# George Gershwin



## Sid James

Born in 1898 to Russian Jewish parents in New York, Gershwin started working as a 'song plugger' in Tin Pan Alley at the age of 15. Here he had his first big hit, _Swanee_. From 1924, he collaborated with his brother Ira on a series of successful musicals, which included _Lady Be Good, Oh, Kay!, Funny Face, Strike up the Band, Show Girl, Girl Crazy and Of Thee I Sing_, which won a Pulitzer Prize. 1924 was also the year he composed his most famous classical work, the *Rhapsody in Blue *for piano and orchestra. It was orchestrated by Ferde Grofe and played by Paul Whiteman's band.

Gershwin travelled to Paris to receive tuition from Nadia Boulanger and Maurice Ravel. Here, he composed another famous work, _*An American in Paris*_. Following his return to the United States, he composed the folk opera _*Porgy and Bess*_ in 1935. This work was not only revolutionary in its use of jazz and folk elements, but also the fact that it was written for a completely African American cast.

Early in 1937, Gershwin began suffering from severe headaches, and a malignant brain tumour was diagnosed. He died in the middle of that year, following unsuccessful surgery to remove the tumour.

According to Wikipedia, "in 2005, The Guardian determined using 'estimates of earnings accrued in a composer's lifetime' that George Gershwin was the richest composer of all time."


----------



## Guest

What has always puzzled me is why he is listed as a Classical composer when as far as I can tell his music is pop, jazzy, and show music


----------



## Sid James

I think some of his compositions, like _Rhapsody in Blue, Concerto in F, the Three Preludes, An American in Paris,_ and of course, _Porgy and Bess _are classical works as they are in the mainstream repertoire. Of course, many of his songs from the musicals have been covered by countless pop and jazz artists, so they aren't classical. But even in his lifetime, his compositions were conducted by people like Pierre Monteux and Otto Klemperer.


----------



## Guest

Andre said:


> But even in his lifetime, his compositions were conducted by people like Pierre Monteux and Otto Klemperer.


That doe not mean a thing, The Beatles have also been played by countless classic conductors and orchestras but they are still pop.


----------



## Sid James

Andante said:


> That doe not mean a thing, The Beatles have also been played by countless classic conductors and orchestras but they are still pop.


If you go to a music store, the above compositions I have listed could be found in the classical section, maybe even the musicals. In the former works I mentioned, he is definitely a classcial composer writing in classical forms such as the rhapsody, concerto, preludes. The Beatles never composed like this. So I think it is right to include him amongst classical composers. He was, with Copland, Bernstein and Barber, the greatest American classical composer of his generation.


----------



## Guest

I don't think you can put him in the same class as Copeland, Bernstein or Barber but if you are happy with that OK, to me he was a musical show writer a bit like Andrew Lloyd Webber I would guess that 90% of his output was for Broadway and tin pan alley.


----------



## JoeGreen

Well for one , he *died at the age of 38!!!*

So that explains why his output on the classical side is a little low, but what he did do is definetly enough to place him alongside Copland, Bernstein and Barber. And had he lived on at least a decade or so he would've surely gone on to write far greater masterpieces.

So I'm with Andre on this one. *Porgy and Bess* is such and amazing piece of work. Definetly not the work of your average Broadway tunesmith!


----------



## Guest

Well I disagree, but will not make an issue of it save to say If you earn your living as a Lawyer but do the odd stand in as a Trumpet player in the local orchestra for which you get paid what is your profession?? I say you are a Lawyer,


----------



## KScott

Okay, having read all of your posts, I would like to add my two bits, so to speak.

George Gershwin was *both* a classical and a popular composer. He was also one of the most influential voices of American concert music of the 20th century alongside Ives, Copland and Carter, and in the popular world with Berlin, Kern, Porter, Richard Rodgers and Frederick Loewe.

There are many who would put "Duke" Ellington above Gershwin when it comes to writing extended concert works in a jazz idiom, and indeed there are many who would love to put Ellington alongside the august company that I mentioned, either in classical or popular. But here we are about to open another kettle of fish which I'm sure will raise Andante's eyebrows all the more.

Now for some facts -

Gershwin was exposed to many contemporary composers of his time, both as a teenager and in his prime. He was one of the first American composers to discover and appreciate Alban Berg's genius at a time when very few people knew who he was on these shores, and in 1928 got the chance to meet with him in Vienna. Both men admired and respected each other's style of music. Had it not been for Berg, certain harmonic elements of his later songs (particularly those for the 1938 film _The Goldwyn Follies_) would not be as sophisticated as those of his peers, which in turn would inspire another composer, namely David Raksin, for his score for the film _Laura_ (1944), which sounds like a cross between Gershwin and Berg had either man lived into the next decade.

Moreover, Gershwin wanted to further his knowledge and strengthen his compositional technique by studying with someone whose reputation would give him that extra element that he lacked in his early works. Among the teachers he did study with were Rubin Goldmark (who in turn taught Aaron Copland before he headed to Paris), Henry Cowell and Joseph Schillinger. It was Schillinger's unique technique that helped to unlock Gershwin's talent further, resulting in the _Cuban Overture_, _Variations on "I Got Rhythm" _and, of course, _Porgy and Bess_.

In 1935, Gershwin met Arnold Schoenberg, and again with this new friendship, which was further forged on the tennis courts, Gershwin began to study Schoenberg's unique methods of composition. Along with Alfred Newman, Gershwin financially produced the Kolisch Quartet's recording of the four published Schoenberg string quartets. An amateur painter as well, Gershwin paid further tribute by painting a powerful portrait of Schoenberg.

Yes, he did die far too young, but he was also on the verge of shifting into a new and bold terrain of music that very few people understood, let alone liked. Would Gershwin adopt serial techniques? Would he have stopped writing popular songs? Would conductors still embrace his music?

It is one of those questions that will forever remain unanswered.

In conclusion, Gershwin cannot be compared to Andrew Lloyd Webber by any means. Yes, Lord Lloyd Webber was classically trained, more so than Gershwin (ALW's father was by far the better composer), but he chose his path not because he wanted to eat, but because he firmly believed, like Gershwin, that he could elevate the musical and popular song to a new level. Where the comparison ends is that ALW tends to allow formula rather than fertile imagination dictate his compositions, and Gershwin always came up with a surprise in all of his songs, and his concert works.

Never sell George Gershwin short. He was a one-of-a-kind wonder.


----------



## JoeGreen

Andante said:


> Well I disagree, but will not make an issue of it save to say If you earn your living as a Lawyer but do the odd stand in as a Trumpet player in the local orchestra for which you get paid what is your profession?? I say you are a Lawyer,


Actually I'm a music student not a Lawyer.


