Re: [Harp-L] Musicology (relatively brief)

[Pat Missin <pat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robb wrote:

>I responded with simply the name of the book. Pat
>Missin promptly replied:
>
><... is full of bias, serious omissions and historical
>inaccuracy.

You seem to keep missing that bit where I describe the book as
"certainly worth reading". I'm sure that must just be an oversight on
your part...

><Harry Partch's "Genesis of a Music". It's every bit
>as biased (though in a different direction), but with
>fewer errors and omissions.>
>
>Fewer!? Partch has less errors!?!? 

Yes. Feel free to name one single verifiable error in his coverage of
this topic in the above book.

>Partch, the guy who
>was famous for a total rejection of all Western
>Civilization and it?s scales??? 

Not at all. He rejected temperament, but that is something else
altogether.

>Partch who rejected all ~traditional instruments~

No - he used quite a few "standard" instruments from time to time.

> and instead put shoes in trumpets and bricks in pianos? 

I think you must be confusing him with someone else here.

>Partch who invented
>scales for dog barks and human belches!?!? Partch is
>the one who might help fledgling musicians who want to
>know about the history of the major scale and sheet
>music? That Partch? He has less errors and omissions
>and is more credible than Isacoff??? 

So I take it you have not actually read his history of intonation in
"Genesis of a Music"? Besides which, I don't recall saying that it
would help a fledgling musicians learn about the origin of the major
scale, simply that it he was one of the few who had written a readable
(if biased)  history of intonation.

>Where do you BEGIN to site errors when you believe
>that proper intonation has 43 tones and Pacabel and
>Mozart were big ninnys. 

Partch selected a scale that happened to use 43 tones. He did not
claim that this was the only "proper intonation", nor do I ever recall
him saying Mozart was a ninny. In his book he writes very respectively
of the usual "greats", although he is quite dismissive of many that
followed them

Besides which, in the same way that Isacoff's many accomplishments as
a musician and composer do not necessarily qualify him as an expert on
the history of tuning and temperament, Partch's abilities as a
composer do not disqualify him as an expert on tuning and temperament.

>And so we come to the natural and overdue death of
>this thread. Here is what the original questioner
>concluded:
>
><The book ~Temperament~ by Stuart Isacoff was said to
>"read like a novel",,, [he then reprints Pat?s links
>to the Gann negative article and says:]
>
>>>> keep in mind Pat Missin's caution on
>accuracy etc.>>>
>
>A tragic conclusion. Caution, in itself, is always
>warranted. But in this case it is a kind of
>censorship. 

Censorship where someone describes a book as "certainly worth
reading"??

>Still no one has pointed out any inaccuracies in
>Isacoff?s book - nor are there any ~errors~  

May I ask what qualifies you to state categorically that there are no
errors in this book? Please don't take this personally, but your posts
to harp-l have never really given me the impression that you are an
expert on the topic of temperament.

I can't cite the page number, but Isacoff describes Handel as buying a
certain keyboard instrument in a year that was actually some time
after his death. I'm sure you can find it with the help of the index.
There you go - the one verifiable error you challenged me to point
out. Not a big one I admit and perhaps merely a typo, but if you think
I'm going to buy a copy of the book just so I can sit here and write
out a detailed book report for a list where most people are already
probably very tired of reading about this, you are going to be
disappointed. If you are really interested in the inaccuracies, you
could read that Johnny Reinhardt post as a starting point.

>PS: For those actually thinking about any of this: The
>Mistake that Partch and others make is that THEY have
>seen an error in ET that they can correct by, for
>instance, a 43 tone scale. The ~truth~ is that there
>are infinite tones. Bach and Beethoven [Hohner and
>Hering] knew this. Pythagoras and Ptolemy knew this.
>Yo mama knew this.

... and Partch knew this. If you had read any of his theoretical
writings, you would know that he knew this. One of his most quoted
comments is that "there is nothing magical about 43". 

But this isn't about Partch.

Long story short:

Robb thinks that Isacoff's book is the best book on this subject he
has ever read. Fair enough. I think it is worth reading, but portions
of it should be taken with a pinch of salt. I have no agenda other
than offering an opinion in an area of music where I am not totally
lacking in experience. I fail to see why a simple difference of
opinion has to be dragged out into a debate of this magnitude and I
apologise if anyone has worn out their delete key because of it.

 -- Pat.