Partch, Kronos, and all that hoo-hah...

My dear gentlemen (and Margo),

There are two burning issues for me to update on Corporeal Meadows:

1) new links to some of the fine site whose purveyors reside here (Loffink,
Monz, Starret, more) -- I have neglected expansion but will within days.

2) finally put fingers to QWERTY and write, once and for all, a basic
'position paper' on my thoughts about performances of the works of Harry
Partch. That way, when carnivals of carping like we've seen in the last few
days come up again, I can make a short "here's why" and then point to the
link. Will save a lot of time, and the aggravation of those of you who've
seen it all before.

How-some-ever, I'd like to just lightly respond to a couple of things in
the last-ish digest, and I'll try to attribute correctly. Here goes:

John deLaubenfels said:
>I do support the idea that the
>composer who is the genesis of a piece of music should profit from
>someone else's rendition later on. Are there issues in this case of
>copyrights being violated, etc.?

Ben Johnston used, for his transcription, early versions of the various
Partch pieces (Barstow, U.S. Highball, others) that had expired copyrights.
It is my current understanding that there have been no sharing of profits
whatsoever, either with the estate of Partch (the Harry Partch Foundation)
or any offers toward the custodians of Partch's instruments, Newband. My
guess is that royalties get divided between Johnston and the members of
Kronos. They are, to put it charitably, in it for themselves.

It should also be known that Dean Drummond was originally approached to do
these transcriptions, years ago, and rejected the notion as antithetical to
Partch's intentions.

David Beardsley said:
>The Kronos version isn't on CD. The Partch version is CRI 752.

But more to the point, the original instrumentation, from which Johnston
based the bulk of his transcription, can be found in an archival recording
on "Enclosure 2" -- of which you can find complete info on the Meadows (see
below).

Joe Monzo said:
>I can respect the fact that Partch was indeed an absolutely
>unique composer

And, funny thing: all that interests me is trying to maintain some of that
uniqueness. It's so many of the great unwashed that want to lump his work
back into the world of concert hall, the tyranny of the proscenium arch.

>However, as a composer myself, I must also state that I think
>there's nothing wrong with 'arrangements', 'transcriptions',
>or 'adaptations' of a composer's music by other people.

Which, of course, Joe, is your choice...

>Once I create a musical work, it's got a life of its own.

...when applied to *your* music. If, *if* you felt differently, and wanted
to keep a clear distinction between the exacting nature of your work and
the rest of the maelstrom, wouldn't you wish ethically minded (and those
seeking the truth at the core of your work) to respect those wishes? Even
if meant, gosh-darn-it-all, that they might not be able to perform it?

>And, for the future day when I get back to archiving these
>Digests on the Sonic Arts website

One aside here: I notice that if you visit the OneList site and go to look
at an archive (as a non-list member) the addresses of the correspondents
are x'ed out. I would hope you, before you make 'public' archives
available, would give due thought to privacy issues. And I know you are a
concerned citizen...

>[Ben Johnston] and has too much love for Partch as a composer and
>as a person to intentionally misrepresent him.

Then this is a case of killing with kindness. Before I wrote a word of
opinion about this in public, over three years ago, I corresponded with Ben
on the issues. We disagree, and I don't think his reasons and motivations
are sufficient to cover the dilution and harm he does to the corpus of
Partch's works. I'll have more on this when I write the op-ed piece. Later.

>I'm sure that part of the reason he did this was to expose more
>people to Partch's music. (Another reason was probably to make
>some $$$ himself - just another aspect of being an American
>composer.)

I'd agree, if I didn't get so many contacts from people saying how abysmal
their "Barstow" recording was. Clearly, if one were to hear this as their
only Partch experience, it could sour them.

For life.

As for the $$$, show me the dignity of treading on the bones of the
departed, artistically speaking.

>Again, before the bricks start flying my way from Jon Szanto,
>anyone wishing to learn Partch's music absolutely should seek
>out a live performance of it on his own instruments. But when
>is that happening any time soon?

Let me be very clear: these are deep-rooted, impassioned arguments for me,
but I don't view with hostility those that disagree. They may be wrong, but
I don't hate them. :) But for the second point, why, on June 4th in NYC.
It's posted on the site, and there was just an open house at Newband's
facility a couple of weeks ago. I'm going to include the tuning list on my
Corporeal Meadows Email Update List (OCMEUL), with apologies to the couple
of you that will get a duplicate. I send them out whenever there is a new
recording, publication, concert or addition to the site.

That way, no one misses out. And go check it out, since I just put up
notice today about a lecture by Warren Gilson, who recorded *the first*
Barstow in Madison, WI, in 1945.

~~~~~~~~~

Aw, hell, I've gone on longer than I intended. That's why I try not to post
too often. I'm sorry that work kept me away from Kraig and John's Excellent
Microtonal Fest in LA, so I can't give any opinions. And, of course, that's
all they are: opinions. Hopefully informed ones.

As I've said before, I welcome all of you to my patch of grass in the
e-world, Corporeal Meadows, where we rotate the body in all it's planes and
compromise is the dirtiest of words...

Bestest, you kids,
Jon
..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....
Jonathan M. Szanto : Corporeal Meadows - Harry Partch, online.
jszanto@adnc.com : http://www.corporeal.com/
..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....

Well folks
the next time Kronos plays any of his "adaptations" live lets picket the
performance. I think what Ben and Kronos are doing goes beyond painting a
mustache on the Mona Lisa if you follows my drifff,,,,,And we used to have a
little practice in my early
punk activist days that may apply here....
When we found a record store selling rascist or Nazi..basically negative
records we would simply go into the record store in pairs either steal the
recording and throw it away or have someone cough loudly while we attempted to
break the record inside the sleeve or simply pick-up the record and re-file it
in the mario lanza section....not trying to prevent someones right to free
speech...blah blah....but trying to battle obviously negative crapola on an
grass-roots level.
Better still is to NOT go to said concerts and Not review said albums so the
cheeselords do not continue to record more and more compositions but I will be
honest alot of this has that "Beatles hits played by the Moog synthesizer" vibe
you know. Any one whos knows Partch well enough probably knows this situation
and people that do not. And why did the HPF not maintain said copyrights to
prevent stuff like this. And Jon I admit Enclosure 2 is nice but do we really
need a side of "harry's Wake" I mean really....that makes me question the
motivation of all parties concerned. Everyone is cashing in on his genius. So
are we all by using his concepts in our musics and calling them our own
We are all guilty
P

...when applied to *your* music. If, *if* you felt differently, and wanted
to keep a clear distinction between the exacting nature of your work and
the rest of the maelstrom, wouldn't you wish ethically minded (and those
seeking the truth at the core of your work) to respect those wishes? Even
if meant, gosh-darn-it-all, that they might not be able to perform it?

I would say emphatically "no". Who owns music, and who is to say you can
and can not make certain musical sounds? If you don't want someone else to
play music you have composed, you should not have composed it in the first
place. If you don't want to listen to it, don't listen to it. Who has the
authority to say what was and was not the intention of the composer? It's
ultimately speculation, even if you have strong evidence for your position.
Wasn't it Rachmaninoff who said Horowitz played his music better than he
could himself? I'd like to hear Beethoven played with wax paper on a comb

- One of the Great Unwashed.

Brian Carlson wrote:

> ...when applied to *your* music. If, *if* you felt differently, and wanted
> to keep a clear distinction between the exacting nature of your work and
> the rest of the maelstrom, wouldn't you wish ethically minded (and those
> seeking the truth at the core of your work) to respect those wishes? Even
> if meant, gosh-darn-it-all, that they might not be able to perform it?

Did you write that? Or is that an credited quote? You're losing me buddy....

> I would say emphatically "no". Who owns music, and who is to say you can
> and can not make certain musical sounds? If you don't want someone else to
> play music you have composed, you should not have composed it in the first
> place. If you don't want to listen to it, don't listen to it. Who has the
> authority to say what was and was not the intention of the composer? It's
> ultimately speculation, even if you have strong evidence for your position.
> Wasn't it Rachmaninoff who said Horowitz played his music better than he
> could himself? I'd like to hear Beethoven played with wax paper on a comb
>
> - One of the Great Unwashed.

Time to get cleaned up and get a clue kid. Jonathan Santotakes takes time out
from his busy schedule of hitting things
to explain the Partch perspective for the *great unwashed*
and you don't get it? Hit the archives!!!!

*

Next: how the hoo-hah of your lattice is putting you at risk
for whatever! But now a word from your local affiliate.

On our next program: how profound lattice addiction and endless
debates about consonance/dissonance can put a stop to
your composing career.

Stay tuned!

> --

* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* xouoxno@virtulink.com
*
* J u x t a p o s i t i o n E z i n e
* M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
*
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

Partch says, on page 193:

"Those who would observe that the artist in a visual medium requires no
"interpreter" for the preservation of his work will be answered: with the
approach of perfection in reproduction techniques the composer who, with a
small ensemble, plays his own work, will require no "interpreter" either."

Since there exist recordings of Barstow under Partch's direction, I do not
see why some feel threatened by others who may feel moved to "experiment" or
"play" with the music to see what they can come up with. At worst, you can
say their experiment sounds sucky, and at best you might find that their
experiment shows the piece in an interesting new light, but either way I
don't think its necessary to gird yourself and go on a crusade over things
like this. It smacks of that same ole' "One True Faith" mentality that
usually moves me to opine "get a life, buddy".

dante

Rosati wrote:

> Partch says, on page 193:
>
> "Those who would observe that the artist in a visual medium requires no
> "interpreter" for the preservation of his work will be answered: with the
> approach of perfection in reproduction techniques the composer who, with a
> small ensemble, plays his own work, will require no "interpreter" either."
>
> Since there exist recordings of Barstow under Partch's direction, I do not
> see why some feel threatened by others who may feel moved to "experiment" or
> "play" with the music to see what they can come up with.

See what Santos wrote about expired copyrights. THere's a clue???

> At worst, you can
> say their experiment sounds sucky, and at best you might find that their
> experiment shows the piece in an interesting new light, but either way I
> don't think its necessary to gird yourself and go on a crusade over things
> like this. It smacks of that same ole' "One True Faith" mentality that
> usually moves me to opine "get a life, buddy".

Show up on Sunday and let us know what you think.Write your own review for the
list. I'll be too busy
to write more than a few notes about the fest.

> What do lizards and rock music have in common?
> http://www.onelist.com
>

They're microtonal???

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* xouoxno@virtulink.com
*
* J u x t a p o s i t i o n E z i n e
* M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
*
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

Rosati wrote:

> From: "Rosati" <dante@pop.interport.net>
>
> Partch says, on page 193:
>
> "Those who would observe that the artist in a visual medium requires no
> "interpreter" for the preservation of his work will be answered: with the
> approach of perfection in reproduction techniques the composer who, with a
> small ensemble, plays his own work, will require no "interpreter" either."
>
> Since there exist recordings of Barstow under Partch's direction, I do not
> see why some feel threatened by others who may feel moved to "experiment" or
> "play" with the music to see what they can come up with. At worst, you can

> say their experiment sounds sucky, and at best you might find that their

> experiment shows the piece in an interesting new light, but either way I
> don't think its necessary to gird yourself and go on a crusade over things
> like this. It smacks of that same ole' "One True Faith" mentality that
> usually moves me to opine "get a life, buddy".
>
> dante

This is a very good quote. I think the problem has been that 1. The people
presenting his works have not recognized that his work at least includes
"theater", for lack of a better word. 2. They have had little or no training
and or experience in visual dramatic directing. Although Partch was against
specialized performers, to replace them by naive performers was not what he
had in mind! I would guess that if Partch was more successful in his lifetime
he might have had to take the same stand as Beckett and not allow any
performance of his work without his direct involvement. This BTW has been my
stand because attitudes like the above make me realize why I need to distrust
those who feel they are free to tinker how ever they want. My advise to all
composers is to take the same stand! The result would be better music!

I remember Cage said he was not experimental because he said he did all his
experiments before he presented them to the public.
I care not to witness anyone else's experiments

Partch has attracted "followers" that go on a crusade because for many he is
one of the best viable alternatives to a tradition seems to be producing
nothing but sterile hybrids. It is not that he is the "one true faith" but a
new species that we don't feel is ready for Genetic Engineering to be another
tomato

The Diamond has its root in sacred Geometry. It is a mandala that attracts
everything to a point. Maybe this is just another level of Partch's Magic. I am
sorry that it upsets you that it works! Harry knew what he had to do!

If religious impulses bother you let me point out that from the point of view
of the Anthropologist Mircea Eliade, western art has become nothing more than
the secularization of sacred objects.

I find it harder and harder to distinguish from fashion so much of the time.

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

> ...when applied to *your* music. If, *if* you felt differently, and
wanted
> to keep a clear distinction between the exacting nature of your work and
> the rest of the maelstrom, wouldn't you wish ethically minded (and those
> seeking the truth at the core of your work) to respect those wishes? Even
> if meant, gosh-darn-it-all, that they might not be able to perform it?

Did you write that? Or is that an credited quote? You're losing me
buddy....

> I would say emphatically "no". Who owns music, and who is to say you can
> and can not make certain musical sounds? If you don't want someone else
to
> play music you have composed, you should not have composed it in the
first
> place. If you don't want to listen to it, don't listen to it. Who has
the
> authority to say what was and was not the intention of the composer?
It's
> ultimately speculation, even if you have strong evidence for your
position.
> Wasn't it Rachmaninoff who said Horowitz played his music better than he
> could himself? I'd like to hear Beethoven played with wax paper on a
comb
>
> - One of the Great Unwashed.

"Time to get cleaned up and get a clue kid. Jonathan Santotakes takes time
out
from his busy schedule of hitting things
to explain the Partch perspective for the *great unwashed*
and you don't get it? Hit the archives!!!!"

I'll pass on the archives. I thought I was making a pretty good point.
What makes you think you have the right say how music should sound? Because
you are musician and you know better? Because you've done the research?
Don't refer me to some archive or tell me I should be grateful for having
the Partch perspective explained to me. If you're going to respond to my
comments, respond to me directly, with your own thoughts and words.