Reinhard Redux: Partch thoughts...

Friends,

It took a few days, but I finally managed to apply my Algorithmic Rebuttal
Module to the input source material (Mr. R.'s last 8-point railing against
"the truth"), and here are the results. It would have come sooner but I
only recently ported the program from the Timex-Sinclair over to my main
workhorse, the TRS-80. Here we go...

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

>The truth is Harry Partch promoted corporeality and his heir Danlee
>Mitchell performed *Revelation in the Courthouse Park* in Lincoln Center
>in total concert form, thereby giving the opposite impression of his mentor.

This has been covered before. Yes, "Revelation"-NY was a concert
production; as such, dismissible on that basis. In the last twenty years of
productions I can remember only two others that would fall outside of the
corpus of corporeality, out of many, many performances. You win -- and it's
a pretty *tiny* victory. It would have been interesting to hear Johnny's
comments on this Lincoln Center concert, but he has stated that he did not
attend it.

>The truth is that Partch decried recordings for their abstract nature,
>while creating the Gate 5 label for his music, an early an successful Indie.'

What on Earth is the point here? Damned if you do and damned if you don't?
Harry didn't exactly "decry" records; he said that "records have been a
rather sad compromise." (Preface to 2nd Edition, "Genesis Of A Music") And
they were, seeing as they completely omitted the physical aspects of a
performance. If one takes a historical perspective on Partch's reasons for
recording, including the fact that some of the early Gate 5 recordings were
sold on a *subscription* basis, to underwrite productions of the works, one
can see that recordings for Harry were a 'means to an end', not a shortcut
or a quick buck. And, though he continued to sell the Gate 5 recordings for
many years, it would be a stretch of monumental proportions to label him
a "successful Indie".

>The truth is that their are many versions of Harry Partch's music where
>instruments are exchanged and different music is substituted (e.g. 3
>versions of both Barstow and U.S. Highball).

Oh, please. Is this a rational for substituting bassoon and calliope?
Sackbutts and bandoneons? That Partch had more than one version of a given
work can traced more to the growth in his 'orchestral' pallette, through the
design and building of new instruments, than to any inherent
'wishy-washy-ness' on his part in terms of arrangement. That growth-curve,
as both a composer and ensemble builder paralleled his expansion of both One
Voice and Corporeality in a long arc:

"I myself sang and played one instrument,often entirely alone, for some
sixteen years (1930-1947): Li Po poems, Biblical passages, hitchhiker
inscriptions, and the transcontinental freight-train trip, U.S. Highball.
Yet the step from those somewhat less than epic presentations to the
profound Sophocles drama, Oedipus, was to me most logical." (same source as
above)

It is difficult, at this point, to justify any transcription of Partch's
works for another set of instruments, for anything less than study purposes.
The only possible motivations would seem to be quite self-serving.

Like having them arranged for your own string quartet, so that you could
'play' Partch...

>The truth is that every performance of Partch since 1974 has been a
>variation. The instruments, some held with rubber bands, have been
>updated, replaced, and even improved. Still, Harry's voice is not
>recreateable and every performance demonstrates a difference.

Wait a minute.

Point One: Yes, no two performances are alike. Does it follow then that the
differences between two evenings' performances of "Castor and Pollux" by the
Partch Ensemble are the equivalent to the differences between one of those
performances and one by the Garfield Cadets Drum and Bugle Corps?

Point Two: Ah, the rubber band analogy. Johnny seems to take perverse
delight in one of Harry's less 'high-tech' construction methods; too bad --
it's fun changing those rubber bands. Keeps ones' ego in check. Reminds
you of the temporal nature of our life on the planet, or something. But
seriously, from 1974 to 1987 there was no 'updating, replacing or improving'
done to the instruments, with one exception: a new Boo was constructed, but
it was done as a completion of a project that Harry himself had started (he
had experimented with the phenolic resin tubes himself, and was eager to
build a more durable instrument. I was glad for it, having had to
personally supervise a massive repair job on Boo I in the late 70's. Bamboo
cracks...). So this was the only change to the ensemble; the rest was
maintenance.

>The truth is that Newband issued a CD with transcriptions, even as Mr.
>Mitchell was railing against all such transcriptions, this one in
>particular, while insuring Mr. Drummond complete and absolute control.
>If only _Partch Instruments_ are used, and all competition is
>marginalized, then monopoly is achieved.

Oh, Lord, I already touched on this, but Johnny seems to be quite put out
about it. This is a true flaw in our Grand Master Plan of Control (watch
out for those black choppers...). This transcription is a blight on what
would hopefully be a spotless record, and I hope that it is never repeated
again. [I actually addressed this in a _serious_ manner in my previous posts.]

But I guess I now know why this bothers Johnny so much. It is the use of
the word *competition*. I never looked at music as a competition, and I
still don't. There is so much available, so much new music to be created.
The only possible reason it could be a competition is if it is 'my product
vs. your'. What an utterly repugnant thought...

>The truth is that their is a morbid qualtiy to Mr. Partch and what might
>now be called his Bi-Polar personality. The instruments were treated as
>having mortality like humans. The cloud chamber bowls have no calculable
>way to be replaced, and the rubber bands examples of holding the
>corporeal body of the instrument together.

