Talk:Harry Partch/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

??

"Partch's tuning had its origin Hermann Helmhotlz's study, "On the Sensations of Tone" which described Ancient Greek and Chinese systems using small number frequency ratios such as are described in Max Meyer's tonality diamond, whose diagonals produce Otonalities (o=over, or 'major') and Utonalities (u=under or 'minor') in Partch's scheme. The 11-limit tonality diamond is clearly embodied in Partch's diamond marimba. Due to peculiarities of media reporting, Partch is famous for his 43-tone scale, even though he used many different scales in his work and the number of divisions is theoretically infinite."

Dear lord. I'm afraid I'm going to have to delete most of this paragraph. I don't think this is a fair or even accurate description of Helmholtz's book; if it is a citation is needed. It's confusing to refer to the "diagonals" of the diamond. Discussion of Partch's tuning belongs on another page, or at least under its own heading (certainly not under the biography heading). --CKL

Question: I recall, from when I was a student in the Music dept. at U.C.S.D., there being a large room at the Mandivil Center which was full of Harry's instruments. Do any of them remain there? Kyle Thomas 03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I lived next door to Harry Partch in 1974, the year he died. We both lived on Sunset Drive in Encinitas Ca. While it might not be relevent to the rest of the world, I think that those of us who live in Encinitas would like to see a more accurate mention of his residence having been Encinitas, when he died, not San Diego. The Wiki page for Encinitas also lists Harry Partch as one of our former famous residents.Kyle Thomas 03:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you know ...

that Diamond Marimba redirects here? --Click me! 08:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

discography

Just found a marvelous Partch discography: it is on "discogs.com" (a commercial site).--Radh (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Past tense

I know I am not associated with the topic and i know nothing about music but why are instruments like the diamond marimba referred to in the past tense. Am I missing something? --Click me! 08:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably because it's been difficult to maintain his instruments in working order. They were mostly unique, with only one of each. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Triva (In Popular Culture) Section

I have removed the trivia about the popular song by Beck from the Partch article in accord with the guidelines given at WikiProject Composers: Trivia, where it states:

Anecdotes, influences on pop culture, and other peripheral content or "trivia", should only be included in composers' articles if they are likely to be of interest to a typical reader of the article. Examples of content which almost always fail this test are: songs, albums, video games, TV shows, or movies that reference the music.

Though the fact that Beck wrote a song referring to Harry Partch and his music sheds absolutely no light on Harry Partch or his music, the fact that Beck was influenced by Partch is likely interesting to people reading about Beck and his music. Accordingly, I have moved the sentence and its reference to the "Musical style" section of the Beck article.--Paul (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A major contemporary popular musician writes a song about an iconoclastic modern composer, and your take is that it's not relevant? That's simply not believable. It's relevant to Partch and how he's received and seen in modern culture, and what's more it's reffed information. Reffed information should not be removed from the article, so please do not remove it again until you have consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It is much better here than in the Beck article. Per usual, policy preferentially empowers those misapplying it. beefman (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There are always those interested in using policy as a bludgeon, regardless of whether it improves the encyclopedia or not. I wish folks would take a moment to think about what they're doing, rather than simply pushing the same buttons by rote all the time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Not worth mentioning in the article, but the first time I ever heard of Partch was in an interview with David Bowie, many years ago, where Bowie listed Partch among his favourite composers. 86.148.135.102 (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Template

It is inconsistent that the single template would need to be collapsed to avoid adding space and length to the article, but that extra space and length needs to be added between the external links and the template.

Also, I don't know if its a difference between our operating systems and/or browsers, but there are not two lines of space between each section of an article. Hyacinth (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Nor are there two lines of space between the end of the EL text and the navbox; the spacing causes one single line of space to be created, because a single blank line is ignored when the page is rendered. And there is no contradiction, both are to help the page from becoming visually crowded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Either you haven't looked, or, as I suggested, there is a difference between the display on our computers. Hyacinth (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I most assuredly have looked, there is only a single line of space. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so:
One

blank line.
Two

blank lines. Hyacinth (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Potential refs

