High 3rd and "Can't Buy Me Love"

Darren Burgess posted:
>
>> 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.

Wim Hoogewerf responded:

> Darren: my compliments for what seems to be a very precize analysis. I did
> some strumming and singing, like Joe, with the record in my mind, but I
> still didn't hear the E as being higher than usual. It felt more as if the C
> was much lower.

Wim, I'm interested in your analysis, but I have a few questions. Since the
issue has to do with the intervalic relationship of C and E, how is C being
lower different from E being higher? C is lower is relation to what, if not
to E? Apparently, you agree that the interval is wider than "normal." Right?

> In fact the very first chord which comes in after the words
> "Can't buy me" in is E minor and not C major.

I don't see how the chord that follows the phrase could influence the tuning
of the phrase in question. The end of the verse is solidly in C major, the
more likely influence on the tuning of the phrase.

> 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.

But what would it be if we don't move the C? I think that is the issue.

Jerry

Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> 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"?

Of course you are right in that my concern is for explaining simultaneously
sounded harmonic relationships. Nevertheless, John is not outside the
discussion in noting this melodic "high third." Singers who experience the
"high third" harmonically over a long period of time tend to sing that
relationship melodically. I know you believe that singers prefer 12-tET
where melody is concerned, but consider that perhaps ALL singers don't.

I believe that John was simply tossing into the discussion an example of
such a singer. He could also toss (if he know them) many, if not most, of my
LA Jazz choir soloists.

What is "Because"? I trust you are not referring to the song often sung at
weddings in the fifties and sixties. I guess that's a Beatles song I don't
know. I guess I can't know everything. And, of course, its a good practice
to remind ourselves that none of us knows everything. It's amazing how
intelligent we appear when we take that approach. :-)

Jerry

>What is "Because"?

A Beatles song sung in full four-part harmony. An a cappela version was just
released. You _must_ hear it!

Jerry wrote,

>But what would it be if we don't move the C? I think that is the issue.

The third would be 7:9, but the fifth would be 752�.