Full thread (32 messages)
From: monz (2001-06-26)
Subject: [tuning] evolution of Partch's theory
The information I give here is taken from:
Kassel, Richard M. 1996.
_The Evolution of Harry Partch's Monophony_
PhD dissertation, CUNY. (my copy is a draft)
Kassel notes that an outline sketch of the Preface from
the 2nd edition of _Genesis of a Music_ [Partch 1974] gives
dates for the drafts of _Genesis_ which are a bit more
accurate than those published in the book:
1927-28
1930
1934-35
1940-41
1944
1945-46
1947
_Genesis_ was finished in 1947, but not copyrighted and
published until 1949. (This finally clears up the confusion
about *that*.) So the proper citation for the 1st edition
is "Partch 1949". The early title was _Exposition of Monophony_.
None of these early drafts were known to exist, until a
1933 draft of Partch's _Exposition_ came to light in 1983,
when it came into Jonathan Glasier's possession. Excerpts
from it were published in his journal _Interval_:
Glasier, Jonathan. 1983.
"Early Partch Work -- Part 1: Manuscript, Keyboard
Design Charts Uncovered".
_Interval_, Volume 4, Number 2, pp. 6-7.
Partch, Harry. 1984.
"Exposition of Monophony, Part II: Early Draft of
Harry Partch's Book Written 1928-1932".
_Interval_, Volume 4, Number 3, pp. 8-9.
I'm encouraging Jonathan now to try to find the actual
manuscript, because I'm *very* interested in reading the
whole thing.
While Jonathan originally called this a "first draft" of
Partch's book, Kassel has traced its history to find that
this manuscript is actually the *5th* draft Partch wrote,
giving this plausible history from dates written in Partch's
own hand in the margins:
draft date location
1 1928 San Francisco
2 1920 New Orleans
3 1931 San Francisco
4 1932 Visalia, CA
5 1933 Los Angeles
Kassel, p 39:
> What Glasier possesses then is the 1933 final draft of
> _Exposition_, to which Partch appended "two notarized
> pages from the 1928 draft".
I will follow Kassel in referring to this document as
"Partch 1928/33".
Kassel indicates (p 42) that Partch had already decided
on an "expansion of consonance" to the 11-limit by 1928.
Here is a Scala file of the scale inscribed on the
fingerboard of Partch's Adapted Viola. This is the
earliest extant record of a Monophonic scale designed
by Partch.
(And please note that this scale is quite different from
"partch_29.scl" already in the Scala archive, which is a
listing of pitches available in the 11-limit Tonality Diamond.)
------ begin Scala file -----
! partch-29-av.scl
!
29-tone JI scale from Partch's Adapted Viola 1928-30
29
!
33/32
21/20
15/14
12/11
10/9
8/7
7/6
6/5
11/9
5/4
9/7
4/3
11/8
7/5
10/7
16/11
3/2
14/9
8/5
18/11
5/3
12/7
7/4
9/5
11/6
28/15
40/21
64/33
2/1
------ end Scala file --------
Partch also used ratios which were to approximated by interpolation
between the ones indicated. From Partch 1928/33, p 37:
> There are 29 indications for ratios within the 2/1 (octave),
> corresponding to my 1928 theory of the more essential tones.
> The other ratios were comparative to these.
Kassel notes that while 9/8 and 27/16 are two of the open
strings on the Adapted Viola, those ratios are not present
in the scale inscribed on the fingerboard. This leads
Kassel to speculate (p 51):
> 9/8 is especially crucial to Monophony, not only as the
> just major second of the diatonic scale but as the
> "9 Odentity" [9-limit component] of the consonant
> hexad that constitutes the "Overtonality" or "Otonality"
> (major key) built on 1/1. 9/8 also serves in its own
> right as one of the basic "1-Odentities" (fundamentals)
> in Monophony. This evidence suggests that, in 1928,
> Partch had not yet established the 11-limit consonant
> hexad as the structural basis for Monophony's pitch gamut.
Then follows Kassel's footnote:
> This would support the idea that Partch's lost 1920's
> string quartet attempted to impose just intonation onto a
> traditional polyphonic or homophonic texture built on a
> scale, and that he had yet to settle upon a system of
> just intonation derived from a single fundamental
> (i.e., Monophony).
The following scale is already in the Scala archive and
matches exactly the one given in Kassel 1996:
------ begin Scala file -----
! partch_37.scl
! 37-tone JI scale from 1931-32 draft of Partch's "Exposition"
From "Exposition on Monophony" 1933, unp. see Ayers, 1/1 vol.9(2)
37
!
49/48
33/32
22/21
16/15
12/11
11/10
10/9
9/8
8/7
7/6
6/5
11/9
5/4
14/11
9/7
4/3
11/8
7/5
10/7
16/11
3/2
14/9
11/7
8/5
18/11
5/3
12/7
7/4
16/9
9/5
20/11
11/6
15/8
21/11
64/33
96/49
2/1
------ end Scala file --------
About this, Kassel (p 83) states:
> As the chapter called "History of the 37" in the 1933 draft
> [i.e., Partch 1928/33] seems likely to have been based on
> a similar one in the previous draft, it may be concluded
> that, by 1932, Partch favored a 37-tone scale over the
> 29-tone scale found on the Adapted Viola.
Then Kassel immediately continues:
> The following incorporates the two scales; note that the
> 37-tone scale (like its predecessor) is symmetrical around 1/1:
Then Kassel tabulates the combination of these two scales and,
guess what?... ends up with a 41-tone scale!
------ begin Scala file -----
! partch-41combo.scl
!
41-tone JI combination from Partch's 29-tone and 37-tone scales
41
!
49/48
33/32
22/21
21/20
16/15
15/14
12/11
11/10
10/9
9/8
8/7
7/6
6/5
11/9
5/4
14/11
9/7
4/3
11/8
7/5
10/7
16/11
3/2
14/9
11/7
8/5
18/11
5/3
12/7
7/4
16/9
9/5
20/11
11/6
28/15
15/8
40/21
21/11
64/33
96/49
2/1
------ end Scala file --------
I'll have more to say on this when I get more time,
and after I've secured a copy of Lydia Ayres's article
from _1/1_. If anyone can send me a copy of that,
please do. Thanks.
-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
From: [email protected] (2001-06-27)
Subject: Re: evolution of Partch's theory
--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/25658
> While Jonathan originally called this a "first draft" of
> Partch's book, Kassel has traced its history to find that
> this manuscript is actually the *5th* draft Partch wrote,
> giving this plausible history from dates written in Partch's
> own hand in the margins:
>
> draft date location
>
> 1 1928 San Francisco
> 2 1920 New Orleans
> 3 1931 San Francisco
> 4 1932 Visalia, CA
> 5 1933 Los Angeles
>
Hmmm... this looks a little like Charles Ives alleged "dating
methods..." (which I don't believe...)
The date of the "draft 2" is obviously an error.
Thanks Monz for all the detective work!
__________ ________ _______
Joseph Pehrson
From: Jon Szanto (2001-06-27)
Subject: Re: evolution of Partch's theory
--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> > draft date location
> >
> > 1 1928 San Francisco
> > 2 1920 New Orleans
> > 3 1931 San Francisco
> > 4 1932 Visalia, CA
> > 5 1933 Los Angeles
> >
> The date of the "draft 2" is obviously an error.
Yes. Partch was in New Orleans in 1930, not 1920.
BTW, have people interested in this and the related threads looked at
the table on pg. 65 of Gilmore's book entitled "Chronology of the
development of Partch's scale, 1928-1935"? Looks like it might have
interesting information for those so inclined.
Cheers,
Jon
From: monz (2001-06-27)
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: evolution of Partch's theory
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 5:09 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: evolution of Partch's theory
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/25658
> > While Jonathan originally called this a "first draft" of
> > Partch's book, Kassel has traced its history to find that
> > this manuscript is actually the *5th* draft Partch wrote,
> > giving this plausible history from dates written in Partch's
> > own hand in the margins:
> >
> > draft date location
> >
> > 1 1928 San Francisco
> > 2 1920 New Orleans
> > 3 1931 San Francisco
> > 4 1932 Visalia, CA
> > 5 1933 Los Angeles
> >
>
> Hmmm... this looks a little like Charles Ives alleged "dating
> methods..." (which I don't believe...)
>
> The date of the "draft 2" is obviously an error.
Oh my goodness. Big capital-letters OOPS, MY BAD!
That's just a straight-up typo made by me, and now I'm
mad I didn't catch it before sending. Of course, it's
supposed to be 1930. That's the only year Partch was
ever in New Orleans.
As for the 'alleged "dating methods..." (which I don't
believe...)' :
Kassel explains that the years are written in the margin.
Originally I was under the impression that Partch wrote only
the years and that Kassel filled in the locations and draft
numbers, but Kassel doesn't make that clear and now I'm not
so sure. Upon re-reading the description in the dissertation,
it seems very possible that Partch himself had written exactly
what Kassel prints:
> [Kassel 1996, p 39]
>
> In handwritten marginalia on the manuscript of _Exposition_,
> Partch lists another series of dates (presumably of completion)
> for drafts of this treatise (Partch 1933, [ii]): [32]
>
> > 1928 (San Francisco: #1)
> > 1930 (New Orleans: #2)
> > 1931 (San Francisco: #3)
> > 1932 (Visalia, CA: #4)
> > 1933 (Los Angeles: #5)
>
And there's a footnote:
> [32] The five drafts mentioned here would have preceded
> the "third draft" (1934-35) mentioned in Partch 1974, vii.
Kassel states with such assurance that these *are* "dates
for drafts of this treatise", and in the footnote he so
plainly says "The five drafts mentioned here", that I'm
inclined to believe that what I quoted above *is* exactly
what Partch wrote.
But even if Partch wrote only the years, this reasoning makes
sense to me. If Partch wrote those dates in this draft
intentionally to *be* in this draft, then they can't mean
anything else but the dates of earlier drafts.
>
> Thanks Monz for all the detective work!
Glad you enjoyed it, Joe. I'm making a webpage out of this, too
(and have already made one about the "Did Partch feel MIRACLE?"
thread... just haven't finished and uploaded it yet).
-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
From: monz (2001-06-27)
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: evolution of Partch's theory
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jon Szanto <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 8:29 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: evolution of Partch's theory
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > The date of the "draft 2" is obviously an error.
>
> Yes. Partch was in New Orleans in 1930, not 1920.
Thanks for catching that, Jon. I've already submitted my
apology and, as usual, lots of new words rehashing more details.
:)
>
> BTW, have people interested in this and the related threads looked at
> the table on pg. 65 of Gilmore's book entitled "Chronology of the
> development of Partch's scale, 1928-1935"? Looks like it might have
> interesting information for those so inclined.
Darn! I lent my copy to Denny G. long ago and he still has it
(and doesn't live so close by anymore).
Maybe I'll stop over and borrow yours! ;-)
(Or... I'm pretty sure the North Park library has one...)
-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
From: Jon Szanto (2001-06-27)
Subject: Re: evolution of Partch's theory
Monz,
--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> (and have already made one about the "Did Partch feel MIRACLE?"
> thread... just haven't finished and uploaded it yet).
Holy Shit! What next?
"Did Partch secretly want to wear a tuxedo and play only for blue-
haired ladies?"
"Was Partch straight?"
The mind boggles...
(...said semi in jest...)
Cheers,
Jon
From: [email protected] (2001-06-27)
Subject: Exposition of Monophony
--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/25679
Gee... I'm really happy that Harry Parch didn't end up calling his
masterpiece, _Exposition of Monophony_!
Was it his *own* idea to change the title, or was it some *editor's*
suggestion...??
Frankly it sounds like something an editor would do, but perhaps it
was Partch himself??
Thanks!
___________ ________ ______
Joseph Pehrson
From: Jon Szanto (2001-06-27)
Subject: Re: Exposition of Monophony
Joe,
--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> Gee... I'm really happy that Harry Parch didn't end up calling his
> masterpiece, _Exposition of Monophony_! Was it his *own* idea to
change the title, or was it some *editor's* suggestion...??
It _appears_ to have been a suggestion by his first editor, Livia
Appel, when the book was first published in 1949 by the University of
Wisconsin. She was quite helpful during the entire process and took a
great interest in the project. Partch had submitted it to her with
only the title "Monophony". This reference to her suggestion
of "Genesis of a Music" occurs in a correspondence between Appel and
Howard Hanson, Hanson being one of only two people Partch suggested
might be a good reviewer of the musical materials.
Most of this is covered fairly well in Gilmore's book, as well as the
notion that "Genesis" is essentially a stopping point mid-way in the
composer's life, and the 2nd edition doesn't really change it that
much, adding mostly new instrumental and librettal (?) resources.
This was not a book Partch wrote at the end of his life, summing up
things, but a look at where he was somewhat early in the game...
Cheers,
Jon
From: George Zelenz (2001-06-27)
Subject: Re: [tuning] Exposition of Monophony
Joseph,
Partch actually had for a brief time used as a working title,
"A Course in Miracle's: 41+2 Unison Vector Epiphanies, with Addendum ad Nausea"
Really, he did.
GZ
[email protected] wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/25679
>
> Gee... I'm really happy that Harry Parch didn't end up calling his
> masterpiece, _Exposition of Monophony_!
>
> Was it his *own* idea to change the title, or was it some *editor's*
> suggestion...??
>
> Frankly it sounds like something an editor would do, but perhaps it
> was Partch himself??
>
> Thanks!
>
> ___________ ________ ______
> Joseph Pehrson
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> [email protected] - join the tuning group.
> [email protected] - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> [email protected] - put your email message delivery on hold for the tuning group.
> [email protected] - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
> [email protected] - change your subscription to individual emails.
> [email protected] - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
From: [email protected] (2001-06-27)
Subject: Re: Exposition of Monophony
--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/25695
Thank you, Jon, as always, for your authoritative information on
Partch...
> Joe,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > Gee... I'm really happy that Harry Parch didn't end up calling
his
> > masterpiece, _Exposition of Monophony_! Was it his *own* idea to
> change the title, or was it some *editor's* suggestion...??
>
> It _appears_ to have been a suggestion by his first editor, Livia
> Appel, when the book was first published in 1949 by the University
of Wisconsin.
So, Livia Appel is really the genesis of GENESIS. Good title, good
idea! Too bad people like that get hardly a footnote of credit...
She was quite helpful during the entire process and took a
> great interest in the project. Partch had submitted it to her with
> only the title "Monophony". This reference to her suggestion
> of "Genesis of a Music" occurs in a correspondence between Appel
and Howard Hanson, Hanson being one of only two people Partch
suggested might be a good reviewer of the musical materials.
>
Did Howard Hanson review the Partch book? What did he think of it?
I think of Hanson as being a rather conservative composer. After
attending his school, it even reinforced my opinion...
Was Otto Luening, my own personal mentor (as well as many other
peoples') the other person Partch suggested? I know Otto was asked
to review the book in conjunction with Partch's application for a
Guggenheim... which he eventually got. (Monzo didn't think Partch
*ever* got a Guggenheim, but he did...)
Partch was a little disturbed with Otto for taking so long with the
manuscript, or so Otto recalled. Well, GENESIS is really not all
that easy to read, and Otto would not put his "stamp of approval" on
something he had not read carefully.
However, Otto *did* eventually write an introduction to GENESIS... at
least to one of the versions... maybe the first "official" edition.
I would love to read what he said, if anybody can type it in...
> Most of this is covered fairly well in Gilmore's book,
How do I get a copy of the Gilmore book?? I tried amazon.com, but
there are a thousand Gilmores...
Is it still in print??
Thanks!
________ _______ _____
Joseph Pehrson
From: David Beardsley (2001-06-27)
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Exposition of Monophony
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
> > Most of this is covered fairly well in Gilmore's book,
>
> How do I get a copy of the Gilmore book?? I tried amazon.com, but
> there are a thousand Gilmores...
>
> Is it still in print??
>
I got 10 hits for Harry Partch at Amazon.com
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300065213/qid=993671660/sr=1-5/ref=
sc_b_5/107-6176845-5072564
David Beardsley
From: Jon Szanto (2001-06-27)
Subject: Re: Exposition of Monophony
Joe,
Must be a bit brief, but here is some info...
--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Thank you, Jon, as always, for your authoritative information on
> Partch...
Happy to.
> > It _appears_ to have been a suggestion by his first editor
> So, Livia Appel is really the genesis of GENESIS.
Wait, though, be careful! (esp since you are alluding to me) Note
that I said _appears_ to. I am sure there might either be someplace
where it can truly be tracked down or already is, but the annecdotal
mention by Gilmore is good (I would imagine). Bob is a good and
thorough scholar so I'm sure he saw the reference, I'm just not clear
on the actual content, i.e. was it Partch or Appels suggestion.
Is she related to Willi Appel?
> Did Howard Hanson review the Partch book? What did he think of
it?
I can't remember. Will look.
> I think of Hanson as being a rather conservative composer.
Yes. In context, apparantly Partch named those two as people who had
been at least receptive to his ideas/music. He also mentioned, and
certainly later he did, Jacques Barzun.
> Was Otto Luening, my own personal mentor (as well as many other
> peoples') the other person Partch suggested?
Yes. More on this later.
> However, Otto *did* eventually write an introduction to GENESIS...
> at least to one of the versions... maybe the first "official"
> edition. I would love to read what he said, if anybody can type it
> in...
This introduction/foreword is actually reproduced, as well as
correpondences between Partch and Luening, and other letters, on
pages 114-117 of Blackburn's "Enclosures 3". If you don't have access
to a copy I can reproduce those pages. In a couple of days, that is.
But looks like all that you are interested is there, plus whatever
commentary/footnotes about all this in the back of the book by
Blackburn.
> How do I get a copy of the Gilmore book?? I tried amazon.com, but
> there are a thousand Gilmores... Is it still in print??
My, my: I am doing a terrible job of making this plain on the
Meadows! All current recordings, videos, and books are located at
http://www.corporeal.com/freshpix.html
...and if you are comfortable ordering from amazon.com, a click on
the link for the Gilmore book will not only get one to you but send
about $0.15 or something to my account to defray costs of keeping
Corporeal Meadows online. In print, available with a single mouse
click, and beneficial to HP's spirit online...
Cheers,
Jon
From: [email protected] (2001-06-27)
Subject: Re: Exposition of Monophony
--- In tuning@y..., "David Beardsley" <davidbeardsley@b...> wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/25704
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jpehrson@r...>
>
> > > Most of this is covered fairly well in Gilmore's book,
> >
> > How do I get a copy of the Gilmore book?? I tried amazon.com, but
> > there are a thousand Gilmores...
> >
> > Is it still in print??
> >
>
> I got 10 hits for Harry Partch at Amazon.com
>
Whoopsie! Should have searched that way.... Thanks!
__________ ______ _____
Joseph Pehrson
From: [email protected] (2001-06-27)
Subject: Re: Exposition of Monophony
--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/25705
>
>
> This introduction/foreword is actually reproduced, as well as
> correpondences between Partch and Luening, and other letters, on
> pages 114-117 of Blackburn's "Enclosures 3". If you don't have
access to a copy I can reproduce those pages. In a couple of days,
that is.
Ummm, that book is beautiful and, in fact, Phillip Blackburn showed
me all the ORIGINALS that he scanned in when we (my wife and I)
visited Minnesota... However, it is, indeed, pricey, so I do not yet
have my own personal copy...
> > How do I get a copy of the Gilmore book?? I tried amazon.com,
but there are a thousand Gilmores... Is it still in print??
>
> My, my: I am doing a terrible job of making this plain on the
> Meadows! All current recordings, videos, and books are located at
>
> http://www.corporeal.com/freshpix.html
>
Ummm, sorry about this. Since you might want to know how people
perceive your pages, I will go on:
I *did* scroll down through the RECORDINGS, but never made it down to
the "bottom" for the books. I realize you have links for that... but
that's what happened...
> ...and if you are comfortable ordering from amazon.com, a click on
> the link for the Gilmore book will not only get one to you but send
> about $0.15 or something to my account to defray costs of keeping
> Corporeal Meadows online. In print, available with a single mouse
> click, and beneficial to HP's spirit online...
>
Well, that's more in my price range... so I may "spring" for it...
Thanks for the help...
_______ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson
From: Jon Szanto (2001-06-27)
Subject: Re: Exposition of Monophony
Joe,
--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> Ummm, that book is beautiful and, in fact, Phillip Blackburn showed
> me all the ORIGINALS that he scanned in when we (my wife and I)
> visited Minnesota...
Yes, sorry, I forgot you mentioned that. I'll see what I can do about
getting that info to you. My guess is I could at least scan and OCR
the "Foreword", and that seemed of primary interest to you.
> I *did* scroll down through the RECORDINGS, but never made it down
> to the "bottom" for the books. I realize you have links for
> that... but that's what happened...
Ah, life is full with so many tasks/talents to master! When I started
that page 5 years ago, it was almost vacant!! But as it has grown, I
keep thinking "I've got to split it up somehow", and you have kicked
me into the harsh reality that it is a necessity.