Dunn, David (2000). Harry Partch: An Anthology of Critical Perspectives. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-90-5755-065-2.
Partch, Harry (2000). McGeary, Thomas (ed.). Bitter Music: Collected Journals, Essays, Introductions, and Librettos. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-06913-0.
Harlan, Brian Timothy (2007). One Voice: A Reconciliation of Harry Partch's Disparate Theories. ProQuest. ISBN 978-0-549-29631-7.
Rossing, Thomas D. (2000). "14.9 Glass Instruments of Harry Partch and Jean-Claude Chapuis". Science of Percussion Instruments. World Scientific. pp. 189–190. ISBN 978-981-02-4158-2.
Johnston, Ben (2006). "MAXIMUM CLARITY" AND OTHER WRITINGS ON MUSIC. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-03098-7. Retrieved 2012-11-15. (chapters "The Corporealism of HArry Partch" [p. 219]; "Harry Partch/John Cage" [p. 232]; "Harry Partch's Cloud Chamber Music" [p. 235]; "Beyond Harry Partch" [p. 243])
Gilmore, Bob; Johnston, Ben (2002). "Harry Partch (1901–1974)". In Sitsky, Larry (ed.). Music of the Twentieth-Century Avant-Garde: A Biocritical Sourcebook. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 365–372. ISBN 978-0-313-29689-5.

I've added these to further reading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Size of images

My removal of specific pixel sizes for thumbnail images has been reverted, with an edit summary of "images need to be displayed at sizes that makes them usaable [sic] for the reader, and only people with account can set their thumbnail size". While the latter may be true, the application of hard-coded sizes is contrary to the MoS, and based on the misconception that we can know what "makes them usable for the reader", given that our users have a wide range of devices settings, browsers operating systems and display devices. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that MOS:IMAGES and WP:IMGSIZE ought to be observed rather than imagined usability concerns. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGES refers to WP:IMGSIZE (which is not the Mos), so there is really only one policy in favor of removing pixel sizes. Hyacinth (talk) 11:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

infobox

I see someone has added an infobox, which I welcome. I see in the edit history some claims that consensus had been reached on not having one. Obviously this is false, as there is no debate on the subject on this page whatever. How come the article contained a line warning off people from even discussing this and implying agreement had been reached? The cited explanation even says that it is not binding on anyone and there is free choice on every article.Sandpiper (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite. These hidden comments are being discussed, at Wikipedia:VPP#Wikiproject notes in articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The warning used to be (I think):

As you can see, the ones who added a crapbox were the ones behaving illicitly. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Your allegations of illicit behaviour are both false and unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Says who? The user who constantly complains that a RfC is not consensus. Bravo. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Where have I ever said that? Citation, please.

BTW, the comment when you added it, was:

and has no place here nor in any other article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I apologise—I got you confused with another user. Nevertheless, you have rejected the infobox RfC, and insist that your feelings are more important than the theory and practice of a WikiProject. There are two comments (see WP:VPP), and I did not check out which of them I had added to the article. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Where have I ever "rejected the infobox RfC"? Citation, please. Where have I ever said that my "feelings are more important than the theory and practice of a WikiProject"? Citation, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"The 'consensus in this project' is of no import whatsoever." "The hidden comments have been referred to as an 'instruction' by more than one person trying to justify the removal of infoboxes from articles in recent weeks; just as others have falsely claimed that the outcome of the RfC is a consensus in an of itself for such removal." ([1]) There you go. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, there we don't go; you're simply throwing out quotes which don't support your earlier statements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Great. So what do those quotes actually say? I must apologise—English is my fourth language. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read them in the context in which they were made; and ask there if you still have questions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Tocatta, as I see it the situation is simple. Whatever wikiproject music decides has no more bearing on how this article should be written than does any textbook on good writing you might find in your local library. The music project is seeking to argue that its opinion is a binding decision, but it is in fact no more than a suggestion. I repeat, that is my understanding of wiki policy as it is even stated in the music projects own page which is being inserted everywhere. The problem seems to me that music attracts relatively few editors so a relatively few people have come to a divergent view from the majority of wikipedians. if you wish to change wikipedia policy then you need to seek this on the relevant policy pages, so as to make a special exemption that music articles do not carry infoboxes. Sandpiper (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of some importance, where is the Wikipedia policy mandating infoboxes for all articles? All I can find is this, which in fact states that they are neither required nor forbidden. This looks very much like it is up to editors, whether working singly or in packs … erm, sorry, I mean in Projects, to determine whether they should be used or not.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing on that page that gives projects the powers you claim for them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

What powers did I claim for projects? Oh, yes, I see: the same powers that individual editors have got. So, are you saying that individual editors have greater powers than projects?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A number of the editors of this article have decided to add an infobox. The onus is on the Disinfobox crowd to show how it has damaged the article, and then achieve a consensus to have it removed. We do not need to crawl to the WikiProject to beg for permission to add one first.