I am going to hang on to this paragraph, and I am going to ask Johnny to
clarify his point. I don't want to misconstrue his idea; I think I know
what he is getting at, but don't want to jump to conclusions. It is
possible that he is addressing an issue many of us have grappled with since
Partch's death; I'll email him when he is back from teaching...

>The truth is there is no other example in any other realm of art that
>follows the deamnds that the Mitchell/Szanto canon of Partchian ideology
>make...that I can think of.

My (not our) point exactly. No other example indeed. Transcribe anyone
else if you like. Lots of composers out there. Lots of music.

>I could introduce Harry Partch to the youngsters, as I have many times
>before, or I can be intimidated by Mr. Mitchell's previous admonition
>to me against lecturing on Harry Partch as if I was a Partch scholar.

Go where your heart is, Johnny. I surely have introduced Harry Partch to a
lot of people, and I'm no scholar. I've tried to understand what Harry
Partch is really about, though.

>Truth is indeed stranger than fiction.

This being the case, then, let us stick to facts. Let us be clear in our
writings. Let us substantiate our opinions so that they don't just come
across as the ravings of zealots, but as reasoned justifications for a
course of action. If Partch's works are to survive with any semblance of
respectability and rigor, then to do less worse than simply being strange.
|--------------------------------------------------|
| Jonathan M. Szanto | .....sound-magic..... |
| Backbeats & Interrupts | ....visual beauty.... |
| jszanto@adnc.com | ..experience-ritual.. |
|--------------------------------------------------|


Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 00:25 +0200
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA14220; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 00:24:50 +0200
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA14152
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id PAA20550; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 15:25:37 -0700
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 15:25:37 -0700
Message-Id: <00A9F4A1.fc@nile.com>
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

Here are my answers to Scott Perman's questions.

Your XP-50 appears to retune by what would generally be described as setting
a number of "cents" between adjacent keys. A cent is 1/100 of the traditional
half step, so indeed 200 cents/step would give you a wholetone scale, 50 would
give you a quartone scale, and so forth.

The formula for how to set your XP-50 for a "N"TET ("N" Tone-per-octave
Equal-Temperament) scale is 1200/N. That comes from the fact that, since there
are 100 cents per half step, and 12 half-steps per octave, you get 1200 cents
per octave. So if you want to split that octave up into 17 equal parts instead
of 12, you'll get 1200/17 = 70.6 (approx).

That much you appear to have figured out. What you appear to be looking for
- how far off the resultant octaves will be - is pretty easy to figure out by
reversing that formula. If you do 17TET for example as 70-cent steps, your
octave will have a size of 70 cents/step times 17 steps per near-octave, which
works out to 1190 cents per near-octave. That then puts your near-octave 10
cents flat of the precise 1200-cent octave. That's not great.

As for microtonal equal-temperaments to try, you correctly identified
several: 17TET, 24TET, and 31TET. Most microtonal equal-temperament folks
agree though that the easiest equal-temperament to break into from our common
12TET heritage is 19TET. As luck would have it, tuning 19TET as 63 cents per
step will give you a 1197-cent near-octave, which you'll probably close enough.
You can play a fairly traditional-sounding major scale in 19TET by making each
whole step span 3 19TET steps, and a half-step span 2 19TET steps.

Others you can try that are known to sound interesting 9TET (133 cents per
step), 7TET (171c), 22TET (54c, which unfortunately will give you a dreadfully
false octave), 34TET (35c), and 41 (29c, also a mediocre off octave).
(Curiously, 9TET and 7TET will give you that exact same 1197-cent near-octave
you'll get with a 63-cent approximation of 19TET.)

Or if you want to try out the really strange stuff, you can try some of Wendy
Carlos' nonoctave tunings, notably "Alpha" at 78 cents per step, and "Beta" at
64 cents per step. My current fascination is a nonoctave tuning of 88 cents per
step, which is the "88CET" tuning I keep droning on and on endlessly about. I
don't recommend 88CET for beginners though; I suspect you'll find it a very
difficult tuning to make sense of.

As for recordings to get a hold of, I definitely recommend three among many
others:
* Easley Blackwood's CD of 19 Etudes in equal-temperaments 13-24.
* If you're into popular genres, Neil Haverstick's album (cassette only left)
of roughly 2/3 19TET, mostly R&B guitar.
* If you're into ambientish music, Ivor Darreg's CD has a good survey of various
equal-temperaments.

And finally, as for microtonal guitar work, it turns out that the guitar is
an excellent instrument for exploring unusual tunings. Not only is it a
versatile instrument as a whole, with a (frequently anyway) easy-going aura, but
your basic playing technique alters FAR less than keyboards when you switch from
one tuning to the next. Although Neil Haverstick is one of the most virtuosic -
possibly THE most - microtonal guitarists out there (Jon Catler is certain
exceptionally good as well), many others use guitars as well. Ivor Darreg had
guitars fretted to ever equal-temperament from 10 to 24 if I recall correctly.
I've used them as well, and Tom Stone even ran a (barely) for-profit company
that produced interchangeable-fingerboard guitars for many hears. Unfortunately
they are defunct now, but ... aaargh I can't remember his name ... kinda-sorta
took it over.


Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 08:03 +0200
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA17240; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 08:02:26 +0200
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA17407
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id XAA28078; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 23:03:13 -0700
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 23:03:13 -0700
Message-Id: <199608080600.AAA03838@freenet.uchsc.EDU>
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu