[ This article by Denis Condon, Australia, is published with
 [ permission; it was previously published in AMICA and ACMMI and is
 [ submitted by Ian McDonald for non-members of these associations.
 [ Denis Condon was one of the first collectors and now has possibly
 [ the largest collection of reproducing rolls in Australia.
 [ -- Ian McDonald

There has been much argument, of late, about the truthfulness of
reproducing piano rolls.  This seemingly endless discussion has
recently been given a new impetus by the issue of Wayne Stahnke's
remarkable reconstructions of Ampico and Welte performances.  Leaving
aside the question of authenticity, it must be admitted that the
results Mr. Stahnke achieves are wonderfully musical and, surely,
nobody doubts his integrity or ability.

My association with Ampico goes back to 1948 when I was a schoolboy
and my father bought a Beal-Ampico grand with eighty Ampico rolls.
As a curious fifteen-year-old with an interest in things mechanical,
I soon took it to pieces.  So I am not new to the "scene"!

Over those fifty years this question of authenticity has come up
constantly.  As I acquired more knowledge and competence in restoring
mechanisms (and more pianos to restore) so grew my respect for what
pneumatic devices could do.  A collector can certainly put together a
considerable number of programs for any of the reproducing pianos which
are lifelike, musical, satisfying.  It has to be stressed that  the
reproducing action must be in "like new" condition and the piano of
reasonable quality.  However, "lifelike", musical, satisfying" is not
necessarily "authentic".

From time to time I give broadcasts for the ABC (Australian
Broadcasting Corporation) of rolls from my collection.  As other
enthusiasts can imagine, this brings letters and phone calls about
authenticity.  Here is how I deal with these often asked questions.

Recording pianists invariably auditioned the results of their efforts.
Some, in the publicity associated with the sales of rolls, actually
quoted specific performances in their testimonials.  For example,
Teresa Carreno wrote of her Welte roll of Liszt's Sixth Rhapsody that
it was "exactly as I play it".

Now I know that this is not a watertight guide to the difference
between what she played and what she heard, however, it may be as close
as we can get, editing notwithstanding.  In other words, I would be
happy to know that the performance I am hearing on my Welte-Mignon is
similar to (or, hopefully, the same as) the one Carreno heard when she
made that statement.  We can get no closer.  Incidentally, it is a
marvellous roll, quite equal in excitement and bravura to the well-known
performance by Levitski for the Ampico.

In 1977 I had the pleasure of entertaining Aaron Copeland (or rather he
entertained us!) here in Sydney.  He enjoyed hearing his Ampico roll of
"The Cat and the Mouse" which he had not heard since the 1920's.  He
said things like: "Was I so good," and "Did I play so fast?"  He was
delighted to autograph the roll.  Again, all I could hope for was that
what he heard in 1977 was close to what he had heard all those years
ago when listening to the roll played back.  He probably said something
like: "Yes, that is my playing."

If the spark chronograph was such a revolutionary development why does
it not show in the performances as issued near the end of 1927?  If it
coincided with "B" coded rolls, then the perceptive listener should be
able to detect an "improvement" in such rolls.

I have carried out a number of experiments with experienced listeners
using rolls of this era on the "A" Ampico.  The results have been
inclusive.  Thoughtful, experienced auditors were not prepared to
state with any assurance that this was the "A" [coding], that was "B",
or "This was more realistic than that," and more of the same.

Why are many of the best Ampico performances to be found in the
earliest rolls apparently made ages before the introduction of the
mechanism (the spark chronograph) that recorded "the soul of piano
playing"?  Just to take one of many examples possible: Godowsky's
Ampico rolls, almost all issued before 1920, are consistently fine.
(The Chopin "Andante Spianato" 4459 or 56084 is sensational.)
Likewise, satisfactory performances can be found in every section of
the Ampico catalogue.  It becomes a case of "Name your favourite Ampico
artist and list his or her most satisfying renditions."

We also know some aspects of how Welte rolls were made, both in Germany
and the US.  But what of Aeolian?  My collection contains more than 85%
of the permanent catalogue for the Duo-Art and, apart from the dreaded
first hundred (5501-5601), the reproduction seems to be of consistent
quality.  Considering the number of titles produced it certainly could
not be guesswork any more than it possibly could be "an instrument of
marvellous ingenuity recording with the instant precision of electricity
the pianist's every touch upon the key, every subtle variation of power
and tempo" (to quote the 1915 Duo-Art catalogue).

Well, maybe Aeolian really did have something extra special that was
the best-kept secret in the business!  So, too, the explanation given
concerning Duo-Art rolls recorded in London is, as I see it, not
telling the whole story.  Reginald Reynolds busily marking dynamics
into a copy of sheet music, while the pianist "recorded", sounds
implausible.  Even the doubtful idea that Aeolian recorded gramophone
records simultaneously with rolls seems unlikely.  (After all, not one
recording pianist has ever spoken of this method).

There is always the chance that more information about these puzzling
questions will come to light.  There is more opportunity for this to
happen in the United States than in what was war-torn Europe.

I am as fascinated as the next collector concerning the recording
of reproducing rolls, but to damn the entire enterprise as fraudulent,
as has been the case with a few commentators recently, seems to show
not only poor grace but also a lack of wonderment.  To quote Albert
Goldberg, one-time music critic for the Los Angeles Times: "Not only is
the value of the Welte recordings historical, they also provide a very
real and present pleasure in enlarging the scope of every music lover's
experience."  This applies to the other systems as well.  (See "Time"
Magazine for September, 1963.)

If my pianos sound as fine as Wayne Stahnke's polished efforts then
I am very pleased indeed.  Listening to a well-adjusted reproducing
piano in an appropriate setting is an exceptional experience.

Take, for example, the Welte Licensee roll (7720) of Erno Rapee
playing Waldteufel's "Delores Waltz Op 170".  The playing seems to have
dozens of pianissimo levels, superb phrasing and brilliant fortissimos.
But for the reproducing piano such arrangements as this would have
completely disappeared.  A contemporary compact disc catalogue lists
only orchestral versions of "Delores" and none of the performances
would have the stamp of personality in quite the same way as does this
Welte roll.  As I look through roll collections, I often ponder how
fortunate we are that we can bring to life so many moments from the
past in such a unique manner.

The world would be sadly deprived of much joy and delight had these
remarkable and astonishing machines never been developed.  They were
made to be enjoyed -- go for it!

Denis Condon