"

In a singing lesson with a new student last night we were working on
singing major triads and looking for songs that could be models for the
various intervals involved, like "Here Comes the Bride" for a perfect forth
ascending. I suggested "Can't Buy Me Love", by the Beatles, which starts
out with a major triad on the tonic. My student said that she knew that
song, so we tried it. Guess what? When we sang "Can't buy" as a 4:5 root to
third, it didn't sound anything like what Paul McCartney sang. When we sang
something higher than that for "Buy" (maybe 7:9?) it sounded just like what
Paul sang.

Let me suggest the following experiment for any of you who are completely
familiar with "Can't Buy Me Love". BEFORE you go and listen to the Beatles'
recording, use a guitar or a keyboard or something with which to set the
key. Play just the tonic note and then sing "Can't buy", sustaining the
"buy" along with the tonic from your guitar or keyboard. As you are about
to do this, think about Paul McCartney singing the tune and do your best to
sing it his way. Ask yourself: Does the "buy" that you are singing sound
like it is 5/4 relative to the tonic? If not, try singing "Can't buy" with
5/4 relative to the root and ask yourself: "Does that that sound like what
Paul sang?

Once you've done that experiment, then listen to the Beatles.

Might somebody be able to do a spectral analysis in order to measure the
first three pitches Paul sang? Fortunately he sings them without
accompaniment of any sort, so there is no problem of sorting out multiple
voices. I'd put my money on 14:18:21.

John Link

****************************************************************************

Watch for the CD "Live at Saint Peter's" by the JOHN LINK VOCAL QUINTET,
featuring original compositions as well as arrangements of instrumental
music by Brahe and Taylor, Chick Corea, Miles Davis, Claude Debussy, Bill
Evans, Ennio and Andrea Morricone, Modeste Mussorgsky, Erik Satie, and Earl
Zindars.

****************************************************************************

Check out WWW.DUESBERG.COM for information that could make the difference
between life and death for you or someone you know.

****************************************************************************

🔗Darren Burgess <dburgess@acceleration.net>

I'll do the spectral analysis if someone else does the recording. They
could extract the song from a CD with a cd ripper and then snip off the
first few seconds and email it to me. Don't send the whole tune. It would
be 5-6 megs.

Should be saved as a .WAV file.

Darren Burgess
SEJIS gainesville FL
dburgess@acceleration.net
> Might somebody be able to do a spectral analysis in order to measure the
> first three pitches Paul sang? Fortunately he sings them without
> accompaniment of any sort, so there is no problem of sorting out multiple
> voices. I'd put my money on 14:18:21.
>
> John Link
>
>
>
>
****************************************************************************
>
> Watch for the CD "Live at Saint Peter's" by the JOHN LINK VOCAL QUINTET,
> featuring original compositions as well as arrangements of instrumental
> music by Brahe and Taylor, Chick Corea, Miles Davis, Claude Debussy, Bill
> Evans, Ennio and Andrea Morricone, Modeste Mussorgsky, Erik Satie, and
Earl
> Zindars.
>
>
****************************************************************************
>
> Check out WWW.DUESBERG.COM for information that could make the difference
> between life and death for you or someone you know.
>
>
****************************************************************************
>
>
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> Looking for the lowest refinance rate for your mortgage?
> GetSmart.com can help. We'll help you find the loan you
> need - quick, easy, and FREE click
> <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/GetSmartRefinance ">Click Here</a>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@onelist.com - subscribe to the tuning list.
> tuning-unsubscribe@onelist.com - unsubscribe from the tuning list.
> tuning-digest@onelist.com - switch your subscription to digest mode.
> tuning-normal@onelist.com - switch your subscription to normal mode.
>
>

🔗Joe Monzo <monz@juno.com>

> [John Link, TD 506.8]
> ... I suggested "Can't Buy Me Love", by the Beatles, which
> starts out with a major triad on the tonic. My student said
> that she knew that song, so we tried it. Guess what? When we
> sang "Can't buy" as a 4:5 root to third, it didn't sound
> anything like what Paul McCartney sang. When we sang something
> higher than that for "Buy" (maybe 7:9?) it sounded just like
> what Paul sang.
>
> Let me suggest the following experiment for any of you who
> are completely familiar with "Can't Buy Me Love". BEFORE you
> go and listen to the Beatles' recording, use a guitar or a
> keyboard or something with which to set the key. Play just
> the tonic note and then sing "Can't buy", sustaining the
> "buy" along with the tonic from your guitar or keyboard.
> As you are about to do this, think about Paul McCartney
> singing the tune and do your best to sing it his way. Ask
> yourself: Does the "buy" that you are singing sound like
> it is 5/4 relative to the tonic? If not, try singing
> "Can't buy" with 5/4 relative to the root and ask yourself:
> "Does that that sound like what Paul sang?