I'll be working on this and when I get a revised format up, I'll have
you take a look and see what you think.
The 'orchestration' of information is *so* important...
> Well, that's more in my price range... so I may "spring" for it...
Yes, it is a normal type book. Been out long enough that you might
find a used copy. Another small point is that it really is pretty
much a straight biography, and while it goes into musical matters
throughout the book, there are not (for the majority part) segments
of analysis of Partch's theory, compositions, etc.
Cheers,
Jon
P.S. I doubt I'd be of any help on the Borasky question as to whether
or not Partch's completed compositions exhibit a balanced
treatment/use of Otonality and Utonality. As I mentioned before, he
did most of his theorizing in the earlier part of his musical life,
and when he began writing more for large groups and concentrating on
extra-musical matters, I don't think he much attention to such
matters. By then he had internalized the system for what it could do
and express for him, and used it. If it ended up not totally
supporting an earlier theoretical stance or goal I wouldn't be too
surprised, but I have not done in-depth analysis of his scores.
Man, that was a long P.S.!
From: Paul Erlich (2001-06-28)
Subject: Re: evolution of Partch's theory
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> > (and have already made one about the "Did Partch feel MIRACLE?"
> > thread... just haven't finished and uploaded it yet).
Don't finish it anytime soon . . .
one would have to prove that
Partch's work was guided only by
the unison vectors compatible
with MIRACLE and not by any
others.
From: monz (2001-06-28)
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Exposition of Monophony
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jon Szanto <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 10:11 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Exposition of Monophony
>
>
> This was not a book Partch wrote at the end of his life, summing up
> things, but a look at where he was somewhat early in the game...
Hmmm... interesting way to put that, Jon.
IMO, a great "summing up" *did* indeed come at the end of Partch's
life: _The Dreamer That Remains_.
While I can't deny that _Delusion of the Fury_ is some kind of a
_magnum opus_, somehow I've never felt that that piece is the
masterpiece that so many other people feel it is. And now that
I've finally *seen* it (at the UCLA centennial), my opinion hasn't
changed.
_Dreamer_ is the great soul-baring and sonically gripping finale
to Partch's output. And I think it picks right up where _Genesis_
left off in 1947. There's music in that score that doesn't have
a damn thing to do with Partch's published theories.
(Now don't start nitpicking me for examples... especially you,
Paul :) ... I'm too busy with other stuff to find them right now.
But I know what I hear, and it ain't what I read.
)
-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
From: [email protected] (2001-06-28)
Subject: Re: Exposition of Monophony
--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/25710
> Joe,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > Ummm, that book is beautiful and, in fact, Phillip Blackburn
showed me all the ORIGINALS that he scanned in when we (my wife and
I) visited Minnesota...
>
> Yes, sorry, I forgot you mentioned that.
Hi Jon...
Actually, I'd forgotten I'd mentioned that, too!
I'll see what I can do about
> getting that info to you. My guess is I could at least scan and OCR
> the "Foreword", and that seemed of primary interest to you.
>
That would be great... I'd love to see it, but no rush... just when
you get time.
> > I *did* scroll down through the RECORDINGS, but never made it
down to the "bottom" for the books. I realize you have links for
> > that... but that's what happened...
>
> Ah, life is full with so many tasks/talents to master! When I
started that page 5 years ago, it was almost vacant!! But as it has
grown, I keep thinking "I've got to split it up somehow", and you
have kicked me into the harsh reality that it is a necessity.
>
> I'll be working on this and when I get a revised format up, I'll
have you take a look and see what you think.
>
> The 'orchestration' of information is *so* important...
>
Absolutely! Well... people surfing generally don't get to the bottom
of very long pages... at least I don't, and I'm at least as 'anal' as
most...
When I say I've surfed through Corporeal Meadows, it means I've read
several of the articles, and pretty much looked at most of the pages.
However, when on such a "mission" there is, still, a very good
chance I wouldn't get to the bottom of a long page.
Maybe some enticing photo of a book... even Genesis, as the link
would prompt more. I just scrolled down several of the CD's and then
it was on to the next thing!
> > Well, that's more in my price range... so I may "spring" for it...
>
> Yes, it is a normal type book. Been out long enough that you might
> find a used copy. Another small point is that it really is pretty
> much a straight biography, and while it goes into musical matters
> throughout the book, there are not (for the majority part) segments
> of analysis of Partch's theory, compositions, etc.
>
Well, true... Actually, it's about time I studied _Genesis_ again.
Couldn't hurt.
P.S. I doubt I'd be of any help on the Borasky question as to
whether or not Partch's completed compositions exhibit a balanced
> treatment/use of Otonality and Utonality. As I mentioned before, he
> did most of his theorizing in the earlier part of his musical life,
> and when he began writing more for large groups and concentrating
on extra-musical matters, I don't think he much attention to such
> matters. By then he had internalized the system for what it could
do and express for him, and used it. If it ended up not totally
> supporting an earlier theoretical stance or goal I wouldn't be too
> surprised, but I have not done in-depth analysis of his scores.
>
Well, I guess my question would be the following:
If Partch used a tonality diamond that used _otonal_ AND _utonallly_
derived ratios and played the entire instrument extensively... and if
the otonal and utonal were equally represented on the instrument...
wouldn't that mean that the otonal and utonal were used equally???
Paul??
