![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 13, 2018, December 13, 2020, and December 13, 2023. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the An_American_in_Paris article:
Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback:
I like it,
I hate it,
Please don't link to —
LinkBot 11:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I moved information on the movie to An American in Paris (movie). I also changed the links that are intended for the movie to point to the movie section as well. Hopefully this will allow the song section to grow, while noting that it is two seperate artistic works. -- Poorpete 19:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think that the movie is more notable and should get this namespace if we have to choose between them. However, I will advocate making this a disambiguation page. If no one objects, I will do this myself in a few days. savidan (talk) (e@) 03:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
If it was performed in New York State before that date, note that New York refers to the state, not the city- just since the expression I believe often means New York City premiere? Schissel | Sound the Note! 20:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The score calls for four taxi horns, labeled "a", "b", "c", "d". Many recordings use these labels as literal pitches. Strangely, however, Horn "a" always sounds together with a b in the orchestra. Horn "b" with an a, Horn "c" with a c, horn "d" with a b flat. So, if you use these horns with pitches as labeled, you get all sorts of unmusical dissonances. I have heard a recording where more or less untuned horns were used, whch suited the music better. Or should they be tuned to the according orchestral pitches (b, a, c, and b flat)? Does anyone have any evidence as to which system was intended by Gershwin? (I suppose he used four horns that were available (in b, a, c, and b flat) and chose the orchestral pitches according to them, but that's my own opinion...) -- megA 13:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that Gershwin was looking specifically for dissonance here. He wanted authentic Parisian taxi horns, from Paris taxi horn manufacturers. They were flown in. He conducted the 1929 recording mentioned here. He "intended to be there", to explain what he was looking for, explained in this 2016 NPR [1] piece. Bands-of-neon ( talk) 20:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Wow... "unmusical." Really? How limited is your definition of "musical?" Dissonance IS musical. Now, I know you know that. But why do you need to be reminded of it? In the context of a man walking down the streets of Paris, think about how much dissonance would exist vs. any kind of consonance.
It's 20th century music...
The tune is unmistakable. How did it get there in 1928? I was sure it was a postwar composition. Drutt ( talk) 07:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, does the sentence "He also did the orchestration" need to be in here? For one thing, the sentence doesn't sound very formal, but the more important thing is that composers usually orchestrate their own symphonies themselves. If this were a musical or film score it would be different, or if it were a symphonic transcription of an already-existing non-orchestral work I would understand. However because he apparently did not orchestrate Rhapsody in Blue, I am having a difficult time deciding what to do with it. Horncomposer ( talk) 21:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is that, in this particular case, the long-term significance criterion is of more importance than the usage criterion. Jenks24 ( talk) 04:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
An American in Paris →
An American in Paris (composition) – or
An American in Paris (instrumental). This Gershwin piece is used in
WP:naming conventions (films) as an example of primary topic, but
it is proven to be less popular than
the film itself. At usage, the film is popular. However, the piece came first. Relisted.
Favonian (
talk) 18:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC) --
George Ho (
talk)
16:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 15:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
– The film of the same title is still more popular than the Gershwin piece. Sure, the film was probably derived from the piece, but, like Doctor Zhivago, an original doesn't have to be the primary topic, as prior discussion and WP:NCF wanted it to be. A long-term significance of both the piece and the film equally weigh with recognition and acclaim. If it is moved, then WP:NCF must be re-edited with another example. Relisted. Jenks24 ( talk) 15:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC) George Ho ( talk) 22:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
We mention Gerard Schwarz's 1990 recording of "Gershwin's original score, before he made numerous edits resulting in the score as we hear it today". Read at face value, that suggests the premiere occurred on December 13, 1928, after which he made a few changes having heard how it sounded. That's a very common thing. For example, Tchaikovsky's 6th Symphony as we know it today is NOT what was played at its premiere, because after the premiere he made some changes to the score.
