Partch theory of a composition

This is what Harry Partch wrote of a conceptual composition that he clearly
wrote away from the keyboard.

The Incident at Drake's Bay (11/11/53)
By Harry Partch

A Music Drama

The failure to accompany this work with a story or a verbal rationalization
is compounded of equal part unwillingness and inability. I am spontaneously
both unwilling and unable to do more than declare that the music and the
instructions in the score must speak for themselves. Perhaps I could point
out that it involves human beings and is contemporary (and) that the
geographical pinpointing of the title might be an individual whim. I might
also say that the work is conceptually imaginary rather than fictionally
imaginary. Finally, it is a summation of factors that I cannot feel
impelled…..to battle over or to interpret.

This asks a great deal from a performing ensemble: to have sufficient faith
to carry it through the excessive demands of rehearsal without a verbally
expressed dramatic idea to hold on to, and without assurance of compensating
esthetic rewards in the final reckoning. Yet, if the words were frankly a
sonata, there would be no expectation by the musicians of more than a slowly
revealed musical concept, and the rewards of passages pleasurable to play.
Perhaps for the purposes of rehearsal only, the work should temporarily be
titled: The Incident at Drake's Bay.

Now, discuss amongst yourselves. Johnny

Johnny,

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> This is what Harry Partch wrote of a conceptual composition that
> he clearly wrote away from the keyboard.

[snip copy of Partch's notes]

> Now, discuss amongst yourselves. Johnny

Here we have Partch jotting down notes about a proposed piece that
never came to fruition. He specifically states:

"I am spontaneously both unwilling and unable to do more than declare
that the music and the instructions in the score must speak for
themselves."

He never produced music for this piece, therefore no score, therefore
no instructions; they cannot "speak for themselves". It is
interesting (for those who care about these things) to see someone
like this 'working out' on paper the thoughts in his head, and it is
also a very early indication of the importance of including a
drammatic or theatrical underpinning to the work. Had it been a
project of high priority with him, or something deep inside that
moved him, my guess is that we would have eventually actually *had* a
Partch work entitled "Incident at Drake's Bay".

But what we have is a glimpse at one artist's rumminations. If people
will make more of it than that, it is because the work can't "speak
for itself".

As in all things, YMMV; these are just my thoughts.

Cheers,
Jon

Well, we will see different things in this. For me "Incident at Drake's Bay"
is a concept work, like John Cage's "4 Minutes and 33 Seconds." Since first
noticing this non-piece in piece's clothing, it seemed to me that Partch is
describing an improvisation in a verbose, yet witty manner. It may have been
a reaction against something, but it was written (and dated) November 11,
1953. What might he have been in reaction to?

My intention is to share this example of creativity and ask the tuning list
what others see.

Johnny Reinhard

Johnny,

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Well, we will see different things in this. For me "Incident at
Drake's Bay"
> is a concept work, like John Cage's "4 Minutes and 33 Seconds."

Yeah: Partch would just *love* you comparing his work to Cage's.

> My intention is to share this example of creativity and ask the
> tuning list what others see.

Well, if you were honest in your efforts you would include material
leading up to the 'note', material afterward, and his general state
of affairs when he wrote this. Instead, you extract only this
jotting, free from any context whatsoever.

This, of course, allows it to conform to your own view that it is a
piece, in and of itself. If anyone has spent time, virtually any time
at all, trying to follow Partch's creative intentions, "conceptual"
compositions, where the performers are allowed to do just whatever
they please, aren't even on the map. That you would compare to Cage,
having found this resource in a book that later shows in great detail
the difficult correspondence that occurred between Partch and Cage,
and contains some scathing reviews of Cage's general and
compositional aesthetic, well... balderdash.

That's just my take on it, of course.

Cheers,
Jon

Jon, I honestly do not have any other material other than what I posted. I
know all about Partch's negative views on Cage. I also know Cage's positive
views on Partch.
The world has always put them on the same page, regardless.

Honestly, Jon, could your provide some background to this and "Mendota
Night," another example of Partch describing what appears to be an improvised
"piece." Other examples of Partch using improvisation include "Ulysses
Departs From the Edge" for trumpet (and string bass and boobams), and "U.S.
Highball for what is an improvised longer than usual measure.

I am well aware that Partch had doubts about things, including improvisation.
He had doubts about being represented on vinyl, and yet he produced an early
Indie. BTW, Partch specifically states that "Incident at Drake's Bay" is "a
music drama" right at the top. In this regard it is superior to a mere
abstract conceptualization, IMHO (and as honestly as I know how).

Johnny Reinhard

Johnny,

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Jon, I honestly do not have any other material other than what I
posted.

OK. I have always thought that context, especially when the item is
as vague as this, is important. I'll see about framing it at some
point, but I have to be honest and say that a detailed exposition
can't come right now, with more pressing matters bearing down
(unforturnately).

> The world has always put them on the same page, regardless.

Yes, but "the world" is, I think, less informed on this and learned
people can help set the record straight. If anyone gives creedence to
your words, then they serve to validate a popular, but inaccurate,
marriage of two very disparate artists.

> I am well aware that Partch had doubts about things, including
improvisation.

There are some interesting things I've learned about his days at the
Gate 5 / Sausalito studio, regarding improvisation and the
germination of "The Bewitched". I'll write something up on it and
post at a future date.

Cheers,
Jon

In a message dated 3/11/01 4:34:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, JSZANTO@ADNC.COM
writes:

> Yes, but "the world" is, I think, less informed on this and learned
> people can help set the record straight. If anyone gives credence to
> your words, then they serve to validate a popular, but inaccurate,
> marriage of two very disparate artists.
>
>

The marriage may be shotgun, but it makes sense to me. Yes, I know that
Partch treated Cage as a charlatan. However, steadfastly, Cage honored
Partch and credited him. When asked if Partch could indeed hear the notes he
wanted to use, Cage gave out an emphatic "Of course!" He was angry at the
question, indignant (Mitch Corber's Cage Video).

Cage composed differently, like some of the people on this list. Partch did
not respect Cage, but Cage was tolerant to Partch, but not to Glen
Branca....but that is a different story. What I am alluding to is that both
Partch and Cage were really different. It's probably like Brahms and
Tchaikovsky, 2 great talents interpreting their worlds differently.

According to Baker's Dictionary, Partch preceded Cage's 4'33" by a full year.

Best, Johnny Reinhard