----------



## JoeGreen

KScott said:


> In 1935, Gershwin met Arnold Schoenberg, and again with this new friendship, which was further forged on the tennis courts, Gershwin began to study Schoenberg's unique methods of composition. Along with Alfred Newman, Gershwin financially produced the Kolisch Quartet's recording of the four published Schoenberg string quartets. An amateur painter as well, Gershwin paid further tribute by painting a powerful portrait of Schoenberg.


Mmmh, That's interesting, I was never aware of Gershwin meeting Schoenberg.


----------



## Guest

JoeGreen said:


> Actually I'm a music student not a Lawyer.


I did not say you were a Lawer


----------



## Guest

Perhaps someone could list a dozen of Gershwin's best [in your opinion] *Classical* works,


----------



## Mr Dull

Using the day job to define some one isn't a good idea. Ives was an insurance salesman but wrote the odd bit of music to.


----------



## Guest

Its not a matter of a 'Day job' it is what is your main source of income and how it is earned, if you spend 50hrs a week as an Engineer but a couple of hours playing or writing music you are an Engineer, it is that simple!


----------



## Mr Dull

To use Ives as an example again he was an insurance salesman (and a very successful one to) not a composer.
Though I agree that Gershwin was a composer of musicals and popular songs who was later adopted into the classical music genre.


----------



## Guest

Mr Dull said:


> Though I agree that Gershwin was a composer of musicals and popular songs who was later adopted into the classical music genre.


He was not adopted by many. The following is taken from 'The American Masters web site, the highlights are mine, as you will see 95%+ of his output was theatre, show pop etc.

George Gershwin was born in Brooklyn in 1898, the second of four children from a close-knit immigrant family. He began his musical career as a song-plugger on *Tin Pan Alley*, but was soon writing his own pieces. Gershwin's first published song, "When You Want 'Em, You Can't Get 'Em," demonstrated innovative new techniques, but only earned him five dollars. Soon after, however, he met a young lyricist named Irving Ceaser. Together they composed a number of *songs *including "Swanee," which sold more than a million copies.
In the same year as "Swanee," Gershwin collaborated with Arthur L. Jackson and Buddy De Sylva on his first complete *Broadway musical*, "La, La Lucille". Over the course of the next four years, Gershwin wrote *forty-five songs*; among them were "Somebody Loves Me" and "Stairway to Paradise," as well as a twenty-five-minute opera, "Blue Monday." Composed in five days, the piece contained many musical clichés, but it also offered hints of developments to come.
In 1924, George collaborated with his brother, lyricist Ira Gershwin, on a *musical comedy *"Lady Be Good". It included such standards as "Fascinating Rhythm" and "The Man I Love." It was the beginning of a partnership that would continue for the rest of the composer's life. Together they wrote many more successful *musicals *including "Oh Kay!" and "Funny Face", staring Fred Astaire and his sister Adele. While continuing to compose popular music for the stage, Gershwin began to lead a double life, trying to make his mark as a serious composer.
When he was 25 years old, his jazz-influenced "Rhapsody in Blue" premiered in New York's Aeolian Hall at the concert, "An Experiment in Music." The audience included Jascha Heifitz, Fritz Kreisler, Leopold Stokowski, Serge Rachmaninov, and Igor Stravinsky. Gershwin followed this success with his orchestral work "Piano Concerto in F, Rhapsody No. 2″ and "An American in Paris". Serious music critics were often at a loss as to where to place Gershwin's classical music in the standard repertoire. Some dismissed his work as banal and tiresome, but it always found favor with the general public.
In the early thirties, Gershwin experimented with some new ideas in *Broadway musicals.* "Strike Up The Band", "Let 'Em Eat Cake", and "Of Thee I Sing", were innovative works dealing with social issues of the time. "Of Thee I Sing" was a major hit and the first comedy ever to win the Pulitzer Prize. In 1935 he presented a folk opera "Porgy and Bess" in Boston with only moderate success. Now recognized as one of the seminal works of American opera, it included such memorable songs as "It Ain't Necessarily So," "I Loves You, Porgy," and "Summertime."
In 1937, after many successes on Broadway, the brothers decided go to Hollywood. Again they teamed up with Fred Astaire, who was now paired with Ginger Rogers. They made the *musical film*, "Shall We Dance", which included such hits as "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off" and "They Can't Take That Away From Me." Soon after came "A Damsel in Distress", in which Astaire appeared with Joan Fontaine. After becoming ill while working on a film, he had plans to return to New York to work on writing serious music. *He planned a string quartet, a ballet and another opera, but these pieces were never written*. At the age of 38, he died of a brain tumor. Today he remains one of America's most beloved *popular *musicians.
*Taken from American Masters web site*


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

It's likely that *Rhapsody in Blue* is America's most popular composition written specifically for orchestral performance.

It's even more probable that *Concerto in F* is America's most famous concerto.

I don't think that *Porgy & Bess* has any serious rivals as the most well-known American opera.

Gershwin's place in the Fine Arts halls of the U.S. and the world, then, now, and in the future, is assured with simply these three works.


----------



## Guest

Rhapsody in Blue was a composition by for piano and *jazz band* it was a Jazz concerto


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

_Rhapsody in Blue_ *is* a composition for piano & symphony orchestra. 
(At least it is in the recorded and performance versions one is most likely to find available.) Oh, every now and then one finds a "parlor-trick" recording like MTT's version with the "Columbia Jazz Band*," but such versions are outnumbered by orchestral renditions, and I daresay it's by a factor of multiples.

*This particular project overlaid the Gershwin piano roll to the performance- and really, I believe the primary reason for the use of the jazz band in this case was that a smaller group could better keep up with the breakneck speed of the piano roll line...

Of course, Ferde Grofé (of _Grand Canyon Suite_ fame) was instrumental in the orchestration (or arrangement) of _Rhapsody_ with the Paul Whiteman Orchestra (or 'jazz-band,' if you must...). Not long after, Grofé orchestrated [word used unambiguously here] the piece for symphony-orchestra size ensemble, and it is in THAT version that it's clearly most familiar today.


----------



## Edmond-Dantes

LOL. I knew that this was going to be a controversial thread.

When Gershwin wrote "Rhapsody in Blue," this very subject sprung up in the classical and jazz world.

Interesting stuff about Gershwin by the way. As I am not a Gershwin fan myself, so I couldn't really hope to argue about anything.  Though I will say this much. Regardless of whether he was a full blown classical composer or show tune writer, he did have a few amazing pieces.


