Partch, the idealist that remains...

Dear Tunors, All:

Let's see...

/* Be sure to set appropriate tone for response... */
#include
int main(void)
{
use_humor = 0;
serious_style = 1;

return 0;
}

That should do it. On to the matters at hand...
....................................................................

Regarding the possible ways to present the music and works of Harry Partch,
I would like to clear up some of the inaccuracies, implications and mistaken
priorities represented in the writings of Johnny Reinhard. One reason I do
this is that by allusion Johnny might have readers believe that I do not
take these issues seriously, due to an apparent inability to separate
humorous delivery from dedicated content. Not only have most readers
handled this quite well, one would assume that my own background in working
with Partch and the Ensemble would be evidence enough of a commitment to the
core.

What Johnny objects to, always and strenuously, is what he refers to as
an "ideology". What I have sought to do, to guard against charges of
cultism, is to show how my views are rooted in, and directly stem from,
the beliefs that Partch himself chose to hold close. On many occasions I
have alluded to Partch's writings, citing instances where he spoke
directly to a given subject. All of this apparently for naught. I don't
propose that I can, or could, read Partch's mind; he spoke to these
issues quite often enough to, at the very least, give weight to this
perspective. It is still easy to hear some of these voices, had they
been active during Harry's lifetime, saying "Come on, old man, let us use
the instruments! At least let us do transcriptions and spread the word!
We've got contacts! We've got venues! Why do you feel the need to hoard
all of that stuff?"

Of course, Partch did not consider such things, and, save for the last
few years of his life, he was probably too obscure to even encounter such
attitudes. Yet, couldn't Harry have though of doing transcriptions? To
allow for a wider audience, even to foster 'authorized' lesser versions,
so that people would be drawn to the real thing? There would have been
no more important time than during his lifetime to see many ensembles
performing "Barstow". It seems to have been neither considered nor
executed, for obvious (albeit philosophical) reasons.

It does not help 'the loyal opposition' one whit when they are standing
on factual quicksand. Johnny said of the Philadelphia Revelation"
performance: "...the Partch instruments were practically hidden from view
behind the acting...". If you weren't there, folks (and I *was*, standing
at the business end of both the Marimba Eroica and the Boo, kicking them
into action when the score called for it), the production took place in the
atrium (Great Hall) of the University of the Arts. The set extended from
the main stage, centrally located and about 8 feet off of ground level,
to just about even with the third floor. The instruments were placed on
either side of a rising flight of stairs on a series of risers, each
successively higher than the previous one by about 6 to 8 feet. When
behind the Eroica I was almost at eye level with the second story.
Knowing this, it is completely *erroneous* to say that the instruments
were hidden behind the acting -- they couldn't have done it if they
tried. It was rare that they were lit up like a prison break, but that
would be in keeping with the rather tragic nature of the piece (and
Partch's notes on the set: "...the instruments are distributed in the
shade below...". This false reporting leads one to believe that if you
can't stand on solid ground in terms of supporting your propositions,
just make something up. It also leads the reader astray.

Johnny is also critical, once again, of the non-Corporeal Lincoln Center
production: "Perhaps there were no other such *non-corporeal* performance
of Partch because Danlee Mitchell stopped directing Partch productions
soon after." This slap at Harry's staunchest ally through the years
contains no logic whatsoever: of the 3 staged performances that I can
recall during 15 years of performance, *none* led to a preponderance of
non-corporeal presentations. In fact, during Mitchell's stewardship
Partch's works attained a corporeal spirit never quite realized during
Partch's lifetime; there was a continual quest to find more, and more
effective, ways to imbue the works with the "sound magic, visual beauty,
experience ritual" that Harry so distinctly, so uniquely sought. For
someone to make suppositions as Johnny does evidences his disregard for
the facts of record, as if one event could be undeniably indicative of an
unstoppable trend.

"So why is the impression being made repeatedly that these concerts -
still unheard by Mr. Szanto - are counterfeits?" Because they are, to
use Harry's words, "about the one-half truth of the one-fourth factor".
In a humorous tone, in an effort to make an analogy so wide as to be
unmistakable, I contrasted two evenings versions of a Partch Ensemble
performance with one by the Ensemble and one by a drum and bugle corp.
I thought that no one could have taken it as a serious comparison, but
the point remains that an artistic line will *always* have to be drawn,
beyond which limit the artifact of the artist ceases to contain the
essential qualities that make it so rare in the first place. How *far*
from the original can you go before the new version becomes parody? Each
artist himself can make that determination; Andy Warhol had his answer,
but not every 'canvas' is so readily applicable to 'copies'. Harry was
certainly clear during his lifetime: he did not transcribe, or allow
transcriptions of, any of his music. The evolutionary changes that
accompanied some of the works ("Barstow" would be a good example)
reflected a growth in both his physical ensemble of instruments and his
compositional palette. They were not symptomatic of orchestrational
ambivalence.

