A painting is nominally judged by the ability of the artist to produce
the effect desired.  Often the audience, unaware of the desired effect,
and not being familiar with the nuances of the medium, is not able to
comprehend the work, much less judge it.

My conjecture is that Ms. Woodhouse has taken time to hear and consider
Gershwin audio recordings, and has edited the already edited rolls into
her best-shot emulation of George playing for a critical audience.  Fine
job.

I would think that now, five or six interpretations and transmutations
later, we are quite lucky to get a whiff George's aftershave and must
simply enjoy the CD as it is offered, appreciating the talent, labor
and insight that went into it.  Having heard half a dozen audio
renditions of the man himself, I too prefer Oscar Levant, but that is
not the subject.

What I really miss in this rather linear discussion is the compleat
interview with Artis herself, comparing her view of phrases on a roll
versus phrases on a recording.  We could get insight into the pitfalls
and successes of transcribing the Duo-Art recordings to electronic
format and the snafus in the editing process.  Even the audio recording
sessions must have been technically challenging.  Can you really hear
the difference between solenoids and pneumatics?!

My contributions to So.Cal.AMICA as newsletter editor and program
editor for the '72 convention received 70% flack and 20% disinterest,
so I wonder if anyone should expect over 10% praise if they should make
a public offering of their dedicated interests in the reproducing piano
field.

I would like to thank Robbie Rhodes for his newsy and insightful
comments, Craig Brougher, and others for their extensions on musical
and technical notes, and everyone who contributes to these discussions,
especially with positive suggestions and insight.  Please, also, keep
this note in your hold file so you can send it back to me when I shoot
out some inadvertent vitriol in an adrenaline rush of my own!

Thanks

Karl A. Petersen