re: the "cannon"

[Dante Rosati]
>Unless I'm hallucinating, I remember seeing in "Bitter Harvest" writing
>about Bach that was negative.

Bitter Music? That was the first thing I read after Doty's JI Primer, when
I got into all this business two years ago. I thought it was a
masterpiece. I don't remember anything about Bach, and unfortunately I
can't check, since my copy is on loan.

>I dunno, Carl- I admire the guys originality and vision, his inventiveness
>and industry, but the actual music? I played Guitar One in two performances
>of Revelation at the Courthouse Park, and of course have heard other stuff.
>Let's take one of his most frequently performed works- US Highball. Do you
>really consider this "great music" on the same creative level as (forget
>Bach and Beethoven) the best of Lou Harrison, Stravinsky, Shostokovitch etc?

Lou Harrison is great with tea, but let's not mention him with Partch,
Stravinsky, or Shosti. Essential Partch for me is Oedipus, Revelation, The
Bewitched, Petals, Dreamer. Oh, I don't know, it's hard! It's all good
(and I haven't given Delusion a fair shake yet)!

The main problem I see people having with Partch is the timbres. In fact,
that's the main problem I see in all cross-style listening. Not that this
applies to you -- maybe we just have different taste. But have you tried
listening, imagining it all for guitar? All of those percussion sounds are
notes! It's a shame that Partch, to date, must be heard through mediocre
performances, bad recordings, and instrument disrepair.

A good friend of mine, who loves prog. rock and bebop, can't get classical.
I think it's because he isn't following the notes. He just hears sounds
-- ever notice that musicians tend to listen, overwhelmingly, to music
written for their instrument?

>Maybe you could recomend what you consider his best piece and I could
check >it out (if I haven't heard it).

Try Dreamer. Maybe his best short work, and probably his most listenable.
Humor me and listen in the dark.

>T might lack depth sometimes but his melodic invention is second to none.
>Nielsen is not on the same level.

T's melodic invention is quite good, but second to a few. I agree with
that second bit completely.

>>The point stands that there are many works more deserving than, say, the
>>1812, in other periods and even in T's own output, that have been recorded
>>far less. Beethovan had trouble getting past Moonlight, much to his
>>chagrin. How many times have you heard Sonata 28, which fits in the "no
>>better organization of sound known to man" department?
>
>I think you can walk into any record store and find dozens of recordings of
>all the Beethoven Sonatas. How many do there really need to be?

I'm wasn't talking about numbers of recordings here. I was talking about
the number of performances, in the composer's times and today. So how many
times have you heard #28?

>Sibelius? I remember a time many years ago when I listened to Sibelius'
>Second every day for a couple of months and derived great spiritual
>sustenance from it.

I confess my exposure to Sibelius leaves much to be desired. So this
second is recommended?

-C.

(I realise that I am late with this comment, but we had a total mail
collapse)

The problem I have with this discussion of the place of Partch vis a
vis JSB is that I have heard a great deal of music by Bach, and can
form an opinion on it. I do not think I have heard above 1 piece of
Partch, and I am not sure that I did hear even that much.

Rather makes it hard to trade names.

==JOhn ff