Gershwin- Classical or Jazz?

I feel like we are REALLY off topic....

I've seen a handful of musicals on Broadway, but Les Mis is the only one that I didn't enjoy. It's just...crap... I agree that it is poorly paced, overdramatic, self-insistent...and the songs are very overrated. Later that day we saw "The Drowsy Chaperone," which was short and frivolous...but a hundred times better than Les Mis.

Oh but to get back on topic, I'd say Gershwin is Jazz-inspired classical. My non-official criteria is that I imagine far more classical-music-lovers listen to Gershwin that jazz-music-lovers, and I wouldn't generally think, "Parker, Monk, Gershwin..." I'd be more likely to think of "Copland, Joplin, Gershwin."

Funny (well, sad really) story about the composer of Les Miz.

When the touring company was in Montreal, Jean Michel Schonberg decided to give a "pep talk" to the assembled cast, and in that little chat he explained that he was entirely self-taught "...just like Stephen Sondheim..."

Talk about over-blown ego.

Oh, in case you're wondering WHY it's funny: Sondheim studied composition with Oscar Hammerstein, majored in music at Princeton, and studied with Milton Babbit... not my idea of "entirely self taught".

So should we focus on some of the good musicals instead of the bad.

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)

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.

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.

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.

ok wow! To EldKatt - Ignorance isn't something I'm afraid to admit - I wouldn't post in here if I didn't know what I was talking about. But you are misinterpreting what my posts are saying. I was never saying Gershwin's music wasn't some form of 'jazz' (which depends on your PERSONAL definitions, because jazz is not a clearly labeled thing, like say common practice tonality or serialism), I was merely offering a redefinition of the kind of jazz we were talking, and asserting that a more common term (in my experience) for the type of 'jazz' Gershwin embodied was indeed NOT the Miles Davis and Coltrane jazz, but the musical theater, Jerome Kern, Americana jazz of the time. I saw people's posts as extremely general and sometimes lopsided, so I decided to offer a clarification.

And also, I'm a bad writer and tend not to be clear, so I apologize!

p.s. I agree most with Zetetic! Gershwin's music is not easily categorized, which was the whole cause for my initial post.

[pipes in]

I don't think anything Gershwin ever wrote could be called 'jazz'. The tunes from the shows were easily adapted to jazz...but his arrangements and orchestrations were decidedly not jazz.

I don't think...

Ah! EldKatt! He accused me of similar ignorance on the Wikipedia threads in re: orchestration (!). A fair warning to those here that he is quite accusatory.

And BTW, what oingo86 said was not ignorance at all. I'm on his side.

the type of 'jazz' Gershwin embodied was indeed NOT the Miles Davis and Coltrane jazz, but the musical theater, Jerome Kern, Americana jazz of the time.

Remember that while musical theatre at the time was moving closer to forms of rag, it was still heavily based on operetta at this point in time. Musical theatre of Gershwin's time was not relying on the jazz of the time, but something closer to a combination of [what would become] swing/big band and forms of popular music from vaudeville. What we know as "standards" (many of which have been translated into jazz) come from the Musical Theatre of the time. So to say that Gershwin embodied a Musical Theatre sound is incorrect.

Listen to "Rhapsody in Blue" or "Piano Concerto in F." Do those sound like Musical Theatre?

If the jazz of the time reminds you of musical theatre it's because of George Gershwin. The trend toward that kind of musical theatre/jazz sound on Broadway came about later in his career. He influenced musical theatre, not the other way around.

ok wow! To EldKatt - Ignorance isn't something I'm afraid to admit - I wouldn't post in here if I didn't know what I was talking about. But you are misinterpreting what my posts are saying. I was never saying Gershwin's music wasn't some form of 'jazz' (which depends on your PERSONAL definitions, because jazz is not a clearly labeled thing, like say common practice tonality or serialism), I was merely offering a redefinition of the kind of jazz we were talking, and asserting that a more common term (in my experience) for the type of 'jazz' Gershwin embodied was indeed NOT the Miles Davis and Coltrane jazz, but the musical theater, Jerome Kern, Americana jazz of the time. I saw people's posts as extremely general and sometimes lopsided, so I decided to offer a clarification.

I really ought to clarify, too, that I have very little knowledge of Gershwin's music, so I am making no assertion regarding whether or not Gershwin's music could be called jazz. My point was more generally that I'm somewhat skeptical towards a definition of jazz that excludes much of what, historically speaking, was at its time regarded as jazz, in favor of more "alive" traditions (in other words, one that entirely excludes "the 'jazz' of Gershwin's day"). I'm not saying that this includes musical theater, nor that it includes Gershwin, so it may indeed have little to do with anything here, including, I realize, what you were saying, so yeah. Nothing to see here. Anyhow, my remark about ignorance was obviously uncalled-for and overly caustic... I apologize for this.

Ah! EldKatt! He accused me of similar ignorance on the Wikipedia threads in re: orchestration (!). A fair warning to those here that he is quite accusatory.

Justin, I think those here who have read more than a few of my posts already have sufficient grounds to judge how I "am", without your warnings--more so than you do, if I may guess. But since you bring it up, the issue over on Wikipedia was about you acting on a fairly large scale (a large number of edits on a large number of pages) against consensus and thus against Wikipedia guidelines, while refusing rather stubbornly to try to establish such a consensus through discussion. I was far from the only editor who tried to talk to you about this (in, I might add, a perfectly civil manner now that I glance over at your talk page). I never accused you of ignorance--I frankly don't know where you got that. Anyone interested can judge for themselves on the relevant discussion pages on Wikipedia.

Since I'm not acting in the name of Wikipedia here, I'll take the opportunity to say that while I have never had any intention of judging your character by your actions on Wikipedia (in other words, it's nothing personal from my part), you're making quite the donkey of yourself right now. Seriously, is this how you try to gain respect and acceptance in a new community? This is clearly between you and me, so if you intend to make a big deal of this, please take it with me through PM and don't litter this thread. Thanks.

Except for Rhapsody in Blue, An American in Paris, and his Piano Concerto in F, I know only little about him, but the three pieces I mentioned I can conclude that he had his own voice that I find no point in trying to find out whether he leans to Classical or Jazz.

To plainly say it, it's all music. Really wonderful honest music.

I don't see the point of classifying Gershwin's music.

I think I'm missing it.

Can someone please tell me where it is?