source file: mills2.txt Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 13:04:40 -0700 Subject: Reinhard Redux: Partch thoughts... From: "Jonathan M. Szanto" Friends, It took a few days, but I finally managed to apply my Algorithmic Rebuttal Module to the input source material (Mr. R.'s last 8-point railing against "the truth"), and here are the results. It would have come sooner but I only recently ported the program from the Timex-Sinclair over to my main workhorse, the TRS-80. Here we go... *************** >The truth is Harry Partch promoted corporeality and his heir Danlee >Mitchell performed *Revelation in the Courthouse Park* in Lincoln Center >in total concert form, thereby giving the opposite impression of his mentor. This has been covered before. Yes, "Revelation"-NY was a concert production; as such, dismissible on that basis. In the last twenty years of productions I can remember only two others that would fall outside of the corpus of corporeality, out of many, many performances. You win -- and it's a pretty *tiny* victory. It would have been interesting to hear Johnny's comments on this Lincoln Center concert, but he has stated that he did not attend it. >The truth is that Partch decried recordings for their abstract nature, >while creating the Gate 5 label for his music, an early an successful Indie.' What on Earth is the point here? Damned if you do and damned if you don't? Harry didn't exactly "decry" records; he said that "records have been a rather sad compromise." (Preface to 2nd Edition, "Genesis Of A Music") And they were, seeing as they completely omitted the physical aspects of a performance. If one takes a historical perspective on Partch's reasons for recording, including the fact that some of the early Gate 5 recordings were sold on a *subscription* basis, to underwrite productions of the works, one can see that recordings for Harry were a 'means to an end', not a shortcut or a quick buck. And, though he continued to sell the Gate 5 recordings for many years, it would be a stretch of monumental proportions to label him a "successful Indie". >The truth is that their are many versions of Harry Partch's music where >instruments are exchanged and different music is substituted (e.g. 3 >versions of both Barstow and U.S. Highball). Oh, please. Is this a rational for substituting bassoon and calliope? Sackbutts and bandoneons? That Partch had more than one version of a given work can traced more to the growth in his 'orchestral' pallette, through the design and building of new instruments, than to any inherent 'wishy-washy-ness' on his part in terms of arrangement. That growth-curve, as both a composer and ensemble builder paralleled his expansion of both One Voice and Corporeality in a long arc: "I myself sang and played one instrument,often entirely alone, for some sixteen years (1930-1947): Li Po poems, Biblical passages, hitchhiker inscriptions, and the transcontinental freight-train trip, U.S. Highball. Yet the step from those somewhat less than epic presentations to the profound Sophocles drama, Oedipus, was to me most logical." (same source as above) It is difficult, at this point, to justify any transcription of Partch's works for another set of instruments, for anything less than study purposes. The only possible motivations would seem to be quite self-serving. Like having them arranged for your own string quartet, so that you could 'play' Partch... >The truth is that every performance of Partch since 1974 has been a >variation. The instruments, some held with rubber bands, have been >updated, replaced, and even improved. Still, Harry's voice is not >recreateable and every performance demonstrates a difference. Wait a minute. Point One: Yes, no two performances are alike. Does it follow then that the differences between two evenings' performances of "Castor and Pollux" by the Partch Ensemble are the equivalent to the differences between one of those performances and one by the Garfield Cadets Drum and Bugle Corps? Point Two: Ah, the rubber band analogy. Johnny seems to take perverse delight in one of Harry's less 'high-tech' construction methods; too bad -- it's fun changing those rubber bands. Keeps ones' ego in check. Reminds you of the temporal nature of our life on the planet, or something. But seriously, from 1974 to 1987 there was no 'updating, replacing or improving' done to the instruments, with one exception: a new Boo was constructed, but it was done as a completion of a project that Harry himself had started (he had experimented with the phenolic resin tubes himself, and was eager to build a more durable instrument. I was glad for it, having had to personally supervise a massive repair job on Boo I in the late 70's. Bamboo cracks...). So this was the only change to the ensemble; the rest was maintenance. >The truth is that Newband issued a CD with transcriptions, even as Mr. >Mitchell was railing against all such transcriptions, this one in >particular, while insuring Mr. Drummond complete and absolute control. >If only _Partch Instruments_ are used, and all competition is >marginalized, then monopoly is achieved. Oh, Lord, I already touched on this, but Johnny seems to be quite put out about it. This is a true flaw in our Grand Master Plan of Control (watch out for those black choppers...). This transcription is a blight on what would hopefully be a spotless record, and I hope that it is never repeated again. [I actually addressed this in a _serious_ manner in my previous posts.] But I guess I now know why this bothers Johnny so much. It is the use of the word *competition*. I never looked at music as a competition, and I still don't. There is so much available, so much new music to be created. The only possible reason it could be a competition is if it is 'my product vs. your'. What an utterly repugnant thought... >The truth is that their is a morbid qualtiy to Mr. Partch and what might >now be called his Bi-Polar personality. The instruments were treated as >having mortality like humans. The cloud chamber bowls have no calculable >way to be replaced, and the rubber bands examples of holding the >corporeal body of the instrument together. I am going to hang on to this paragraph, and I am going to ask Johnny to clarify his point. I don't want to misconstrue his idea; I think I know what he is getting at, but don't want to jump to conclusions. It is possible that he is addressing an issue many of us have grappled with since Partch's death; I'll email him when he is back from teaching... >The truth is there is no other example in any other realm of art that >follows the deamnds that the Mitchell/Szanto canon of Partchian ideology >make...that I can think of. My (not our) point exactly. No other example indeed. Transcribe anyone else if you like. Lots of composers out there. Lots of music. >I could introduce Harry Partch to the youngsters, as I have many times >before, or I can be intimidated by Mr. Mitchell's previous admonition >to me against lecturing on Harry Partch as if I was a Partch scholar. Go where your heart is, Johnny. I surely have introduced Harry Partch to a lot of people, and I'm no scholar. I've tried to understand what Harry Partch is really about, though. >Truth is indeed stranger than fiction. This being the case, then, let us stick to facts. Let us be clear in our writings. Let us substantiate our opinions so that they don't just come across as the ravings of zealots, but as reasoned justifications for a course of action. If Partch's works are to survive with any semblance of respectability and rigor, then to do less worse than simply being strange. |--------------------------------------------------| | Jonathan M. Szanto | .....sound-magic..... | | Backbeats & Interrupts | ....visual beauty.... | | jszanto@adnc.com | ..experience-ritual.. | |--------------------------------------------------| Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 00:25 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA14220; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 00:24:50 +0200 Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA14152 Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) for id PAA20550; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 15:25:37 -0700 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 15:25:37 -0700 Message-Id: <00A9F4A1.fc@nile.com> Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu