NationStates Jolt Archive

With the current semester wrapping up and all of us having no more class work besides our Master's thesis' (or Thesisi, however you say it), a few of my friends and I have started to compose our own arrangement of George Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue for two guitars and a bass. I've played guitar since I was in fourth grade and as I got older, I began enjoy getting familliar with the history and critical examinations of a piece I spend considerable time on.

For those of you who have heard it, Rhapsody in Blue contains many elements within it that could be considered "jazzy" but it also has a lot of symphonic elements in it... Therefore, the debate is waged between music critics, "Is Rhapsody in Blue really jazz?"

So come on you music buffs... Discuss!

For those of you who would like to weigh in and have not heard Rhapsody in Blue... I suggest you click the link below and listen to it because it is awesome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYwYj3U_f18

It is both classical and jazz.

It is both classical and jazz.

Jazz in a lot of its sound, but in composition, it's highly symphonic... My background in music theory isn't sufficient enough to know weather or not sound alone can make it distinctively make it part of one style or another or if it's all in the composition.

There's no reason it can't be both classical and jazz. Others have done it - Claude Bolling comes to mind, as does Leonard Bernstein, and some of Dave Brubeck's time signature studies hold up with any of the modern composers.

Gershwin understood jazz and he incorporated it into a popular work. At the time it was groundbreaking. It's still good.

...or Thesisi, however you say it...
It's: Thesiseehises's.

There's no reason it can't be both classical and jazz. Others have done it - Claude Bolling comes to mind, as does Leonard Bernstein, and some of Dave Brubeck's time signature studies hold up with any of the modern composers.

Gershwin understood jazz and he incorporated it into a popular work. At the time it was groundbreaking. It's still good.

Indeed, it is genre-defying.

It's classic rock, and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise.

It's: Thesiseehises's.

Thanks for the clarification Chumbly. :p

It's classic rock, and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise.

Dude, when he busts into that guitar solo, it's so totally sick.

Ironic, considering I brought this up BECAUSE my friends and I are going to play it on electric guitars and an electric bass.

Thanks for the clarification Chumbly. :p
Always glad to be of service.

It's jazzical.

Actually, classical/jazz is referred to as 'third stream jazz' (if you consider classical one stream, jazz another, the third stream is the two combined.)

Fris has noted some people who have dabbled, but most notable is Gil Evans. Currently my favorite is Uri Caine who blends in some free jazz and 'world' elements.

The problem with trying to determine if Rhapsody in Blue is jazz is trying to pin down what is 'jazz' without punting with "if you don't know, I can't tell you."

Jazz really isn't one thing, you can't look at a specific era, or compositional element and say, 'this is jazz,' mostly because jazz itself didn't invent anything as much as it amalgamated other elements.

Is syncopation jazz? 'Swing'? If so, 'traditional' or 'dixieland' wouldn't really be jazz. Is it instrumentation? Which one? There's big bands, combos, 'hot club' style groups, Gil Evans chamber orchestras...is it the 'blue' note, the harmonies? Again, it ends up leaving a lot of things we consider jazz out in the cold.

Ultimately it's how many of the elements we consider jazz are present with one 'key' element that would determine if we consider a piece 'jazz.'

The only singular element in all forms of jazz is improvisation. Improvisation exists in other forms of music, so it's not the sole defining element, but without that element I would argue that it is not jazz.

To the best of my knowledge, Rhapsody in Blue does not have improvisation, so while it is a very good tribute to the sound of jazz, and a lovely piece in its own right, it would not necessarily be jazz.

A great piece IMHO. What is scary is the fact it was "thrown together"

The word "jazz" in the 20's was loosely used to describe a range of contemporary popular music.

When it was requested; it was called a "jazz concerto" by Paul Whiteman....

Symphonic jazz usually falls into the Acid jazz category doesn't it?

It's Jazz, just using a broader range of instruments and refusing to be confined by the traditional Jazz tropes. Which is perfectly cool, given that Jazz was always supposed to be an unconfined style.

swing, as i understand it, evolved out of jazz, as i kind of subgenre of it. evolved in a direction away, perhaps from what i would think of as jazz's core concepts. evolved so far it really stands as an almost complete distinct genra from it, yet still thinly tied to it.

what it comes down to really is how it is played. you know, what kind of band, what kind of vision the bring to it. i really consider the big bands of the big band era, which was the origen historically of the piece in question, kind of a seperate compartment, owing much homage to jazz, but really distinct from the progressive thread that runs through it. and yet, in a way, it was a stage in jazz's development toward today's fusion, which is what i consider the real jazz, as opposed to the many of the steps along the way that brought it there.

yes i do see, what i think of as jazz, where it has evolved, as a very, even primarily cerebral music, which is, i suppose, since the faiding of swing's rose, why it has always been something of an esoteric form, seldom embraissed by the popular mainstream.

but if a person really cares about music as an art form, then i think the popular mainstream becomes something of an impertinence.

Therefore, the debate is waged between music critics, "Is Rhapsody in Blue really jazz?"


No, RiB isn't jazz - it merely uses jazz stylemes within a solid post-romantic structure. Just as Dmitrij Śostakovič's Jazz Suites aren't jazz.

My little bro is a pro music theorist, cunductor and composser, so I put this to him, as I generally do when these sorts of questions come down the pike...

Here's his reply, FWIW:
No, it is not jazz.
Much of the argument provided is sound in its content.
I would be inclined to call it "proto" third stream (a made up term)There's a rather thorough wikipedia entry on Gunther Schuller's term, "third stream"
You may want to consult that.
By the way, Gil Evans did not dabble, unless you consider serious collaboration with Miles Davis dabbling.

Actually, almost any Gerschwin in general will be a more modern classical.

It's classic rock, and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise.
*upends Fiddlebottoms into a vat of Fluffernut.*

It's jazz, dressed up real nice and taken out to a fancy dinner and a show. Just as with rock and roll, the addition of classical elements only augments the enjoyability.

IMO it is Jazz...in fact Ellington himself said it was jazz...so did Armstrong...can you argue discuss that?

I am not sure 'classical' is a particularly meaningful term, it is part of a whole mess of terms like 'romantic' that are vague and difficult to define. Then again jazz is fairly hard to define - musical genres are notoriously slippery it is probably better to say it is of a particular period of time.

Does it matter? It's still awesome!

It is a mixture. It certainly could not be considered pure "jazz", but not entirely art/orchestra/symphonic/"classical" music either.

My little bro is a pro music theorist, cunductor and composser, so I put this to him, as I generally do when these sorts of questions come down the pike...

Here's his reply, FWIW:
My phrasing was not clear, I did not mean to imply that Gil Evans 'dabbled' in third stream but was referring to others that had been mentioned that were dabblers in third stream but that Evans was a full fledged third stream composer.

If you don't know what to call it, it's jazz, right?

No, RiB isn't jazz - it merely uses jazz stylemes within a solid post-romantic structure. Just as Dmitrij Śostakovič's Jazz Suites aren't jazz.

I was about to make a similar statement with a more divergent example.

Just as Antonín Dvořák's Slavonic dances are not popular music.

How could the OP not link to this:
http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=yiyc9Ak3EtQ&feature=related

My phrasing was not clear, I did not mean to imply that Gil Evans 'dabbled' in third stream but was referring to others that had been mentioned that were dabblers in third stream but that Evans was a full fledged third stream composer.

Indeed.

Well it has the Woody Allen seal of approval, and I'm not going to question that.

Well it has the Woody Allen seal of approval, and I'm not going to question that.

Well, anyone with any sort of taste gives Rhapsody in Blue their seal of approval... I'd probably have to say the same thing for most of George and Ira Gershwin's music.

On a side note, we finished transposing our electric guitar/bass version yesterday, now we're practicing it so we do the piece justice.

Well, anyone with any sort of taste gives Rhapsody in Blue their seal of approval... I'd probably have to say the same thing for most of George and Ira Gershwin's music.

On a side note, we finished transposing our electric guitar/bass version yesterday, now we're practicing it so we do the piece justice.

Any way we could hear it when its perfect?