However, our existing source and also p. 115 here say the changes Gershwin made were made before the premiere. Now, all composers change their scores during the process of composition. Beethoven's scores are replete with crossings out, second thoughts, third thoughts and so on. Do we consider any of these intermediate jottings to be his "original version"? No, we do not. We accept that the whole composition doesn't just spring into their minds fully formed and perfect. They have a germ, and they have to spend tears and sweat on it before they're happy, if they ever are. Just because Gershwin thought he'd finished the score on November 18 doesn't preclude the possibility that he might have other thoughts before the premiere and before the work was sent to the printers. And that's exactly what happened.
So, I question the validity of the record company marketing this recording as "the original score", but we have no say about that. However, we do have a say about what goes into our articles. I’d like to reword this sentence to remove reference to the "original score", and just explain in other words exactly what was recorded and what was different about it.
Does anyone have any comments before I proceed? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
In light of recent evidence from the NPR piece referenced below, I think there should be a seperate name space for the Concert version, and leave the film to its own Film space. The Original Score would have to be the recording made that which appeared in the film, "An American In Paris".=, and is quite different from the Concert peice recording premiered 1929. Much of Gerwhsin's music used in film or for stage Musicals was rewritten for Concert performance, and should be treated as notable on their own merit. This kind of popularity, where concert and recorded performances are very different, can be seen later in the Musical "Hair", and in a aimilar way, "Rent". Bands-of-neon ( talk) 20:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
If anyone would like to replace the image of the two themes with editable, playable music using LilyPond, here's the code:
<score vorbis=1> { \time 2/4 \key f \major \relative c'' { \acciaccatura b8\mp( c-.) d,-. e4 | \acciaccatura b'8( c-.) d,-. e4 | \acciaccatura b'8( c-.) d,-. e-. d'-. | c c,16 d e4 | \acciaccatura b'8( c-.) d,-. e4 | \acciaccatura b'8( c_.) d,-. e-. d'-. | e16-. e-. e-. e-. e8-. a-. | g4->( f) } } </score> <score vorbis=1> { \time 2/4 \clef bass { \partial 8 cis8->\f-\markup { \italic scherzando } | dis-> eis-> fis-> gis-> | fis-. eis4-> dis8\( | fis4 eis\) | \acciaccatura eis8( dis-.) cis4. ~ cis \acciaccatura eis8( dis-.) | cis2 } } </score>
This results in:
I don't want to insert this myself because I'm not sure where in the article is the best place to put it. — Aɴɢʀ ( talk) 22:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Here is a list of archives/accessdates that I added to this article.
Reference edited | Actions taken |
---|---|
Rhapsody in Blue for Piano and Orchestra : An American in Paris | +archive_url, date ( archived on 4 March 2016) |
An American in Paris: About the Work | +archive_url, date ( archived on 24 April 2014) |
Have We Been Playing Gershwin Wrong for 70 Years? | +archive_url, date ( archived on 15 March 2016) |
1929 Gershwin Taxi Horn Photo Clarifies Mystery | +archive_url, date ( archived on 18 March 2016) |
New, critical edition of George and Ira Gershwin's works to be compiled | PBS NewsHour | +archive_url, date ( archived on 4 March 2016) |
The Editions » Gershwin | +archive_url, date ( archived on 4 March 2016) |
Musicology Now: George and Ira Gershwin Critical Edition | +archive_url, date ( archived on 7 March 2016) |
An American in Paris Urtext | +archive_url, date ( archived on 22 December 2015) |
Entertainment & the Arts | Recordings | Seattle Times Newspaper | +archive_url, date ( archived on 3 March 2016) |
-- Tim 1357 talk| poke 04:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
This isn't an RM, and I'm not planning to do another RM at the moment. The statistics say that the original Gershwin composition/instrumental is less viewed than the Oscar-winning film and less slightly than the stage musical. Of course, people would say that the Gershwin piece is the "primary topic" by definition. However, how would following the "primary topic" rule, i.e. the current setup, benefit readers? How many do readers read the whole article? How many do they read just the introduction and then move on? -- George Ho ( talk) 10:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 13, 2018, December 13, 2020, and December 13, 2023. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the An_American_in_Paris article:
Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback:
I like it,
I hate it,
Please don't link to —
