An important Partch correction.

Dearest dividers and non-dividers of octaves,

I didn't want to make this response 'til I hung out with Brian this week,
but they must be busy rehearsing down at the Sonic Arts Gallery since they
haven't returned my call. However, it is my sacred duty to hereby respond
to a part of Brian McLaren's post in digest 910.

I apologize in advance for the length, but I feel compelled to back up what
I now state. Brian said:

>Well, as it happens Partch was also an
>inveterate improviser. I'm very surprised
>that no one seems to realize this. Improvisation
>was an integral element of Partch's small-
>ensemble composition process. (By small
>ensemble, I mean the compositions which
>did *NOT* demand staging and libretti;
>in short *NOT* the late large theater works.)
>We know for a fact (as has been reported on
>this forum) that Partch improvised the vocal
>lines in the Li Po songs and then wrote them
>down to give performers something to go by.
>We know for a fact (because Partch tells us so)
>that "And On the Seventh Day Petals Fell In
>Petaluma..." was improvised using two
>tape recorders. First Partch performed an
>improv he had polished and recorded it on
>one tape recorder, then Partch listened
>and performed an accompanying improvised
>part along with the recorded part, the
>result being recorded on the second Ampex
>recorder.
>Afterwards he wrote out the score, making
>changes after the fact and re-recording them
>so that overlaid duets would work as quartets.
>Clearly Partch's score for "Petals" represents
>the usual backtracking and transcription of
> performance so beloved of 20th century
>composers.

I will state this as plainly as I can, so that people new to the list or
unfamiliar with Partch's work will not be confused:

THE PREVIOUSLY QUOTED SECTION IS A MIXTURE OF CONJECTURE, TOTAL INACCURACY
AND FABRICATION; IT IS COMPLETELY INCORRECT.

Clear? As to Partch's early works, although many works did go through a
number of revisions, virtually all of this can be seen in the category of a
'work in progress', especially in light of the fact that Partch was still
developing/grappling with devising a notational method (for very good
examples of the different notational systems used for the Li Po settings,
see Thomas McGeary's excellent "The Music of Harry Partch", complete with
four excerpts and descriptions of the six versions). As to "improvising"
the vocal lines, yes, in as much as someone who is working on a song; the
notation was for performance and a 'fixed' setting of the work, which could
be referred back to. They were *not* improvisations. And if anyone would
draw the above conclusions by comparing any of the notated versions with
the existing recordings of Partch performing them, then I would simply tell
you that while Harry was not the most consistent of singers, he was a
performer who felt the freedom of the moment in terms of interpretation. I
can attest to this by virtue of having listened, over the years, to many
tapes in the HP archives of Harry that are not available to all, including
'out-takes' and alternate versions.

More to the point, his statement regarding "We know for a fact (because
Partch tells us so) that "And On the Seventh Day Petals Fell In
Petaluma..." was improvised using two tape recorders." is an utter
fabrication. Nowhere (that I am aware of) does Partch say this. Harry
Partch, according to Danlee Mitchell, who was present during the time of
"Petals" composition and both recordings (Petaluma/Gualala and Venice, CA)
said that when Partch would work on his composing, he would work at the
instruments (to the exclusion of mundanities such as shopping, daily
chores, etc.) and work out parts and fragments by playing them. He would,
as he developed the material, notate the passages in pencil on manuscript
paper, developing the score as the composition progressed; some sections
where composed away from the instruments as well. He did *not* tape record
improvisations and later transcribe them. As he progressed he would ask
others to learn parts to play them together and see if it was working, if
other players were available to help.

Anyone who knows "Petals" knows that there are a few parts that ARE
improvised (the crychord and drone devil parts, for example), but these are
small, auxiliary parts. In sum total, "Petals" is a composition that,
while aided by Harry working at the instruments, was a fully composed
creation and not a re-creation of noodling or improvisation of any sort.
He was interested in creating more challenging instrumental parts, rhythms
and textures (to more fully exploit the expressive characteristics of the
ensemble) *but also* wanted to know that they *were* playable - if *he*
could, he could expect others to!