No, I agree that it doesn't - not even close.

I no longer have a recording of _Can't Buy Me Love_ with
which to check my experimental results, but I've heard the
song several hundred times and know it well.

I was playing around with a large 5-limit lattice in my
JustMusic software and decided to try John's experiment.

1/1 - 5/4 - 3/2 sounded nothing at all like what Paul McCartney
sings on this song.

There are two pitches on this lattice that are near 9/7:
one slightly flatter and one slightly sharper. They both
sounded close to what Paul sings, to me:

ratio prime-factor ~cents
32/25 5^-2 427
162/125 3^4 * 5^-3 449

The 162/125 [basically a quarter-tone, right between 2^(4/12)
and 2^(5/12)] sounded like it may be a little too high, but
32/25 sounds just right if not a little flat. This lends
a lot of weight to John's interpretation of the Paul's '3rd'
as 9/7.

In fact, I think the '5th' that Paul sings may also be
sharp: 243/160 = 3^5 * 5^-1 = ~723 cents, a syntonic comma
higher than 3/2, sounded fine to me coming after either of
the two 'high 3rds' tabulated above.

That's my 1/600 of an 'octave'.

-monz

Joseph L. Monzo Philadelphia monz@juno.com
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html
|"...I had broken thru the lattice barrier..."|
| - Erv Wilson |
--------------------------------------------------

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

🔗Joe Monzo <monz@juno.com>

Hmmm... Experimenting further with my 5-limit lattice
re: John Link's ideas on _Can't Buy Me Love_ [TD 506.8],
I found a 5-limit ratio that is very close to his proposed 9/7
(only ~0.4 cent flatter): 625/486 = 3^-5 * 5^4 = ~435.5 cents.

This pitch sounded OK as the 'high 3rd', in combination with
the 243/160 'comma-high 5th', but to me seemed perhaps just
a little sharp. Based on my memory of the performance, I
think 32/25 [= ~427 cents] probably comes closest to what
McCartney sang on the studio recording.

Now I'm really interested... bring on the spectrogram.

-monz

🔗Mark Nowitzky <nowitzky@alum.mit.edu>

Hey John, Darren, et al,

On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 17:17:09 -0500 [TD506.8],
John Link <johnlink@con2.com> wrote:
>Might somebody be able to do a spectral analysis in order to measure the
>first three pitches Paul sang? Fortunately he sings them without
>accompaniment of any sort, so there is no problem of sorting out multiple
>voices. I'd put my money on 14:18:21.

Then on Fri, 28 Jan 2000 13:48:24 -0500 [TD507.2],
Darren Burgess <dburgess@acceleration.net> wrote:
>I'll do the spectral analysis if someone else does the recording.

I did some surfin'/searchin', and found the beginning of the tune on this
web page:

<http://home.ici.net/customers/hanson/chrono.htm>

The direct link is <http://home.ici.net/customers/hanson/ra/cantbuy.mp2>.
It isn't a .WAV file, but hopefully you can still use it as input to your
spectral analyser.

My money is on 108:135:160 ( which is 4 : 5 : 160/27 ). This amounts to a
low 5th instead of a high 3rd (I'm keeping the 3rd at 5/4).

Here's my rationale: Assume the key of the song is C major, making the
notes in question C, E, G. Well, at the time these notes are sung, the
song has a "temporary" tonic of A (minor). So he's actually singing the
top 3 notes of an Amin7 chord: A, C, E, G.

Here's the ratios and their corresponding Nowitzkian Note Names, including
the unsung A:

Ratios Ratios Nowitzkian
if A=1/1 if C=1/1 Note Names
-------- -------- ----------
16/9 40/27 4G
3/2 5/4 4E
6/5 1/1 5C
1/1 5/6 4A

(More info on Nowitzkian Note Names at
<http://nowitzky.hypermart.net/justint/nnn.htm>.)

