Mark Swed on Schoenberg

For those of you that are Schoenberg advocates, this article was
stimulating:

http://www.calendarlive.com/top/1,1419,L-LATimes-Search-X!
ArticleDetail-45475,00.html?search_area=Articles&channel=Search

(don't forget to do the cut-and-paste dance with the link...)

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_32374.html#32374

> For those of you that are Schoenberg advocates, this article was
> stimulating:
>
> http://www.calendarlive.com/top/1,1419,L-LATimes-Search-X!
> ArticleDetail-45475,00.html?search_area=Articles&channel=Search
>
> (don't forget to do the cut-and-paste dance with the link...)
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Hi Jon...

I appreciate this reference, which I never would have found myself.
How did you find it? You must read this Website frequently.

Mark Swed is clearly a Schoenbergophile. Nicely written.

I never thought I could see a connection between Arnold Schoenberg
and Harry Partch, but I surely think there was one --- in both their
uncompromising views of things.

They are closer together than one might initially imagine... I
believe...

JP

Joe,

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> I appreciate this reference, which I never would have found
myself.
> How did you find it? You must read this Website frequently.

Nope (on the latter), I just happened across a mention of the article
in a new issue of BBC Music magazine. Mark Swed is a very good writer
(IMO) and if you do a search on the calendarlive site on his name,
you can come up with a number of very good articles (a lot of
Schoenberg coverage recently).

> I never thought I could see a connection between Arnold Schoenberg
> and Harry Partch, but I surely think there was one --- in both
their
> uncompromising views of things.
>
> They are closer together than one might initially imagine... I
> believe...

Welllll... The closest they came was recently: when we did the Partch
Centennial at UCLA, I placed the video installation running Partch
films in the foyer... right next to Schoenberg's bust.

Cheers,
Jon

> From: jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 1:48 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Mark Swed on Schoenberg
>
>
> > http://www.calendarlive.com/top/1,1419,L-LATimes-Search-X!
> > ArticleDetail-45475,00.html?search_area=Articles&channel=Search
> >
> > (don't forget to do the cut-and-paste dance with the link...)
>
>
> I never thought I could see a connection between Arnold Schoenberg
> and Harry Partch, but I surely think there was one --- in both their
> uncompromising views of things.
>
> They are closer together than one might initially imagine... I
> believe...

I first noticed a strong connection between Partch and Schoenberg
in 1988 (I wrote a paper on it which has never been published),
and was surprised to see many of my ideas corroborated a few
years later in a Bob Gilmore analyis of Partch's Li-Po Lyrics.
More and more people have been catching it.

It's weird... the more I think about it, the more similiarities
I see, almost as tho Partch and Schoenberg were alternate-universe
twins or something like that... they start out with essentially
the same musical conception, then each makes a momentous decision:
one took the 12-EDO road, and the other took the JI road.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Joe,

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> I first noticed a strong connection between Partch and Schoenberg
> in 1988 (I wrote a paper on it which has never been published),
> and was surprised to see many of my ideas corroborated a few
> years later in a Bob Gilmore analyis of Partch's Li-Po Lyrics.
> More and more people have been catching it.

Tell you what: make a list with two columns - in the left column, put
all the things you think Arnold and Harry have in common; in the
right, put all the things that are completely unlike. In all
respects, be very, very honest. And while you're at it, take the
similarities and see if you can find parallels between Arnold and
people from other professions/lifestyles.

Similarities I notice; "strong connection between" I have a problem
with. But papers get written this way...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_32374.html#32406

> Joe,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> > I first noticed a strong connection between Partch and Schoenberg
> > in 1988 (I wrote a paper on it which has never been published),
> > and was surprised to see many of my ideas corroborated a few
> > years later in a Bob Gilmore analyis of Partch's Li-Po Lyrics.
> > More and more people have been catching it.
>
> Tell you what: make a list with two columns - in the left column,
put
> all the things you think Arnold and Harry have in common; in the
> right, put all the things that are completely unlike. In all
> respects, be very, very honest. And while you're at it, take the
> similarities and see if you can find parallels between Arnold and
> people from other professions/lifestyles.
>
> Similarities I notice; "strong connection between" I have a problem
> with. But papers get written this way...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Hi Jon...

Well, basically what struck me was the fact that *both* composers had
uncompromising views of music that were, at the time of composition,
far from the mainstream.

There are, of course, differences as well. I can't imagine Partch
getting up in front of a class in a suit and tie with a piece of
chalk in his hand going over the "harmonic regions" or such like.

So, Schoenberg was certainly more of a "pedagogue" in that sense.

However, after I was thinking about this for a while, it occured to
me that Partch also "taught."

What, exactly, did he do on such assignments at the University of
Illinois and such like? Did he just compose his music and teach
performers about his work, or did he have to do some kind of "formal"
theory classes as well?

My guess is that he probably didn't do such classes, but I don't know
for sure.

I'm sure you have an answer to this, Jon...

best,

JP

Joe,

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> Well, basically what struck me was the fact that *both* composers
> had uncompromising views of music that were, at the time of
> composition, far from the mainstream.

