Joe's Score Project, Pat's misconceptions (IMHO)

Sorry for a longish posting, I won't do it again! In TD 184...

From Monz:
>I've already surrendered -

Not necessary. I'm a pacifist and don't wage war! These are just beliefs,
albeit deeply held ones. And Monz, you've posted enough that it is clear
your heart is in the right place; hell, all of this causes questions for
me, too.

>We've already got the guide to building the instruments,
>as long as _Genesis_ stays in print.

And, if you pick up Enclosure 3 (which is not inexpensive, though arguably
indispensable) you can find a complete reproduction of his "Manual" for the
instruments.

[Full title: "MANUAL: On the Maintenance and Repair of -- and the Musical
and Attitudinal Techniques for -- Some Putative Musical Instruments]

See? He even wants someone to know the *attitude* of performing, even as he
is writing a book on the tuning and upkeep of the instruments. Was this guy
classic a-r or what?

>You know, I was thinking, with the limitation on performances
>of Partch's music which is the result of maintaining this
>position, what we really need in order to preserve it, is
>publication of good, quality scores of his compositions.
>I've tried to read the info at the Schott website about
>the supposed publication of Partch scores, but it doesn't
>seem to exist there anymore. I had trouble finding it anyway.

I will endeavor to find more information out about the eventual timeline
and manner of publication of the scores. It may take a bit, but I'll put
notice to everyone here of anything I find. And Joe, just so you know,
there have been others on the list in the past that have been interested in
'study scores' to Partch, so it might be collaborative, I don't know. As I
understand it, the rights to the scores are held by someone, either
Schott-International or someone else. I'll check.

From Pat Pagano:
>And why did the HPF not maintain said copyrights to
>prevent stuff like this.

Human error. And the completely chaotic manner that Partch kept records,
when he kept them. Virtually all of the transcriptions have been done with
the early versions of the pieces (like Barstow) that had lapsed copyright,
or not renewed. It is entirely possible that Partch, having moved on to a
newer 'arrangement' (such as U.S. Highball, which added more instruments in
the late 40's/early 50's) didn't see a need to renew copyrights on pieces
he didn't plan on playing. Probably didn't foresee all this.

Or didn't care...that would be *just* like Harry!

There are also people that have done their own 'arrangements' by using
manuscripts from libraries, etc., to put together a version. This is
neither better or worse, it just smells differently to me.

[that was mild humor. or humour.]

>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.

Pat, you must be careful when you say things like this: I can think of no
one who has worked more closely with the estate of HP, with all of Partch's
colleagues and friends, and worked harder to attempt to extend an
understanding of Partch in as complete a manner as is possible -- I can
think of no one who would do this except Philip Blackburn, creator of the
"Enclosures" series. Almost single-handedly, through 5 huge projects he has
brought *enormous* resources to light for the study of both Partch's work
and his life, and many would agree that few artists have so intermingled
their life and their work as Partch did (with good and bad implications).

On Enc2 I happen to have a real issue with the inclusion of "Bitter Music",
but that is just me and I'm happy to overlook it. The inclusion of the
taped reminiscences (sp?) from the wake gathers thoughts about Partch from
close friends and colleagues (Lou Harrison, Danlee Mitchell, etc.) and
sheds light on the closing chapter of his life. It's pretty silly of us to
carp about either section of the discs when you get his discourse on tuning
(with examples!), archival recordings, erudite notes... etc.

But my final point is this: Dr. Blackburn (who would hate me calling him
that) has done this all with grant money and the like, and is not 'cashing
in' on Partch. On the contrary, he has worked hard to see that all of these
efforts are done so that there is a more thorough understanding of just
what Partch was about.

I recorded "The Bewitched" live in Cologne in 1980. The recording, never
heard by us after the performance, became mired in legal muck and then was
never heard from again. Years passed. I wondered if it was as good an
evening as I remembered. Years passed again, and then Blackburn got on the
case. Months of sleuthing, cajoling, corresponding, discussing. Much more
than I would even know about.

Late last year, 18 years after the fact, the recording was finally released
on Enclosure 5, along with the long dormant Yeats/Mills College "Oedipus".
Due entirely to the efforts of Philip Blackburn.

I hope this clarifies the situation for you.

>So are we all by using his concepts in our musics and calling them our own
>We are all guilty

Absolutely not. The only thing that one would feel guilty about is if they
merely 'aped' Partch. He hoped to inspire new creations -- it was only
those who would call themselves his "students" that he would have "happily
strangled".

Harry would probably kick my ass for doing what I'm doing.

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

Message text written by INTERNET:tuning@onelist.com
>From Pat Pagano:
>And why did the HPF not maintain said copyrights to
>prevent stuff like this.

Human error. And the completely chaotic manner that Partch kept records,
when he kept them. <

I would also venture that he wanted to save the costs of formal
copyrighting. Indeed, several of his works were bundled together in
collections which would have saved on the fee. There also used to be the
possibility to copyright by mailing yourself the work in a sealed envelope;
perhaps Partch did this as well.

[Jon Szanto, TD 185.2]
>
> I will endeavor to find more information out about the eventual
> timeline and manner of publication of the scores. It may take a
> bit, but I'll put notice to everyone here of anything I find.

The thing that really concerns me regarding any possible
publication of Partch's scores is that I've gotten wind of
plans to use Ben Johnston's notation, and I think this is wrong.

(As I said, I was unable to get any details of Schott's
proposed publication, but I remember last year A&R Editions
was talking about publishing _Barstow_ in Johnston's notation.)

I've posted here recently on the defects (IMO) of this notation,
at least as a standard for music other than Johnston's own
(after all, what can we say about Johnston using it for his
own scores, other than the general criticism?).

I certainly feel that a more rigorously prime-based notation
(such as my own or Daniel Wolf's) would be far superior to
represent Partch's music (or any JI scores, for that matter)
in staff-notation.

BTW, I'm glad that 'Harry's Wake' was included on the CD set,
if only for the fact that I got to hear the drunken Partch
playing Chopin on the piano. Even with the bad quality of
the recording (and Harry's condition), his feeling for the
corporeality of Chopin's music comes shining thru.

And I disagree with you, Jon, about the inclusion of _Bitter
Music_. While I certainly gain much more from reading the
book than from listening to this performance, I still think
it was worth including, if only for the ability to hear what
those piano-score musical parts sound like, as opposed to
the very 'Partchian' (i.e., microtonal) sound that was in my
head as I read.

Also, IMO, the world would be a lesser place without
_While My Heart Keeps Beating Time_ in it. There have
been many days when that song rambles around in my mind
for hours.

Joseph L. Monzo monz@juno.com
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html
|"...I had broken thru the lattice barrier..."|
| - Erv Wilson |
--------------------------------------------------

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]