And in a similar vein comes the ever-present question transcriptors ask:
"Why should Partch's work be treated any differently from other composer's?"
This question seems at the same time to beg both a voluminous response and a
simple one. The former: no, not now... The latter: show me another
composer that created his own intonational system, for the purpose of more
accurately setting human speech (primarily American English) in a musical
format, came up with an ensemble which was conceived, designed and built
over a 50 year period, all of preceding leading directly to, and along with,
an aesthetic based on the non-separation of performance disciplines (dancers
*more* than dancers, instrumentalists *more* than instrumentalists, etc.).
Then toss in their claim to be rooted in ancient principles. Damned hard to
find one. And I would be willing to bet that the same rigorous application
of correct performance practice would not be out of place for him/her, either.

Harry Partch was not *just another composer*, and he of necessity engenders
different rules. You call it idealism; that makes it convenient to validate
technologically correct but pale imitations, bereft of the bone and sinew of
a human being pumping on a Chromelodeon (to cite one example). I call it a
realistic assessment of what the person who created this madness had in mind
all along, like it or not. And while he says that the alternate versions
being done today are "still unheard by Mr. Szanto", which in and of itself
is not terribly accurate (Johnny's transcriptions being the only one's I am
*aware* of that I haven't heard, at least on recordings), it begs the issue:
Harry Partch is something to be judged on more than what is "heard" -- Harry
Partch is an Attitude.

Johnny accuses me (or Danlee, I'm not sure who...) of harboring "behind the
scenes double standards" that he finds "objectionable". That he took my
reference to the "blight" of a transcription at face value, in spite of
my comment about dealing with the issue "seriously" in an earlier post,
allows him to remind me (us?) "that even paranoids have enemies." Sorry,
but this is out there so far I can't even take offense at it. As to the
double-standards, I don't believe they were intended; more to the point,
efforts have been made to address them. If you wish to read Danlee
Mitchell's statement regarding these performance issues, it is available; in
the statement Mitchell acknowledges earlier errors in allowing some of these
(constantly mentioned) transcriptions: "In other words - I should have known
better!" So the task of where to draw the artistic 'line in the sand' is of
crucial importance, as we find out. I've certainly gained
new insights during this debate, and now have to come to grips with *my*
earlier 'leniency', seeing as I seemed to have liked Ted Mook's "Li Po".
Live and learn: looks like *my* circle of acceptability might contract
even tighter. But I'm just one voice...

So Johnny goes on, emitting little one-liners as if the subject matter
were as inconsequential as deciding what clothes to wear tomorrow. He
makes some kind of arm-chair psychological analysis of Harry's
personality, throws around the term "morbid", speaks anthropomorphically
about the instruments -- all in service of... what? He won't say; too
much trouble, either to you (the dear readers) or, privately, to me (the
idealist).

Well, we have reached one possible ending. Naturally, Johnny is
unconvinced as to the validity of all this hoohaa; to accept these concepts
might mean a curtailing of his performance schedule. I have no doubt that
he will continue to perform the pieces; it's a free country. One wonders,
however, what to think about performers that skate so much on the surface of
a very deep and soulful repertoire (see, isn't it *obvious* how much this
MEANS to me?). Do they really believe they are doing justice to Partch's
vision? Have they really paused to understand some of the other aspects of
Partch's work, aside from getting those pesky vibrations out into the ether?
To me, the challenge of properly presenting the concept, the true work of
Partch in the days ahead lies in an understanding of just how different he
was, how fragile the corpus of his creativity. And to make matters all the
more difficult, to do this so that it does not merely set up yet another
rigor-mortised tradition. This is the issue I have grappled with, and
continue to do so. Let others make "a concert of music".

I don't imagine that I will be on any more Partch projects in a
performing sense, but my involvement hasn't ended there. I wish I had
either the eloquence or the balls that Harry did while addressing these
concerns. In the meantime, to avoid anyone having the mistaken
impression that I am in the fray for anything less than honorable
reasons, I close with some thoughts of Harry's contained in a manual he
wrote regarding maintenance and repair of the instruments:

"The basic and essential need as of this moment is someone who
can and will -- if necessary -- take my place (1) to see to it
that the instruments are in good structural and playable condition;
(2) to keep them in tune as well as this is humanly possible; and
(3) to demand that they be played competently, and that the
attitudes be right, even at the risk of arousing momentary
hostility."

I wonder how long this "momentary" will last. No matter -- as Johnny so
succinctly put it: "I guess the issues of performing Partch are not funny
to me."


Respectfully, consonantly,
Jon
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
Jonathan M. Szanto | Come visit Corporeal Meadows . . . . . . .
Backbeats & Interrupts | . . . . . . . . . our little Partch tribute.
jszanto@adnc.com | http://www.adnc.com/web/jszanto/welcome.html
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*


Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 14:49 +0200
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA21542; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 14:50:33 +0200
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA21557
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id FAA15831; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 05:50:29 -0700
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 05:50:29 -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