Sure, I can understand that. But looking at primarily that aspect of
it doesn't mean they are much alike, just that they were both very
individual. There could easily be parallels with other
art/disciplines, but if they are both composers and a view is
propigated that they were so much alike it is very misleading. In so
many *other* respects, they are like night and ... Subarus.

> What, exactly, did he do on such assignments at the University of
> Illinois and such like? Did he just compose his music and teach
> performers about his work, or did he have to do some kind
> of "formal" theory classes as well?
>
> My guess is that he probably didn't do such classes, but I don't
> know for sure.

Your guess is very correct, as virtually all of Partch's connections
with 'universities' was tenuous and adjunct, usually the benefit of a
third-party intervention. The major works at U of I were underwritten
by commissions and student body groups (IIRC), and his one brief stab
at "teaching" came at UCSD, and was one of the most distasteful
scenarios of his life. Pretty well chronicled in his own letters and
notes in Blackburn's "Enclosure 3". If you want first-hand knowledge
of what it was like to have sat in one of his classes, just ask John
Chalmers, who was there (and is quoted in E3 about the experience).

He just wasn't cut out to be a teacher, if for no other reason that
he didn't want the typical teacher/disciple relationship. Ben
Johnston can not only attest to this, but points to it in 'defence'
of his oblique manner of handling Partch matters, then and continuing
into the here and now...

> I'm sure you have an answer to this, Jon...

Just one aspect of it, that's all.

Cheers,
Jon

> From: jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 7:31 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Schoenberg and Partch, antimatter twins?
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_32374.html#32406
>
> > Joe,
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> > > I first noticed a strong connection between Partch and Schoenberg
> <snip.>
>
> Well, basically what struck me was the fact that *both* composers had
> uncompromising views of music that were, at the time of composition,
> far from the mainstream.

Yes, Joe, what you write here is true.

But what's so interesting to me is that the similarities go far
deeper than that. At least based on *my* understanding of their
theoretical work, Schoenberg and Partch actally shared very similar
conceptions of two important musical pheomena: that pitch-space
and sonance are both continua which are inifitely divisible,
and how they may be divided, and how those divisions may be
related to each other.

> There are, of course, differences as well. I can't imagine Partch
> getting up in front of a class in a suit and tie with a piece of
> chalk in his hand going over the "harmonic regions" or such like.
>
> So, Schoenberg was certainly more of a "pedagogue" in that sense.

Right again, Joe. Schoenberg earned his living for most of his
life as a teacher of theory and composition.

But again, there's a huge *musical* difference that separates them,
and it'll be obvious to everyone here: Partch chose to take the
more difficult path of building his own ensemble of instruments
to achieve the sounds he heard in his head, while Schoenberg chose
to utilize the existing 12-EDO scale as his vehicle, but to use
it in *new ways* which *implied* the higher-prime rational harmonies.

> However, after I was thinking about this for a while, it occured to
> me that Partch also "taught."
>
> What, exactly, did he do on such assignments at the University of
> Illinois and such like? Did he just compose his music and teach
> performers about his work, or did he have to do some kind of "formal"
> theory classes as well?
>
> My guess is that he probably didn't do such classes, but I don't know
> for sure.

Hmm ... Partch did occassionally have assignments where he taught
in class. The last one was here in San Diego, at UCSD, in 1967.
I'm sure Jon is the one to fill you in on details about this and
Partch's other teaching gigs, but I've heard some very interesting
(and very funny) stories about this from Jonathan Glasier and
John Chalmers, who attended. One time Partch showed up to class drunk...

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

> I first noticed a strong connection between Partch and Schoenberg
> in 1988 (I wrote a paper on it which has never been published),

I'd like to read it.

> and was surprised to see many of my ideas corroborated a few
> years later in a Bob Gilmore analyis of Partch's Li-Po Lyrics.

Regarding the Li Po lyrics, it's really interesting to see that Partch
implemented a vocal technique very close to Sch�nberg's "Sprechstimme".

Ertugrul

---
Decode address to reply:
ertugrulinanc-at-yahoo-dot-com

From: monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:46 AM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Mark Swed on Schoenberg

> From: Ertugrul iNANC <ertugrulinanc@yahoo.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 8:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Mark Swed on Schoenberg
>
>
> > I first noticed a strong connection between Partch and Schoenberg
> > in 1988 (I wrote a paper on it which has never been published),
>
> I'd like to read it.

One of these days I'll type it into the computer and make a webpage
of it. Looking back now, I don't think it's very weighty... but
I suppose it's significant enough to put on my website.

> > and was surprised to see many of my ideas corroborated a few
> > years later in a Bob Gilmore analyis of Partch's Li-Po Lyrics.
>
> Regarding the Li Po lyrics, it's really interesting to see that Partch
> implemented a vocal technique very close to Sch�nberg's "Sprechstimme".

Just another among many of the similarities. My belief is that
they both invented this similar vocal technique at least partly
for similar reasons. Among them: the inherent drama of speech,
and their common interest in the flexibility of pitch of speech.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com