The end sections that he devised so that succeeding duets/trios could be
combined into quartets/quintets/sextets where conceived of without true
knowledge as to what the results would be, and they (Partch, Danlee
Mitchell, Michael Ranta, C. C. Spiller and others) grappled with the (then)
clunky technology of tape synchronization to make the larger groupings a
reality. It is also important to realize that, no matter how much fun it
is to listen to "Petals" (or play it, I assure you...), the piece existed
as a 'sketchbook' for the (then) upcoming very large (indeed, imposing)
theater drama "Delusion of the Fury". Virtually every lick and phrase
contained as an abstract exercise in "Petals" will find a place and (as
Harry put it) "become the musical sinews of a larger concept, a full-blown
integration - 'Delusion of the Fury'". [Delusion is discussed in "Bitter
Music", Petals and it's creation in "Genesis of a Music, 2nd ed. (also
another article noted there, as well)]

Harry Partch was NOT an "inveterate improviser", and improvisation was NOT
an "integral" part of his compositional modus, in the small-group works or
otherwise. Period. Finally:

>Partch used the same technique with more
>layers (re-re-recording) for "Daphne of the
>Dunes" and "WindSong."
>It surprises me that no one realizes how
>integral both magnetic tape and improvisation
>were to Partch's compositional process. In
>fact, this process is essentially identical to
>some of our work in the Southern California MIcrotonal
>Group.

"Daphne" and "Windsong" are essentially two version of the same piece:
"Windsong" being a score to accompany Madeline Tourtelot's film of the same
name. Partch overdubbed the parts himself, mainly because no one else was
around at the time to help. Also, the soundtrack was heavily edited in the
'razor-blade-and-splice' mode. In doing so, he discovered that he could
have parts played at double or half speed and found enough interesting
effects to use in the piece. In all his life, he used taped sections in
pieces *twice*: about 3 or four minutes worth in "Windsong" (dispersed
throughout the piece), and a short segment in "Revelation in the Courthouse
Park" (a recording of the Cloud-Chamber bowls played at half-speed to put
them in a lower octave). That's it. And no coat-tails to ride on here,
either .

No wonder Brian is surprised: what he reports doesn't exist.

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

To close, something related that bothered me in digest 912 from William
Sethares:

>I am not so happy with attacks based on casual emails.
>I do not believe that people need to stand behind
>every word they write in email, any more than
>they need to stand behind every casual comment
>in a phone conversation.

This list goes to roughly 325 people daily, many of whom I have found are
quite well-known and influential in the microtonal society, in addition to
all those who read the list for general interest. If Brian (or anyone
else) wants to email me with information that ends up being in need of
correction, I can respond to him as I would on the phone (to use Bill's
analogy). However, this is a *very* public forum, and (here's *my*
fabrication) Brian McLaren breaks in material here before publishing it (as
he did in the recent British Harry Partch Society newsletter), still full
of quotations, postulations, inaccuracies and nonsense.

In a public debate, if you are posting for informational purposes it had
better be provable unless it is ongoing research or stated opinion.
Besides, Bill: why not defend what you believe in, unless it just doesn't
mean anything to you? There aren't very many sources for the kind of
material we deal in here, and there is no reason to not do a little
'self-regulating' for the benefit of those who rely upon the list as a
resource.

I do post 'casually' sometimes, as do others, but using this forum as a
substitute for some kind of ongoing "Intonational Journal" invites readers
to hold an author responsible for what they put in 'print'. It is a
(fairly) new age and the old rules don't apply.

Private email: fine, whatever. Put it here: back it up. I won't
countenance ignorance of the facts.

Other than that, it's been a fine week !
Cheers,
Jon
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
Jonathan M. Szanto | Hey, four folks a day can't be wrong . . . .
Corporeal Meadows | . . . . . . . .come see Harry in the Meadows
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; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 05:00 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA13970; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 05:02:02 +0100
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA14165
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id UAA04511; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:01:59 -0800
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 20:01:59 -0800
Message-Id: <32A25493.23A3@nai.net>
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu