Getting toward the end...

To our correspondents around the globe:

To PaulE -

>Of course, a careful reading of Partch's showed that his creative fervor was
>solely for the betterment of Danlee Mitchell and Newband. Thanks for setting
>us straight.

Sorry, Paul; during the rapid typing a couple of words got left out of my
original post -- ""...""..."". Hope this clears up anything that
might have been miscontrued.

To Adam -

No fair if we're getting this in digest form! Anywho, Harry *did* have some
other sources of sustainence; sorry if it came across as only royalties, I
was only trying to document the 'official' income. If you could have seen
his digs, well, they were FAR from luxurious... Sad.

Betty recently had a gallery showing in London of pictures she had taken of
all the various musical people she has been involved with -- the Esterhazy's
had nothing on this girl!

To Neil H -

Szanto here. Now we have the 'elitism' issue cleared up; as someone said,
maybe we have different ideas of the word. I've bumped into the same thing
as you over the years. I've had just as much trouble getting my classical
colleagues to open their ears as I have had getting my popular 'bandmates'
to sit down and listen to muaic that had no backbeat. Frank Zappa (!) had
similar experiences...

One of the groups that was a hoot for me was a band that played klezmer
music, but with a very twisted view. Personnel included a West Coast
bluegrass mandolin and banjo champion that spent 80% of the time making
barnyard-like noises on a metal clarinet. The leader was a cellist from the
symphony who instead played fiddle in the band. To top it off, Pauline
Oliveros played accordian for quite a while (ring a bell?). Complete mixing
of musical cultures - all equally valid, great fun. If only life could be
like this all the time...

>One last brief question...Jon (sorry, I don't know your last name), you
>said something in your last post about "free" music, and how it remin_
>ded you of when you were a child in the '60's...since I never used that
>word in any of my posts, I'm not sure how you were applying that to
>what I said...could you elaborate a bit? Thanks, Hstick

Sorry, Neil, I was a bit free with my use of 'free'. I meant it not in the
sense as in "free jazz", but a more societal "free", where people felt a
freedom between and amongst themselves, sharing all things (i.e. love,
music, etc.). The freedom (implied or conjured up) during the Flower Power
decade, at least on paper, has a feel akin to the freedom (of info, from
regulation, etc.) that exists in part in the online community these days
(didn't 'The Well' spring up during those days as a community-based computer
resource?). There are certainly big differences, but what felt similar was
a desire for these things to be shared among a larger community -- this is
the flavor of your comments that came home to me.

To Brian Belet -

Good to hear some more from the Johnston side of things; I have just
yesterday written him myself. I hope I was clear that I didn't harbor
thoughts of ill-intent on Ben's part; I really am more puzzled (curious)
than upset at him (Kronos is another story). One thing that is clear from
Ben's writings is his respect for Partch.

>The current transcription IS NOT offered as a replacement for Partch's
>original work; rather it is a unique offering from his one student
>who qualified (technically and aesthetically and personally) to handle
>such a project.

On that level it is a genuine tribute to his mentor/pal. 'Course, don't
forget what Partch said he'd do if anyone called themselves a student of his
.

>Ben has been using the string quartet as a modern microtonal ensemble for
>a long time (he has just finished his 10th quartet); in many ways this
>ensemble has been Ben's personal 'invention' in much the same way that
>Partch's instruments are.

And this is really the only part that makes it hard for me, and others, to
get a grip on. Attaching a new (old?) intonational system onto an existing
European classical model seems a bit of a stretch when comparing it in terms
of 'uniqueness' to an entirely newly-created group of instruments (which,
for the time, included a 'newly-created' intonation). I don't mean this
just as a small semantic difference, but viewed in the larger sense of the
2+ centuries of quartet literature and the general 'salon' atmosphere of a
quartet concert. I'm no stranger to it -- my wife is a cellist who
concentrates on very traditional chamber music.

I don't want to read too much into your statement, but we would then have to
think that the quartet was as much Bartok's personal invention (at the time)
as both Johnston and Partch, with the innovations in timbre and construction
which he brought. In any event, enlightening to hear your (Ben's) side of
things; thanks!

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; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 21:11 +0100
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id MAA28054; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 12:11:11 -0700
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 12:11:11 -0700
Message-Id: <199607311908.MAA27756@eartha.mills.edu>
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu