Re: [tuning-math] Re: "I didn't bring up the term religion here..."

> From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
> To: <tuning-math@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 12:44 PM
> Subject: [tuning-math] Re: "I didn't bring up the term religion here..."
>
>

> --- In tuning-math@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> > Hopefully this will be seen as a little levity ... ;-)
>
> Pretty good. :)

(see tuning-math Message 2860 for details)
/tuning-math/messages/2860?expand=1

> Why is music, even here, so rife with arch-conservativism?
> In other fields you seem to be able to express a thought
> without people jumping you, but here even the radicals
> are conservatives.

I think this might have something to do with a circumstance
which Partch touched on in his book. It's not as true today
as it was during his lifetime, but to a large degree it's
still more true of music than of any other art-form. Most
musical compositions require an outside body of performers
for their realization, with the resultant need for cooperation
and standardization that artists working in other media don't
have to deal with. Thus, the concommitant conservatism about
changing the status-quo.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In metatuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> I think this might have something to do with a circumstance
> which Partch touched on in his book. It's not as true today
> as it was during his lifetime, but to a large degree it's
> still more true of music than of any other art-form. Most
> musical compositions require an outside body of performers
> for their realization, with the resultant need for cooperation
> and standardization that artists working in other media don't
> have to deal with. Thus, the concommitant conservatism about
> changing the status-quo.

Excellent point, Joe. I doubt Gene will follow the thread here, but
well-spoken. However: what about all the people writing for either
just one or two performers, or just writing for their own
electronics - why are so many of *them* conservative??? I've said it
before a lot, and it's just my $0.02, but most of the micro music I
hear is dated when it hits the speakers/earphones - why isn't the
edge being cut with a microtonal razor?

Cheers,
Jon

>Damn, Carl!
>
>Everything in your post was wonderful, and then...
>
> --- In tuning-math@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
>> Unlike the self-appointed Partch experts around here, I take
>> Harry's artistic vision seriously

You're right Jon, I should have left that out.

>If you mean me, I certainly will never apologize for having
>worked with him, performed his music for many years, and
>continue study of his aesthetic.

I didn't mention aesthetic.

>2. Are you *seriously* believing I take his "artistic vision"
>capriciously?

I don't think that. But the differences in our interpretations
of Partch's artistic vision are well documented over on the
main list.

>But there is a whole hell of a lot that he would have had no use
>for.

That who would have had no use for?

>Just ask anyone who knew him or has spent *real* effort
>trying to understand his "artistic vision". Most of the time
>it's just people studying ratios and peg-legged brides...

For me, Partch said something about human life. I didn't know
him, and I've never been in a performance of his music. But
I have my interpretation, and it isn't for the faint of heart.

>Jon (who hopes, knowing you're in the Bay area, that you'll
>come over to the Partch Centennial on Feb. 2 at SJSU...)

Info? I'll be there!

-Carl

--- In metatuning@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
> You're right Jon, I should have left that out.

Well, water under the bridge now...

> I don't think that. But the differences in our interpretations
> of Partch's artistic vision are well documented over on the
> main list.

Threads spread too disparately. If you feel like an airing of what
you think his "artistic vision" is/was, I'd be curious to know. But
I'm in the process of last minute production efforts for the San Jose
Centennial event, so I'm about to wean myself off the lists for a few
days.

> >But there is a whole hell of a lot that he would have had no use
> >for.
>
> That who would have had no use for?

Partch. While many glom onto Genesis for its theory, he basically got
that stuff hashed out as far as he wanted (and, as I said before,
would most likely be interested in the many developments since), and
he left that behind to make music. And from that point on he had
little interest, beyond the casual, in all the intense type of
theoretical research that we find so much on the tuning lists. And he
spoke on many occasions with disdain at those who would reduce his
work to 'merely' the development/use of modern-day just intonation.

> For me, Partch said something about human life. I didn't know
> him, and I've never been in a performance of his music. But
> I have my interpretation, and it isn't for the faint of heart.

If you believe he spoke about human life, then you have to figure
just what it was like knowing him, and include that in the
interpretation. One of the most amazing things I've witnessed is the
delving, in mind-numbing detail, into arcane bits of information from
long-dead theorists and composers, and yet when there are people
alive with the same knowledge, they are treated like mush-brained
cultists.

Well, I'm not mush-brained! And I don't wear brand new sneakers or
drink Kool-Aid... :)

> Info? I'll be there!

I did one posting to the list, but I'm actually working out details
for new info on the site tonight and a new email which will get to
the tuning list as well. And if you want to see a beautiful poster
for the event, there should be one down at Amoeba Records (unless
they've gotten ripped off!) and other places in the Bay Area...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> I did one posting to the list, but I'm actually working out details
> for new info on the site tonight and a new email which will get to
> the tuning list as well.

Good, because while there is quite a bit of Partch Centennial info out there, it isn't about the San Jose event.

--- In metatuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> Good, because while there is quite a bit of Partch Centennial info
out there, it isn't about the San Jose event.

Latest update to the site, which was 01/06/02, contains the basics of
the San Jose event as the first news item:

http://www.corporeal.com/

But why not wait until later tonight for a more in-depth listing...

Cheers,
Jon