What this article needs is some content generated, and a lot of references, not petty squabbling over personal preferences by editors who find the subject of the article yawn-inducing, are not willing to make meaningful contributions to it, and find it too boring to make "cogent arguments" for their persistent disruptive editing. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox is a worthy addition to this article. I don't see how the preferences of a WikiProject can override the clear consensus here.—Chowbok ☠ 23:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You do realise that your statement about "persistent disruptive editing" is a shameless lie, considering I haven't edited this article since 28 December 2012, don't you? Shame on you. Toccata quarta (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It was persistent at the time. Nowhere in the definition of "persistent" does it mean "until right now". Shame on you for throwing words like "liar" around—and worse, far worse, for censoring my comment. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so it "turns out" I'm the one who is to be ashamed! You are making me really sick. This is what a Google search for "persistent" returns:

"1. Continuing firmly or obstinately in a course of action in spite of difficulty or opposition.

2. Characterized by a specified habitual behavior pattern[.]"

I experienced opposition, and I stopped. Regarding "habitual", the same is true; I'm not reverting the infobox with anything approximating "regularity". At WP:RFP, requests for page protection are frequently rejected with the words "Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. [emphasis added]" The word "liar" is not shameful when used properly, and it certainly fits you to a T. Unsurprisingly, you ignore what I write whenever you can't refute it, and lecture on WP policies, even though the comment by you that was removed by me is a clear violation of WP:NPA—"What this article needs ... not [is] petty squabbling over personal preferences by editors who ... are not willing to make meaningful contributions to it, and ... [engage in] persistent disruptive editing." Toccata quarta (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I intended "pesistent" to be a strong synonym for "repeated". If my usage was technically incorrect, I apologize. There certainly was no lying involved—at the farthest extreme, possibly some ill-chosen hyperbole. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of "persistent disruptive editing" on the one hand, and consensus on the other, like Toccata quarta I, too, rejected the addition of an infobox, and my edit, too, was summarily reverted. I have held my tongue until now. However, the addition was made without prior discussion and in the clear knowledge that there was opposition (since the edit making the addition simultaneously removed a request for discussion and consensus prior to making such an addition). With three, possibly four editors favouring an infobox, and two certainly opposed (and as many as 209 others—members of the much-maligned WikiProject) currently watching from the sidelines, there is certainly no consensus here. And, with respect, the onus is not on the "Disinfobox crowd to show how it has damaged the article", but rather on the inconsiderate editors trying to run roughshod over the consensus process by insisting on this infobox as a fait accompli whose removal must now be justified, rather than as the challenge to the status quo that it actually was.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The "209 others" are irrelevant, since they haven't spoken up here, on this page, where consensus is determined.—Chowbok ☠ 23:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

How very astute of you. Perhaps that might be the reason I used the phrase "as many as" to qualify that number. We can of course always ask them if they would like to join this discussion. Would you like to do this, or shall I?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be canvassing—notifying only those editors known to support a particular view to gang up and influence the outcome of a discuss. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Like Jerome, I've held my tongue on the infobox issue until now, but seeing that a headcount has been asked for, I have to raise my hand in opposition to the infobox on this page. I too noticed that the infobox was added without any discussion.

Contributions on this talk page and elsewhere which allege ownership by a project seem utterly bizarre to me. How can considered opinion among one group of involved editors be completely dismissed in favour of another point of view, neither one being prescribed or disallowed by Wikipedia policies? Claiming ownership is a red herring. I suspect all projects have guidelines about the finer points of the structure and style of their articles. If I edit an article in an unfamiliar project, I make sure to visit these guidelines, so I can get the castlist in a film right, choose the right section heading in a drama article, italicise the name of a ship properly, etc. If I don't, I have to expect my edits to be rejected.

@Curly Turkey: No, it is not canvassing to inform the projects interested in this article of this discussion or the one at VPP. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It most certainly is canvassing when selecting a particular WikiProject which is known in advance to support one view. I don't see the same people who are proposing to tell WikiProject Composers volunteering to tell WikiProject Biography at the same time, do you? That's being selective in whom to inform, which is the very definition of canvassing. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw this edit by User:Moxy on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music and again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera, and at 2 other projects, but not at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography; it would never occur to me to call that canvassing. I suggest you read that guideline again. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason to think Moxy was cherrypicking particular groups in the hopes of producing a particular premeditated outcome? No? Then why would anyone accuse him of canvassing?