Thanks gang...
_______ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson
From: Jon Szanto (2001-06-28)
Subject: Re: Exposition of Monophony
Monz,
--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> Hmmm... interesting way to put that, Jon.
>
> IMO, a great "summing up" *did* indeed come at the end of Partch's
> life: _The Dreamer That Remains_.
Well, I was responding to whether "Genesis" was really a codification
of his theory, and that all of his music sprang from and followed
those rules. Certainly, it did not. As I mentioned to Joe P., I
believe he researched, thought, wrote, and then got on with the
business at hand, which was to build a full body of work.
Whether "Dreamer" is a crystalization of his theoretical side is
certainly suspect, but it it more than anything a wonderful look back
at his life, and a very vivid piece of music. (I admit that I
sometimes get a headache, because I can't simply call it a piece, and
I can't just call it a documentary/story. As they used to say: "It's
two! Two! Two mints in one!!")
> While I can't deny that _Delusion of the Fury_ is some kind of a
> _magnum opus_, somehow I've never felt that that piece is the
> masterpiece that so many other people feel it is.
Bummer, dude! <g>
> And now that I've finally *seen* it (at the UCLA centennial), my
> opinion hasn't changed.
Bosh. You haven't seen it, because that Tourtelot film is
atrocious!!! Hell, the still shots from the UCLA production are more
striking than the film with all those hokey insert shots.
Delusion has moments that are too long as a musical vehicle, but done
properly within the dramatic context, I think they're fine. Of
course, that is just opinion. And if I had to boil it down, I'd say
the Opus de Magnum would be the "Exordium" itself, which is only a
minute or so shorter than "Dreamer".
> And I think it picks right up where _Genesis_ left off in 1947.
Well, and reflects the time in between, in many ways.
> There's music in that score that doesn't have
> a damn thing to do with Partch's published theories.
Yup. Throw out the book and use your ears, boys...
> But I know what I hear, and it ain't what I read.
...then again, you already know that!
Cheers,
Jon
From: Paul Erlich (2001-06-28)
Subject: Re: Exposition of Monophony
--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> If Partch used a tonality diamond that used _otonal_ AND
_utonallly_
> derived ratios
_Each and every_ ratio in the diamond is derived _both_ otonally
_and_ utonally.
> and played the entire instrument extensively... and if
> the otonal and utonal were equally represented on the instrument...
> wouldn't that mean that the otonal and utonal were used equally???
Not at all! The diamond can be seen as six otonalities only, or it
can be seen as six utonalities only. Prent Rodgers has, or at least
could easily, written pieces which use the otonalities exclusively
and yet use all the pitches of the diamond.
From: [email protected] (2001-06-28)
Subject: Re: Exposition of Monophony
--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/25756
> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > If Partch used a tonality diamond that used _otonal_ AND
> _utonallly_
> > derived ratios
>
> _Each and every_ ratio in the diamond is derived _both_ otonally
> _and_ utonally.
>
> > and played the entire instrument extensively... and if
> > the otonal and utonal were equally represented on the
instrument...
> > wouldn't that mean that the otonal and utonal were used equally???
>
> Not at all! The diamond can be seen as six otonalities only, or it
> can be seen as six utonalities only. Prent Rodgers has, or at least
> could easily, written pieces which use the otonalities exclusively
> and yet use all the pitches of the diamond.
Ummm... I'm a little puzzled by this.... Could you please run the
ratios down in a demonstration??
Thanks!
_________ _______ _______ ____
Joseph Pehrson
From: Paul Erlich (2001-06-28)
Subject: Re: Exposition of Monophony
--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> Ummm... I'm a little puzzled by this.... Could you please run the
> ratios down in a demonstration??
Here's the diamond, rotated 45 degrees, and not in lowest terms:
8/8 9/8 10/8 11/8 12/8 14/8
8/9 9/9 10/9 11/9 12/9 14/9
8/10 9/10 10/10 11/10 12/10 14/10
8/11 9/11 10/11 11/11 12/11 14/11
8/12 9/12 10/12 11/12 12/12 14/12
8/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 14/14
The Otonalities proceed horizontally and the Utonalities proceed
vertically. So you can see the entire set of pitches as six
Otonalities only, or as six Utonalities only. You can also see it as
the set of pitches forming an 11-limit consonance with 1/1. Note that
all the ratios along the diagonal from top left to bottom right are
really 1/1.
It might also help to examine Erv Wilson's pentagonal lattice diagram
of the diamond (on the cover of one of the issues of XH) -- each
otonality is an upward-pointing pentagon with a note in the center,
and each utonality is a downward-pointing pentagon with a note in the
center. Each interval is always represented by the same spacial
relationship wherever it occurs. 1/1 appears only once, in the center
of the diagram.
From: [email protected] (2001-06-28)
Subject: Re: Exposition of Monophony
--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/25762
>
> The Otonalities proceed horizontally and the Utonalities proceed
> vertically. So you can see the entire set of pitches as six
> Otonalities only, or as six Utonalities only.
Oh... got it! Sure.
But then I guess we could examine whether Partch's music used the
pitch material more running horizontally or running vertically to
determine whether otonal or utonal were emphasized, yes??
Since most marimbas are played horizontally left to right, wouldn't
there be a good guess that the pitches going in that axis would be
the most featured??
____________ _________ _______
Joseph Pehrson
From: Paul Erlich (2001-06-28)
Subject: Re: Exposition of Monophony
--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> Oh... got it! Sure.
>
> But then I guess we could examine whether Partch's music used the
> pitch material more running horizontally or running vertically to
> determine whether otonal or utonal were emphasized, yes??
Right . . .
>
> Since most marimbas are played horizontally left to right, wouldn't
> there be a good guess that the pitches going in that axis would be
> the most featured??
>
Don't forget that the diagram was rotated 45 degrees. So on the
diamond marimba, both the otonalities and the utonalities would run
at 45 degree angles to the horizontal axis, and at 90 degrees from
one another.
From: [email protected] (2001-06-28)
Subject: Re: Exposition of Monophony
--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/25765
> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > Oh... got it! Sure.
> >
> > But then I guess we could examine whether Partch's music used the
> > pitch material more running horizontally or running vertically to
> > determine whether otonal or utonal were emphasized, yes??
>
> Right . . .
> >
> > Since most marimbas are played horizontally left to right,
wouldn't
> > there be a good guess that the pitches going in that axis would
be
> > the most featured??
> >
> Don't forget that the diagram was rotated 45 degrees. So on the
> diamond marimba, both the otonalities and the utonalities would run
> at 45 degree angles to the horizontal axis, and at 90 degrees from
> one another.
Oh sure... that was dumb. I've seen those before!
Well, then if the player were to go mostly from left to right I guess
it would be about evenly distributed??
I don't know what the math geometry for that would be, but I'm sure
there must be some! ??
That must be why he rotated it like that, yes?? !!!! Amazing.
_______ _______ __________
Joseph Pehrson
From: Jon Szanto (2001-06-28)
Subject: Diamond Marimba (was: Re: Exposition of Monophony)
Guys! Joe/Paul!!
How about some input from someone who used to play a lot on the
Diamond Marimba?
--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> Well, then if the player were to go mostly from left to right I
> guess it would be about evenly distributed??
Don't -- I repeat: DO NOT -- think conventionally! Don't think about
what *most* marimba players would do, because this thing is not most
marimbas and not most marimba music.
Take a look at the diagram of the bars in "Genesis" page 161 "Block
Plan Diagram of the D. M." You can see that rows that start low on
the left and move up and to the right are Otonal, and those that
start high on the left and move down to the right are Utonal.
Then listen to the music, a great example being the pieces
from "Eleven Intrusions" that first used the DM. Listen to "The
Waterfall", which has arpeggios that goe up and down each hexad,
ending in a sweep of the 'chord'.
Sweep? What is Jon talking about? Well, with theory put into wood,
you have not only the diamond shape but the fact that the lowest note
(closest to the player's body) is also lowest in elevation, and each
row steps up in height, ending with the top point being the highest.
So, in addition to striking each bar, you also can glissando from the
top note (or any note, really) in a hexad and glissando down on a
diagonal stroke, and as your mallet passes over the edge of each bar
you are playing the note. Sweep down and to the left: downward
arpeggion of an Otonality; down and to the right: Utonality.
Percussionists being ambidextrous, it doesn't matter which way they
go, and the DM allows for equal access. And since HP tended to write
part, certainly to at least get the germinal ideas and potentialities
by writing at the instrument, found many nice things. Little two note
grace-note patterns, such as the Intrusion "The Crane" are simply
limpid little strokes on a diagonal, outlining two notes of the
harmony in one stroke that can't be done on any conventional mallet
instrument.
Hope that helps, I'm only home for a short time today...
Cheers,
Jon
From: [email protected] (2001-06-29)
Subject: Diamond Marimba (was: Re: Exposition of Monophony)
--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/25773
> Guys! Joe/Paul!!
>
> How about some input from someone who used to play a lot on the
> Diamond Marimba?
Now that's a silly idea... that would have to go on "Practical
Microtonality..." :)
>
> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > Well, then if the player were to go mostly from left to right I
> > guess it would be about evenly distributed??
>
> Don't -- I repeat: DO NOT -- think conventionally! Don't think
about what *most* marimba players would do, because this thing is not
most marimbas and not most marimba music.
>
Hmmm... well that makes sense, Jon. I see you think a player doesn't
play it across horizontally. True, *you* should know. I guess it
wouldn't be too interesting if one were to play the _middle_ bars
horizontally... :)
HOWEVER, even so, the fact that Partch took essentially a SQUARE
concept... the ratios, and turned it 45 degrees *still* means there
is a greater chance to use *both* the otonal and utonal in equal
proportions, depending on which hand will do the "swooping!"
> Take a look at the diagram of the bars in "Genesis" page 161 "Block
> Plan Diagram of the D. M."
That p. 261, Jon...
You can see that rows that start low on
> the left and move up and to the right are Otonal, and those that
> start high on the left and move down to the right are Utonal.
>
> Then listen to the music, a great example being the pieces
> from "Eleven Intrusions" that first used the DM. Listen to "The
> Waterfall", which has arpeggios that goe up and down each hexad,
> ending in a sweep of the 'chord'.
>
I have to admit, after hearing that done at the Claremont MicroFest,
it was one of the more affecting musical ideas of Partch I have yet
heard...
> Sweep? What is Jon talking about? Well, with theory put into wood,
> you have not only the diamond shape but the fact that the lowest
note (closest to the player's body) is also lowest in elevation, and
each row steps up in height, ending with the top point being the
highest.
