Re: [tuning] JI: Partch's practice (1)

There have been some extreme claims about what, exactly, Just Intonation
meant for Partch's compositional practice. On the one hand, there are
"simplifiers", who wish to find in Partch a tonal practice that is, in some
sense, a purified common practice harmony. On the other hand, there are a
few "defeatists" who emphasize the presence of instruments with non-harmonic
spectra and the inaccuracies or instabilities of the instruments in general,
thus suggesting that Partch simply failed in achieving JI. The truth, as
the music itself strongly projects, contains both these extreme positions
and all of the territory in-between.

An mp3 file (112kbit/s) with a synthesized performance of the chromelodeon
part at the opening of Partch's _Ring Around the Moon_ has beenposted to
the eGroups site . (It was made with a very simple reed organ-like timbre,
built by additive synthesis; the tuning of the performance is accurate to
some 10 places after the decimalpoint in Hz. This example is for fair
scholarly use, not for performance).

A few observations, for possible discussion: The sample is one of the rare
passages in Partch where the chromelodeon is used for something approaching
4-part harmony. However, simple triadic voice leading is the exception
rather than the rule, tonal centricity is non-classical, and the texture is
dominated by passing tone dissonances. Not only chords found in the diamond
are used as consonances, but also U-O hybrids (e.g. of the 1/1-6/5-3/2-9/5
sort; in fact, strict usage of the diamond is rare in Partch's music, to my
knowledge only "Dark Brother" qualifies). Arpeggiation is frequently used
to project or disambiguate utonal sonorities. I suspect that rates of
beating may have been considered in the choice of passing tones.

Partch spoke of using JI to achieve "meaningful dissonances". What did he
mean? Is it simply that all the tonal relationships were eventually
reducible to ratios, however complex (something akin to Tenney's "John Cage
and the Theory of Harmony"? Partch used the term "atonal" to describe
parts of his work, specifically in "Castor & Pollux" and "...Petals...".
Did he draw -- or are we able to draw -- a clear line between his "tonal"
and "atonal" practices?

Daniel Wolf
Budapest

Holy mackerel, thats interesting! I've never heard this passage on the
original squeezebox chromelodeon. Are you saying that it sounds alot
different synthesized this way, with more precise realization? Was the
original chromelodeon too innacurate and unstable to really do justice to a
passage like this? (to me the chromeloden always sounds out of tune)

Dante

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@matavnet.hu>
To: <tuning@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 3:00 AM
Subject: Re: [tuning] JI: Partch's practice (1)

> There have been some extreme claims about what, exactly, Just Intonation
> meant for Partch's compositional practice. On the one hand, there are
> "simplifiers", who wish to find in Partch a tonal practice that is, in
some
> sense, a purified common practice harmony. On the other hand, there are a
> few "defeatists" who emphasize the presence of instruments with
non-harmonic
> spectra and the inaccuracies or instabilities of the instruments in
general,
> thus suggesting that Partch simply failed in achieving JI. The truth, as
> the music itself strongly projects, contains both these extreme positions
> and all of the territory in-between.
>
> An mp3 file (112kbit/s) with a synthesized performance of the
chromelodeon
> part at the opening of Partch's _Ring Around the Moon_ has beenposted to
> the eGroups site . (It was made with a very simple reed organ-like
timbre,
> built by additive synthesis; the tuning of the performance is accurate to
> some 10 places after the decimalpoint in Hz. This example is for fair
> scholarly use, not for performance).
>
> A few observations, for possible discussion: The sample is one of the rare
> passages in Partch where the chromelodeon is used for something
approaching
> 4-part harmony. However, simple triadic voice leading is the exception
> rather than the rule, tonal centricity is non-classical, and the texture
is
> dominated by passing tone dissonances. Not only chords found in the
diamond
> are used as consonances, but also U-O hybrids (e.g. of the 1/1-6/5-3/2-9/5
> sort; in fact, strict usage of the diamond is rare in Partch's music, to
my
> knowledge only "Dark Brother" qualifies). Arpeggiation is frequently used
> to project or disambiguate utonal sonorities. I suspect that rates of
> beating may have been considered in the choice of passing tones.
>
> Partch spoke of using JI to achieve "meaningful dissonances". What did he
> mean? Is it simply that all the tonal relationships were eventually
> reducible to ratios, however complex (something akin to Tenney's "John
Cage
> and the Theory of Harmony"? Partch used the term "atonal" to describe
> parts of his work, specifically in "Castor & Pollux" and "...Petals...".
> Did he draw -- or are we able to draw -- a clear line between his "tonal"
> and "atonal" practices?
>
> Daniel Wolf
> Budapest
>
>
>
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@egroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@egroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@egroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for
the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@egroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest
mode.
> tuning-normal@egroups.com - change your subscription to individual
emails.
>
>