Jerome, on the other hand, was threatening to call in WikiProject Composers—who've made their stance on infoboxes clear—to come in with their torches and pitchforks and bury this discussion in devoted dissenters. Split that hair as thin as you'd like, while the threatened action may not strictly follow the letter of WP:CANVASS, the motivation and outcome are identical—gaming the system by ensuring that those with a particular viewpoint are significantly better represented than those with other viewpoints. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(Also, Moxy's "canvassing" wasn't limited to the pasges you wrote of. I notice that he posted at least to Toccata's talk page as well.) CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's some related canvassing, with no attempt at balance by notifying, say, the biography or infobox projects, nor any group other than those known to oppose infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

gay music

Mumps and sterility may not be relevant, but his being gay seems to have been important for him (?)--Radh (talk) 08:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It depends on how far you want to dig into his life. Partch's homosexuality doesn't seem to have had any particular influence on his music. On the other hand, he apparently contracted syphillis during his 'boing. It was never treated, and likely contributed to health problems and -- shall we say -- a certain irrascibility during his declining years. Again, how important is this in a relatively short article? It wouldn't hurt to mention all these things, but there are so many other aspects of his life and career that aren't covered. Photos of his instruments would be worthwhile. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous. He referenced Ancient Greece as a symbolic (or real) homosexual world. His earnest efforts to realize ancient Greek musical forms in his own music were clearly attempts to align his own feelings with those of an established cultural system. Listen to tapes of him discussing music with intimate friends, where he allows these themes full play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.3.249 (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

microtonal music?

This article repeats the belief that Harry Partch wrote microtonal music. To the best of my knowledge, he did not. Though his particular choice of whole-number ratios divided the octave into 43 steps, I don't believe any work used all 43 tones. Rather, Partch selected particular sub-scales, just as each Western key comprises eight tones out of twelve. This needs to be researched and correctly described. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be difficult for you to be more wrong. First, Partch's music clearly contains microtones (intervals smaller than 100 cents). Second, the term is widely used to mean any tuning other than 12-ET, regardless the size of the intervals used. Third, he did not compose with any constraint on the number of tones -- the famous scale was merely one scale in his book that happened to attract attention. Finally, he built several instruments capable of 43 tones and more, and did write pieces using them all. beefman (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I question whether the term is actually meant to mean any other tuning than 12-TET. Is meantone or well-tempered tuning really considered "microtonal"? I'm sure someone out there has claimed it is, but that's not the same as being "widely" thought so. In many circles, microtonality is considered to be the use of intervals derived by dividing a given set of intervals (into "quarter tones", etc), which is quite far removed from what Partch was doing. The page on microtonal music says: "Also, music using just intonation, meantone temperament, or other alternative tunings may be considered microtonal."---not that they definitively are so, only that that is one way of interpreting them. So I think saying, "It would be difficult for you to be more wrong" is going a little over the top.

The number of tones in Patch's system wasn't the important thing, anyways. Doesn't the 11-limit allow something like 81 total tones? The Chromelodeon happened to use 43, but most of the instruments used less. Partch wasn't a serialist. Acidtoyman (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. He chose tones from various divisions and combined them as required. The choosing of tones from any division or set of divisions was merely a convenience for the purpose of describing or transcribing the tunings. Partch's concern was with expression, and because it was necessary to enlist others to perform his pieces and construct his instruments, he used expressive system at hand. Partch was expressive in music and speech, and was intent that others should understand what he was doing, and made good use of descriptive resources accessible to his auditors... This doesn't mean he proceeded plan-wise accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.3.249 (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Partch classical

