There's been a lot of dissing lately regarding the Nonsuch CD's of
Gershwin piano rolls, and I want to put in a word to their defense.  I
realize it's fun to trash someone for doing something differently from
the way you would (this is meant in general and not at any one person),
but that doesn't automatically mean their work doesn't have value.  The
liner notes clearly say these performances are "realized" by Artis
Wodehouse, in much the same way that the Switched-On Bach recordings
were "realized" by Walter/Wendy Carlos.  It is the artist's privilege
to interpret the material in his/her own way, and I see nothing wrong
with Artis doing that.  Especially when they come right out and say
so.  The CD does not attempt to demonstrate how a vintage reproducing
piano plays these rolls, so GET OVER IT!!  Has anyone on this list seen
the folio of transcriptions Artis published from Gershwin audio
recordings?  It's wonderful, with faithful notation of George's
performances in vintage recordings.  Try playing them yourself, then
listen to the source.  Artis obviously knew what she was doing!

We reproducing piano enthusiasts are so close to the sound our
mechanical pianos in our own living rooms that I think we lose sight of
the fact that there are concert instruments in the world that sound
different on a stage or recording studio.  That's my opinion of the
sound of these CD's.  And since Artis was up-front about her
interpretation of the music rolls, it becomes a matter of taste.  If
you don't like the dynamics she recorded, that's your privilege.  It
doesn't mean you're right and she's wrong, or that she's right and
everybody else is wrong, etc.

Another problem I have with this whole thing is our tendency to treat
our rolls as sacred, and the dynamics contained therein as something
handed down from the gods which must be worshipped and catered to.  I
remember Dave Junchen saying to me that "a reproducing piano doesn't
reproduce ANYTHING except what the editor chose to code into the
roll."  Who says that the Duo-Art rolls are closer to Gershwin's actual
performances than the Nonsuch CD's?  Maybe the Disklavier version is
closer to the way George played!!  I'm not trying to argue that point,
I'm simply trying to MAKE a point.  Maybe the Duo-Art editors
deliberately exaggerated the dynamics on the rolls because they knew
some (or most?) customers' pianos needed regulation of both the piano
action and the player action, so they wouldn't sound any good
otherwise.  Who knows?!!

I love historical roll performances, and I go out of my way to recut
historical reproducing rolls.  I'm not trying to trivialize them here,
because I really enjoy them both musically and as historical
artifacts.  However I'm not so naive as to assume that they are the
perfect reproduction of the artist whose name is on them, and I think
it is poor judgement to assume otherwise.  Sit back and try to enjoy
the music.  If you don't care for this roll or that CD, put on
something else.  There's a fine library out there waiting to be heard
and enjoyed...

BTW, does anyone know of any CD recordings of actual reproducing pianos
which they really like?  There are quite a few out there; perhaps we
can shift this thread to a more positive vein by focusing on the CD's
we like the most.  Maybe we just don't like recordings at all and want
nothing other than to listen to our own pianos in our own living
rooms!  I still haven't heard any opinions on the Denis Condon CD's - I
would expect them to be among the best out there, based on what I've
heard about Denis and his roll collection & vorsetzer.  Anybody heard
any of them yet?

Regards,¶
Rob DeLand