Partch's dissonance curves

> Paul E. Get well! I hope you are feeling better already.

I have a camphylobacter infection but I am up and about.

> I've always thought that HP merely took Helmholtz's first octave curve,
> smoothed it a bit, then reflected it about the horizontal axes and
> rotated the result.

The derivation of Partch's one-footed bride is clear. For each of his 43 intervals constructed on 1/1,
he assigned a level of consonance inversely related to the ODD LIMIT, except that intervals whose odd
limit exceeded 11 were all given an equal, lowest-possible consonance rating. He then connected the
consonance points with a smooth curve. The graph is but one piece of evidence of Partch's odd-limit
thinking that goes criminally unnoticed by all the prime enthusiasts, including Partch's biographer, Bob
Gilmore.

-Paul

Paul E., writing as his evil arch-twin Barbaro (inhabitant of the
Bizarro-World), mentions:

>The graph is but one piece of evidence of Partch's odd-limit
>thinking that goes criminally unnoticed by all the prime
>enthusiasts, including Partch's biographer, Bob Gilmore.

In my copy of the book, the very first word to the reader, after the Table
of Contents, is the word "Preface".

The very first sentence following that word: "This book is a biography of
Harry Partch, not an analytical study of his work."

Paul, when you go Giuliani on us and rid the streets of the criminals by
publishing your book on the theory and analysis of Partch, I won't quibble
if you don't mention that Partch, while living in Petaluma, changed his
socks thrice in one day.

(Oh, hell: was it thrice? Or was it fource? Fierce? ...)

*****
Putting all of that behind us, I, too, wish you a speedy recovery!

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

I wrote,

>>The graph is but one piece of evidence of Partch's odd-limit
>>thinking that goes criminally unnoticed by all the prime
>>enthusiasts, including Partch's biographer, Bob Gilmore.

Jon Szanto wrote,

>In my copy of the book, the very first word to the reader, after the Table
>of Contents, is the word "Preface".

>The very first sentence following that word: "This book is a biography of
>Harry Partch, not an analytical study of his work."

That's fine, but it doesn't mean it's then OK for him to make erroneous
statements on theoretical matters. Instead, he should make none at all.

>Paul, when you go Giuliani on us and rid the streets of the criminals by
>publishing your book on the theory and analysis of Partch, I won't quibble
>if you don't mention that Partch, while living in Petaluma, changed his
>socks thrice in one day.

Exactly -- I won't mention it, rather than making an erroneous statement
about it.

I don't think any of this is too important, though in the tone of your
reaction I sense that I hit an emotional nerve of some sort. I've heard some
very negative reactions to the Gilmore book from a lot of Partchophiles,
though in my state of blissful ingorance as to the true number of
sock-changes I enjoyed it thoroughly. What's your feeling?

To Paul and all:

From Jon:
>>The very first sentence following that word: "This book is a biography of
>>Harry Partch, not an analytical study of his work."

Back from Paul:
>That's fine, but it doesn't mean it's then OK for him to make erroneous
>statements on theoretical matters. Instead, he should make none at all.

IYHO.

I agree with your later statement that you "don't think any of this is too
important". What is important are the implications of a public discourse.
So frequently it kills me, when plain ASCII email fails to convey either
humorous or serious nature, or both at once. I was being a bit 'light',
though my message was in earnest. Therefore...

Hey, anyone can make an erroneous statement. It's part of human nature. You
might be overlooking the fact that while some element of intonational
theory may be clear to you, Paul, I looked back and realized that the
original point was one that was "opaque" to none other than John Chalmers,
who I don't exactly consider a babe in the woods concerning intonation and
tuning. I stand by my point: it's a *biography*, and if there may be a
disagreement over what *you* consider a critically mis-reported truism,
when looked at in it's entirety I find the book passes muster quite easily.

>Exactly -- I won't mention it, rather than making an erroneous statement
>about it.

I look forward to the day that you can confidently publish all material, in
perpetuity, glowing in the knowledge you'll never make an erroneous statement.

>important, though in the tone of your reaction I sense that I hit an
>emotional nerve of some sort.

No, not really. Just the difficulties of communicating in this medium. Of
course, I care much more about this subject matter, in the large, than many
other issues. Numbers don't thrill me, but that is just me. My main point
was the rather out-of-hand rejection you implied, even though you were
attaching it to an admittedly unimportant point. But...

>I've heard some very negative reactions to the Gilmore book from a lot of
>Partchophiles, though in my state of blissful ingorance as to the true
number
>of sock-changes I enjoyed it thoroughly. What's your feeling?

I'd be curious as to what you consider a Partch person. I can't say I
enjoyed it, since it is a fairly sobering chronicle of a none-too-happy
life. BUT -- in one fell swoop, the book shed about 90% more light on the
life of a major composer, complete with details unknown before it's
publication, than had existed previously. There are contacts and
information that might well have disappeared had someone not gotten on to
it. And the irony is not lost on me that this kind of work hadn't been
attempted by any *American* author. I happen to think it is a very
important work, "erroneous statements" and all.

Look, I've known Bob Gilmore for years, I've done a seminar on Partch with
him, we've worked together on projects. I want that clear. But that is not
why I called you on that statement.

And...if you'd like to write a succinct rebuttal or clarification of the
issue of Helmholtz/Partch ideas of consonance and dissonance, I have a web
site that has space waiting.

Forest for the trees, forest for the trees....

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Unrelated to the above (which is *not* a brouhaha, but a civil discussion
of diverging opinions; besides, I wished Paul a speedy recovery!), I've
added links to a number of your sites from the 'links' section on the
Meadows <http://www.corporeal.com/links.html> The usual suspects would
include Starrett, Monzo, Breed, Loffink, Doty, Gann, Rosati. If you happen
by and think something is amiss, I'm around -- write me.

Cheers,
Jon

P.S. Anybody else (who gets the digest form of the list) occasionally get
one that crashes your email program? Digest 204 is the second one in a few
weeks that crashed Eudora when I tried to open it. I had to get the archive
from the onelist website and copy it into a mail to make it safe. Ick.

P.S.S. Just came back from a concert of the Mainly Mozart Festival here in
SD. Two of the pieces featured Dennis James on a for-real Glass Harmonica.
Boy! If anyone ever comes up with a JI version of that puppy, it would make
some spectacularly ethereal music!!
..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....
Jonathan M. Szanto : Corporeal Meadows - Harry Partch, online.
jszanto@adnc.com : http://www.corporeal.com/
..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....