source file: mills2.txt Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 01:55:32 -0700 Subject: Partch, the idealist that remains... From: "Jonathan M. Szanto" Dear Tunors, All: Let's see... /* Be sure to set appropriate tone for response... */ #include int main(void) { use_humor = 0; serious_style = 1; return 0; } That should do it. On to the matters at hand... .................................................................... Regarding the possible ways to present the music and works of Harry Partch, I would like to clear up some of the inaccuracies, implications and mistaken priorities represented in the writings of Johnny Reinhard. One reason I do this is that by allusion Johnny might have readers believe that I do not take these issues seriously, due to an apparent inability to separate humorous delivery from dedicated content. Not only have most readers handled this quite well, one would assume that my own background in working with Partch and the Ensemble would be evidence enough of a commitment to the core. What Johnny objects to, always and strenuously, is what he refers to as an "ideology". What I have sought to do, to guard against charges of cultism, is to show how my views are rooted in, and directly stem from, the beliefs that Partch himself chose to hold close. On many occasions I have alluded to Partch's writings, citing instances where he spoke directly to a given subject. All of this apparently for naught. I don't propose that I can, or could, read Partch's mind; he spoke to these issues quite often enough to, at the very least, give weight to this perspective. It is still easy to hear some of these voices, had they been active during Harry's lifetime, saying "Come on, old man, let us use the instruments! At least let us do transcriptions and spread the word! We've got contacts! We've got venues! Why do you feel the need to hoard all of that stuff?" Of course, Partch did not consider such things, and, save for the last few years of his life, he was probably too obscure to even encounter such attitudes. Yet, couldn't Harry have though of doing transcriptions? To allow for a wider audience, even to foster 'authorized' lesser versions, so that people would be drawn to the real thing? There would have been no more important time than during his lifetime to see many ensembles performing "Barstow". It seems to have been neither considered nor executed, for obvious (albeit philosophical) reasons. It does not help 'the loyal opposition' one whit when they are standing on factual quicksand. Johnny said of the Philadelphia Revelation" performance: "...the Partch instruments were practically hidden from view behind the acting...". If you weren't there, folks (and I *was*, standing at the business end of both the Marimba Eroica and the Boo, kicking them into action when the score called for it), the production took place in the atrium (Great Hall) of the University of the Arts. The set extended from the main stage, centrally located and about 8 feet off of ground level, to just about even with the third floor. The instruments were placed on either side of a rising flight of stairs on a series of risers, each successively higher than the previous one by about 6 to 8 feet. When behind the Eroica I was almost at eye level with the second story. Knowing this, it is completely *erroneous* to say that the instruments were hidden behind the acting -- they couldn't have done it if they tried. It was rare that they were lit up like a prison break, but that would be in keeping with the rather tragic nature of the piece (and Partch's notes on the set: "...the instruments are distributed in the shade below...". This false reporting leads one to believe that if you can't stand on solid ground in terms of supporting your propositions, just make something up. It also leads the reader astray. Johnny is also critical, once again, of the non-Corporeal Lincoln Center production: "Perhaps there were no other such *non-corporeal* performance of Partch because Danlee Mitchell stopped directing Partch productions soon after." This slap at Harry's staunchest ally through the years contains no logic whatsoever: of the 3 staged performances that I can recall during 15 years of performance, *none* led to a preponderance of non-corporeal presentations. In fact, during Mitchell's stewardship Partch's works attained a corporeal spirit never quite realized during Partch's lifetime; there was a continual quest to find more, and more effective, ways to imbue the works with the "sound magic, visual beauty, experience ritual" that Harry so distinctly, so uniquely sought. For someone to make suppositions as Johnny does evidences his disregard for the facts of record, as if one event could be undeniably indicative of an unstoppable trend. "So why is the impression being made repeatedly that these concerts - still unheard by Mr. Szanto - are counterfeits?" Because they are, to use Harry's words, "about the one-half truth of the one-fourth factor". In a humorous tone, in an effort to make an analogy so wide as to be unmistakable, I contrasted two evenings versions of a Partch Ensemble performance with one by the Ensemble and one by a drum and bugle corp. I thought that no one could have taken it as a serious comparison, but the point remains that an artistic line will *always* have to be drawn, beyond which limit the artifact of the artist ceases to contain the essential qualities that make it so rare in the first place. How *far* from the original can you go before the new version becomes parody? Each artist himself can make that determination; Andy Warhol had his answer, but not every 'canvas' is so readily applicable to 'copies'. Harry was certainly clear during his lifetime: he did not transcribe, or allow transcriptions of, any of his music. The evolutionary changes that accompanied some of the works ("Barstow" would be a good example) reflected a growth in both his physical ensemble of instruments and his compositional palette. They were not symptomatic of orchestrational ambivalence. And in a similar vein comes the ever-present question transcriptors ask: "Why should Partch's work be treated any differently from other