On 09 Mar 2005, at 9:15 AM, Christopher Smith wrote:
It looks like (after a couple of mentions) that many consider Rhapsody to be a great work. Although I accept that it was groundbreaking, influential, got a lot of press, yada-yada, I question whether it was really "great." It was rushed off after Gershwin had forgotten that he was supposed to write it, and it doesn't really have the cohesion that one would expect from a major work, even from a popular composer. It's just kind of a bunch of nice tunes strung together rather primitively, with a couple of motives sequenced without really any development per se, with a competent orchestration for jazz band with strings. Nothing really great about it, IMHO.
I was waiting for that. [grin]
This is the standard line of attack against Rhapsody in Blue -- not to slight Chris's argument, it's just similar to arguments I've heard from many people over the years. I don't really have time to get into an extended defense now, but some quick points:
1) Part of what makes Rhapsody in Blue great is that it's so incredibly evocative of time and place. It instantly and vividly evokes 1920's New York -- even for people who have never heard it before, don't know its history, don't know the first thing about 1920's New York, and have never seen Woody Allen's _Manhattan_.
2) What's so great about development? Gimme a bunch of nice tunes any day (echoes of the recent argument over The Magic Flute) -- especially if they're as nice as the ones G.G. included in Rhapsody in Blue.
2') Even so, I think Rhapsody in Blue hangs together much better than a lot of other works that have "better" formal cohesion -- there's clearly a single musical narrative, and a strong unifying character to all the various themes. They're also more structurally alike than you give them credit for, but even if they weren't, who cares? I think the whole is clearly more than the sum of its parts here, as the work's longevity and continued popularity attest. To me, complaining about the lack of Rigorous Formal Development and Structural Integrity in Rhapsody in Blue is kinda like complaining about the lack of good tunes in Webern.
For "great" I would definitely rank his Piano Concerto above Rhapsody,
Really? Hmm. Not a big fan of the Piano Concerto. Porgy and Bess has great songs, but I'd rather hear Sarah Vaughan sing them. But I pretty much hate opera, so I'd best disqualify myself from *that* discussion.
- Darcy ----- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