> So, in addition to striking each bar, you also can glissando from
the top note (or any note, really) in a hexad and glissando down on a
> diagonal stroke, and as your mallet passes over the edge of each
bar you are playing the note. Sweep down and to the left: downward
> arpeggion of an Otonality; down and to the right: Utonality.
>
> Percussionists being ambidextrous, it doesn't matter which way they
> go, and the DM allows for equal access.
Now supposing Partch was right handed?? Was he?? Wouldn't there be
a possibility that Partchussionists could SWEEP *more* to the RIGHT
than to the left?? If so, the utonal would be featured???
___________ ________ _______
Joseph Pehrson
From: Dave Keenan (2001-06-29)
Subject: Re: Exposition of Monophony
I realise I don't know a very basic fact about Partch's scales.
Why are they called Monophony?
From: Paul Erlich (2001-06-29)
Subject: Re: Exposition of Monophony
--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
> I realise I don't know a very basic fact about Partch's scales.
>
> Why are they called Monophony?
Because everything relates back to the 1/1. This is why the diamond is so important.
From: Dave Keenan (2001-06-29)
Subject: Re: Exposition of Monophony
--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
> > I realise I don't know a very basic fact about Partch's scales.
> >
> > Why are they called Monophony?
>
> Because everything relates back to the 1/1. This is why the diamond
is so important.
To me, "monophony" means "one sound at a time" as in the opposite of
"polyphony".
It should have been called "Monotony".
:-) On second thoughts, "Monotonalism".
From: Jon Szanto (2001-06-29)
Subject: Diamond Marimba (was: Re: Exposition of Monophony)
Joe,
--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> Hmmm... well that makes sense, Jon. I see you think a player
> doesn't play it across horizontally.
The player plays whatever notes have been composed. But the diamond,
physically, is less of a locked in structure than a simple left-to-
right layout, and there are materials that are intrinsically made
available, both by physical motions (if you can do this with the
right, you can do _this_ with the left) and visual patterns.
> I guess it
> wouldn't be too interesting if one were to play the _middle_ bars
> horizontally... :)
Yeah, but it *is* the ultimate in minimalist art at that point...
> HOWEVER, even so, the fact that Partch took essentially a SQUARE
> concept... the ratios, and turned it 45 degrees *still* means there
> is a greater chance to use *both* the otonal and utonal in equal
> proportions, depending on which hand will do the "swooping!"
Yes, I know, but again, remember that it didn't spring *only* from
this instrument, but that the instrument sprang from the idea of the
diamond. The nature of the sweeping became evident when Partch
decided to lay out the bars in stepped tiers instead of flat. A less
visual and adventurous mind would have laid them flat, and closed off
a number of creative avenues. Serendipity, meet Theoretical
Constructs...
> That p. 261, Jon...
Finger slip.
> I have to admit, after hearing that done at the Claremont
MicroFest,
> it was one of the more affecting musical ideas of Partch I have yet
> heard...
There's more. Wait til we have the lesson about the Quadrangularis
Reversum!
> Now supposing Partch was right handed?? Was he?? Wouldn't there
> be a possibility that Partchussionists could SWEEP *more* to the
> RIGHT than to the left?? If so, the utonal would be featured???
OK, no other way to say it: you have to make a leap here and *not* be
so locked into the way things are supposed to work. You look at a
pattern, you can do it with one hand, you can therefore do it with
the other, they are both equally valid, and if one is less
comfortable then you work on it more until the opportunity right
before your eyes -- mirrored motions, O and U played with
(essentially) equal ease -- becomes the norm. No more of this "insane
specialization" of right- or left-handedness, just seize the concept
and do it until it is natural.
Partch wasn't a killer on all the instruments, but he could certainly
play them well enough to know what they could be done with practice
and talent. He may very well have been right handed, but he would
also have known that it would be just as easy to do the opposite, and
would have written accordingly. NONE of this is answering your
question as to whether O or U predominated, and I doubt the mechanics
of the instruments could give a valid answer. I think you could only
find it out through analysis, because in composing for his
instruments I think he would find them flexible enough to make happen
what ever he wanted to.
Cheers,
Jon
From: Jon Szanto (2001-06-29)
Subject: Re: Exposition of Monophony
Dave,
--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
> To me, "monophony" means "one sound at a time" as in the opposite
> of "polyphony".
From the section "Definitions Pertaining To Intonation" in "Genesis
of a Music (2nd ed.):
"Monophony: an organization of musical materials based upon the
faculty of the human ear to perceive all intervals and to deduce all
principles of musical relationship as an expansion from unity, as 1
is to 1, or - as it is expressed in this work - 1/1. In this sense
of growth from unity Monophony is a development of the theories
deduced by Pythagoras of Samos on his monochord, in the sixth century
B. C.; beginning with the whole string of the monochord, or 1,
Pythagoras divided the string into two parts and produced the
interval 2/1, then into three parts and four parts, producing the
intervals 3/2 and 4/3. In another sense Monophony may be regarded as
an organization deducible from the sounding of one tone, or the
sounding of 1, or 1 /I; in this sense it is an evolved expression of
the phenomenon of the overtone series, first perceived by Marin
Mersenne, French monk of the seventeenth century; this
interpretation, however, involves a certain equivocation with the
analyzed phenomenon of sound, that is, with the klang, with the
components of a tone."
Further amplification is included in the rest of the book...
Cheers,
Jon