LinkBot 11:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I moved information on the movie to An American in Paris (movie). I also changed the links that are intended for the movie to point to the movie section as well. Hopefully this will allow the song section to grow, while noting that it is two seperate artistic works. -- Poorpete 19:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think that the movie is more notable and should get this namespace if we have to choose between them. However, I will advocate making this a disambiguation page. If no one objects, I will do this myself in a few days. savidan (talk) (e@) 03:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
If it was performed in New York State before that date, note that New York refers to the state, not the city- just since the expression I believe often means New York City premiere? Schissel | Sound the Note! 20:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The score calls for four taxi horns, labeled "a", "b", "c", "d". Many recordings use these labels as literal pitches. Strangely, however, Horn "a" always sounds together with a b in the orchestra. Horn "b" with an a, Horn "c" with a c, horn "d" with a b flat. So, if you use these horns with pitches as labeled, you get all sorts of unmusical dissonances. I have heard a recording where more or less untuned horns were used, whch suited the music better. Or should they be tuned to the according orchestral pitches (b, a, c, and b flat)? Does anyone have any evidence as to which system was intended by Gershwin? (I suppose he used four horns that were available (in b, a, c, and b flat) and chose the orchestral pitches according to them, but that's my own opinion...) -- megA 13:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that Gershwin was looking specifically for dissonance here. He wanted authentic Parisian taxi horns, from Paris taxi horn manufacturers. They were flown in. He conducted the 1929 recording mentioned here. He "intended to be there", to explain what he was looking for, explained in this 2016 NPR [1] piece. Bands-of-neon ( talk) 20:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Wow... "unmusical." Really? How limited is your definition of "musical?" Dissonance IS musical. Now, I know you know that. But why do you need to be reminded of it? In the context of a man walking down the streets of Paris, think about how much dissonance would exist vs. any kind of consonance.
It's 20th century music...
The tune is unmistakable. How did it get there in 1928? I was sure it was a postwar composition. Drutt ( talk) 07:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, does the sentence "He also did the orchestration" need to be in here? For one thing, the sentence doesn't sound very formal, but the more important thing is that composers usually orchestrate their own symphonies themselves. If this were a musical or film score it would be different, or if it were a symphonic transcription of an already-existing non-orchestral work I would understand. However because he apparently did not orchestrate Rhapsody in Blue, I am having a difficult time deciding what to do with it. Horncomposer ( talk) 21:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is that, in this particular case, the long-term significance criterion is of more importance than the usage criterion. Jenks24 ( talk) 04:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
An American in Paris →
An American in Paris (composition) – or
An American in Paris (instrumental). This Gershwin piece is used in
WP:naming conventions (films) as an example of primary topic, but
it is proven to be less popular than
the film itself. At usage, the film is popular. However, the piece came first. Relisted.
Favonian (
talk) 18:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC) --
George Ho (
talk)
16:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 15:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
– The film of the same title is still more popular than the Gershwin piece. Sure, the film was probably derived from the piece, but, like Doctor Zhivago, an original doesn't have to be the primary topic, as prior discussion and WP:NCF wanted it to be. A long-term significance of both the piece and the film equally weigh with recognition and acclaim. If it is moved, then WP:NCF must be re-edited with another example. Relisted. Jenks24 ( talk) 15:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC) George Ho ( talk) 22:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
We mention Gerard Schwarz's 1990 recording of "Gershwin's original score, before he made numerous edits resulting in the score as we hear it today". Read at face value, that suggests the premiere occurred on December 13, 1928, after which he made a few changes having heard how it sounded. That's a very common thing. For example, Tchaikovsky's 6th Symphony as we know it today is NOT what was played at its premiere, because after the premiere he made some changes to the score.