composer's?" This question seems at the same time to beg both a voluminous response and a simple one. The former: no, not now... The latter: show me another composer that created his own intonational system, for the purpose of more accurately setting human speech (primarily American English) in a musical format, came up with an ensemble which was conceived, designed and built over a 50 year period, all of preceding leading directly to, and along with, an aesthetic based on the non-separation of performance disciplines (dancers *more* than dancers, instrumentalists *more* than instrumentalists, etc.). Then toss in their claim to be rooted in ancient principles. Damned hard to find one. And I would be willing to bet that the same rigorous application of correct performance practice would not be out of place for him/her, either. Harry Partch was not *just another composer*, and he of necessity engenders different rules. You call it idealism; that makes it convenient to validate technologically correct but pale imitations, bereft of the bone and sinew of a human being pumping on a Chromelodeon (to cite one example). I call it a realistic assessment of what the person who created this madness had in mind all along, like it or not. And while he says that the alternate versions being done today are "still unheard by Mr. Szanto", which in and of itself is not terribly accurate (Johnny's transcriptions being the only one's I am *aware* of that I haven't heard, at least on recordings), it begs the issue: Harry Partch is something to be judged on more than what is "heard" -- Harry Partch is an Attitude. Johnny accuses me (or Danlee, I'm not sure who...) of harboring "behind the scenes double standards" that he finds "objectionable". That he took my reference to the "blight" of a transcription at face value, in spite of my comment about dealing with the issue "seriously" in an earlier post, allows him to remind me (us?) "that even paranoids have enemies." Sorry, but this is out there so far I can't even take offense at it. As to the double-standards, I don't believe they were intended; more to the point, efforts have been made to address them. If you wish to read Danlee Mitchell's statement regarding these performance issues, it is available; in the statement Mitchell acknowledges earlier errors in allowing some of these (constantly mentioned) transcriptions: "In other words - I should have known better!" So the task of where to draw the artistic 'line in the sand' is of crucial importance, as we find out. I've certainly gained new insights during this debate, and now have to come to grips with *my* earlier 'leniency', seeing as I seemed to have liked Ted Mook's "Li Po". Live and learn: looks like *my* circle of acceptability might contract even tighter. But I'm just one voice... So Johnny goes on, emitting little one-liners as if the subject matter were as inconsequential as deciding what clothes to wear tomorrow. He makes some kind of arm-chair psychological analysis of Harry's personality, throws around the term "morbid", speaks anthropomorphically about the instruments -- all in service of... what? He won't say; too much trouble, either to you (the dear readers) or, privately, to me (the idealist). Well, we have reached one possible ending. Naturally, Johnny is unconvinced as to the validity of all this hoohaa; to accept these concepts might mean a curtailing of his performance schedule. I have no doubt that he will continue to perform the pieces; it's a free country. One wonders, however, what to think about performers that skate so much on the surface of a very deep and soulful repertoire (see, isn't it *obvious* how much this MEANS to me?). Do they really believe they are doing justice to Partch's vision? Have they really paused to understand some of the other aspects of Partch's work, aside from getting those pesky vibrations out into the ether? To me, the challenge of properly presenting the concept, the true work of Partch in the days ahead lies in an understanding of just how different he was, how fragile the corpus of his creativity. And to make matters all the more difficult, to do this so that it does not merely set up yet another rigor-mortised tradition. This is the issue I have grappled with, and continue to do so. Let others make "a concert of music". I don't imagine that I will be on any more Partch projects in a performing sense, but my involvement hasn't ended there. I wish I had either the eloquence or the balls that Harry did while addressing these concerns. In the meantime, to avoid anyone having the mistaken impression that I am in the fray for anything less than honorable reasons, I close with some thoughts of Harry's contained in a manual he wrote regarding maintenance and repair of the instruments: "The basic and essential need as of this moment is someone who can and will -- if necessary -- take my place (1) to see to it that the instruments are in good structural and playable condition; (2) to keep them in tune as well as this is humanly possible; and (3) to demand that they be played competently, and that the attitudes be right, even at the risk of arousing momentary hostility." I wonder how long this "momentary" will last. No matter -- as Johnny so succinctly put it: "I guess the issues of performing Partch are not funny to me." Respectfully, consonantly, Jon *--------------------------------------------------------------------* Jonathan M. Szanto | Come visit Corporeal Meadows . . . . . . . Backbeats & Interrupts | . . . . . . . . . our little Partch tribute. jszanto@adnc.com | http://www.adnc.com/web/jszanto/welcome.html *--------------------------------------------------------------------* Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 14:49 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA21542; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 14:50:33 +0200 Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA21557 Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) for id FAA15831; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 05:50:29 -0700 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 05:50:29 -0700 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu