I used to have a CD with the FULL version of Rhapsody in Blue which no one has heard performed since its Aeolian Hall debut in 1924. It is an incredible piece. One of the reasons (or rather one of the excuses) critics offer to explain their reluctance to give Gershwin his due, is because the Rhapsody was orchestrated by someone else. But here I mention that there is a section of this piece that clearly has its roots in Kleismer, which among other things, hints at an assessment made not entirely without prejudice of some kind.
Gershwin was very serious is his desire to write classical music, and he did the orchestrations for his following works, starting with the Concerto in F. Unfortunately, he passed away in 1937, and therefore did not have time to compose a larger body of work. IMO, if he had, the critics would still have Gershwin pegged as a composer of popular music and not much more. On the other hand, I see him as the 20th century heir to Mozart in his technical ability, lovely melodies, and beautifully complex harmonies and counterpoints.
I agree re Gershwin. What about Samuel Barber?
I would call Gershwin’s style “classical” but I don’t think your average scholar of classical music would peg it that way. More likely what you said, “popular.” His real problem was that he came at the end of the age of classical music. Once the phonograph became in wide use, music was not so much about composing, but more about performing. The performing genius could preserve his masterpiece for posterity. Before that, only the composer could be remembered forever.
I love Gershwin.
In the first LINE of “Someone to Watch over me,” he uses up all 3 of the Diminished chords, and each one falls on a lyric that RHYMES!
Too Cool.