However, our existing source and also p. 115 here say the changes Gershwin made were made before the premiere. Now, all composers change their scores during the process of composition. Beethoven's scores are replete with crossings out, second thoughts, third thoughts and so on. Do we consider any of these intermediate jottings to be his "original version"? No, we do not. We accept that the whole composition doesn't just spring into their minds fully formed and perfect. They have a germ, and they have to spend tears and sweat on it before they're happy, if they ever are. Just because Gershwin thought he'd finished the score on November 18 doesn't preclude the possibility that he might have other thoughts before the premiere and before the work was sent to the printers. And that's exactly what happened.
So, I question the validity of the record company marketing this recording as "the original score", but we have no say about that. However, we do have a say about what goes into our articles. I’d like to reword this sentence to remove reference to the "original score", and just explain in other words exactly what was recorded and what was different about it.
Does anyone have any comments before I proceed? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
In light of recent evidence from the NPR piece referenced below, I think there should be a seperate name space for the Concert version, and leave the film to its own Film space. The Original Score would have to be the recording made that which appeared in the film, "An American In Paris".=, and is quite different from the Concert peice recording premiered 1929. Much of Gerwhsin's music used in film or for stage Musicals was rewritten for Concert performance, and should be treated as notable on their own merit. This kind of popularity, where concert and recorded performances are very different, can be seen later in the Musical "Hair", and in a aimilar way, "Rent". Bands-of-neon ( talk) 20:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
If anyone would like to replace the image of the two themes with editable, playable music using LilyPond, here's the code:
<score vorbis=1> { \time 2/4 \key f \major \relative c'' { \acciaccatura b8\mp( c-.) d,-. e4 | \acciaccatura b'8( c-.) d,-. e4 | \acciaccatura b'8( c-.) d,-. e-. d'-. | c c,16 d e4 | \acciaccatura b'8( c-.) d,-. e4 | \acciaccatura b'8( c_.) d,-. e-. d'-. | e16-. e-. e-. e-. e8-. a-. | g4->( f) } } </score> <score vorbis=1> { \time 2/4 \clef bass { \partial 8 cis8->\f-\markup { \italic scherzando } | dis-> eis-> fis-> gis-> | fis-. eis4-> dis8\( | fis4 eis\) | \acciaccatura eis8( dis-.) cis4. ~ cis \acciaccatura eis8( dis-.) | cis2 } } </score>
This results in:
I don't want to insert this myself because I'm not sure where in the article is the best place to put it. — Aɴɢʀ ( talk) 22:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Here is a list of archives/accessdates that I added to this article.
Reference edited | Actions taken |
---|---|
Rhapsody in Blue for Piano and Orchestra : An American in Paris | +archive_url, date ( archived on 4 March 2016) |
An American in Paris: About the Work | +archive_url, date ( archived on 24 April 2014) |
Have We Been Playing Gershwin Wrong for 70 Years? | +archive_url, date ( archived on 15 March 2016) |
1929 Gershwin Taxi Horn Photo Clarifies Mystery | +archive_url, date ( archived on 18 March 2016) |
New, critical edition of George and Ira Gershwin's works to be compiled | PBS NewsHour | +archive_url, date ( archived on 4 March 2016) |
The Editions » Gershwin | +archive_url, date ( archived on 4 March 2016) |
Musicology Now: George and Ira Gershwin Critical Edition | +archive_url, date ( archived on 7 March 2016) |
An American in Paris Urtext | +archive_url, date ( archived on 22 December 2015) |
Entertainment & the Arts | Recordings | Seattle Times Newspaper | +archive_url, date ( archived on 3 March 2016) |
-- Tim 1357 talk| poke 04:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
This isn't an RM, and I'm not planning to do another RM at the moment. The statistics say that the original Gershwin composition/instrumental is less viewed than the Oscar-winning film and less slightly than the stage musical. Of course, people would say that the Gershwin piece is the "primary topic" by definition. However, how would following the "primary topic" rule, i.e. the current setup, benefit readers? How many do readers read the whole article? How many do they read just the introduction and then move on? -- George Ho ( talk) 10:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)