Karl Ellison advised, in 991015 MMDigest,

> Go purchase the November issue of "WIRED" magazine.  As Julian Dyer
> pointed out, Paul Lehrman has been commissioned by Schirmers music
> publishers to recreate the original form of Antheil's "Ballet
> Mechanique" sponsored by the magazine, who have published the details
> in their November issue.

I read the article today, and some very striking observations came
to mind:

1.  Lehrman states that the 16-pianola plus effects version is the
"original" version, dismissing the 4-pianola version as "preoriginal".
Why it isn't granted official status isn't stated, but I'm left
thinking that the 4-pianola version isn't the official, original
version solely because it wasn't what Lehrman was commissioned to
sequence. I guess it wouldn't be proper to hype a "second" version,
after all.

2.  At no point in the project did Lehrman acquaint himself with the
operation and performance of a pneumatic player piano.  More than once
he made serious errors in sequencing the scores, as a result of being
unfamiliar with how the player piano turns perforations into music.
Thankfully, he had the sense to turn to Rex Lawson for advice, and
these mistakes were corrected.

3.  He quotes Antheil's directions that "It is _merely played loud
enough to be heard._"  He later states that the two acoustic grand
pianos intended for the performance (played by humans, not by machines)
would be overpowered by the 16 player pianos -- "mercilessly drowned
out" in his words -- that amplified digital pianos would have to be
used.

4.  There wasn't a practical technological quick-fix for the problem
of simulating the pianolist's control of tempo, so he wimped out and
slaved the entire performance to a metronomic click-track.


I'm sure the end result will be a great musical performance, and
probably even stunning.  But to hype it as a long-submerged resurfacing
of "Antheil's original composition" seems crass, and perhaps outright
misleading.

I have not heard any recordings or performances represented as being
a version of "Ballet Mechanique".  My opinions on this latest attempt
could be purely hallucinatory -- but so could Paul Lehrman's.  One
thing is for certain, though -- you won't find articles worthy of
scholarly merit in Wired Magazine.

regards,

Colin Hinz
Toronto, Canada