Carping about Partch.

Hi, kids.

Matters to attend to. In Digest 790, Neil G. Haverstick wrote
some things about the Partch debate. A couple of excerpts:

> On another note, let me say I am astonished by the discussion
> concerning whether or not Partch's music should only be performed on
> his own instruments...what a total non-issue. Who cares about such
> details? The music is the issue, not the vehicle...

Neil, I am glad to see that you are having success with your own musical
adventures; the best of all possible worlds. You know, though, not
everyone views music the same way. In fact, *I* care about such details,
and if you would read the entire postings (droppings?) I have left, you
will see that Harry felt diametrically opposed to your last statement.
So, you want to play Partch's works, but you don't want to show him any
respect as someone who put a lifetime into their creation. Interesting.

> Also, was I correct in reading a recent post which said only members
> of Newband could play Partch's instruments? If this is true, what a
> total crock of shit. Can someone explain to me what's going on here,
> if indeed this is true? Arrgh...Hstick

I can't explain it, and I don't like it very much myself. As I have
tried to be fair about everyone's ideas, and especially as *we* tried
to allow other people to be a part of Partch performances when I played
in the group, I am going to try and find out more about this. This
does *not*, however, negate my points regarding appropriate stewardship
of an endangered species, namely the instruments themselves.

And then, in Digest 791, PAULE (sorry, I don't know a proper name
here...) joined in:

> Neil, I think you got it right. Here's a group of people who are
> jealously guarding Partch's instruments, so that no one else may play
> them, but if anyone tries to play Partch's music anyway, they get
> branded as criminals by this same group. Something's disastrously
> wrong here.

See above. Criminals -- who said that, Paul? Certainly an integrity
issue, and a disservice to the guy who created the whole shebang, but I do
not advocate a prison sentence. I *have* considered a 'three-strikes' law,
whereby anyone who uses a Yamaha home organ in more than two performances in
public would be sent to a labor camp, to divide rocks into 43 pieces.

It's a joke.

> Bach did not approve of the pianos that existed in his time, but think
> how valuable his music has been for centuries of piano-based composers!
> It is a remarkable disservice to the future of xenharmonic music to
> keep Partch's work so narrowly confined.

This part is not a joke. Please read my thoughts on how Harry Partch (well
Harry's thoughts, too) is a *different* case from other composers [remember:
not better, different]. And then justify transcriptions again. Finally,
Paul, if you could be so kind as to point out **anywhere** that Harry
Partch directly stated, or even *implied*, that his creative fervor was for
the betterment of the United Xenharmonic Brotherhood, International. No,
Harry had his own agenda, his own life to live.

Like it or not.

**********

All the best to you. I am wanting to find ways to hear the music that
*you* two are doing -- let me know.

Cheers,
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; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 03:25 +0100
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id SAA09324; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 18:25:24 -0700
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 18:25:24 -0700
Message-Id: <960727012323_71670.2576_HHB60-3@CompuServe.COM>
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu