The details I gave are entirely correct, as far as the well-respected reference book (which I named) states. As you can see there's no reference to the BBC, so why pluck an unrelated outfit from thin air? Payne's first BBC broadcast was 12 March 1928.
Just played this at a jam & folks had charts with extremely different bridges. Apparently Miles Davis' version is very different. This one is actually more modern in the sense of alot of chord progression in the bridge veering away from the original key. Miles' is more inside the main key. Miles' is still epic & beautiful, but not true to the original.
What do you mean by "modern music"? Arthur Rubinstein played a wide repertory from the Vienna classics to his contemporaries, however, Romantic works were the backbone of his programs. He was a classical pianist and represented the Romantic style of piano playing. The piano is out of tune, and the slow segments are disjointed and uneven. They lack legato, rounded phrasing and nuanced touch, which was the most pronounced characteristic of his playing. Granted, that's 1924, but this performance is just a sepia image of Rubinstein. To @PiotrBarcz: "few boring tunes" - oh, God.
@gaiusflaminius4861 Bung me the cash and I'll get it tuned specially to spare your precious sensibilties. Most Rubinstein rolls were of music that was a decade or two old, which many at the time might have thought a little on the modern side.
Thank you for this little clarification. I wasn't aware we were talking about different interpretations of the word "modern" and the exact margin of what you think constitutes a threshold between "old" and "modern". You hadn't specified so I assumed the present was a vantage point. In the 1920s, the meaning of "modern" applied to contemporary composers such as Prokofiev, Debussy, Ravel, Poulenc and Schoenberg. One or two decades backwards from 1920 would've brought one to 1900. By that time, the principal Romantic composers, to speak nothing of the preceding ones, became "old" or, better, "standard". In this sense, "modern" is a synonym of "active". As for the tuning, I'm not sure I got your point. "to spare your precious sensibilties" - Have you heard the notion of "fine arts"?
Beautiful! I love Chopin's work, most of it anyway, there's a few boring tunes I don't like much but his preludes and nocturnes are some of my favorites!
He later said thst they didn't represent his playing. well, I think all of the greats who lasted into the later 20th c. said that. I don't think Rubinstein thought all that well of his youthful playing in general.
It's like Cherkassky late in life about his Duo-Arts made as a teenager - he didn't like them. "Are they inaccurate?" he was asked. "No, they're completely accurate", he replied.
I just came across a quote regarding Rubinstein and his views on recordings in general: "The artist states in interviews that he is very critical in recording sessions and would only agree with takes that satisfy his critical ear. But he also states that after a year or so his mind / interpretation has typically moved on. He could often no longer agree with recordings made a couple of months earlier."
I just realized this piano has the moving tracker bar tracking system! That's so cool. It's a much more effective method frankly than moving the roll and doesn't destroy or badly rewind the roll making it play worse on the second pass.
Only that old records credit the song to the show, as do modern online recordings, so there is certainly a connection. I'm a piano-roll & record collector, not a musical theatre historian so can't add more.
The desigm of most European player pianos was to have the keys not move. On this grand the player action is over the keys. Some models pushed the keys from underneath and their keys move.
I saw this and I was SO excited! Now watching it I'm even happier, your Weber does such a beautiful job of playing this roll! Thank you for getting it out to the world on a gorgeous instrument, recorded with high quality audio and video, your work will keep this music alive in the best way possible!
The piano it self does sound good but I have a feeling the vacuum to the bass is a bit too low since many of what should be melody notes almost don't sound. When I boosted the vacuum to the treble and the bass in the Ampico it really brought out the details more.
@@risingchads I'm sorry you have that issue, but I thought I should mention it since I had similiar problems. The Ampico B has to simple screws that extend though the wood cover and you can adjust the vacuum to more or less in both the Treble and Bass section.. Perhaps you can get someone who knows where that adjustment might be on the Duo Art.
@@acousticedison Yeah, there were a couple repeating Milne chords that didn't repeat but otherwise I LOVE how this Weber really is so good at playing expressively.
Beautiful! Your piano sounds great as always, I hope you start recording with the H1n as the sound recorder again though, so much depth to the sound when you get a good mic on it :D
The E Minor Prelude (BWV 555) from “Eight Little Preludes and Fugues” for Organ, attributed to J.S. Bach, but possibly composed by one of his students, Johann Ludwig Krebs. 😎🎹
He also made an audio recording of this in 1923 (for Victor or Columbia, I *think*) but sadly this was never issued. I have no idea if the master for this record still exists. It's great we have the roll, and thanks for making a great version of it on your fine piano!
