no commercial potential [Frank Zappa ?]

I wrote,

<< The problem with art music is that techniques and form are the ends
not the means to an end. For me the goal of music is communication of
ideas wrapped up in emotions. >>

Dan Stearns wrote

< Why I should give a rat's hat I don't really know, but these types of
blanket statements -- "the problem with __________" (fill in the blank
with your prescription for the thang you ain't personally diggin') --
do indeed get me honked! >

Dan, your reactio sounds as if you thought I was criticising your music !
Unfortunatly I have not actually heard nor do I have the nifty computer set up to hear anyones music on this list at this point in time. Your descriptions of your music and the song lyrics you posted would be things I could easily enjoy. My exposure to microtonal music is largely from a couple of JI network compilations and some other stuff that I have managed to procure from music shops. I have never said that I did not like any particular type of microtonal music [I have found merits in all the microtonal music I have have listened to]I only suggested that I have an idea why mr and mrs MTV are not breaking down doors in order to hear microtonal music.

Would you damn Partch because he expressed his personal opinion [in book form no less] about his presription for the thang he ain't personally diggin' ?

< I mean it just seems to me that anyone whose really in it the right
way is going to have to find out for themselves what's problematic and
what's not... no? >

Absolutely. I think they should. Though only professionals need to. Those into microtonal music as a hobby [not for a career]can make the music that most satisfies them. That stands for academic composers relying on grants too [although grant proposals are also subject to the whims and fancies of patrons]. People who would like to make money or a living from microtonal music have to consider things like markets. Am I not allowed to make suggestions for the benefit of those people ?

< For me personally, Partch's corporeality would be a match made in
hell! All wrong... but in the context (and singular delivery) of
Partch, it I find it both immensely inspiring and just as it should
be... the man, the music, the ideas, they all line right up. >

I find it inspiring too. I have yet to find anything as haunting as the 11 intrusions. Although I must add I am not offering Partch's music as an example of popular music only his ideas as expressed in 'Genesis of A Music'. You are probably already well aware that his theories and music did always match up.

< Personally I think Partch's music, while lining up favorably with most
of your 'what makes a popular music criteria', is one of the most
least likely to be "commercially popular" that I could possibly think
of... and thank the deity of your choice for that I'd say! I mean
we're talking a streak of fierce and ornery independence so strong
here that it's all but guaranteed to scare off everyone save the
intrepid experimentalist and (only because Partch preached the JI
gospel as he did) those overly interested in tuning issues. >

I found out about JI through his book which I became aware of through my interest in building experimental musical instruments. I was only vaguely aware of JI before that and considered it an irrelevance. Now I consider instrument building as just a [difficult] way to get non 12tet sounds.

< Here's a question for anyone who cares to offer a view...

Do you think the spirit of Partch's music would be said to have
resonated most with

a) the EMI, DIY crowd
b) the experimentalist fringe
c) the alternate tuning crowd
d) _________ (dealers choice) >

For me it was a) but I have become part of c) !

Sincerely Justin White

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Justin White wrote,

<< Would you damn Partch because he expressed his personal opinion [in
book form no less] about his presription for the thang he ain't
personally diggin' ? >>

Well "damn" might be a little strong for what I wrote, but yeah,
absolutely. Though, somewhat hypocritically I'll admit, Partch made
that music... and boy, that really counts and covers for an awful lot!
I suppose like most people I'll tend to excuse or ignore this or that
in one instance and rant and rave about it in another. But when
reading say Partch or Ives, the things that would generally make me
wince are tied to a much broader context; that person and their art
and all that that entails. Does that make any sense?

Anyway, what you wrote got me honked simply because its sweeping
generalness swept right over many square miles that I believe in
(etc.) in a way that I saw as, well 'careless'. An overreaction on my
part? Sure, I wouldn't doubt it.

There's a good bit in Genesis were Partch says that you sometimes have
to overstate your cause (he dose this in defense of someone else's
comment which you can tell he can only half agree with)... and I think
some of the most influential bits of ideology in Genesis often read
that way; in other words some (intentionally) overstated polemic to
clearly underscore what were very unconventional ideas in their time.

<< You are probably already well aware that his theories and music did
always match up. >>

Have you read Wendy Carlos's article "Tuning: at the Crossroads"?
Check out the bit on Partch's folly for a well reasoned (though
misguided to my way of seeing things) dissenting view.

<< Now I consider instrument building as just a [difficult] way to get
non 12tet sounds. >>

Say it ain't so! I'm much more struck by the unorthodox and fresh
timbers, attacks and overall character of new instruments than I am by
any tuning related reality they carry with them. Can there be any
doubt that new instruments are far more powerful in their initial
impact than new tunings? I've had many occasions to play very
competent listeners microtonal music, even in equal tunings like 11
and 13, and had them not know that it was something other that 12...
but three seconds of Partch's ensembles, Reichel's daxophone,
Ghazala's incantors and no one -- and I mean no one -- is nonplused!

In one sense I think tuning (as it is discussed on this list) is for
connoisseurs and connoisseurs only, and that the importance and
cognizance of tuning is exaggerated when it comes to the larger issue
of music... but I also think that once one has a myriad of tuning
possibilities at their disposal and has personally acclimated their
usage's to some relevant extent, it really is impossible to go back to
where ever it is that one originated from tuning wise.

But whether I like it or not, I'd have to say that it has been my
experience that tuning is far far from the top of what most people are
cognizant of (or unpromptedly responsive to) in an actual musical
context... but, that isn't to say that it's unimportant! Because
personal experience so obviously tells my otherwise.

--Dan Stearns