Re: [Harp-L] Musicology [shorter. Even less harp. Last time from me too]

[Pat Missin <pat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robb wrote:
> 
> 
><Feel free to name one single verifiable error in his
>[Partch's ~Genesis~]coverage of this topic in the
>above book.
>Pat M.>
>++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>There are many errors in Partch's ~Genesis of A
>Music~, not the least of which is his dogged elevation
>of the value of microtonal dabbling to something more
>than it is, and his mistaken ideas of how the ear
>works, how the brain processes sound, and how
>~sound/acoustics~ works. 

Yes. Much of this are of his work is based on how these things were
understood at the time and as such is outdated in light of more recent
research.
 
>And, btw, that moves us into
>an area I can speak to- since you asked.:->

Actually, I was sort of asking _you_ to name some errors, because
frankly I don't believe you've actually read the book. However...

>I suggest you start with
>B. McLaren's, ~Partch's Errors~ :
>http://sonic-arts.org/mclaren/partch/errors.htm

Yes, I'm well aware of that (McLaren was one of my favorite posters to
the tuning list back in the Ella Mills days). Mostly these are
criticisms of "Genesis" as a whole, not of his chapter on the history
of intonational practices.

>As to the rest [and you're right, we really must stop.

This is my last on the topic.

>But since you upped the ante by suggesting I'm
>confusing Partch with someone---]; 

Unless of course you can name any Partch piece that involves the use
of bricks in pianos or shoes in trumpets. 

>I'll accept the Handle/Klavier-thing as an example of
>an ~error~ if you want, but the source for that
>historical/date was a militant JI chatroom 

"Militant JI chatroom"???

Sounds like my kind of forum.

>I do appreciate that
>you at least mentioned an actual error, though I
>suspect it's hardly your reason for thinking
>~Temperament~ is ~full of bias, errors and omissions~.

My reason for thinking that is because it has bias, errors and
omissions. In my opinion, to the best of my recollection, of course. I
would certainly not call it "the best book I have ever read on the
subject", which I believe is how you described it.

>I think it's because you think the Just Intonation
>guys are the Good guys, and the Equal temperament guys
>are the Bad Guys.:->

Not even close to the truth. I'm working on a piece in 7-tone Equal
Temperament this week, to say nothing of setting up a bunch of harps
in good old (actually, not all that old really) 12TET. 

>A good read for those interested is ~Just Intonation
>Primer~ by David Doty. 

I'd certainly agree with that as THE best work on JI currently
available. Don't expect any lack of bias, or any less omission from
this work either, though. 

>He acknowledges also that
>Partch's ~Genesis~ falls short of being scholarly or
>~comprehensive~.

So much for all the JI crowd being rabid devotees of Partch...

>Also, the bibliography in the McClaren paper is a
>great source for various areas of this subject if
>you're interested in the real and romanticized issues
>between Just and Equal temperament- .

It is indeed. McClaren is as dogmatic and as biased as they come, but
a meticulous researcher. 

 -- Pat.