Gershwin- Classical or Jazz?

Gershwin = jazz = WHAT? Gershwin = Broadway is more like it, seeing as how musical theater tends to use a simplified jazz harmonic language, which is what, at the base, Gershwin used. So, in my eyes, to call Gershwin's music Jazz is to call Oklahoma jazz, because some of the songs frequently use major 7 chords. (see 'All 'Er Nothing' - jazzy in it's own right yes, but firmly musical theater)

To me, Gershwin's music is GERSHWIN'S MUSIC, not jazz, not classical, not anything. Same with Beethoven! These classifications are too general and cumbersome to apply to people with truly unique voices. So, in that light, I must agree with whoever coined 'Jazzsical'.

But calling Gershwin's music jazzical is hypercritical becuase you said "To me, Gershwin's music is GERSHWIN'S MUSIC, not jazz, not classical, not anything." So by calling him jazzical is that not placing him in category. Ahhh!

His music encompasses what Jazz was at the time. Jazz didn't become incredibly harmonically complex and nuanced (filled with crunchy sweet goodness) until a bit later.

(I <3 jazz)

Originally Posted by oingo86

Gershwin = jazz = WHAT? Gershwin = Broadway is more like it, seeing as how musical theater tends to use a simplified jazz harmonic language, which is what, at the base, Gershwin used. So, in my eyes, to call Gershwin's music Jazz is to call Oklahoma jazz, because some of the songs frequently use major 7 chords. (see 'All 'Er Nothing' - jazzy in it's own right yes, but firmly musical theater)

I definitely agree with Flint here. Consider what jazz was when Gershwin was writing instead of what jazz turned into in later decades.

Yeah, I'm aware of the changes in jazz. But today, when jazz is mentioned, people think a quartet a la Dave Brubeck, or artists such as Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, etc. My argument was that comparing Gershwin to this jazz is not correct, because it's not! Today, the 'jazz' of Gershwin's day is more recognized as ragtime, blues, and musical theater, genres that do sum up his general musical sound. But we don't call that jazz, do we? So, in that light, Gershwin's music is no longer what we consider jazz to be. The fact that it may have been considered jazz at the turn of the century is currently irrelevant.

i dont think musical theatre is the same thing as blues or ragtime.

but what we are trying to say is gershwin is jazz and frankly there wouldnt be and jazz.

Originally Posted by tenor10

but what we are trying to say is gershwin is jazz and frankly there wouldnt be and jazz.

I have the feeling you may have accidentally left a word out of this sentence.

i did... and frankly without him there might not be jazz.

Originally Posted by oingo86

Today, the 'jazz' of Gershwin's day is more recognized as ragtime, blues, and musical theater, genres that do sum up his general musical sound. But we don't call that jazz, do we? So, in that light, Gershwin's music is no longer what we consider jazz to be. The fact that it may have been considered jazz at the turn of the century is currently irrelevant.

You mean we don't call traditional jazz jazz? OK. I would, though. I suspect anyone with some sort of perspective would. Otherwise it's like saying a Mozart opera isn't an opera because no opera written today sounds anything like that. You're just trying to disguise and motivate your ignorance, instead of admitting it (which would be fine, because there's nothing wrong with ignorance).

Gershwin described Porgy and Bess as an 'American Folk Opera'. In that sense, it could perhaps be regarded as something of the American equivalent to singspiel. Ultimately however I think Gershwin's output is immensely difficult to categorise as a whole given that it catered for several distinct audiences; some is unequivocably classical, some unequivocably Broadway. Most is somewhere in limbo between the two.