So as usual, I'm pushing 5-Limit Just Intonation. Notice that my tuning of
the G is not so foreign when in the context of the A. It also is
consistent with the subsequent Dmin7 chord (with the lyrics "No no no").
The 4G and 4A are each a perfect 5th (3/2) away from the 4D in a Dmin7.

I end with this warning: I'm combating a cold and a major depression right
now, so my intonation and brain may not be very reliable...

--Mark

__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html

🔗Darren Burgess <dburgess@acceleration.net>

Here is my analysis using spectrogram. I converted the MP3 to WAV. The
error range is +/- 1.3 hertz. I have included the frequency range as the
software does not identify precise frequencies. The first column indicates
the frequency obtained at the center of each band. I attenuated the
amplitude of the sample to narrow the frequency band.

Frequency Range Atttenuation
262 htz 259-267 9 dec cant
337 332-340 18 dec by
405 402-407 18 dec me

Looks like that third very close to 9/7! If anyone doubts the analysis, I
will send screen shots justifying the frequencies I chose.

Darren Burgess
SEJIS
Gainesville FL

> On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 17:17:09 -0500 [TD506.8],
> John Link <johnlink@con2.com> wrote:
> >Might somebody be able to do a spectral analysis in order to measure the
> >first three pitches Paul sang? Fortunately he sings them without
> >accompaniment of any sort, so there is no problem of sorting out multiple
> >voices. I'd put my money on 14:18:21.
>
> Then on Fri, 28 Jan 2000 13:48:24 -0500 [TD507.2],
> Darren Burgess <dburgess@acceleration.net> wrote:
> >I'll do the spectral analysis if someone else does the recording.
>
> I did some surfin'/searchin', and found the beginning of the tune on this
> web page:
>
> <http://home.ici.net/customers/hanson/chrono.htm>

🔗Dale Scott <adelscott@mail.utexas.edu>

>Subject: Can't Buy me is bIV at 436 cents in LucyTuning????
>
>Who started this McCartney nonsense anyway???

Who started this LucyTuning nonsense anyway???

>------------ Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -------
>by setting tuning and harmonic standards for the next 1000 years (and
>beyond)

Extreme delusions of grandeur.

> and having fun with them.

Right. Someone can behave like a cantankerous old curmudgeon, but phrases
such as "promoting global harmony" and "having fun with them" will fool
everyone else into thinking that person is a sort of microtonal cross
between Mohandas Gandhi and Soupy Sales.

Never mind the possibility of maybe actually being grateful that someone
even mentioned your tuning system, which will never become a standard,
locally much less globally, for any number of years, because it's too damned
complicated (plus, it's got a funny name: how about "EthelTuning"??).

🔗Darren Burgess <dburgess@acceleration.net>

Dale,

Slap on the wrist Dale! These statements were quite rude and uncalled for.
This is supposed to be a scholarly forum. If you have some problems with
Lucy tuning, perhaps you can address them in a scholarly way, to allow for
real debate. Principles above personalities.

I my myself no nothing of Lucy Tuning, just proper manners.

Darren Burgess
SEJIS gainesville FL

> From: Dale Scott <adelscott@mail.utexas.edu>
>
> >Subject: Can't Buy me is bIV at 436 cents in LucyTuning????
> >
> >Who started this McCartney nonsense anyway???
>
> Who started this LucyTuning nonsense anyway???
>
> >------------ Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -------
> >by setting tuning and harmonic standards for the next 1000 years (and
> >beyond)
>
> Extreme delusions of grandeur.
>
> > and having fun with them.
>
> Right. Someone can behave like a cantankerous old curmudgeon, but phrases
> such as "promoting global harmony" and "having fun with them" will fool
> everyone else into thinking that person is a sort of microtonal cross
> between Mohandas Gandhi and Soupy Sales.
>
> Never mind the possibility of maybe actually being grateful that someone
> even mentioned your tuning system, which will never become a standard,
> locally much less globally, for any number of years, because it's too
damned
> complicated (plus, it's got a funny name: how about "EthelTuning"??).