----------



## Guest

Well I am a Gershwin fan, I played so much Gershwin when I was with the small Jazz combos because all of his music just lends itself to improvisation. The point I am trying to make *Chi_town/Philly *
was that when Gerschwin composed Raphsody in Blue he did it for a Jazz Band namely 'Paul Whiteman'

*How Rhapsody came to be*: in late 1923, the bandleader Paul Whiteman asked George Gershwin to think about writing a jazz piece for his band. Gershwin sketched some possible themes, and left it at that. On January 4, 1924 to his surprise, a report appeared in the New York Tribune announcing that George Gershwin was at work on a "jazz concerto" to be premiered by the Whiteman Band at the Aeolian Hall in New York on February 12, in a concert to be called An Experiment in Modern Music.
*above taken from Raphsody web site*
If I am not mistaken the orchestration for orchestra was done by some one else, I cant remember who it was but the *original *work was for Piano and Jazz Band.


----------



## Bach

Gershwin is my favourite American composer. He simply wrote good music. It doesn't matter where it fits genre-wise - it's all good stuff!


----------



## Sid James

This has turned into an interesting debate, which I didn't think would occur when I originally posted this thread. I basically agree with Mr Dull, who said "Though I agree that Gershwin was a composer of musicals and popular songs who was later adopted into the classical music genre." He wrote excellent show tunes as well as classical works. It is also true that he is always an entry into dictionaries and books of the composers. The classical pieces which he composed have become standard in the repertoire. I also agree with others, who say that these pieces have become some of the most popular to be produced by any American composer. He said before he died that he wanted to compose a string quartet and a symphony, so he was really looking to move even more fully into the classical field.

One must also not be so hung up on the distinction between popular music and classical. In the late C19th, this was not such a big issue. Brahms reputedly said of Johann Strauss II's _Beautiful Blue Danube_ waltz, "I wish I had composed something like that." I think one can enjoy and appreciate both genres, and if a composer like Gershwin had crossed over from one to the other, the more power to him. It's a bit like the Hungarian/American film composer Miklos Rozsa, who throughout his career produced many works for the concert hall (a number of concertos & chamber music) while composing for the big screen. Gershwin was just one composer who was comfortable in two worlds of music.


----------



## JoeGreen

Andre said:


> compose a string quartet and a symphony


He did compose a Lullaby for String Quartet. A symphony would have been very interesting.


----------



## Edmond-Dantes

Andre said:


> This has turned into an interesting debate, which I didn't think would occur when I originally posted this thread.


I kind of expected this, simple because of conversations I've had with a few music teacher friends. Actually, it was more like I was listening to them debate this very topic. It got pretty ugly, but it was fun to watch. LOL


----------



## Rasa

It's time to bump this one up, because Gershwin is a proper lord.

Had a listen to his concerto in F the other day. It clearly show some of the processes on might expect with classical composers. His themes are related, he modifies them to fit different passages etc. If anything that's a prime characteristic of a classical composition: thematic developement. The attention to orchestration also falls within this realm.

So yes, maybe it sound show-tunish. But clearly this is about a composer who expresses himself in a certain musical idiom (the one he knew from his time at tin pan alley) but adds those things I love and cherish about classical.

Picked up the score to three preludes as well. I'm going to have to practice the rythm, I'm not sufficiently a lord of the beat to play it out of hand


----------



## tdc

I'm planning to learn Takemitsu's arrangement of Gershwin's 'Summertime' on guitar in the near future. (As I've been trained in classical, but not jazz, I vastly prefer learning my jazz tunes from sheet music rather than a 'chart') Gershwin was one of those rare composers that is widely performed and respected in both jazz and classical circles, a talented composer he was indeed.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Andante said:


> Perhaps someone could list a dozen of Gershwin's best [in your opinion] *Classical* works,


I think you're missing the point - that he died at age 38!!! If you're not going to appreciate him as a classical composer now and putting up such a fight, I doubt you'll ever consider him one. But if you knew Gershwin's biography, you would really truly understand that had he lived much longer, he would be known mostly as a classical composer.

Yes, he gained his fame as a popular composer, and this netted him enough money where he didn't need to work another day in his life. Instead, Gershwin sought out orchestration and composition classes from some of the best teachers in the world. Rhapsody in Blue was not orchestrated by Gershwin since he wasn't experienced enough - but the piece was conceived as a classical work. You have to remember that "jazz" that existed in that day hardly lasted longer than 3 or 4 minutes a piece. Rhapsody in Blue is a huge 18 minute work, which dwarfs those of all popular compositions at the time.

Have you heard Concerto in F? That's far less "popular." And Porgy and Bess is arguably an opera rather than a Broadway tune.

But I doubt we're going to convince you. He was making the transition to be a classical composer. It's what he wanted to be. The fact that he earned his fame as a popular composer does not pigeonhole all of his works into that category.


----------



## Guest

If you really wish me to reply to your post (above) I will, in the meantime I repeat my earlier request *[Perhaps someone could list a dozen of Gershwin's best [in your opinion] Classical works] *


----------



## kv466

Dude! Your Rhapsody In Blue is pretty dammned awesome!!


----------



## Romantic Geek

Andante said:


> If you really wish me to reply to your post (above) I will, in the meantime I repeat my earlier request *[Perhaps someone could list a dozen of Gershwin's best [in your opinion] Classical works] *


Apparently, classical composers are judged by how much they wrote - so I'm guessing you're not a big fan of Webern either...

Seriously, you don't have to be an a-hole about it. We get it - you don't think he's a classical composer. Now stop trolling and let those of us who do consider him one to appreciate it.


----------



## Guest

Romantic Geek said:


> I think you're missing the point - that he died at age 38!!! If you're not going to appreciate him as a classical composer now and putting up such a fight, I doubt you'll ever consider him one.


 Correct, he is not a classical composer


> But if you knew Gershwin's biography, you would really truly understand that had he lived much longer, he would be known mostly as a classical composer.


 this is pure conjecture and perhaps wishful thinking


> Rhapsody in Blue was not orchestrated by Gershwin since he wasn't experienced enough - but the piece was conceived as a classical work. You have to remember that "jazz" that existed in that day hardly lasted longer than 3 or 4 minutes a piece.


 You are basing this comment on what you have heard on the recorded media of the times when they had to be kept short to get them on a record as technology improved musicians were able to record whatever they wanted Have you ever been to a jazz club or heard live jazz? I think not. A jam session in a club could go on for as long as the musicians wanted it to


> But I doubt we're going to convince you.


 Hold on a minute do not use the plural *We* it is You that is posting


> He was making the transition to be a classical composer. It's what he wanted to be.


 Well I wanted to be a concert artist but never made it what will I be known as?


> The fact that he earned his fame as a popular composer does not pigeonhole all of his works into that category.


That brick wall is getting very familiar so once again *which *are his classical works?]



Romantic Geek said:


> Apparently, classical composers are judged by how much they wrote - so I'm guessing you're not a big fan of Webern either...
> 
> Seriously, you don't have to be an a-hole about it. We get it - you don't think he's a classical composer. Now stop trolling and let those of us who do consider him one to appreciate it.


Are you saying Webern did not write much classical ? Compared to Gershwin he didn't know when to stop. And don't call me an *a hole* that is bordering on ad hom :tiphat:


----------



## Romantic Geek

Sir, I want you to look up the definition of internet trolling - because you are right now Exhibit A of it. I would respond to all of your comments (including those where you assume - why yes...I've been to many many jazz clubs...) but then I'd just be feeding the troll. Seriously, if you don't think Gershwin is a classical composer, stop posting in the thread on the classical music forum so the rest of us can enjoy it.


----------



## norman bates

i can't understand why Gerswhin can not be considered a classical composer (and the fact that he composed few works means nothing, aside Webern also musicians like Carl Ruggles or Matthijs Vermeulen composed very few works for example), but is that important? I think that is more interesting the quality and the great originality of his music.


----------



## Ukko

_Andante_, the Gershwin thing has been thoroughly masticated - and mostly expectorated. Why not examine another guy's works; how about Victor Herbert?


----------



## Rasa

If you don't consider Gerswhin a classical composers, or at least works like the concerto in F to be classical music, then it's simply because you don't understand the music.


----------



## Guest

Romantic Geek said:


> Sir, I want you to look up the definition of internet trolling - because you are right now Exhibit A of it. I would respond to all of your comments (including those where you assume - why yes...I've been to many many jazz clubs...) but then I'd just be feeding the troll. Seriously, if you don't think Gershwin is a classical composer, stop posting in the thread on the classical music forum so the rest of us can enjoy it.


Sir?????
OK you will not or can not reply to my remarks so really there is not much to debate which is a pity, I still wait for someone to list his best dozen or even half a dozen classical works but of course that will not happen, these jazz clubs that you have been to must be a bit weird and boring if the musicians do not play anything longer than "3 or 4 minutes" as I have said before I love Gershwin's music and have played quite a lot of it, but would never include it in the "Classical" genre.
Now for the best of his classical compositions. Anyone……..


----------



## Rasa

An American in Paris
Rhapsody in Blue
Concerto in F for piano
Porgy and Bess.

There you go.


----------



## norman bates

i would add his cuban overture.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Andante said:


> Sir?????
> OK you will not or can not reply to my remarks so really there is not much to debate which is a pity, I still wait for someone to list his best dozen or even half a dozen classical works but of course that will not happen, these jazz clubs that you have been to must be a bit weird and boring if the musicians do not play anything longer than "3 or 4 minutes" as I have said before I love Gershwin's music and have played quite a lot of it, but would never include it in the "Classical" genre.
> Now for the best of his classical compositions. Anyone……..


And the trolling continues...simply amazing.


----------



## Romantic Geek

How about his 3 preludes...those are great pieces!


----------



## Guest

Romantic Geek said:


> And the trolling continues...simply amazing.


You seem obsessed with trolling I can't honestly see where it comes into my posts I disagree that Gershwin is a "Classical Composer" not a terrible composer and have said so, obviously this upsets you but you really must get used to the idea that people have a right to their own opinion even if it challenges your own, also when asked questions directly or indirectly it is polite to answer it does not matter if the answer is incorrect, at least an attempt has been made. but then perhaps we are all guilty of that one, it is not a sin.


----------



## Ukko

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_George_Gershwin#Classical_works


----------



## Guest

Rasa said:


> An American in Paris
> Rhapsody in Blue
> Concerto in F for piano
> Porgy and Bess.
> 
> There you go.


At least you have made some attempt, thank you.

*An American in Paris* I have never heard a version for orchestra so will say OK

*Rhapsody in Blue * started out as a work for solo piano and jazz band written in 1924 premiered by Paul Whiteman and his band (not an orchestra) not classical.

*Concerto in F for piano* much nearer the mark than Rhapsody.
*Porgy and Bess.* An opera ok

*Preludes *I am not familiar with save to say the #2 is well known as a blues. The others could be a take on ragtime? I don't know

So to date we have a total of 3 works ? not exactly a prolific output


----------



## norman bates

Andante said:


> At least you have made some attempt, thank you.
> 
> *An American in Paris* I have never heard a version for orchestra so will say OK
> 
> *Rhapsody in Blue * started out as a work for solo piano and jazz band written in 1924 premiered by Paul Whiteman and his band (not an orchestra) not classical.
> 
> *Concerto in F for piano* much nearer the mark than Rhapsody.
> *Porgy and Bess.* An opera ok
> 
> *Preludes *I am not familiar with save to say the #2 is well known as a blues. The others could be a take on ragtime? I don't know
> 
> So to date we have a total of 3 works ? not exactly a prolific output


as i've wrote in the least post, there's also the cuban overture. 
And the string quartet.


----------



## Rasa

Andante said:


> *Rhapsody in Blue * started out as a work for solo piano and jazz band written in 1924 premiered by Paul Whiteman and his band (not an orchestra) not classical.
> 
> *Preludes *I am not familiar with save to say the #2 is well known as a blues. The others could be a take on ragtime? I don't know
> 
> So to date we have a total of 3 works ? not exactly a prolific output


Your analysis seems to be based on the idiom and the orchestration used. However, these works still exhibit strong thematic developement and structural work, making them classical. They are not left open for improvisation. It is not because a composer uses a jazz chord in a work that it's not a classical piece.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

*On the list of "sentences you're not likely to ever hear..."*

include this one:

_"I'm heading down to the Jazz Club to hear 'Rhapsody in Blue!'"_


----------



## Romantic Geek

Andante said:


> You seem obsessed with trolling I can't honestly see where it comes into my posts I disagree that Gershwin is a "Classical Composer" not a terrible composer and have said so, obviously this upsets you but you really must get used to the idea that people have a right to their own opinion even if it challenges your own, also when asked questions directly or indirectly it is polite to answer it does not matter if the answer is incorrect, at least an attempt has been made. but then perhaps we are all guilty of that one, it is not a sin.


Except the questions were answered beforehand and you dismissed them - and then continued to ask your own question. Classic example of trolling. It's generally frowned upon in the online world.

You're just making posts now to forcefully disrupt an appreciation thread because you cannot accept the fact that the majority of musicologists would identify Gershwin as a classical composer. I'm just trying to get the thread back on topic, but you continue to derail it. So be it. If you're getting pleasure out of that sort of thing (once again, see the definition of troll (internet) on wikipedia) then I guess you're succeeding - at being a troll.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Andante said:


> *Preludes *I am not familiar with save to say the #2 is well known as a blues. The others could be a take on ragtime? I don't know


So wait - you don't know the Preludes? It's arguably Gershwin's most famous work for a solo instrument. It's been orchestrated into a bunch of other ensembles and solo w/ piano (which by the way happens to a bunch of classical works...it's not just a jazz thing you know...). The other day on classical radio, I heard a version of it for string trio. It was kind of interesting. But these pieces are STANDARD piano repertoire. This just reaffirms to me that you really don't know Gershwin.

