Re: [tuning] Re: Partch and the Chromelodeon

In a message dated 7/3/00 2:48:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, JSZANTO@ADNC.COM
writes:

> What do you mean "not been printed"?

Only that the Partch I quoted had not been previously posted to this list.
Jon, it would be helpful if you know of other ambiguities and promise to read
through Enclosure 3 faster. It is a very heavy book.

> I, for one, am still eagerly awaiting a finalized, collated and
> cohesive presentation ? on your explorations into
> Ives microtonal intentions. I was not convinced previously, but I ascribed
> that mostly to the piece-meal manner in which individual statements were
> parsed. In this case, my jury is still out...

Dan Stearns? Could you address this issue, that of piece-mail versus a
complete chapter and/or book? I suspect the medium is partly at fault. I
find something new, or not previously discussed outside of the original
medium, and I post it for group contemplation.

>>Since the contrary material has not been properly presented, I plan to add
> >any more examples of negative chromelodeon feelings by Partch.
>
> This only serves to make your work appear completely biased.

Every scholar is biased. I was carefully laying my bias out for all to see.
It's similar to starting a concert series for non-12TET music because it
wasn't being properly presented.

> the fact is that it
> has only been in the last 3+ years that the bulk of Partch's writings, and
> writings about him, have really been opening up the dualities and
> complexities of his work and his life. It is not straight-forward, it is
> not perfect. It is, however, rather fascinating.

Exactly, this is why Partch writing that he is not happy with the
chromelodeon throughout much of his life is eye opening.

> Not to mention that you seem to *want* to read 'electronics' into the
> statements at each turn,

Not so, I only want to give the Internet readers a chance to read views
contrary to the Corporeal Meadows website. Encosure 3 is very expensive,
something that Harry Parch could never have afforded to buy in his lifetime,
certainly if it was about a different composer than himself. (This last
sentence is pure speculation.)

> >The more I read "Enclosure 3" by Partch, the more human, and
understandable
> >Partch the pioneer becomes. While I myself am an acoustic musician, it
> >appears that Partch pioneered the concept of electronics, certainly
> >amplification, for his music.
>
> You need to do more reading, because "pioneered the concept of
electronics"
> is a bit of a stretch. IMHO.

What would you suggest he is a pioneer of? Percussion music? Just
Intonation? An Indie record company? Why not the concept of electronics?

> Complex. Indeed...
>
> Bye kids,
> Jon

Please share more with us. As a result of the your previous postings, I
ceased performances of Partch's music using electronic means. Pardon me for
receiving a shock wave when reading that Partch wished for something that is
now possible.

Gee, Parch's music really could do better in its travels than waiting for
Dean Drummond. But that's just my opinion and I will respect the heirs. I
have never heard the Kronos Quartet do Barstow, may I turn to stone.

Johnny Reinhard

Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:

> What would you suggest he is a pioneer of? Percussion music?

Why not?

> Just
> Intonation?

That IS mostly what he is known for next to
inventing instruments!

> An Indie record company?

This too. I think he did it before Sun Ra?

> Why not the concept of electronics?

Not exactly the first choice...?

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* xouoxno@virtulink.com
*
* 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
* M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
*
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

Jon Szanto wrote,

> I, for one, am still eagerly awaiting a finalized, collated and
cohesive presentation on your explorations into Ives microtonal
intentions. I was not convinced previously, but I ascribed that mostly
to the piece-meal manner in which individual statements were parsed.

Johnny Reinhard wrote,

> Dan Stearns? Could you address this issue, that of piece-mail
versus a complete chapter and/or book? I suspect the medium is
partly at fault. I find something new, or not previously discussed
outside of the original
medium, and I post it for group contemplation.

Hi Jon and Johnny,

Though I feel like I might be stepping into the middle of one here(!),
here's a couple of brief thoughts...

During the ongoing thread pertaining to Ives' note spellings last year
I made a point of repeatedly trying to say that I thought Johnny's
"extended Pythagorean Ives" argument sounded like an intriguing and
cleverly deduced evidential nuance or contour that was in all
likelihood just being stretched too far.

Recently I had a chance to read Johnny's "An Acoustic Plan" from a
draft of his "Ives Universe." And one of the first things I noticed
was not how much sounder, or sturdier his whole argument seemed in the
context of a lengthier presentation really, but just how much more
prudently and judiciously it all seemed to read in that context... how
a contextually conducive setting made the whole argument suddenly
appear so much more appropriate and agreeable to my mind.

Having also had the occasion to read a couple of Johnny's articles and
writings hopping aboard the TD, I've noticed that he seldom seems to
present his strong personal preferences and ideas in a way that is as
'loud' as they may appear to be in the short-order form they
occasionally get thrown out in at the TD. I think that they flow --
and thereby read -- quite a bit differently than his similar TD posts
and points do.

So surprisingly enough, Johnny's "extended Pythagorean Ives" argument
seems a much better fit to me in the integrated context of his "Ives
Universe" (of which it's probably important to note that the "Acoustic
Plan" actually only comprises a relatively small part) than it ever
did the back and forth context of the TD threads... that this is all
coming from the angle of one who wants -- and believes it right -- to
give some actual intonational reality to these ideas and issues in
Ives no longer seems objectionable to me on the basis of what might be
said to be an exaggeration of the evidence alone... so in short I'd
have to say that Johnny's "extended Pythagorean Ives" made for a much
better contextual narrative when viewed from someplace other than the
middle of a sometimes passionate TD back and forth.

Just some thoughts as they came to mind.

Dan