|
Instead of discussing that here, why don't you read what Gershwin himself said, and read about Gershwin's own musical experiences?
Obviously, diehard jazz musicians are going to say it's not "real jazz", and likewise, strict classical people are going to say it's not "real classical".
You realize, I hope, that the vast majority of Gershwin's musical output was in the form of broadway shows? Meaning he was a composer who dedicated a large amount of energy to writing popular music.
I think he was "unique" in his approach. Never a "pure" jazz man, and with not quite the right background to be a classical composer per se.
The piano concerto, his single largest concert work, is one of the most piecemeal concertos in the repertoire. While it's a really fun piece to play (I have), there is something fundamentally unsatisfying about the form.
On the other hand, his opera "Porgy and Bess" is considerably more interesting and coherant. However, while the music requires strong singers, there is always a quality about it that is more Broadway than Met.
There you go: Gershwin, the musical contradiction.
__________________
"Those that know, do;
Those that understand, teach."
-Aristotle-
"toute audace engendrée par l'ignorance cesse d'être une audace et devient une maladresse"
-Debussy-
In musical criticism, when issues of craft and technical consideration are set aside, what remains is more subjective. However, until technical issues are dealt with, the subjective portion bears considerably less weight.
|