But if you are thinking these pieces are "ragtime" and that #2 is best known as a "blues" what are you going to say about works by these "well-established" classical composers...






















Just to name a few...


----------



## crmoorhead

Andante said:


> At least you have made some attempt, thank you.
> 
> *An American in Paris* I have never heard a version for orchestra so will say OK


You haven't heard 'An American in Paris' for orchestra? It is famous enough.








> *Rhapsody in Blue * started out as a work for solo piano and jazz band written in 1924 premiered by Paul Whiteman and his band (not an orchestra) not classical.


Interesting. Liszt's Rhapsodies weren't initially orchestrated, but they are clearly classical. It being for an orchestra or not doesn't define it as being classical.



> *Concerto in F for piano* much nearer the mark than Rhapsody.
> *Porgy and Bess.* An opera ok
> 
> *Preludes *I am not familiar with save to say the #2 is well known as a blues. The others could be a take on ragtime? I don't know
> 
> So to date we have a total of 3 works ? not exactly a prolific output


I wonder. If I write 3 or 4 books, doesn't that still make me an author? I'm pretty sure that Gershwin put a lot of time and effort into his classical pieces. Whether he is prolific or not isnt an issue. He still has that particular string to his bow.

Secondly, does this not exclude Verdi from being a classical composer? Surely he was a popular composer as well? He didn't write any symphonies, sonatas or concertos.

Personally, I would consider anyone who scores for an oboe or a bassoon as classical. Maybe there are jazz bassoonists, I don't know. I think undeniable that he wrote for things in a classical oevre. The quantity is pretty much irrelevant. I would deem him both a classical and popular composer. It isnt mutually exclusive.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Well, I'd personally find it hard to believe Gershwin would not have been prolific if he didn't die at the age of 38 (only 12 years from Concerto in F)... 

It's so easy to forget how incredibly famous he was, how much money he had...and how he never had to work a day in his life again by the time he died...he would have had eons to compose.


----------



## crmoorhead

Romantic Geek said:


> Well, I'd personally find it hard to believe Gershwin would not have been prolific if he didn't die at the age of 38 (only 12 years from Concerto in F)...
> 
> It's so easy to forget how incredibly famous he was, how much money he had...and how he never had to work a day in his life again by the time he died...he would have had eons to compose.


Agreed. Looking at Andrew Lloyd Webber as the proposed comparison, he hasn't written anything much classical at ALL, and he is all of 63 years old so far. Gershwin wrote as many musicals as Lloyd-Webber and film scores and had decades less to do it in. Gershwin was surely prolific in his substantial contribution to 'The American Songbook' so why would we expect his classical output to be any less? I will concede that it is slightly irrlevant, but when you look at the significant contributions of Copland by the time he was 38 there is not much of a difference except that Gershwin had a lot of popularity with his musicals.


----------



## Guest

norman bates said:


> as i've wrote in the least post, there's also the cuban overture.
> And the string quartet.


Norm, An oversight on my part, apologies. I am listening to Cuban Overture at the moment 'I down loaded from utube' it is very good and I hear references to his Broadway shows, I also down loaded the lullaby for St Qt if that is the one you mentioned, now this I found quite dull, but am quite happy to raise the total to a big 5. it was amusing to read in a previous post that GG died @38??? this was meant as an excuse for his lack of output (I think) just look at what WAM achieved @35. So in the end it comes down to what you are known as, and GG was known as a show/musical writer if this upsets some then I am afraid you can't re write history.


----------



## Romantic Geek

To compare Mozart, who was composing in a time where there were schemata formulas versus the time of Gershwin is just simply unfair.

Look at how little music Webern outputted...2.5 hours worth! Porgy and Bess is that long by itself, lol!

Or Varese for that point...


----------



## Guest

And to get further back on topic...Gershwin was the first "classical" composer I was introduced to. My dad tried full-blown jazz on me when I was young but it didn't click, so he eased me into classical with Gershwin. I loved it immediately and I still consider him one of my favorite composers. An American in Paris is probably my favorite work, followed by the Piano Concerto and (obviously) Rhapsody in Blue. I still need to check out Porgy and Bess...


----------



## Guest

Romantic Geek said:


> To compare Mozart, who was composing in a time where there were schemata formulas versus the time of Gershwin is just simply unfair.
> 
> Look at how little music Webern outputted...2.5 hours worth! Porgy and Bess is that long by itself, lol!
> 
> Or Varese for that point...


Well try Arvo Pärt, we are simply getting nowhere just repeating etc.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Andante said:


> Well try Arvo Pärt, we are simply getting nowhere just repeating etc.


I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying should I try listening to Part, because I love him. But that has nothing to do with Gershwin.


----------



## Guest

This is pointless, a complete waste of time, if you want to class him as a classical composer go ahead.


----------



## crmoorhead

Romantic Geek said:


> To compare Mozart, who was composing in a time where there were schemata formulas versus the time of Gershwin is just simply unfair.
> 
> Look at how little music Webern outputted...2.5 hours worth! Porgy and Bess is that long by itself, lol!
> 
> Or Varese for that point...


Not to mention that Mozart is sometimes referred to as the greatest genius who ever lived, musical or otherwise. I'm everyone has heard the story about him memorising the music in the Vatican and writing all the parts from memory after one hearing. He was also a child prodigy who wrote a considerable amount before he was 18, who wrote a considerable amount before he reached puberty. No one is saying that Gershwin was in anywhere near that league, nor is it a prerequisite for judging whether or not he was 'classical'. Hell, Gershwin wasn't in the league of most of the more well-known names among composers, but that doesn't mean he wasn't one. And where does that put Verdi? Or Rossini? The logic that he must only be a showtune man because that is what he did with most of his time/is best known for is not really applicable. Look at The Five - they were a mixed bunch including a military engineer, civil servant, naval commander and a chemist. I wonder how much musical success any of them had by the time they were 38, or how many classical works they had under their belt?


----------



## norman bates

Andante said:


> Norm, An oversight on my part, apologies. I am listening to Cuban Overture at the moment 'I down loaded from utube' it is very good and I hear references to his Broadway shows, I also down loaded the lullaby for St Qt if that is the one you mentioned, now this I found quite dull, but am quite happy to raise the total to a big 5. it was amusing to read in a previous post that GG died @38??? this was meant as an excuse for his lack of output (I think) just look at what WAM achieved @35. So in the end it comes down to what you are known as, and GG was known as a show/musical writer if this upsets some then I am afraid you can't re write history.


i'm not upset by similar things, and for me is not a problem at all. For me he wrote popular songs and few classical works (few just because he died), so for me he's a composer of songs and a classical composer. But with the originality of that music he have had a huge influence (on jazz and also on classical music) that many prolific musicians can only dream, so to remark that he composed very few classical compositions is a bit pedantic. It doesn't matter.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Andante said:


> This is pointless, a complete waste of time, if you want to class him as a classical composer go ahead.


