Skip LaPlante Speaks Up

----- Original Message -----
From: <Afmmjr@aol.com>
To: <skiplaplante@earthlink.net>
> yuck, what a nasty load of email.

I'm tempted to wax eloquently about museums, performance museums and living
performance traditions.  The NY Philharmonic is a museum.  The orchestral
tradition is dead in the sense that no important new work can be created for
orchestra.  Too many new instruments, too many musicians (implies impossibly
expensive), too much important stuff being developed outside of the
orchestral tradition, nobody paying much attention to new work within the
tradition (Corigliano got a pulitzer-so what).
    wither partch.  insisting that all performances get the whole aesthetic
will kill the tradition completely.  Danlee's rare performances will look
absolutely frequent if performances that don't meet the arbitrary standards
are enforced.  People like me, outsiders who will push the tradition whether
or not we push it in directions compatible with Parch's, will have even more
scope to ignore the keepers of the faith.  Worse, the won't be any new
converts because nobody will find out about the work.  The Shakers have lost
it-theirs wasn't a viable strategy.
    At some point the money dries up, the keepers of the tradition become
entirely irrelevant.  All is lost outside the museum, and this ain't
Trantor.
    but this is the big picture, mostly what I saw was invective.  It's kind
of nice to be crucified because I don't give a crap if my instruments are
art pieces.  Szanto is right-if this were truly Partchian, the cardboard
tubes would have some sort of elegant stand.  It would not be portable
particularly, so something serious would be lost.  I can't design it, but
nobody else can either.  Partch was an original.  Period.  To insist that
the trappings of an instrument that Harry didn't build somehow moves within
that part of the Partch orbit is beyond idiotic.
    But mostly I managed to address most of the issues that seemed to need
it.  And established myself as forever outside the Partch camp.  As I said,
let's let the historians straighten it all out in 25 years.
    Alwin Nikolais company is in dire straights.  Nik sort of worked with
Partch in the 50s except that they were both uncompromising cusses and
geniuses.  Nik's work is hard to stage and the company is struggling to
somehow keep the repertoire in place and performable.  Nik couldn't be
imitated-his choreography has a lot to do with costumes, lighting and an
otherwise amazing gestalt.  It seems that, even though this was the most
creative choreographer on the scene for about 30 years, his work will die
while pikers like Merce Cunningham get all the glory.  Is this Partch's
fate?  It will be if the museum wins the access war.

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Afmmjr@a...>
> To: <skiplaplante@e...>
> > yuck, what a nasty load of email.

Well, life isn't always a bed of roses, and sometimes making a point
means making some noise. I said I'd reply back to your post of Skip's
of a couple days ago, but will do so when there is time to do it
justice (and there is merit in what Skip says).

However, this reminds me of the days of John Chalmer's posting the
writings of Brian McLaren (again, that name!), which meant that
anything he said was one-way. Invite Skip to join the list, Johnny,
even for a short time -- if the only discussion we had (Skip and I)
was one message, but he got to share some of his thoughts on
instrument making, I *know* that would be of value to the list.

I also asked you, kindly, if you had his email address so I could
write and assure him that while strongly worded (and in non-tuneable
ASCII), personal enmity was not my game. I tried the two emails I
found in a web search, but they were no-go. If you (and he) feel like
sharing, it would make for better communication.

Assuming communication and discussion are valid, which I think they
are.

Just one point in this lengthy and somewhat... well, this lengthy
post:

> Partch was an original.  Period.  To insist that the trappings
> of an instrument that Harry didn't build somehow moves within
> that part of the Partch orbit is beyond idiotic.

Not if the instrument is for use in playing his music, as the visual
was as vital as the aural. Any other use? Not only non-idiotic, but
all trappings of any sort are extremely welcomed. In case you missed
that point.

> But mostly I managed to address most of the issues that seemed to
> need it.  And established myself as forever outside the Partch
> camp.  As I said, let's let the historians straighten it all out
> in 25 years.

Funny you say that (or, "he" says it): Partch died only 26 years ago,
and because of raft of genetically altered performance ideologies
that are springing up as he decomposes, it will be too late. So the
way I look at it (realizing that getting most people to look outside
their *own* prejudices on performance and look into *Partch's* has
about as much chance of succeeding as Ivor Darreg had at winning a
Pulitzer), I'll just sit around and chronicle the strip malling of
his grand attempt at something different, something unique.

If for no other reason than ...

Regards,
Jon

Hmmm, maybe it's because of jet lag, since I've barely returned from
the States, but I don't understand this discussion about Skip
LaPlant's kithara.

I've seen and hreard both the original and Skip's imitation, and
I frankly can't tell the difference. It's an excellent copy. So
I don't think that the kithara should be a core issue in this
discussion. And Skip does a quite fine job of playing it too.

Best,

Lydia Ayers

--- In tuning@y..., Lydia Ayers <LAYERS@C...> wrote:
> I don't think that the kithara should be a core issue in this
> discussion.

I agree, and maybe it was not clear, but to me the K is not a core
issue, but just one of the underlying concerns.

> And Skip does a quite fine job of playing it too.

<sigh> I wish I could make a trip back East for one of these gigs to
judge for myself, and not have to rely on other people's observations
or dated recordings...

Cheers,
Jon

Jon!

JSZANTO@ADNC.COM wrote:

>
>
> However, this reminds me of the days of John Chalmer's posting the
> writings of Brian McLaren (again, that name!), which meant that
> anything he said was one-way.

Here Here!

>
>
> ): Partch died only 26 years ago,
> and because of raft of genetically altered performance ideologies
> that are springing up as he decomposes, it will be too late............

> , I'll just sit around and chronicle the strip malling of
> his grand attempt at something different, something unique.

I really really wish I had said this.
Why do i think of Hollywood sequels

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

Such arrogance is not to be believed. Again Szanto mentions McLaren, even
though he continues to use McLaren's incorrect comments on his Corporeal
Meadows site.

For the record, I forwarded all of Szanto's posts to Skip, and asked whether
he wanted to have his e-mail address made public, or at least, to be given to
Jon Szanto. He did not want to be flamed on and on. Neither do I, no matter
how enjoyable it is to others on the list.

I no longer want to deal with Danlee's proxy on the list. It is demeaning
and destructive of music making. It did seem to me that talking about Skip
behind his back regarding the quality of his Kithara was unacceptable.

Until I have permission to post his e-mail address, I will continue to
forward the pertinent posts to him. I doubt he wants to belabor this stuff
any more than I do. It is disappointing that insulting others is on the rise.

For what it's worth, the Barbican chose not to use the notes, or bios that I
worked on and sent over. They should have put the notes into the program
which would have explained the improvisatory nature of "Incident at Drakes
Bay." If I am to do it again, I will announce it from the stage. However, I
have opted to do Barstow for the next series of performances (May 30-31 in
Bergen, Norway).

Partch is really only a small part of my life, but his dysfunctional extended
family makes it very difficult to present. Clearly, people world over now
have the opportunity to hear the original Partch on recordings, and Newband
has been to both London and Bergen (evidently burning their bridges).
Audiences have every opportunity to hear the originals. If they like our
work, they will reengage us. And they have.

Johnny Reinhard

Johnny!
Just for the record, although you other comments to Jon are outside
of my own post, i too find it rather uncomfortable for anyone to send a
monologue for me to listen to without my ability to respond directly. It
doesn't feel good and has the implication that we are not worthy to
engage on a equal basis. I do have respect for his work, i little know
about.

BTW my response to partch performances could not include your since i
haven't heard more than one from maybe a decade ago

ecde wrote:

> Such arrogance is not to be believed. Again Szanto mentions McLaren,
> even
> though he continues to use McLaren's incorrect comments on his
> Corporeal
> Meadows site.
>
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

Kraig, I understand. But do you think this is the same thing? For Jon it is
a Red Herring. Why shoot the messenger? So it's better to have had Skip
speak up than not, but not that he has, it's like McLaren? Maybe Skip will
join the list. Don't take it personally.

Johnny

To Johnny, and the list at large:

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Such arrogance is not to be believed. Again Szanto mentions
> McLaren, even though he continues to use McLaren's incorrect
> comments on his Corporeal Meadows site.

OK, I should have just said I didn't appreciate you turning it into a
one-sided arguement, posting for Skip as a proxy. Sure I used Brian's
own statements -- to point out just how dumb they were. I have not
reviewed those pages in a while. If what he says about *you* is
incorrect, and you would like to forward those comments to me, I will
put editorial remarks in them within an hour. You have never asked
for them to actually be *removed*, but I certainly understand that
you have a problem with them.

And, in light of all of your recent remarks regarding them, you will
be pleased to know that they will taken them down, and be replaced
with a new essay on these matters, following the March 26th Partch
Centennial at UCLA.

> For the record, I forwarded all of Szanto's posts to Skip, and
> asked whether he wanted to have his e-mail address made public

I would never ask that it be made public. But you unnecessarily
turned it into a one-sided affair, which didn't help matters.

> He did not want to be flamed on and on. Neither do I, no matter
> how enjoyable it is to others on the list.

No matter how many times I say this, I have not done it in jest or
for entertainment purposes. I have spoken on direct issues, if
strongly. If you have something to say about that, fine. I don't
think, in an objective light, that my comments were as incendiary as
the responses.

> I no longer want to deal with Danlee's proxy on the list. It is
> demeaning and destructive of music making.

I speak for myself, not Danlee, though I know we share similar
sentiments. I was trying to speak to larger issues, as well, but you
seem to only be restricting yourself to "music making". Fine. I can't
imagine how anything I've said could be destructive to your efforts.

> It did seem to me that talking about Skip behind his back regarding
> the quality of his Kithara was unacceptable.

I only addressed statements that he has made publically available,
and I asked repeatedly to converse with him directly; as well, you
never said "Shut up unless he's here!". And I spoke about the kithara
in passing, I believe, as part of the whole picture. As I wrote to L.
Ayers on the list today, if somehow the focus on the kithara is out-
of-whack, I accept fault for being unclear. But that doesn't change
Skip's originally stated aesthetics behind building the instruments.

And as I said to her, I would like to have the chance to see and hear
the kithara first hand, having only 'heard' it on your recording.

And you brought up the kithara yourself, extolling it's virtues; if
one can praise behind someone's back, may one not call into question
potential problems? I guess not.

> Until I have permission to post his e-mail address, I will continue
> to forward the pertinent posts to him. I doubt he wants to belabor
> this stuff any more than I do.

I know, you would rather not address the issue. But I reiterate that
if Skip and I could communicate directly it would, I know very well,
smooth certain areas. We won't, and *shouldn't*, agree on everything.
If you prefer to prevent us from speaking directly, so be it.

> It is disappointing that insulting others is on the rise.

Johnny, I don't know what to say, but the volume of words and posts
against my recent opinions have outweighed, in invective and raw
statistics, any I originally wrote.

> For what it's worth, the Barbican chose not to use the notes, or
> bios that I worked on and sent over. They should have put the
> notes into the program which would have explained the improvisatory
> nature of "Incident at Drakes Bay."

Yes, they should have. I imagine you didn't put up too much of a fuss
about it, lest they not invite you back. But it is tricky dealing
with concert promoters.

> Partch is really only a small part of my life, but his
> dysfunctional extended family makes it very difficult to
> present.

Should I count that as an insult?

> Clearly, people world over now have the opportunity to hear the
> original Partch on recordings, and Newband has been to both London
> and Bergen (evidently burning their bridges).

Is that an insult? Behind their backs?

> Audiences have every opportunity to hear the originals.

And work must be done to get that happening more often. Which I will
do. And I would urge people who want more Partch performances to
contact Newband and Dean Drummond, to see if they will stage honest-
to-goodness dramatic works with the original instruments. As is their
responsibility.

> If they like our work, they will reengage us. And they have.

Congratulations to you, Johnny, and Skip and the rest of the AFMM.

Sincerely,
Jon

Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:

> For the record, I forwarded all of Szanto's
> posts to Skip, and asked whether he wanted
> to have his e-mail address made public, or at least, to be
> given to Jon Szanto. He did not want to be flamed on and on.
> Neither do I, no matter
> how enjoyable it is to others on the list.

While I find the exchange enjoyable, I do find Skip's
Music for Home Made Instruments and Johnny's compositions
and improvisations more interesting then their performances
of Partch's music.

As for making email addresses public - you guys aren't exactly
Jimmy Page. If you're going to take part in a discussion
on the net, there's no real good reason to hide anything unless
that's yer general nature.

db

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

Johnny!
I don't assume it is the same thing. it was just my own observation.
i don't take it personally and it would be a pleasure to talk with Skip
if even for a brief stay here.

Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:

> Kraig, I understand. But do you think this is the same thing? For
> Jon it is
> a Red Herring. Why shoot the messenger? So it's better to have had
> Skip
> speak up than not, but not that he has, it's like McLaren? Maybe Skip
> will
> join the list. Don't take it personally.
>
> Johnny
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm