Non-revisionist Partch history

In Digest 777, Johnny Reinhard wrote:

>Partch dealt with non-virtuosi intentionally.

Which is only *partially* correct, mostly in a semantic way. What Partch favored in his ensemble members (when he had *any* choice as to who he could get) was to find people who were not encumbered by the "trappings" of virtuosity: meaningless gestures, prima donna attitudes, and the like. During the times he was working, there were fewer musicians than today that were both extra-competent and open-minded, and he frequently ended up with mere mortals that were mainly interested in either him or his music.

He retreated to California, in solitude, to Sausalito in the early 60's and composed "And On the Seventh Day Petals Fell in Petaluma", wanting to write (essentially) virtuosic music -- after having to constantly 'dumb down' his instrumental demands for the student ensembles in the mid-West.

But Harry was glad for the talents of many of the performers in the production of "Delusion of the Fury", the ensemble that contained many stellar players from the Los Angeles area.

Small point, but he didn't shun excellence as much as he shunned excellence with an effete attitude! He would have been happy with the evolution of players today...

Cheers,
Jon
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Real Life: Orchestral Percussionist
Web Life: "Corporeal Meadows" - about Harry Partch
http://www.corporeal.com/

In Digest (for me) 780 Johnny Reinhard replied twice. I'll concatenate them and answer accordingly:

{Johnny, you wrote...}
>Partch's "Revelation in the Courthouse Park" in non-virtuosic.

I'll take that as a typo ('in'). But to discuss this, we first have to visit the original statement you made, in Digest 777:

>Certainly, you might realize that there are different stratum of musicians >to deal with. Partch dealt with non-virtuosi intentionally. Happily, I am >most comfortable with the virtuosi.

As you say, there are different stratum of musicians. It appears, though, that you then break it into two tiers: either people who are non-virtuosi, or those that are. Pray tell, *what* would you consider virtuosi? Only people who, on any given occasion, play something on the order of a Liszt concerto (or substitute any microtonal piece of similar technical demands...)?

But to say that "Revelation" is non-virtuosic is not even correct: what would you consider of the pivotal role of Dion? If you are only looking at instrumental parts, then in certain instances you are certainly correct; if you were in charge of a full production, you would be seriously underestimating the demands on some of the non-instrumental issues. And Ed Borasky correctly remembers that is was composed with, at least consideration of, student performers in mind. Why?

In May of 1958 John Garvey wrote to Partch that a grant had been awarded to Partch by the University of Illinois Graduate School for the forthcoming year, to enable him to prepare a new theater work for performance at the university.

"...at the university". These are words from Bob Gilmore's biography of Partch; Bob happens to be another slanted Partch scholar.

>Same with Barstow, Ulysses Departs..., and others.

Barstow, sure, not exceedingly taxing. Then again, when in the world do we show disdain for the utilitarian use of the guitar in Woodie Guthrie's music (i.e. "Dust Bowl Ballads")? Ulysses? Hey, Johnny, have you ever tried to play either the Diamond Marimba or Boo part to that piece? Hmmmm? "...and others". I can't comment, since you don't elucidate.

>Jon Szanto implies that anything different from a particular slant on >Partch is somehow inferior.

Nowhere at all in my response did I imply inferiority. In fact, I specifically stated: "...he didn't shun excellence as much as he shunned excellence with an effete attitude! He would have been happy with the evolution of players today..." Therefore, if any person could supply a willing cadre of "virtuosi", he would have had new players to use. With all the usual Partchian caveats (see below).

>Perhaps an independent scholar can address Partch's philosophical interest in
>non-virtuosity.

How about either Philip Blackburn or Bob Gilmore? There is ample evidence, from the writing of both, to document Partch's use of musical talent: to be sure, there were definitely time periods where circumstances would dictate a less than ideal performance situation. A perfect example is contained in comments Partch made surrounding the production of "Water! Water!" -- which was sponsored by the Illini Student Union -- when he said "in Illinois I found that I was writing progressively *easier* music because I lost confidence that difficult music would be played well." (Gilmore, p. 291)

To remedy this situation, he moved back to California to Petaluma, where he reflected "Due to these experiences I determined, in the summer of '62, to concentrate on a series of duets, in which I would have complete control...And I determined not to record until I had the *right* musicians." (Gilmore, p. 298) This led to the composition of "And On the Seventh Day Petals Fell in Petaluma", one of his rare excursions into pure instrumental/non-theatric music; it would also later form the fabric of "Delusion of the Fury", with includes instrumental parts requiring extremely dedicated and talented players, and realized with the help of some notoriously talented players.

Part of my statements also allude to an "effete attitude" common to the stereotypical 'virtuoso' (as in a concert pianist with all of the concert affectations flying in the breeze); this is not simply my _slant_. At the same time Partch was composing "Petals" he was preparing the "Manual..." (that was both a true manual on keeping the instruments in repair but ALSO an attitudinal primer for potential ensemble members). He includes in the Manual the following:

"There can be no humdrum playing of notes, in the bored belief that because they are 'good' musicians their performance is ipso facto 'masterly'".

I am well aware, Johnny, that you find my opinions and concepts of Partch to be at odds with yours; it's the way of the world. I also take you at face value (not having found any AFMM performances available on CD) that you have incredible players at your disposal, able and willing to perform to the cent. Nonetheless, I did work with Harry for a number of years, I have played the majority of his works, on most of his instruments, and did so in concert and on stage for over 15 years. I back up my opinions, if this aforementioned experience is to be considered a fault instead of a bonus, with quotations both from Partch and noted scholars on Partch (even though both Gilmore and Blackburn would bridle at the term "scholar"; maybe "accepted published documentarians"). If I have a slant, and I'm sure I do, it is one that has been formed with experience and study.

But your one statement, about _intentional_ non-virtuosity, is simply not correct at face value. On the off chance that newcomers to Partch or related topics would be reading this on the list for the first time, I felt it needed gentle but firm correction.

[BTW, there will be a new set of material coming to the Meadows -- the tuning list will get a notice when it goes live -- and one mention is the new book edited by David Dunn: "Harry Partch - An Anthology of Critical Perspectives". More food for thought, quite a bit differing from my blather. And I'll gladly advocate for this book, too...]

Cheers,
Jon
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Real Life: Orchestral Percussionist
Web Life: "Corporeal Meadows" - about Harry Partch
http://www.corporeal.com/