The Reply, Part Three: Whither Harry...

To the good folks at "Tunings-R-Us":

I am prone to good humor, and I try to enjoy life to it's fullest. As I start this
third installment (not counting side-trips and rebuttals), it is my hope that all of
you recognize both light-hearted tone and serious content; that you can, all by
yourselves, distinguish between the two; and that neither diminishes it's companion.
It's so *hard* to be clear with just 1's and 0's. Back to our story...

**********

> Why *not* rearrange Harry's music for other instruments? In particular,
> certain members of the British Harry Partch Society have been up in
> arms about the recent Kronos Quartet arrangement of Partch's "Barstow"
> intoned by Ben Johnston. This is just incomprehensible to me.

Brian McLaren isn't the only one who's comprehensionally-challenged. In the two
previous posts I have dealt with the general issue of arranging Partch's works for
instruments other than those of his own devising. The matter of the Ben Johnston
"Barstow" arrangement for string quartet and voice is another, *much* more serious
matter.

> If *these* arrangements of Partch's music weren't a problem, why
> should the Kronos Quartet's arrangement be a big deal? The other issue
> here is that if we demand that *all* performances of Partch's music be
> done *only* on original Partch instruments, then that's going to limit
> the performances of Partch's music to just about nothing. I mean,
> c'mon, people! Dean Drummond adn Danlee Mitchell are the only two people
> on the planet who have Partch's instruments in their possession. So
> that means that only two (count 'em, 2) people on the planet can give
> concerts of Partch's music if we insist on absolute fanatical
> authenticity and *never* allow Partch's music to be arranged for other
> instruments.

There have probably been many quiet, backdoor versions of Partch's works, in effect
'trees falling in empty woods'. As they don't reach the light of day (read: a large
audience), it doesn't make sense to rail against them, though as a practice it should
not be condoned. For individuals to study the music, hopefully in furtherance of their
*own* creative voice, OK. But when a very high profile group such as Kronos presents
the work, the significance is at least an order of magnitude greater. I have respected
Kronos in the past for honoring composers with their performances and expanding (and
improving) the music world with their commissions. What to think, then, when this very
group chooses to actively go against the stated wishes of the very composer they seek
to embrace? If you do not believe that Partch's writings themselves document *clearly*
his disdain for this type of a setting, then know that Partch was spoken for by both
Danlee Mitchell and Dean Drummond, expressing their dismay and displeasure at the
ensuing abomination.

I first realized this was happening last fall, when I saw the piece listed on a program
Kronos was doing in L.A. This is when Danlee drafted his statement, dated October 12,
1995; he had tried repeatedly to contact their office prior to the concert. I
delivered to David Harrington both documents and a tape of Harry, which contained
excerpts from his spoken commentaries that pertained directly to the misappropriation
of his musical works. Best part of the evening was that they didn't even *do*
"Barstow", substituting the "Greek Studies" as Ben couldn't join them (as David told
Betty Freeman backstage). After a 4.5-hour commute to Hell-A, I still had to wait
until a couple of weeks ago to hear for myself (the CD) their 'version'.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Let me try once again: like it or not, for better or for worse,
Harry Partch is the sum of his parts. Give us one part and you are not working in his
interest, or the interest of his works; you are treating Partch as grist for the mill,
just another damn composer to load in the hopper. It is eminently understandable,
though undeniably frustrating, to see so many people unable to cope with Partch ON HIS
TERMS. Yes, this does restrict access to the music. Yes, it does require those who
would seek to do justice to his work to shed their specializations: for those same
musician's to dance, act, sing, move. Yes, this does mean that the vast sea of
humanity won't experience Harry Partch. How's that for living in the real world?