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>

🔗John Link <johnlink@con2.com>

>From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>
>
>Dear John Link,
>
>We were discussing a sustained, stable, _locked_ major triad, not one formed
>by an arpeggio in the melody. While good singers can easily be 1/3 of a
>semitone sharp in an ascending arpeggio, I don't think that has any bearing
>on this discussion. The Beatles were great singers, through -- how about
>analyzing the pitches in "Because"?

Dear Paul H. Erlich,

Are you scolding me? Your post sure does read that way to me. I'm quite
aware of what we've been discussing. I generously reported the surprising
discovery I made and suggested a experiment for others to do that would
offer them a chance for similar discovery. If that upsets you then I feel
sorry for you. By the way, have you done the experiment I suggested?

To anyone interested in further exploration:

Let me suggest another question to ask youself when singing the first three
notes of "Can't Buy Me Love". Which pitch (5/4, 400 cents, 24/19, 81/64,
9/7 or anything else) sounds best to you for "Buy"?

John Link

****************************************************************************

Check out WWW.DUESBERG.COM for information that could make the difference
between life and death for you or someone you know.

****************************************************************************

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>

Darren Burgess wrote,

>Here is my analysis using spectrogram. I converted the MP3 to WAV. The
>error range is +/- 1.3 hertz. I have included the frequency range as the
>software does not identify precise frequencies. The first column indicates
>the frequency obtained at the center of each band. I attenuated the
>amplitude of the sample to narrow the frequency band.

>Frequency Range Atttenuation
>262 htz 259-267 9 dec cant
>337 332-340 18 dec by
>405 402-407 18 dec me

Thanks Darren! I note that the "perfect fifth" between 262 and 405 is 754�!
Hence I would be inclined to agree with Wim. Even if the three notes were
sounded as a chord (which they're not), this would not be an example of
Jerry's high third, since Jerry requires a fifth of 702�, not 754�. The
minor third here is in fact extremely close (sharp, in fact) to 6:5, rather
than the 7:6 that the 9:7 high third hypothesis would require.

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>

John Link wrote,

>By the way, have you done the experiment I suggested?

>To anyone interested in further exploration:

>Let me suggest another question to ask youself when singing the first three
>notes of "Can't Buy Me Love". Which pitch (5/4, 400 cents, 24/19, 81/64,
>9/7 or anything else) sounds best to you for "Buy"?

Is that the experiment you suggested? I think a wide variety of options
would work, as this is an unaccompanied vocal arpeggio. But I think Wim's
analysis makes sense:

>I still didn't hear the E as being higher than usual. It felt more as if
the C
>was much lower. In fact the very first chord which comes in after the words
>"Can't buy me" in is E minor and not C major. The first C ("Can't")
>McCartney sings is may be attracted downwards to the B in the E minor chord
>that follows. If we tune this C upwards from 262 to 270 Hz the C - E - G
>triad would be a virtually perfect 4:5:6.

Anyway, I didn't mean to scold you by pointing out:

>We were discussing a sustained, stable, _locked_ major triad, not one
formed
>by an arpeggio in the [unaccompanied] melody.

It simply seemed important to point that out since Jerry keeps emphasizing
the acoustical "locking" or a sustained triad, of which this of course is
not an example.

Let's keep the tone civil and the discussion open. This is very interesting
stuff!

🔗John Link <johnlink@con2.com>

>From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>
>
>John Link wrote,
>
>>By the way, have you done the experiment I suggested?
>
>>To anyone interested in further exploration:
>
>>Let me suggest another question to ask youself when singing the first three
>>notes of "Can't Buy Me Love". Which pitch (5/4, 400 cents, 24/19, 81/64,
>>9/7 or anything else) sounds best to you for "Buy"?
>
>Is that the experiment you suggested?

No, it is an *additional* question to ask as part of the experiment I
suggested on 1/27, in which I also reported an experience I had with a
singing student.

>Anyway, I didn't mean to scold you by pointing out:
>
>>We were discussing a sustained, stable, _locked_ major triad, not one
>formed
>>by an arpeggio in the [unaccompanied] melody.
>
>It simply seemed important to point that out since Jerry keeps emphasizing
>the acoustical "locking" or a sustained triad, of which this of course is
>not an example.

