re: Electric Harry

>>Or is it just that your idea of Partch as warm, fuzzy bits of wood and
>>string doesn't jive with your idea of electronics?
>
>You don't have any idea of how I feel about electronics, do you?
>In general?

Nope. That's why I asked.

>>Incidentally, I've never caught Partch contradicting himself
>
>Then you have lots of reading to do, because I don't have the time to
>point out even the beginnings of his inherent contradictions. Hell, his
>life was a contradiction, but I have to go to work this morning...

I've read every word published on Partch, by Partch, that I'm aware
of, at least once.

>>Gilmore states this too, but every one of his examples reveal a
>>gross misunderstanding of the man and his work.
>
>Wow. Bob and I have totally missed the boat on Harry. Amazing...

Gilmore's biography is excellent, priceless. But his POV is, IMO,
that of an outsider -- a stranger -- to Partch's work and ideals.
I've outlined some of the reasons I think this here before. You
know I don't think the same of you, and I hope you don't consider
my post -- which I thought a natural reaction to the tone of your
posts -- at all violent.

-Carl

>>>>Incidentally, I've never caught Partch contradicting himself
>>>
>>>Then you have lots of reading to do, because I don't have the time to
>>>point out even the beginnings of his inherent contradictions. Hell,
>>>his life was a contradiction, but I have to go to work this morning...
>>
>>I've read every word published on Partch, by Partch, that I'm aware
>>of, at least once.
>
>And you're expecting us to believe that it's a watertight, logically
>consistent whole?

What's a watertight logically consistent whole? Partch's output is
every bit as consistent, or moreso, than any output of a man's life
I'm familiar with.

>I could probably write a paper on the contradictions in _Genesis_,
>alone.

If you've got him in conflict of purpose or intent, I'd like to hear
it. I'm not particularly interested in wether he likes his peas. I
know of nothing in _Genesis_, or anywhere else, that could possibly
justify Szanto's statement that Partch was a man of contradictions, or
that dealing with contradictions is crucial to understanding Partch
or his work. Reminds me of the cheap stuff historians have used to
describe the early presidents. "There were two Thomas Jeffersons..."
There's a difference between waffling and balancing a tricky situation
towards a single goal.

-Carl