Fine - then stop posting here so those of us who enjoy him as a classical composer can get back to discussing him


----------



## nikola

Ok, I've been searching for a long time for this version. By far, the best version of Rhapsody in Blue....


----------



## nikitema

My favorite music by Gershwin is Rhapsody in blue.
I hope that sometime I will play it with orchestra 
It is very interesting - synthesis of romantic style and blues intonations of folk art.


----------



## TudorMihai

Not to start a new topic, I will place my question here. Is there any other composer that composed classical works in Gershwin's style? Because Gershwin died so young he didn't composed many pieces for the concert hall which I know that for most of us isn't enough.


----------



## arpeggio

*Robert Russell Bennett*



TudorMihai said:


> Not to start a new topic, I will place my question here. Is there any other composer that composed classical works in Gershwin's style? Because Gershwin died so young he didn't composed many pieces for the concert hall which I know that for most of us isn't enough.


Their were many. Off the top of my head the first that came to mind is Robert Russell Bennett. He best known for his orchestration of many well-known Broadway and Hollywood musicals by other composers such as Irving Berlin, George Gershwin, Jerome Kern, Cole Porter, and Richard Rodgers.

He was an excellant composer as well. Two of his best works were the _Symphonic Songs for Band_ and the _Suite of Old American Dances_:











I have performed both of these works. They are very challenging and a lot of fun to play.


----------



## norman bates

TudorMihai said:


> Not to start a new topic, I will place my question here. Is there any other composer that composed classical works in Gershwin's style? Because Gershwin died so young he didn't composed many pieces for the concert hall which I know that for most of us isn't enough.


Alec Wilder composed a lot of great and underrated music, and I prefer him to Gershwin because I find his music more... "deep". But he composed mostly chamber music, like his octets and his wind quintets.
And there's Leonard Bernstein in pieces like Fancy free.


----------



## hreichgott

Maybe William Grant Still?


----------



## TudorMihai

hreichgott said:


> Maybe William Grant Still?


Thank you for your recommendation. After listening to his symphonies, I wonder how it would have been if Gershwin lived long enough to compose his own symphony.


----------



## senza sordino

Last spring with a guest soloist the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra performed concerto in F. It's fantastic, with some lovely chords. There was also a guest conductor, who is very young. He told us of the story which may or may not be true. Gershwin needed help orchestrating the piece. He solicited the help of Schoenberg. Schoenberg asked Gershwin how much money he makes a week. Gershwin answered, and so Schoenberg replied " it is I who should be taking lessons from you!"

Do you remember the opening ceremonies of the 1984 LA Olympics? Dozens of pianos playing Rhapsody in Blue. It doesn't get much grander than that.


----------



## Sid James

senza sordino said:


> Last spring with a guest soloist the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra performed concerto in F. It's fantastic, with some lovely chords. There was also a guest conductor, who is very young. He told us of the story which may or may not be true. Gershwin needed help orchestrating the piece. He solicited the help of Schoenberg. Schoenberg asked Gershwin how much money he makes a week. Gershwin answered, and so Schoenberg replied " it is I who should be taking lessons from you!"...


I've come across that story many times, sometimes they say it was an exchange between Gershwin and Schoenberg, at other times Ravel and Stravinsky are substituted. I don't know who it was or even if its apocryphal but it is apparent that Gershwin was widely respected in his time by many "serious" composers. I read recently that Berg was another admirer, which makes sense in a way since Wozzeck influenced so many operas coming after it, including Porgy and Bess. I also know that Schoenberg and Gershwin did see eachother regularly at some point, Gershwin wanted lessons from Arnie but attempts to do that ended up with them playing tennis in the backyard.

I remember when I created this thread years ago, there was debate about whether Gershwin is a "real" classical composer. Well of course he is, but then as today there will be people who don't accept him as such. He even had highbrow critics in his day saying that his music wouldn't last and that it was derivative and so on. Well I think they have been proven wrong. In terms of the Concerto in F, he didn't need any help orchestrating it in the end, he did it himself. Its apparent that composers who where largely self taught in orchestration end up developing something unique - this applies to Gershwin as it does to Liszt and also Elgar.

Speaking of the Concerto in F, I love it right from the opening Charleston rhythms - that memorable drum riff - to the bluesy middle movement and the finale the tunes of which could have come from any of his Broadway musicals. He was the first crossover type composer, or the first to make such a huge impact. I think he was amazing, I have loved his music since getting into classical way back.



> ...
> Do you remember the opening ceremonies of the 1984 LA Olympics? Dozens of pianos playing Rhapsody in Blue. It doesn't get much grander than that.


Yeah well there are some Olympics opening and closing ceremonies that stick in the mind and reach a kind of legendary status and that's definitely one of them.


----------



## TudorMihai

We all know about Gershwin the composer and pianist. But I don't think many of us know about Gershwin the conductor. Photo taken in 1937.


----------



## Guest

*George Gershwin - the Piano Rolls*

Absolutely love it!!


----------



## hpowders

The slow movement to Gershwin's Piano Concerto has a most hauntingly beautiful trumpet solo. Memorable!


----------



## Pugg

Christabel said:


> Absolutely love it!!


Thanks for sharing Christabel.


----------



## Guest

Capturing the twenties Zeitgeist..."what flu pandemic, prohibition gangsters or Depression?? It's party time"!!


----------



## Guest

This funny song is from the Gershwin Brothers' "*Pardon My English*" - a satire...."The Dresden Northwest Mounted".


----------



## Guest

The wonderful, lively and joyous overture of "Oh, Kay". Absolutely what's not to love!!!


----------



## Guest

Another satirical song, "Dr. Jung and Freud and Adler" from "*Pardon My English*". Delicious:


----------



## German Shepherd

I'm still a big sucker for Gershwin's Rhapsody In Blue, Piano Concertos and songs. The jazz + classical combination is wonderful! 