One might question, from our modern standpoint, where are Jelly Roll Morton and Earl Hines in this assessment of jazz piano styles of the 1920s (and James P Johnson!). It wasn't even just mere racism which caused their important piano styles to be left out: although some of JPJ's records sold better and turn up more frequently today, Morton's and Hines' solo recordings sold poorly and were poorly distributed, and are REALLY hard to find today in their original form (not reissues). Ask serious 78 RPM record collectors. That in no way diminishes their actual genius. But if it was impossible for Elizalde, in England (OR the Philippines) to get ahold of a copy of one of Morton's solo Gennett records from 1923 (or equally rare, the Paramounts), or Hines' super rare and poorly-distributed QRS records he made in 1928, then it would have been difficult for him, especially as a foreigner, to make any very good assessment of their playing or influence, without hearing more than the occasional half-chorus in a more widely-distributed (UK-distributed) band record. (Surely he heard Morton somewhat on his (better distributed) Red Hot Peppers band records on Victor; and Hines on his OKeh records with Louis Armstrong etc.) I think Hines and his band were already broadcasting on radio in 1928, and making records, so perhaps he heard some of Hines' records with his big band from the late 20s / early 30s, and realized his importance. Since we live in this wealth of access to practically every existent old recording (if it hasn't been reissued on LP, CD, or digital download; hopefully it will be; if it isn't yet on RU-vid or the Internet Archive, hopefully it will be), and during an age which (since the 1930s/40s) both Morton and Hines have been venerated and placed in their proper places in the jazz pantheon (and their originally rare recordings reissued many times, and Morton's even rarer piano rolls (several of which STILL haven't been found in 70+ years of searching by collectors) recorded a few times on LP and CD (and reissued as recuts), now we can more properly hear these brilliant artists, and also from interviews with other artists, more properly judge their great influence on other pianists of the day (most of said interviews weren't available in print in 1932, either).
This is such a brilliant recording! While I don't agree with every one of Elizalde's (or Mr. Stone's) assessments of the music or the quality of it, the performances are amazing. "Out of the East" is almost a note-for-note copy of Max Kortlander's QRS roll he made of it (which itself has huge doses of the piano style of Kortlander's friend Pete Wendling, who made a big splash in England in 1913 when he appeared for two consecutive months at the London Hippodrome, a record for a solo popular pianist there at that time). "I Can't Give You Anything But Love" is about as obvious a tribute / homage to Arthur Schutt as anything ever recorded by anyone else. Using this style and approach to represent the entire 'present' of jazz piano in 1932, was not only flattering to Schutt but also accurate: most other pianists of the times by the late 1920s (especially about 1926-1934) swung to his idioms and rhythms, or at least applied that style judiciously and mixed it in with their own original styles. I rather think part of the influence was not just how well his style dovetailed (rhythmically, harmonically, and in terms of piano textures and chord voicings) with the 'modern jazz' ethos of many horn players of that time, but also how widely-distributed his hundreds of records were (especially those made with Red Nichols, Miff Mole etc). Even James P. Johnson, a genius, wrote "You've Got to Be Modernistic" as a commentary on how jazz was getting by the 1930 and what was then (at least harmonically) fashionable. The last performance "Nobody's Sweetheart" is equally amazing. Elizalde sounds (to me) almost like the entire Mills Blue Rhythm band here, but especially their pianist Edgar Hayes (who in turn was probably at least somewhat influenced by Earl Hines). So I suppose that Elizalde considered the Hines / Hayes approaches to piano, the most 'up to date' in 1933, and surely it was (Art Tatum was barely even on records by this time; the same goes for Teddy Wilson). Thanks for sharing!
It's a sign of precision that Elizalde plays a transcription of a piano roll for the 'piano roll years'! It's interesting to hear a 'history' of this created in 1932. Pretty well no pressent history would examine and separate these earlier styles with this precision, or these examples as we are now fed other earlier material. Which shows how history is revised over time as attitudes, knowledge and interests change. History rarely reflects the time it discusses as precisely as it examines and explains the time when it's written.