A strange aspect of this saga is Ben Johnston himself; listen to what he wrote of Harry
in 1974:

"Harry Partch created not only musical compositions but also the instruments for
which they were written, the scale to which those are tuned, the theory behind the
design of both music and instruments, and the very circumstances for making music,
which he believed should not have an existence independent of poetry, drama, dance,
sculpture. This is an essential aspect of corporeal art. In a fully realized
Partch production there are spoken words wedded to music without the abstraction
typical of singing; there is a dramatic story expressed though action in a theater
space not excluding visible actions of performing musicians as well as those of
dancer-actor-singers; there is a setting which significantly includes, as
sculptural objects, the hand-made instruments themselves. Music functions as part
of a many-faceted art-work."

- Dictionary of 20th Century Music, New York: Dutton, 1974.

So. Now *I* am comprehensionally-challenged. Has Ben changed his thoughts? Do his
desire to present the works (understandable) finally outweigh respect for the wishes of
the author-composer-creator (not understandable)? I direct those of you interested to
his article "The Corporealism Of Harry Partch" (Perspectives of New Music, XIII/2,
1975); from my reading, it is clear that Ben both understood Harry's intent, and the
*seriousness* of that intent. Ben may have started to see his own path back then, as
he intimates, but his understanding of Harry's bone-deep convictions seems unequivocal.

> In particular, I see no problem at all with the idea of using
> synthesizers for some of Partch's music--as long as the synthesizers
> produce creditable imitations of Partch's instrumental timbres, and as
> long as the synths are tuned to Partch's scale, and as long as the parts
> are played correctly. To insist that *only* instruments produced by
> Partch himself be used in performances would be to lock Partch's music
> away from the public.

Well, did you see Harry loaning out his instruments while he was alive? Or publishing
plans in "Popular Mechanics", so that there could be lots of little Partch Ensembles
everywhere? No, when he was here it was his ball-o-wax, and he allowed control of it
to others only as he saw fit. I tell you, ladies and gentleman, there isn't a month
that goes by that I don't want to jump on a plane and go back to playing with the
group; this feeling is *not* lessened by my good fortune to have done it before -- it
makes it doubly difficult. But I am not placating myself with 'mock' versions, or
crying in my beer. Harry Partch was not, and is not, a mass-market commodity. Even he
only begrudgingly accepted recordings as a means of dissemination. To those that would
cobble together a program of 'Partch-lite' transcriptions, your disregard for Partch's
entire reason for creating serves as prelude, commentary and postlude your performance.

Oh, yes. Someone please put in front of me a percussion controller capable of
withstanding the brutal pounding absolutely *crucial* to the dramatically charged
Marimba Eroica part at the conclusion of "The Bewitched". I thought so.....

> In my judgment, it's infinitely better for *lots* of people to hear
> synth versions of Partch's music, or string quartet versions of his music,
> or a zoomoozaphone-and-flute version of Partch's music, than for only a
> tiny few people who live in upstate New York to hear the Absolutely
> Authentic Real Thing. Ideally, of course, there would be many copies of
> Partch's instruments, plenty of Partch-trained instrumentalists, and so
> on.

This is Brian's judgment call. Anybody here care to venture a guess as to what Mr.
Partch's response might be? Oh, I forgot: he's dead now.

> But we live in the real world. Given real-world constraints, isn't
> it better to hear *more* of Partch's music in *more* venues, than less?

Yes, we do.
No, it isn't, not under those circumstances. Not by a long shot.

**********

Arghhh... Your eyes are glazing over, and my fingers are tired. I have pretty well
finished, except for some closing thoughts, a summation, and flotsam and jetsam. I
imagine I'll be answering to the authorities for a while, so next time I'll wrap up.
Thank goodness...

Yours in ecstatic and undeniable rhythmicity,
Jon
--
|--------------------------------------------------|
| Jonathan M. Szanto | Once upon a time |
| Backbeats & Interrupts | There was a little boy |
| jszanto@adnc.com | And he went outside. |
|--------------------------------------------------|


Received: from eartha.mills.edu [144.91.3.20] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 06:29 +0100
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id VAA19867; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 21:29:07 -0700
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 21:29:07 -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