reply to Jon Szanto

Jon Szanto wrote,

>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.

Among Graham Breed's many wonderful documents on his website, this one is of particular relevance to Partch and I believe should be linked to directly from your page:

http://www.cix.co.uk/~gbreed/ass.htm

>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.

I would like to take you up on this offer in the near future and plan to include the necessary background for understanding the relevance of Graham's "ass" page in the context of Partch's philosophy.

>>I've heard some very negative reactions to the >>Gilmore book from a lot of
>>Partchophiles, though in my
>>state of blissful
>>ignorance 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 just meant some of the people on this list who hold Partch's music, philosophy, and/or persona to have an almost religious sanctity. Although it's great to have people spreading the gospel, it bugs me when their efforts actually make it less likely that the average person will get to hear Partch's music. But I don't want to get into that debate again.

I'm glad you approve of the Gilmore book, since it would be unfortunate if the (virtually) only available book on Partch, and such a well-written one, misrepresented important aspects of his life or music.

>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.

One does not have to be perfect in order to recognize, and point out, an error in someone else's work. That's all I was doing, and it's part of this very healthy thing called "the open exchange of ideas". No one is presumed to be perfect, but through the process of debating, ideas get honed and all benefit from the criticism of others. I see that as one of the important functions of a list such as this, which deals with concepts on the frontiers and are not yet "set in stone".

To react so strongly against criticism is an example of the type of quasi-religious fanaticism I was referring to, except that in this case you've extended it beyond Partch and onto Gilmore as well.

>Hey, anyone can make an erroneous statement. >It's part of human nature.

That's much better, Amen.

>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.

Perhaps you or John could fill me in on what exactly you're referring to (if it's still relevant)?

>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.

And again, I'm very happy to hear this, as I enjoyed the book thoroughly. Unfortunately, some Partchophiles around here don't share this view.

perlich@acadian-asset.com wrote:

> And again, I'm very happy to hear this, as I enjoyed the book thoroughly. Unfortunately, some Partchophiles around here don't share this view.

I read the book recently. I enjoyed it.

--
* 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

> >One does not have to be perfect in order to recognize, and point out,
> >an error in someone else's work. That's all I was doing, and it's
> >part of this very healthy thing called "the open exchange of ideas".
> >No one is presumed to be perfect [snip]
>
> Wait, Paul. You said before: "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." Tell me that doesn't sound like you presume him
> to be either perfect or silent.

I said that in response to you when you were implying that Gilmore's immediate warning that he was not endeavoring to study Partch's theory excused any subsequent erroneous statements about the theory.

> >To react so strongly against criticism is an example of the type of
> >quasi-religious fanaticism I was referring to, except that in this
> >case you've extended it beyond Partch and onto Gilmore as well.
>
> What I was reacting to was not about subject matter but your heavy-handed
> statement about errors by authors. I found it neither enlightening (i.e.
> describing the errors) or realistic. I expect better from learned
> correspondents such as yourself.

Sorry for not describing the errors, but I've made the odd vs. prime limit point about 50 times in the past few years on this list. I'll go through it again when I make a web page for you.

> There are people that I debate, in other arenas beyond and besides music; I
> try to read posts in the same manner, looking for fairness and clarity.
> Your posts can be called into question, just as mine.

Definitely!

> Finally, about the repeated use of 'religious' as a negative descriptor:
> I'll just read that as 'passionate'. I do, and always will, feel
> passionately about the work of Partch. You will simply have to deal with
> it, just as I've learned to be comfortable with endless streams of numbers.

I didn't mean it as a negative comment.

> >Perhaps you or John could fill me in on what exactly you're referring
> >to (if it's still relevant)?
>
> My point was that you implied the error in the biography was something that
> should have easily been detected or corrected, while John Chalmers mentions
> the same area in a post to you as: "Has anyone succeeded in reproducing
> Helmholtz's computations? I've always found his description of how he
> computed the dissonance curves opaque." Maybe we're talking about two
> different subjects,

Yes of course we are. How could the opacity of Helmholtz' computations of dissonance curves have anything to do with the question of whether Gilmore accurately described Partch's theory?

> but that was when you hauled Gilmore on the carpet,
> whom you include in the religious-toned "criminally unnoticed by all the
> prime enthusiasts". I seriously doubt Bob Gilmore has an intonational ax(e)
> to grind.

Of course not, but I was pointing out the pervasiveness of this misunderstanding of Partch's concepts.

> John C. said the point was "opaque"; you said the "derivation" was
> "...clear". Your implication, with regard to Gilmore, was that it should be
> "clear" to everyone. That was all I was referring to.

Ahem. John said Helmholtz's curves were opaque. I did not disagree. I said Partch's curves were clear. John agreed. And none of this has anything to do with Gilmore.

-Paul Erlich