The only one (who happens to predate him) who does it quite as marvelously, is Charles Ives


----------



## SanAntone

Describing the music around him growing up in New York -

_"Gershwin evocatively describes a soundscape that pulses with all kinds of music that are ostensibly at different points in the cultural hierarchy, but that he portrays as equally compelling parts of his personal musical environment. He recognizes no difference between opera and folksongs, chansons and ragtime, old and new music. While some early twentieth-century critics asserted strict distinctions between high and low culture and maintained that one should have little to do with the other, the reality was rather different. American audiences expected to hear references to highbrow and lowbrow culture on vaudeville bills and in musicals, plays, and comedies. Ingenious mixtures of musical and theatrical conventions often provided the mass appeal to productions that otherwise were simply a repackaging of a few familiar plot tropes. Gershwin scholars and critics looking back on his career often focus on Gershwin's modernity, his skillful use of jazz in his concert repertoire, and marvel at his ability to cross the divide between popular and classical music. Many people interpret Gershwin as essentially an art music composer who happened to work in musical theater."_

- The Cambridge Companion to Gershwin (Cambridge Companions to Music) by Anna Harwell Celenza

Gershwin is one of line of composers whose style is based on a combination of influences from Popular and Classical elements. This line could be seen as an outgrowth from the career of composers such as Scott Joplin and James P. Johnson, both of whom had aspirations beyond their careers in Ragtime/Jazz. In general Jazz exerted a strong impact on Classical composers, but inside and outside the US. But the true American style is also rooted in the egalitarian spirit of the United States which rejected the idea of high and low art, although that argument still rages today.

Other composers in this line include Aaron Copland, Roy Harris, and Leonard Bernstein, as well as Frank Zappa whose career as a Classical composer was the most pronounced among Rock musicians. Today's composers Meredith Monk, Laurie Anderson, and Nico Muhly all incorporate elements from Classical as well as Rock or other genres.

There are also some serious Jazz composers, Duke Ellington, Charles Mingus, leading to Wynton Marsalis, all who have written long form works.

Gershwin and other cross-genre composers stand in stark contrast to those academic "international" composers Piston, Hanson, Sessions, and others - whom I don't consider the most representative composers from the US.


----------



## Guest

SanAntone said:


> Describing the music around him growing up in New York -
> 
> _"Gershwin evocatively describes a soundscape that pulses with all kinds of music that are ostensibly at different points in the cultural hierarchy, but that he portrays as equally compelling parts of his personal musical environment. He recognizes no difference between opera and folksongs, chansons and ragtime, old and new music. While some early twentieth-century critics asserted strict distinctions between high and low culture and maintained that one should have little to do with the other, the reality was rather different. American audiences expected to hear references to highbrow and lowbrow culture on vaudeville bills and in musicals, plays, and comedies. Ingenious mixtures of musical and theatrical conventions often provided the mass appeal to productions that otherwise were simply a repackaging of a few familiar plot tropes. Gershwin scholars and critics looking back on his career often focus on Gershwin's modernity, his skillful use of jazz in his concert repertoire, and marvel at his ability to cross the divide between popular and classical music. Many people interpret Gershwin as essentially an art music composer who happened to work in musical theater."_
> 
> - The Cambridge Companion to Gershwin (Cambridge Companions to Music) by Anna Harwell Celenza
> 
> Gershwin is one of line of composers whose style is based on a combination of influences from Popular and Classical elements. This line could be seen as an outgrowth from the career of composers such as Scott Joplin and James P. Johnson, both of whom had aspirations beyond their careers in Ragtime/Jazz. In general Jazz exerted a strong impact on Classical composers, but inside and outside the US. But the true American style is also rooted in the egalitarian spirit of the United States which rejected the idea of high and low art, although that argument still rages today.
> 
> Other composers in this line include Aaron Copland, Roy Harris, and Leonard Bernstein, as well as Frank Zappa whose career as a Classical composer was the most pronounced among Rock musicians. Today's composers Meredith Monk, Laurie Anderson, and Nico Muhly all incorporate elements from Classical as well as Rock or other genres.
> 
> There are also some serious Jazz composers, Duke Ellington, Charles Mingus, leading to Wynton Marsalis, all who have written long form works.
> 
> Gershwin and other cross-genre composers stand in stark contrast to those academic "international" composers Piston, Hanson, Sessions, and others - whom I don't consider the most representative composers from the US.


I disagree with Celenza's critique. Firstly, George Gershwin craved legitimacy in art music and he was very friendly with Arnold Schönberg. As you know he went to Paris and met, among others, Ravel -hoping for guidance. Gershwin longed to have his feet in both traditions - theatrical and concert hall - however his most consistent frame of reference was American jazz and its rhythms and tropes. There's also the not inconsiderable influence exerted by Gilbert and Sullivan, especially in the earlier musicals. The use of the repetitive gestures you get in those more popular-music style English composers of the chorus re-iterating some of the main ideas in the songs. Notwithstanding that, Gershwin's music was as American as apple pie, as the saying goes, for it did reflect that Scott Joplin aesthetic which you rightly identify.

Most American Musical Theatre composers we've already discussed were and are fully immersed in the art music tradition of *composition*; they use/d the tools of that tradition when they created, but I don't think this should be confused with "producing classical (art) music".

This last is a leap from theatrical music which, largely and sadly, seemed to have eluded even Leonard Bernstein - whose works for concert hall, with a couple of exceptions, are rarely heard or played. The maestro was very aware of this towards the end of his life.

Spoiler alert: I don't very much appreciate Concerto in F or Rhapsody in Blue by Gershwin, regarding them as cross-over kitsch. George Gershwin was a master of song, no less than Schubert, and his masterful "Porgy and Bess" was the only work with feet in both camps; today largely seen as more 'operatic', thanks to our changing aesthetic and tastes. But it was produced for Broadway. He may have envisioned something different for this work, but it's soul is rooted in folk idioms, operatic aria, jazz, G&S and vaudeville. Gershwin was truly eclectic. And it's useful to remember that this opera of his is nearly 100 years old, so he was musically prescient (you could argue).


----------



## SanAntone

Christabel said:


> I disagree with Celenza's critique. Firstly, George Gershwin craved legitimacy in art music and he was very friendly with Arnold Schönberg. As you know he went to Paris and met, among others, Ravel -hoping for guidance. Gershwin longed to have his feet in both traditions - theatrical and concert hall - however his most consistent frame of reference was American jazz and its rhythms and tropes. There's also the not inconsiderable influence exerted by Gilbert and Sullivan, especially in the earlier musicals. The use of the repetitive gestures you get in those more popular-music style English composers of the chorus re-iterating some of the main ideas in the songs. Notwithstanding that, Gershwin's music was as American as apple pie, as the saying goes, for it did reflect that Scott Joplin aesthetic which you rightly identify.
> 
> Most American Musical Theatre composers we've already discussed are fully immersed in the art music tradition of composition; these are the tools with which they created, but I don't think this should be confused with "producing classical (art) music".


Notably, Nadia Boulanger refused to take him on as a student. She no doubt perceived in him a native style that was already well-developed and saw no point in his spending time with the European tradition. She offered similar advice to another native genius, Astor Piazzolla, she advised him to write tangos since that was where his personality shone forth, not in the well-written but soulless traditional Classical works he had brought with him after six years of study with Alberto Ginastera.

