Response to Paul Erlich

<debate type="passionate">

Paul wrote recently:

>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:

Thanks, though maybe *I'll* decide relevance. :)

>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.

This, however, is more interesting. I'll also contact Graham (later this
week, things gettin' busy) and see if maybe we could combine it in one
location...

>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.

That must include me.

>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.

Couldn't possibly include me: I've got a website with all the current
concert information (including the AFMM concerts), was responsible for the
CRI remasters of Partch's Gate 5 recordings, now available to the public
(average people included), have contributed to the Enclosures project.

OTOH, if you mean not liking transcriptions for bogus performance scenarios
-- well, yes, that would include me.

>But I don't want to get into that debate again.

It "bugs" you, but a caveat is appended. Classic trolling, and I bit. What
an idiot I can be...

>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.

'Approve' may be the wrong word, since it's not up to me to judge. By all
my accounts, and from what all I've read previously, Gilmore is accurate
and fair. The events he writes of during the last 3+ years of Partch's life
seem as I remember them. Considering the difficulty of finding information
on someone whose life was so much in transit, I'll wager that the factual
errors are small and not of impact on the book as a whole. Valuable tome.

>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.

>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.

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.

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.

>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, 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.

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.

>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.

Their loss.

</debate type="passionate">
..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....
Jonathan M. Szanto : Corporeal Meadows - Harry Partch, online.
jszanto@adnc.com : http://www.corporeal.com/
..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....