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Daniel Wolf" <djwolf1@m...> wrote:
http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16546

I agree this is exceptional and informative, and hope nobody misses
this posted file! Thank you again, Daniel Wolf, for posting it and
welcome back, for however long, to the list....
__________ ___ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <pehrson@p...> wrote:
http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16552

Additionally... the Partch example convinces me that Partch would
have been *fascinated* with the current studies that Paul Erlich is
doing with Harmonic Entropy. Some of the Harmonic Entropy sound
files that have been posted sound somewhat similar to Partch's music,
except for the fact that his harmonic motion is a bit faster. But
the novel ways of "navigating" the Harmonic Entropy triadic pizza
create effects that are not far from Partch's...

The posted files for these Harmonic Entropy studies are at:

http://www.egroups.com/files/harmonic_entropy/Finnamore/

The studies are, of course, the mindchild of Paul Erlich, but David
Finnamore aptly created the sound studies based upon the pizza
model...

_________ ___ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Daniel Wolf" <djwolf1@m...> wrote:
> There have been some extreme claims about what, exactly, Just
Intonation
> meant for Partch's compositional practice. On the one hand, there
are
> "simplifiers", who wish to find in Partch a tonal practice that is,
in some
> sense, a purified common practice harmony. On the other hand,
there are a
> few "defeatists" who emphasize the presence of instruments with non-
harmonic
> spectra and the inaccuracies or instabilities of the instruments in
general,
> thus suggesting that Partch simply failed in achieving JI. The
truth, as
> the music itself strongly projects, contains both these extreme
positions
> and all of the territory in-between.

Daniel,

I wish to give you a warm welcome back, and look forward to your
contributions to thes important threads about JI.

By "defeatists", I'm sure you are meaning Wendy Carlos and
her "Partch's Folly", which as was ably pointed out by Dan Stearns,
is folly in itself.

In a recent post in which Paul Erlich and I had some enlightening
exchange about spectrum scales, I proposed that there are basically
two different approaches to timbre/tuning.

1. Tunings in which the primary concern is that of tuning the
fundamental pitches, and overtones "fall where they may" (Equal
Temperaments, JI, etc..).

2. (and) Tunings in which the alignment of partials is of primary
concern, as in the William Sethares theories.

Although I am unsure to what degree Partch let the partials of his
inharmonic instruments "influence" the tuning of his instruments, I
feel that he generally would fit in to the former category, where he
was concerned with tuning of the fundamental pitches. My experience
has shown that both of these are valid approaches, yet yield a very
different result for the sound of a given composition.

>
> An mp3 file (112kbit/s) with a synthesized performance of the
chromelodeon
> part at the opening of Partch's _Ring Around the Moon_ has
beenposted to
> the eGroups site . (It was made with a very simple reed organ-like
timbre,
> built by additive synthesis; the tuning of the performance is
accurate to
> some 10 places after the decimalpoint in Hz. This example is for
fair
> scholarly use, not for performance).

Thanks for providing this, it was very lovely.

>
> A few observations, for possible discussion: The sample is one of
the rare
> passages in Partch where the chromelodeon is used for something
approaching
> 4-part harmony. However, simple triadic voice leading is the
exception
> rather than the rule, tonal centricity is non-classical, and the
texture is
> dominated by passing tone dissonances. Not only chords found in
the diamond
> are used as consonances, but also U-O hybrids (e.g. of the 1/1-6/5-
3/2-9/5
> sort; in fact, strict usage of the diamond is rare in Partch's
music, to my
> knowledge only "Dark Brother" qualifies). Arpeggiation is
frequently used
> to project or disambiguate utonal sonorities. I suspect that rates
of
> beating may have been considered in the choice of passing tones.

These kinds of "U-O hybrids" are a part of my native musical
language, as I was first inspired to explore these kinds of
structures after reading "Genesis".

>
> Partch spoke of using JI to achieve "meaningful dissonances". What
did he
> mean? Is it simply that all the tonal relationships were eventually
> reducible to ratios, however complex (something akin to
Tenney's "John Cage
> and the Theory of Harmony"? Partch used the term "atonal" to
describe
> parts of his work, specifically in "Castor & Pollux"
and "...Petals...".
> Did he draw -- or are we able to draw -- a clear line between
his "tonal"
> and "atonal" practices?

I think as Monz pointed out, by the use of the term "Monophony";
seeing all of the ratios in his system as an expansion from 1/1,
pretty much "covered all the bases". I think he had a very insightful
approach, which did seem to broadly embrace the most extreme poles of
simplicity and complexity, with both his tunings and timbres.

Thanks,

Jacky Ligon