Partch-ment

Well, I finally got around to studying Harry Partch's "History of
Intonations" and history of temperament, from his _Genesis of a Music_.

It might have been wise to have done this before asking some of the stupid
questions I have been asking around here of late...

Since I am now a *seasoned newbie* I am in a fine position to immediately
teach the *virtual newbies* and I would like to say that *EVERYONE* should
read this!

Don't do like I did and read Partch's theories of his own music and then
stop at the "pretty pictures" of the performances 2/3 (whoops 2:3)
through the book!!

What's more Partch's "History of Intonation" is FUNNY...

He loves the fact that the addition of irrational numbers, as would be a
summation of intervals in a tempered (tampered) system is called, in
mathematics, a "surd." Mighty close to "absurd," Ionesco...

i.e. [ 2^(2/12)+ 2^(4/12)] for a major second, etc...

He also does a *GREAT* job of refuting ideas of *BOTH* Hindemith *AND*
Schoenberg. They both made essentially the same error, which was realizing
that the "system we use today--pooh" is based on the overtone series and
then suggesting that the 12-tET "compromise" wasn't really enough to
matter.

Particularly funny, and Partch *loves* to be funny, is a chart that
Schoenberg presents in an article in Minna Lederman's "Modern Music" (a
precursor to our current "New Music Connoisseur" -- I'm sure y'all get
that... if not, e-mail me privately...) article 11:170.

In this he states the derivation of pitches from the overtone series, but
then presents them in cents as multiples of 100, like 12t-ET! Some of his
"pitches" are as much as 40.5 cents off! And, he also "forgets" about
enharmonic pitches in his "analysis," assuming equivalence for different
"overtone derived" pitches which are actually *different* enharmonics.
Hilarious.

Finally, I've been thinking a little about the problems between Harry
Partch and my own personal "mentor" (me and a *LOT* of other people) Otto
Luening.

As many of you may be aware, Otto wrote the introduction to the *ORIGINAL*
_Genesis of a Music_. Partch took out the intro. from the later
editions...

Problem was, as Otto related it, Partch had applied for a Guggenheim and
asked Otto to review his materials... some of which, if I have it correct,
was _Genesis_ itself...

Otto took too long to respond, and Partch was furious. Relations were
never the same between them...

In Otto's defense, though, just think about it. 1) Otto had a full
teaching load at Barnard College and was *very* busy, as well as doing his
"regular" composing, which he maintained diligently
2) Partch was not a "iconic legend" as he is today.... He was, at that
time a marginal figure who had been, like a lot of people, a hobo during
the depression. How was Otto to know he wasn't just a "crank?"

Otto had his reputation to maintain and he really *HAD* to go over Partch's
materials carefully. How would he know if they made any sense?? And as we
all know, Partch's theories take *SOME TIME* to digest properly.

As I recall, Partch's application to the Guggenheim failed at that round
without Otto's endorsement. I believe (Partch historians please correct me
if I'm wrong) that Partch *DID* get a Guggi later...

________________
Joseph Pehrson