However, Gershwin was an inveterate student, privately.

His first serious piano teacher was *Charles Hambinger* who taught him Bach, Beethoven, and even Debussy. His first serious composition/theory teacher was *Edward Kilyenyi* who gave him a sound foundation in harmony, counterpoint, and musical analysis. He studied with Kilyeni for at least six years and continued to stay in touch, showing him each new work.

His last formal study was with *Joseph Schillenger* (Gershwin studied with Schillinger for four years near the end of his life) whose _Schillinger System of Musical Composition_ he worked through. His exercises exist, some of which have been the basis for a few posthumous works. Schillenger's book contained his "theories of rhythm, harmony, melody, counterpoint, form and semantics, purporting to offer a systematic and non-genre approach to music analysis and composition; a descriptive rather than prescriptive grammar of music."



> While it influenced some prominent figures, such as Lawrence Berk (founder of the Berklee College of Music) and George Gershwin (possibly influencing the piece "I Got Rhythm Variations"), it began to fall out of favor in the 1960s after receiving criticisms for being over-complicated and pseudo-scientific, and was removed from the Berklee curriculum.


 Gershwin no doubt learned Schillenger's system but it is unclear how much it actually influenced the end results of Gershwin's major Classical works, like _Porgy and Bess_.


----------



## Guest

It's the greatest tragedy that we will never know the answer to your final paragraph. There was always something of the Remick song-plugger in the piano music of George Gershwin, and some of the songs. Here's a good example of that: but the ingenuity of Gershwin is clearly on display!! This is what separates the genius from the quotidian:






I'll love Gershwin until I die!!






I must make reference to the fact that Gershwin arranged some of his songs specifically in an artful way that he would have envisaged as more suitable for the concert hall than Broadway and these have been played by classical pianists. Marc Andre Hamelin has recorded these: but they're jazz to their very core!!


----------



## Guest

Darius Milhaud did what Gershwin WANTED to do: there's a difference though, isn't there.






And






And


----------



## SanAntone

Christabel said:


> Darius Milhaud did what Gershwin WANTED to do: there's a difference though, isn't there.


There were a handful of Classical composers who used Jazz stylistic materials in their compositions, for a short time: Milhaud, Stravinsky, Ravel, maybe some others. But it was short-lived and I think they exhausted their interest pretty quickly. Since Jazz elements were native to Gershwin his usage was fully integrated and organic to his style, and I doubt it would ever have disappeared.

However, Gershwin did not write Jazz. He used some sounds and rhythms from Jazz but there is a world of difference between his music and that of Duke Ellington, or Eubie Blake, who also wrote for Broadway - or especially someone like Louis Armstrong.


----------



## Guest

SanAntone said:


> There were a handful of Classical composers who used Jazz stylistic materials in their compositions, for a short time: Milhaud, Stravinsky, Ravel, maybe some others. But it was short-lived and I think they exhausted their interest pretty quickly. Since Jazz elements were native to Gershwin his usage was fully integrated and organic to his style, and I doubt it would ever have disappeared.
> 
> However, Gershwin did not write Jazz. He used some sounds and rhythms from Jazz but there is a world of difference between his music and that of Duke Ellington, or Eubie Blake, who also wrote for Broadway - or especially someone like Louis Armstrong.


Agree. There's a difference between influence and origin. For example, Gershwin would have been G&S if he'd written LIKE G&S; the fact is that he borrowed some of their conventions (the use of the chorus) but he was still Gershwin. This is one example, but there are other better ones I can't find just now:






There's one particular song which is *very* G&S and it has the words "he's the universal wizard of the age" and the chorus repeats "_universal wizard of the age_" (I can't find this on the internet). This is very much in the style of those English musicals. The Gershwins did this in their earlier musicals.


----------



## Sid James

Interesting conversation. One of the early centres of European jazz was Paris. American soldiers left their mark there, and throughout the inter-war period you had not only the likes of Stravinsky, Ravel and Milhaud integrating it into their music, but also the impact of figures from popular culture like Josephine Baker.

There's an aspect here of what Edward Said called _the other,_ this fascination with cultures originating outside Europe. Picasso's contemporaneous fascination with African masks, and how it informed his move towards cubism, is another link to this.

Jazz became a sort of rebellion against conventions, and this was only strengthened later by the German occupation. The Nazis virtually banned jazz, particularly by Jewish composers, and quite a few musicians joined the resistance. Here's an example of how they got around it, a recording issued at the time renaming _I got rhythm_ as _Agatha rhythm_.






After World War II, the jazz scene in Paris continued to thrive, with musicians like Kenny Clarke and Don Byas settling there. I especially like Clarke's work with Andre Hodeir, who was among those Frenchmen from classical background who went into jazz.

One of the best books on a musician that I've read is Milhaud's autobiography. On the whole, I'd say he was a person who was extremely positive, despite a few setbacks (such as his health condition, and also having to escape Europe because he was a Jew).

The only instance where he displays holding a grudge is when he conveys the story of how he wrote the first jazz inspired work to enter the concert hall (_La Creation du Monde_) and how it became eclipsed by _Rhapsody in Blue_ which came about a year later. What was strange is that Milhaud couldn't even bring himself to write Gershwin's name or the name of the piece. Perhaps he thought that the reader would inevitably know, or that showing bitterness would be in poor taste.

Later on, Milhaud composed _A Frenchman in New York_ as a response to Gershwin's _American in Paris_. It was premiered and recorded by the Boston Pops, and the two works came out on the same record. Maybe this was Milhaud's way of getting over it?






Looking back, its not really a competition between composers, or classical and jazz, or high and lowbrow.

Milhaud's music was also a fusion of different elements, including his roots in Provence, as a Jew, and he had a keen interest in other music, including Brazilian. Apart from New York, he also visited Rio.

As for Gershwin, he forged his own path, in between Broadway, Hollywood and the concert hall (opera houses didn't accept _Porgy and Bess_ until much later). In a sense he's more contemporary than ever. Many composers today feel even less of a connection to the big institutions. Moving between scenes goes without saying.

Gershwin's probably less like his modernist contemporaries and more like composers today.


----------



## Guest

I love how Milhaud's "Scaramouche" for two pianos is very muscular in exactly the same way as Gershwin in some of those passages, particularly the first movement. It sounds and reads wretchedly difficult to play. But it doesn't have that improvisatory quality that Gershwin often has.


----------



## Rogerx

Rhapsody in Blue & Piano Concerto performed by André Previn (piano & conductor)-London Symphony Orchestra
Is a recording out of this world , must have for every Gershwin fan.


----------