I'm quite aware that I was introducing a new example with some features the
same as the one Jerry describes and some features different.

>Let's keep the tone civil and the discussion open.

I wish you would!

> This is very interesting
>stuff!

I think so too. Have you tried the experiment I suggested?

John Link

****************************************************************************

Check out WWW.DUESBERG.COM for information that could make the difference
between life and death for you or someone you know.

****************************************************************************

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>

OK -- When I perform the experiment I definitely want the first melodic
interval to be larger that 4:5, but I can imagine Paul McCartney singing it
many different ways (as I'm sure he did).

>Fortunately he sings them without
>accompaniment of any sort, so there is no problem of sorting out multiple
>voices. I'd put my money on 14:18:21.

Well, it turns out you had the bottom interval as close as could be desired,
while the upper (or outer) interval is about 52� sharper than where you put
your money. My answer remains, you can't expect the level of precision
implied by these ratios from a rapid unaccompanied vocal arpeggio by a
Western pop singer.

🔗klunk <klunk@tmx.com.au>

-----Original Message-----
From: Darren Burgess <dburgess@acceleration.net>
To: tuning@onelist.com <tuning@onelist.com>
Date: Monday, January 31, 2000 1:41 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: High 3rd and "Can't Buy Me Love"

>From: "Darren Burgess" <dburgess@acceleration.net>
>
>Here is my analysis using spectrogram. I converted the MP3 to WAV. The
>error range is +/- 1.3 hertz. I have included the frequency range as the
>software does not identify precise frequencies. The first column indicates
>the frequency obtained at the center of each band. I attenuated the
>amplitude of the sample to narrow the frequency band.
>
>Frequency Range Atttenuation
>262 htz 259-267 9 dec cant
>337 332-340 18 dec by
>405 402-407 18 dec me
>
>Looks like that third very close to 9/7! If anyone doubts the analysis, I
>will send screen shots justifying the frequencies I chose.
>
>Darren Burgess
>SEJIS
>Gainesville FL
>
>
>
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 17:17:09 -0500 [TD506.8],
>> John Link <johnlink@con2.com> wrote:
>> >Might somebody be able to do a spectral analysis in order to measure the
>> >first three pitches Paul sang? Fortunately he sings them without
>> >accompaniment of any sort, so there is no problem of sorting out
multiple
>> >voices. I'd put my money on 14:18:21.
>>
>> Then on Fri, 28 Jan 2000 13:48:24 -0500 [TD507.2],
>> Darren Burgess <dburgess@acceleration.net> wrote:
>> >I'll do the spectral analysis if someone else does the recording.
>>
>> I did some surfin'/searchin', and found the beginning of the tune on this
>> web page:
>>
>> <http://home.ici.net/customers/hanson/chrono.htm>
>
>
>
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>Looking for the lowest refinance rate for your mortgage?
>GetSmart.com can help. We'll help you find the loan you
>need - quick, easy, and FREE click
><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/GetSmartRefinance ">Click Here</a>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
>email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@onelist.com - subscribe to the tuning list.
> tuning-unsubscribe@onelist.com - unsubscribe from the tuning list.
> tuning-digest@onelist.com - switch your subscription to digest mode.
> tuning-normal@onelist.com - switch your subscription to normal mode.
>
>
>

🔗klunk <klunk@tmx.com.au>

I want out of this one list community get me off this list please
-----Original Message-----
From: Darren Burgess <dburgess@acceleration.net>
To: tuning@onelist.com <tuning@onelist.com>
Date: Monday, January 31, 2000 1:41 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: High 3rd and "Can't Buy Me Love"

🔗Joe Monzo <monz@juno.com>

> [Paul Erlich, TD 510.11]
> Thanks Darren! I note that the "perfect fifth" between 262
> and 405 is 754�! Hence I would be inclined to agree with Wim.
> Even if the three notes were sounded as a chord (which they're
> not), this would not be an example of Jerry's high third, since
> Jerry requires a fifth of 702�, not 754�. The minor third here
> is in fact extremely close (sharp, in fact) to 6:5, rather
> than the 7:6 that the 9:7 high third hypothesis would require.

I had written:

> [me, monz, TD 507.2]
> In fact, I think the '5th' that Paul [McCartney] sings may
> also be sharp: 243/160 = 3^5 * 5^-1 = ~723 cents, a syntonic
> comma higher than 3/2, sounded fine to me coming after either
> of the two 'high 3rds' tabulated above.

I should have mentioned then that even the 723-cent '5th'
may have been a little too flat.

But since I was the only one who said anything at all about
the high pitch of the '5th' before the spectrogram results were
posted, I just thought I'd 'toot my own horn' and point out
to all of you how sharp *my ears* are! Clean out the wax,
everybody!!

-monz

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>

Joe Monzo wrote,

>But since I was the only one who said anything at all about
>the high pitch of the '5th' before the spectrogram results were
>posted, I just thought I'd 'toot my own horn' and point out
>to all of you how sharp *my ears* are! Clean out the wax,
>everybody!!

Absolutely, Joe -- like Johnny Reinhard, you've clearly done a lot of
listening to/playing of a great variety of intervals, and generally have
pretty good acuity at identifying them. Many of us on this list, myself
included (I've ear-trained myself only in 22-tET, 31-tET, and 11-limit JI),
have a lot of catching up to do.

On the other hand, Joe, I still feel that a lot of the ratios you're
ascribing to intervals, such as 243/160, are _way_ too complex to have any
perceptual relevance, and you wouldn't have an easy time justifying them as
arising from an extended reference framework either. Although there may be a
variety of ratios that could come into play in hearing this interval due to
the sound of the interval alone (the Van Eck model would specify these) or
due to context, I don't think it serves analytical music theory to be
cavalierly jumping around the lattice picking up ratios. Of course, it's
perfectly fine as a method of composition, as your piece "A Noiseless
Patient Spider" demonstrates. But in the context of Paul McCartney or Robert
Johnson's vocal lines, I'd take a different approach.

Just my 2�!

🔗Joe Monzo <monz@juno.com>

> [Paul Erlich, TD 511.15]
> I still feel that a lot of the ratios you're ascribing to
> intervals, such as 243/160, are _way_ too complex to have
> any perceptual relevance, and you wouldn't have an easy
> time justifying them as arising from an extended reference
> framework either. Although there may be a variety of ratios
> that could come into play in hearing this interval due to
> the sound of the interval alone (the Van Eck model would
> specify these) or due to context, I don't think it serves
> analytical music theory to be cavalierly jumping around the
> lattice picking up ratios. Of course, it's perfectly fine as
> a method of composition, as your piece "A Noiseless Patient
> Spider" demonstrates. But in the context of Paul McCartney
> or Robert Johnson's vocal lines, I'd take a different approach.

Yes, that's a very good point. After reading this, I thought
about it some more and realized that the only way those
large-integer ratios in my Beethoven experiment
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/beethove/son9schz.htm
make any sense is by extended reference, altho it may be a
different kind of extended reference than the type described
by Boomsliter and Creel. (I'd have to look into it further
to provide more extensive comment.)

But what I find really interesting, as I mentioned about a
month ago in connection with my retuning of my piece _3 Plus 4_,
is that a certain high-integer ratio which is close in pitch
to a much lower-integer but higher-prime-limit one, sounds
so appropriate when the lower-integer higher-prime one
doesn't. (The specific example from _3 Plus 4_ was the low
'minor 3rd' of 64:75 vs 6:7. See TD 461.10 and 461.17.)

In the Beethoven experiment, there may be some justification
for calling my method 'cavalierly jumping around the lattice
picking up ratios', but it was based on the idea that
Beethoven probably did not intend or imagine harmonic
relationships with a prime-limit higher than 5. Altho
I can't provide any concrete references, this idea stems
from my pretty extensive knowledge of Beethoven's life
and music.

But in the Robert Johnson analysis,
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/rjohnson/drunken.htm
I have stated clearly that the ratios I chose are based
primarily on the actual pitches that Johnson sang, and
secondarily on my desire to fit those pitches into a Partchian
Monophonic tuning system. There was no cavalier 'jumping about'
involved there. I simply tried to keep the ratios to as small
an integer- and prime-limit as possible, and to keep them
as closely-related to 1/1 as possible.

Of course, in my own piece I was guided more by my own
'inner ear' and various formal/structural desiderata.

-monz