Since Partch is best known for completely rejecting western classical music, I have to wonder if this article should even be considered part of WikiProject Classical. I propose that we remove the line on this talk page referring to that project.—Chowbok ☠ 23:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that the Composers project is a daughter project of Classical Music, would this not also require that Partch, like John Cage, be shown at some point to have denied that he was a composer? The consensus, BTW, is found in that project's viewpoint, as well.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, Duke Ellington and Hank Williams are undeniably composers, yet they're not in Project Composers, so I don't have a problem with Partch being removed as well. Seems to me that the Composers Project is misnamed. And the content on the talk page, like the content on the main page, is determined here, not anywhere else.—Chowbok ☠ 23:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:WAX. Toccata quarta (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:WAX is about deletion, not categorization. It is on the page Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not different. The principle is "just because something is wrong does not mean low-quality edits are encouraged". Toccata quarta (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It is also probable that this is relevant in the circumstances.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Which was exactly the problem with the hidden comments "requesting" that infoboxers keep of WikiProject Composers's lawn, or face the wrath of 209 watchdogs. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that's 211 "watchdogs"—you forgot to count Toccata quarta and me (we are both members of that Project). But I don't believe that the hidden text actually did anything except request the courtesy of discussing the subject first and obtaining consensus, before adding an infobox, though there were several version of that notice floating about. However, the subject here is not infoboxes, but project banners and, since you have read the document in question you will realize that project banners are placed on articles as a courtesy and declaration of interest by the project in question. To attempt telling the project to butt out is tantamount to WP:OWN. You may of course ask the project if they really believe this article is within their purview, and even explain to them why you think it may not be, but removing their banner will not change their opinion, and may well provoke the project, rather than getting them off your back.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I neither suggested nor supported removing the WikiProject Composers banner. I only responded to your and Toccata's weak arguments.

The actually wording of the mesage is up above, quoted by Andy Mabbett. There was no request to discuss the subject first. There was only a politely-worded order not to add an infobox. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

What "weak arguments" are you talking about? I'm opposing an infobox. That's a vote. Maybe you are still recovering from WP:WAX? I'm sorry you struggle with basic logic. Toccata quarta (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm struggling with why you consider bald assertions to constitute arguments. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Which "bald assertions" are you referring to? All I said is "WP:WAX applies to more areas of WP than just deletion discussions." Do you honestly believe the sentence "there are vandals on WP, therefore I have the right to vandalise WP" is valid?" I look forward to your next torrent of Newspeak. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Despite the fact that Partch often claimed to be rejecting the western classical tradition, his output and activities place him among the American experimental composers of the 20th Century such as Cage and Cowell. Additionally, he was consistently associated with academic institutions and his professional relationships were with other musicians who are commonly categorized as classical or experimental. He should be included in the WikiProject Composers. Composerjude (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you mean to say, "Because Partch often claimed to be rejecting the western classical tradition, his output and activities place him among the American experimental composers of the 20th Century"? Cage certainly and Cowell plausibly (for much of his output) were clearly seeking alternatives to the classical tradition, not working within it. This is why the word "experimental" is often applied to Cowell, and more routinely (and for other reasons also) to Cage. In addition, it is not true to say that he was "consistently associated with academic institutions". Such associations were very sporadic (U of Wisconsin in the late 1940s, and U of Illinois for a few years in the late 1950s. For the great majority of his career, he was what we call an "independent artist". While it is perfectly true to say that his "professional relationships were with other musicians who are commonly categorized as classical or experimental", this is like saying someone works in the physical world only with animals, vegetables, and minerals. To lump "experimental" and "classical" together in this way is virtually a blanket denial of the value of categories.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Although Partch can certainly be called an independent artist--he derived much of his income from selling records--he did consistently have associations with academic institutions. All of his large theater works were mounted by academic institutions, beginning with Mills College doing Oedipus to Delusion by UCLA. In addition to both Wisconsin and Illinois (which you mentioned), he had formal and informal relationships with both UC San Diego and San Diego State University late in his life, and the care of his instruments has been primarily with institutions since his death (first SDSU, now Montclair State). As to lumping classical and experimental together, I do admit there is a large problem with my statement that does fly in the face of reality. My point was that if Cowell and Cage are placed within the WikiProject Composers and WikiProject Classical, then Partch should be included as well. Statements of individuals about the nature of their work shouldn't be the only basis for their categorization. The properties of their works should be considered, as should the reception and interpretations of said works. Composerjude (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I certainly have no argument with you about this "classical" classification. I personally find the term so vague as to be meaningless, but if Cowell and Cage are "classical", then so must Partch be. I was not aware that he is not included in those two projects. In fact, the banner at the top of this page still says that he is, after no consensus was reached to remove it. So what, exactly, is the argument here?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems you and I have no disagreement, I was responding to the initial inquiry. The discussion quickly devolved away from the original topic. With the exception that the project categories had not been removed, it appeared there was little resolution to the original question. I do appreciate your response to my post and taking my statements to task; HP can be extremely difficult to understand if one is trying to place him in the context of conventional genre classification, and this thread really illuminates that issue. Composerjude (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I strongly recommend letting it drop. One editor suggested removal in the heat of a pissy content dispute, and nobody supported the removal. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

K Composerjude (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Corporeality and Monophony

There is a problem with this statement: "Partch focused on ideals of monophony and corporeality, in contrast to the abstract, polyphonic music prevalent at the time." The problem is that "monophony" links to the page for monophony as a musical texture. If one reads Partch's book Genesis of a Music it is quite clear that he is referring to monophony in a different sense. I understand the reservations (rightly deserved) for use in articles, but in this case it illuminates an important part of his aesthetic. The link should be removed, and Partch's definition should be explained.

