My work related to the Microtonal Art of Harry Partch
Some years before I started building my own instruments I
read a short article in the Dutch VPRO television guide about an obscure
composer, who had noticed the 12TET Western tuning
wasnÕt 100% proper. After he had rediscovered this, he destroyed all his
musical pieces. As a solution he began working on multiple key scales and his
43-scale based on just intonation intervals became the most famous system he
had worked with.
When I read the article I thought it was a funny story, but
also a bit snobistic all by all. Who can hear the pitch difference between a
for instance A#++ and an A#+++? And who cares if music is
a bit out of tune? I actually like it when music or visual art crunches a bit.
Just play, and play intense, thatÕs all whatÕs important. 43 keys instead of 12
is impractical, so not so strange his system didnÕt became very popular.
When I made my third instrument with the rod dividing
system, I would later give the name 3rd bridge, I noticed odd deviations
appeared when I began calculating on the tones, when you count from E further
in 3/4 and 2/3 ratioÕs you end up with a different frequency for the E after 12
steps compared to the octave calculations. A friend of mine told me this was
allready known for ages and that Bach therefore wrote his famous Das
Wohltemperirte Clavier.
A bit of a wrong explanation, Bach was aware indeed, but his friend
Wreckmeister had developed in fact a slightly improper serie of tones to avoid
the equal ratioÕs somewhat. The Well-temperament tuning means Ôaltered in quiet
a still acceptable systemÕ and not Ôtuned perfectÕ. With this tuning Bach could
make transpositions not possible with the scales working with the equal ratioÕs
(4/5, 3/4 and 2/3). I later on discovered the frequency deviation was what had
bothered Pythagoras as well ages before Bach, leading to his Pythagorean
tuning. (For the musical theory interested: The deviation is called the
Pythagorean comma, and a Pythagorean comma + 2/3 tone is the well-known Ôwolf
intervalÕ.)
I gave the calculations a rest, because I couldnÕt really use
it very much. I developed some other instruments where luckily this phenomenon
was not a problem to deal with. But in 2006 I restarted the 3rd
bridge work and wanted to develop an even more worked out version of the third
instrument. This became the Moodswinger. As soon as I started to work
out the Moodswinger scale more accurate than before, the world of microtonality sucked me up. A dreadful boring and asexual mathmatical
corner of music, but for this instrument a very necesarry job to manage. It
took me months to discover all the tones. I knew the pitch ratios, but couldnÕt
translate them to the European tuning, since there was no clear relation of the
positions inbetween the two scales, the standard logaritmic scale and mine.
On oddmusic I discovered the awesome looking instruments of Harry Partch and after a while I discovered he was the obscure 43-tone composer from the TV guide article. At first I couldnÕt follow all the summarized fractions used in texts about the microtonal system he worked with. But when I studied more I became aware of what it all meant.
After finishing the Moodswinger I also discovered Glenn
Branca and Sonic Youth werenÕt
the first who used the 3rd bridge technique. Of course I knew about
Cage and thought they had copied the idea from his prepared piano, but Branca
also got his ideas from Partch. Partch, in relation to his work on microtonal
scales, had also made string instruments with extra bridges based on the
ancient Monochord. Though in a different context, and because his instruments
are acoustic, he wasnÕt able to use it in a way Branca and Sonic Youth did. The
clock sounding behind the bridge plucking so apparent in their work is not very
possible on acoustic instruments. It works, but on a very low sound level,
comparable like the soft sound of a Đˆn bầu, but even lesser loud. Very nice, but
hardly usable for live performances. Though you can 3rd bridge lik
sounds in the music of Partch played on his KitaraÕs. But without stepping too
deep, this still is a different method. His Kitara I (picture above) works with
a floating rod, while 3rd bridge guitars work with a grounded
bridge, leading to a different result in tonality. (The Pencilina also works
with the floating rod.) IÕm going to explain the different types of string
preparation later on in an article about guitar preparation, where this
difference is being clarified. PartchÕs Harmonic Canons, two of them are shown
in the picture below, have the grounded third bridges, but if you listen to
them, they more sound like a piano, clavichord or hammered dulcimer. The 3rd
Bridge overtones can only be pulled up on electric instruments, so pictures of
these instruments may be misleading.
People familiar with microtonality easily regard my work
very much in the tradition of Partch. This is not really true. It might look
similar and in fundamental theory PartchÕs work has much overlap with mine. We
both use the physical laws of consonance (the harmonic serie
1:1/2:1/3:1/4:etc.) but we take it from a different direction. Mainly because I
have the possibility to work with amplification and this leads to a different
goal IÕm hunting for. Microtonality accidentally came across my way and I
sometimes am obliged to use it to get the best result or even when I would
ignore it, some instrument wouldnÕt even work The Moodswinger is the clearest
example for not working when I would ignore the microtonal harmonic positions
and use the Western positions. A rod which is not positioned on the dots,
causes hardly any sound, because of the lack of resonance.
Besides working strictly electric vs acoustic, a second difference
is that Partch rejected the Western 12-TET scale (he
burned his written 12-TET music), while I do not. I just kick against it to get
some reaction from pop minded people telling them they are listening to
improper music and that this system isnÕt by far complete or ideal. Although I
consider a lot of pop music dead or, lesser strong expressed, too dry to a
certain extend, I donÕt mind listening to improper 12-TET tuned pop music,
though I prefer the addition of a microtonal perfect timbre to make pop music
sounding more alive. I translate, if possible, my microtonal harmonic enhanced
sounds present on my instruments to the 12-TET scale, because I think it is the
most workable system. Though I sometimes flirt with parts of the microtonal
scales of Partch and incorporate them to enhance the 12-TET. I really enjoy the
Chinese sounding 7th harmonic for instance, which is not present in
our scale. I choose for the best of both worlds, depending on whatÕs handy for
the particular issue. I donÕt believe in the efficiency of 19-, 31-, 43-, or
even 81-scales as complete all covering systems however and avoid them as much
as possible.
Besides avoiding incorporating too many tones and for a
somewhat similar practical reason, I will always try to avoid building big
instruments. Dinosaurs didnÕt survive the evolution. I try to build smaller
instruments. ItÕs more convenient to travel with. Perhaps lesser impressive
looking, but actually building big instruments is quiet easy and not very
challencing at all. Making it 5 kilo and only 12 strings is the most difficult
part of designing in fact.
Microtonality is a part of my work as a builder, but not
very much for musical practise in the first place, only to alter the sound
properly. Partch and the many other microtonal composers following him work
from a strong pitch related method making just intonated music. ItÕs fun to
take notion of that kind of music, for sure, but to be honest I just prefer The
StoogesÕ Wanna be yr Dog above any reconsidered written musical piece. His pre-historic sound
creatures and his book Genesis of a Music however stay fascinating and are very dear to me.
External links
A list of all of PartchÕs instruments with explanations, sounds example and play the instruments on your keyboard.
Go to list of experimental instruments
built by other inventors
Go to the table of contents
Back to home