Szanto Redux: Partch thoughts...

Hi, all. Just back from Camp Rising Sun and thought it's time to get
back to internet communication. Saw yet another response by Harry
Partch witness Jon Szanto and felt there is still too much
misunderstanding to drop the potato...just yet.

Johnny Reinhard
American Festival of Microtonal Music
318 East 70th Street, Suite 5FW
New York, New York 10021 USA
(212)517-3550/fax (212) 517-5495
reinhard@ios.com

On Wed, 7 Aug 1996, Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:

> 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.


While Jon agrees with my point, he obfuscates it. Though in Navaholand
during the non-corporeal Lincoln Center Revelation, I heard the earlier
*premiere* in Philadelphia: there the Partch instruments were practically
hidden from view behind the acting, were each amplified to distortion
(mentioned as a problem by the largely positive John Rockwell NYTimes
review), and followed-up by a NY premiere with stick figure singers.
Perhaps there were no other such *non-corporeal* performance of Partch
because Danlee Mitchell stopped directing Partch productions soon after.


> >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".

That's exactly how I feel by your posts, "Damned if I do and damned if I
don't." To my knowledge there is no performance of Partch in the U.S.
other than Newband, solo guitarist Jon Schneider, former Partch ensembler
Francis Thumm, and the AFMM. The effort and financial support to present
Partch in concert is formidable. Audiences and critics have responded
enthusiastically. So why is the impression being made repeatedly that
these concerts - still unheard by Mr. Szanto - are counterfiets?

The point about the Indie is that idealism is all fine and good, but
Partch realized practicality simultaneously. That is exactly what I do:
Partch works that require the least amount of specialized percussion,
that have rarely if ever been performed, that have never been recorded or
recorded poorly. And yes, Gate 5 was successful, if not measured solely
by money, IMHO.

The only instrument that the AFMM replaces is chromolodeon with a
Proteous synthesizer attached to an 88-key manual. Henry Lowengard is
devoted to capturing its sound and regularly updates the patch(es). To
stop performances because of this, already agreed to by Mr. Mitchell as
logical, is self-serving.


> >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?

Are you saying that we are Garfield Cadets? E-mail is easily
misconstrued. Re: voice, Danlee wrote me of the Li Po we had both
intoned in performance in NYC that neither of us had Harry Partch's voice
(while admiring my expression and sentiment). :)


> 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.

Jon seems to take perverse delight in defending rubber bands, clearly
keeping his ego in check.

> >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.]

You may want to keep touching on this, because it is more than merely
hipocritical. Remember also that even paranoids have enemies. To me the
transcription is no blight: it is beautifully played by Stefani Starin
and Dean Drummond for flute and zoomoozophone. It is only the behind
the scenes double standards that I find objectionable.


> 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...

Whether or not Jon looks at music as competition, or politics, or
philosophy, or entertainmnet, etc. matters little in the big picture. I
create new music all the time and never take auditions. (Actually went
to John Dewey High School, an experimental non-competitive school in
Brooklyn.) The use of competition does bother me.

> >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...

Am I to be ambushed at the path? Please, Jon, tell us what you have been
grappling with?

> lot of people, and I'm no scholar. I've tried to understand what Harry
> Partch is really about, though.

Hmmm.

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 15:36 +0200
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA10790; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 16:18:44 +0200
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA10822
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id HAA06728; Sat, 17 Aug 1996 07:18:42 -0700
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 07:18:42 -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