Another problem with the Partch article is that it makes little mention of "corporeality" as a driving force in his sensibility as a composer. Corporeal or corporeality are mentioned only twice (with one additional mention as an external link), and both times there is no definition and little context for the word. Composerjude (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there any issues with me removing the link to monophony in the phrase: "Partch focused on ideals of monophony and corporeality, in contrast to the abstract, polyphonic music prevalent at the time."? Would it be best to rephrase the sentence? Composerjude (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

If "monophony" is a term familiar to just about any reader, then it should be de-linked per WP:OVERLINK. However, I think that few readers can be expected to know this word. Under these circumstances the only justification for removing the link would be if it directs to an article on an unrelated sense of the same word. Ah, now that I've read the top of this thread, I understand the problem. The solution is either to expand the article Monophony to include Partch's sense of the word, or to explain here not only what Partch means, but also how this differs from the common sense of the word. At the point where the common sense is mentioned, there should be a link.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Pardon my query, but I don't completely understand the meaning of your strikethrough. I believe I understand it in the context of the second part of your post, but is there a policy or common practice on talk pages that pertains to strikethroughs? My apologies since it is off topic, but I am relatively new to editing. Composerjude (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no policy, but it's good practice to strike through a comment rather than delete when you realize you've made an error or have changed your mind on something. Some editors just write a follow-up note without striking through, or put a collapsible box around the comment(s). Jerome's just signaling to you that he doesn't want you to resond to the stricken comment. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly so. You've taken the words right out of my mouth!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Both corporeality and monophony need to be expanded on, whether there's something good to link to or not. The technical aspects of Partch's music need great expansion, as do several other aspects of the article. Only the personal history section is reasonably close to being complete and comprehensive. If you've got the sources, go ahead and do it, but give WP:PRIMARY a read before relying too heavily (or at all) on Genesis of a Music. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed Composerjude (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we may save some time by consulting p. 175 of Bob Gilmore's 1998 biography, where he explains that Partch actually uses the word "monophony" in two different senses, one "close (though not identical) to its conventional one, that of one voice as the focus of a musical texture", and then goes on to say, "He explains the connection berween the term Monophonic as it pertains to his tuning system and the Monophonic as a specific vocal aesthetic by the stunning non sequitur that the two had formed a union in ancient Greece—by 'the long and coexistent presence . . . of ratio-idea and music-enhanced word-vitality in the same culture, the Greek'." The citation is from Genesis, p. 60.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll consult my copy. This topic is getting larger than I anticipated when I posted the comment. Harry's concepts of monophony deserve to be explained, but it should be discussed probably under the Theory or Music sections of the article. I think the sentence should be rewritten to this effect: "Partch described his own music as corporeal, and distinguished it from abstract music, which he perceived as the dominant trend in Western music since the time of Bach." (The corporeal page will probably need to be edited.) And as stated before, the entire discussion of monophony can be moved later in the article. Additionally, corporeality as it pertains to Harry's aesthetic needs much, much more discussion--possibly a section of its own. Composerjude (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say this sounds like the right direction in which to go. Gilmore (both in his biography and in earlier articles) is clearly uneasy with Partch's earlier tract on Monophony. I am not familiar enough with it to make an independent judgment, but suggest that Gilmore's criticism be incorporated here. Even in Genesis the concept is (as Gilmore indicates) a bit wobbly, and the unprepared reader should be warned of this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harry Partch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harry Partch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Page Quality Modified

I have changed the page quality to B-class. This page is very informative with plenty of references and external links. --Eezurr (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Redundant

The phrase in the lede "unequal intervals in just intonation", is redundant. The intervals in a just intonation system are unequal by definition. If teh intervals were equal, the system would not be just. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, but there are plenty of musicians (and perhaps laypersons) who will have some intuition of the former concept while never hearing of just intonation. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)