My dear friend Johnny Reinhard, on Partch.

Colleague Johnny,

>Daniel is right about the DX7 and the beats. That's why the AFMM has
>never used the DX7 in its performance, but rather a Proteus synthesizer.
>This resolves that problem.

I take your word for it (getting rid of the beats). There are other,
equally disconcerting problems, like choice of patches. One man's
"beautiful electronic tone" is another man's "Jesus Christ, turn that
f***ing thing off!" Which is also why some people like Starker's tone,
others like Ma's, others Rostropovich: it all gets into the ear of the
beholder. At least when I hear Partch performed on Partch's instruments (in
spite of what "grunt and squeal" might emanate), at least I can judge the
music on authentic terms: how it was intended, not someone else's idea of
what's right.

This doesn't mean that I like every performance that is *on* the Partch
instruments, or that I haven't heard attractive versions on, say, someone
else's Adapted Guitar. But if you want to play music written for a
Chromelodeon, get one, or make one. They exist (reed organs), and there are
sites on the web devoted to them. Just don't pass off weak imitations of
them and say "Ta Da!"

I've been working with one film composer recently who has more samplers
(Roland S-760's, I think) lined up in this one rack than I know of; I can't
imagine how many gigabytes of RAM he has devoted to orchestral samples, and
even with this he does multi-track digital to overlap, blend, etc. to come
closer to a real orchestral fabric. And he says "But you know, I can't wait
to get to the studio with the orchestra to hear what it will really sound
like!"

So don't give me a puny little Proteus. I know the Proteus. You've got to
do better, especially in the aesthetics area, unless all you are concerned
with is 'notes'. If so, transcribe some Ben Johnston string quartets for
four Proteii.

[The preceding was a joke brought to you by Sequential Circuits, Inc.]

>I've mentioned earlier about how
>the chromelodeon lacked the dexterity to play fast notes (like in Y.D.
>Fantasy) and might benefit from the technical freedoms that the
>synthesizers allow.

There is a conversation with Harry that, when extricated from the bowels of
my voluminous archives (as if), will tend to show that he wouldn't have
give a rats ass over technicality. But I could be wrong. In the meantime, I
could send Francis Thumm back there to give you a lesson on how Harry
thought the keyboard parts should be played on the Chromelodeon (and you
get a tiny glimpse of this in "The Dreamer That Remains"). Articulation and
clarity were not on top of the list; you might want to be more familiar
with the differences between Apollo and Dionysus.

>and yet the Partch choir resonates with support for the opera standard.

This defies belief. Who, pray tell, are the Partch choir, and where do they
lend support for the opera standard? (And are they a registered
Not-For-Profit entity?)

>Fact: I don't care for Bach on piano, much preferring various other
keyboards.

Meaning you prefer the keyboards Bach's music was written for? Or what
other reason?

>Fact: it is not the same case for Bach as for Partch in terms of why the
>concerts are performed in the first place.

That's not a fact, it's an opinion, and not clearly stated. What do you
view as the reasons for performing Bach in concert, and for Partch? How are
they different, and how alike?

>Fact: Partch must be seen in historical context, like any composer.

So you want Bach on non-piano (historically contextual?) but Partch on
synths (historically non-contextual?). Like any composer? Gee, I've said it
a lot before: he may not be better, but he's certainly not like *any*
composer! It is a hell of a lot easier to swallow a transcription of a work
originally written with little regard to the instrumental/vocal fabric than
it is to sit through the 'mutilation' of a piece with a carefully worked
out 'orchestration' (if you will). I don't know whether to laugh or cry
when Kronos does Machaut and Perotin, as if *words* weren't important. Yeesh.

>Fact: it has only recently been unearthed by Bob Gilmore
>that in 1950 Partch wrote that the chromelodeon was
>unmusical for him and he succeeeded in acquiring funds to research and
>hopefully build an acceptable electronic tone instrument.

Fact: this is extremely weak scholarship, Johnny. First, the
correspondences between Partch and Lauriston Marshall have been in a few
places for a while, and many months went by *before* Bob's book was out
when you could read them, in context and chronological order, in
Blackburn's "Enclosure 3". While it is convenient to tell the story the way
you'd like to support your thesis, I'd think that a full recounting of the
years 1949-51 on the coast in Gualala would lead you to a much broader
picture of how Harry viewed the instrument(s), including his physical
exhaustion and the extraordinary climatic demands on the instruments in
this very remote location.

I took a trip there, and stood in the smithy where he recorded the
"Intrusions", struggled to keep the Chromelodeon in tune in spite of the
coastal fog and cold, etc., etc. A long view of that part of his life, his
life and work in general, and you wouldn't be proposing the sterility of a
Proteus. Unless you think it's just about notes.

>Fact: he was too early in history to succeed in using an electronic
instrument
>for his purposes.

So someone else should call up Dionne Warwick on the Psychic Hotline, ask
him which rack-mount synth he'd like the most *these* days, and go out and
pass it off as "Partch Re-Plugged".

>Fact, Partch amplified his guitars and his Kithara.

So did we, when we performed with the ensemble. And this justifies...what?
.
.
.
.
.
I'll get more done on this subject later, but for those of you that
care, you might want to read the relevant areas in both the Gilmore and
Blackburn texts and judge for yourself.

It's official: I now have a headache.

Cheers,
Jon
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jonathan M. Szanto | Corporeal Meadows: Harry Partch, online. . .
jszanto@adnc.com | http://www.corporeal.com/

I don't understand why some people are so obsessed with transcribing
Partch's music. As a Greek Revivalist he was beyond being a composer. HE
PRODUCED THEATER WORKS and on this level the substitution of his
instruments don't cut it on any level. Partch could easily have done
arrangements if he was interested in such things. He knew what the
results would be, and he decided against such things until his death.
The bottom line is such things has turned off more people than not. It
is not work to be performed by "musicians"! There must be better thing
to be done at the present!

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
www.anaphoria.com