Catching Paul Up

Paul,

Yeesh. Can't you at least calm down, read some archives, enjoy your post-Europe glow before jumping in 3/4-cocked? (you're too good to go off just 1/2-cocked!)

OK, here are a couple of answers for you:

[Jon]
>So it wasn't singling you out (read below) but following
>a trend of the last couple of decades of seeing Partch's work as
>nothing more than 43-tones to an octave in the form of a diamond.

[Paul]
the partch diamond has 29 tones per octave.

[Jon]
Um, yes. I was pointing out that I've seen many misinterpretations of his theories, frequently collapsing both the diamond and the magic "43 tone scale" into a nebulous (and inaccurate) semi-fiction.

[Jon]
>That is certainly the theoretical JI fabric of his compositions, but
>it isn't what he is really 'about'.

[Paul]
who said it was? partch devoted a huge amount of work to developing his tuning system, though, so isn't it natural that people should take an interest to it?

[Paul]
It is not what Partch was about. The focus on his theory of tuning over other aspects of a corporeal art is the fault (as 'natural' as it may be) of the reader. Which is the more pity that Partch is known by reading about him rather than experiencing his works in the manner to which they are most suited.

[Paul]
> so there. i can be picky about partch too (as you well know)!

[Jon]
Rightfully so, bucko. What would I do without my colleagues keeping me in line? :) Remind me: what are the duplicate pitches (not counting the row of 1/1's in the middle of the instrument) that reduce the number from 31 to 29?

[Jon]
> That was a generalist statement by me, following a number of
>threads that centered on "Partch = 43"

[Paul]
where were these threads?

[Jon]
All over the place from time to time.

[Jon]
>So it wasn't singling you out (read below) but following a trend of
>the last couple of decades of seeing Partch's work as nothing more
>than 43-tones to an octave in the form of a diamond.

[Paul]
where do i find this "trend"? i haven't seen any of it.

[Jon]
That's because you don't deal with it on a regular basis like I do. Fielding calls and mail to the HP organization. Reading news. Seeing concert promotions. Etc. Etc. It is an ongoing thing, something that even HP fought during his lifetime. "43" is just simply too convenient a 'sound bite' for people to resist. This, coupled with the tenancy to view his work *only* as a tuning foray, is an recurring ... struggle.

Cheers, and hope you had a great trip,
Jon

`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Real Life: Orchestral Percussionist
Web Life: "Corporeal Meadows" - about Harry Partch
http://www.corporeal.com/
NOTE:
If your reply bounces, try --> jonszanto@yahoo.com

hi Jon,

> From: "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 4:55 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Catching Paul Up
>
>
> ... Remind me: what are the duplicate pitches (not counting
> the row of 1/1's in the middle of the instrument [Diamond
> Marimba]) that reduce the number from 31 to 29?

3/2 and 4/3.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> 3/2 and 4/3.

(reaches for reading glasses) Ah, yes, there they are. It's been so long.

Hey, WTF! You aren't Paul!!!

Cheers,
Jon