Chailly/Bollani Gershwin

[Guest]

The rationale behind the new Rhapsody in Blue with Ricardo Chailly, the Gewandhaus Orchestra and jazz pianist - Stefano Bollani - largely busking the piano part seems to be that Gershwin improvised the piano part at the first performance as he hadn't got round to writing it down.
As Beethoven did the same thing at the first performance of the 3rd Piano Concerto I wondered if anyone thought it might be a good idea to have a jazzer improvise a new piano part for that, or alternatively might explain why a Gershwin text is less deserving of adherence than that of a 19th Century German?

[LeMartinPecheur]

I'm conscious of venturing out onto a thin branch here but...

...might it have to do with Gershwin writing in the Jazz Age and being pretty well-rooted in the genre via Paul Whiteman and others?

And PUR-LEEZE don't rush to tell me that Whiteman wasn't really a jazzer!

[Tristan Klingsor]

I know what you mean. I suppose I was just ruminating on why Gershwin's printed text is subject to 'improvement' when Beethoven's isn't; after all, if it's a question of performance practice then it would be OK to improvise around Beethoven's text wouldn't it? Beethoven did (he improvised the piano part in the Choral Fantasy first performance too). I also raise the possibility that - 'out there' - a prejudice may exist that because Gershwin was a 'popular' composer he didn't know what he was doing - or it doesn't matter even if he did - when he came to his finalising the printed score.
If you compare Uri Caine's inventive excursions into Bach and Mahler, you know that it's Uri Caine's 'take', or re-working, or whatever and there are any number of wonderful improvisations around Gershwin as he is a jazz standard composer, so I really don't have a purist perspective on this matter. It's just the presumption in the Gewandhaus recording that it's still the same piece (likewise the Proms jazz trio version and Wayne Marshall's 'improvements') that I'm a bit queasy about.

[LeMartinPecheur]

I guess one factor what it says - or fails to say - on the label. If people think they're getting the printed score and don't take to Mr Bollani's version, there could be what used to be called a Trade Descriptions Act issue (now the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regs - note the new punchy title).

I'm afraid I earn my CD-money as a trading standards officer...:cool2:

[Tristan Klingsor]

Oh dear LeMartinPecheur - now that would be a can of worms I really wouldn't want to open.
A 'fair comment' defence would probably be offered in that the solo part was commenting on Gershwin - or Beethoven's - original!

[Mr Pee]

I got this CD last week, and the improvisations are not nearly extensive or off the wall enough to warrant a case under the Trades Descriptions Act! They're pretty subtle and are perfectly in keeping with the overall structure of the piece. The performance as a whole manages to achieve the not inconsiderable feat of making this horrendously over-played piece- (especially on Radio 3 recently)- seem quite fresh again. Add in a pretty good performance of the Concerto in F (played exactly as written), and it's a very good disc. I'm not overly keen on the Catfish Row suite, but that's just my taste.

[Nick Armstrong]

Oh dear LeMartinPecheur - now that would be a can of worms I really wouldn't want to open.
A 'fair comment' defence would probably be offered in that the solo part was commenting on Gershwin - or Beethoven's - original!

'Fair comment' isn't a defence to a consumer protection prosecution, just to a libel action (and in fact it's now called 'honest comment'... honest )

I make my CD-money as a libel lawyer... :cool2: