Rhapsody in Blue criticisms

[transitional]

I'm wondering where the basis for the multitude of criticisms for Rhapsody in Blue come from. Many people say it is a cheap fusion between jazz and late romanticism. To me it just seems like an addition of chord progressions to a developing genre, i.e. an extension of non-jazz contemporary composers with jazz influence. This is why I feel like the "cultural appropriation" criticism of this piece is unfounded - it is just building off contemporary ideas, as mentioned previously.

Additionally, critics complain about the lack of formal structure. This is a semi-weakness of the piece but I feel like there is some explanation to it. It essentially starts off, develops the main theme, goes back, slows down and unwinds this main theme, gets hectic again, then gets solemn and slow, turns to a mysterious intermediate stage, then returns to the main theme. Traditional form if you ask me - if you don't like repetitiveness, then forget about most of music, including the sonata form, which encompasses lots and lots of Western music history.

And I get that many orchestras butcher it and don't use swing rhythm. Honestly this is a fluid factor and they can do what they want, even if I would swing it. And it doesn't take away from the music at all.

I'm not saying this is a perfect piece. But it's quite good, and I don't get what makes it get all the criticism it get.

[lelle]

"Cheap" is such a stupid value judgement critiscism. It's a fine piece, I quite enjoy it. Do you enjoy it? Then listen to it or play it. If not, don't. Everything else is just fluff lol.

[jamienc]

It could be due to the context in which the piece was composed and how it was presented as a means to introducing jazz to a predominately European and classical listening base in NYC during the 20s. The “cultural appropriation” criticism is actually valid to some degree due to the fact that Paul Whiteman purposefully programmed it beside other New Orleans style jazz tunes (such as those from the Original Dixieland Jass Band), perhaps as a means to compare the quality of each style, and suggesting that jazz was “better” if merged with a more sophisticated form of music.

At the time, music from New Orleans was considered cacophonous since the front line would typically engage in collective improvisation, which creates a rather chaotic musical texture, and with the type of sound coming from the instruments that was much more brash than that found in classical/romantic symphonic works. The trumpet, clarinet, and trombone (especially in the hands of Uptowners) would have sounded over the top to many listeners, and it was Gershwin’s task to tame that a bit for Whiteman’s “Experiment” so as not to offend the ears of his listening base. Notice at the beginning of the Rhapsody that Gershwin presents all of the instruments of the New Orleans front line before the piano comes in. They don’t quite collectively improvise as it was not a symphonic style, but they are definitely presented as a subtle hint that he knew they were the main instruments jazz relied upon as “solo” instruments.

It seems as if Whiteman was quite aware that he couldn’t just throw some New Orleans jazz upon the stage and expect it to be a public sensation. It had to be gently incorporated into the music that listeners were familiar with so as to not oversaturate their ears with a style that was simply too foreign. Slow and steady fusion would win the race, and his dominance as a bandleader with this “symphonic” jazz afterward is a clear indication that he knew his listener very well. He ended up being one of the most popular and wealthiest musical leaders of the early 20th century, and it was all because he knew exactly how much “jazz” should be incorporated into his productions.

Rhapsody in Blue just might suffer the current attitude towards that which is taken from one ethnic group (in this case Creole jazz from N.O.) and merged with something else to make another ethnic/cultural group rich and famous. It isn’t much different than what Elvis did with gospel and blues during the 50s, and what groups like the Beatles did with Skiffle in the late-50s and early-60s.

[mjames]

It could be due to the context in which the piece was composed and how it was presented as a means to introducing jazz to a predominately European and classical listening base in NYC during the 20s. The “cultural appropriation” criticism is actually valid to some degree due to the fact that Paul Whiteman purposefully programmed it beside other New Orleans style jazz tunes (such as those from the Original Dixieland Jass Band), perhaps as a means to compare the quality of each style, and suggesting that jazz was “better” if merged with a more sophisticated form of music.

It's not a valid criticism. Jazz utilizes instruments and a system of harmony developed by Europeans. The guitar, trumpet, clarinet, piano, and so on aren't African, Asian, or Native American instruments; they're European. The chromatic scale and diatonic scale which are fundementally the bases of all Western music, is what Jazz developed from. It's also understated just how much of an influence American folk music and native american music had an impact in the early development of ragtime and later jazz, it wasn't just African music passed down through generations of African Americans. Without European Classical Music and Western music in general, jazz in its entirety quite simply would not exist. Without African Americans "culturally appropriating" European music, jazz would have never come to fruition. So to turn around and criticize early (white) 20th century composers influenced by jazz as "culturally appropriating" African American culture just comes as daft, ignorant, and frankly annoying.

[jamienc]

It's not a valid criticism. Jazz utilizes instruments and a system of harmony developed by Europeans. The guitar, trumpet, clarinet, piano, and so on aren't African, Asian, or Native American instruments; they're European. The chromatic scale and diatonic scale which are fundementally the bases of all Western music, is what Jazz developed from. It's also understated just how much of an influence American folk music and native american music had an impact in the early development of ragtime and later jazz, it wasn't just African music passed down through generations of African Americans. Without European Classical Music and Western music in general, jazz in its entirety quite simply would not exist. Without African Americans "culturally appropriating" European music, jazz would have never come to fruition. So to turn around and criticize early (white) 20th century composers influenced by jazz as "culturally appropriating" African American culture just comes as daft, ignorant, and frankly annoying.

I never suggested that jazz was a fully African-influenced style that had no basis in European traditions. In fact, it is well established that Europeans had long influenced African culture before we here in America even began to think about developing a musical style we could call our own, if you could stretch that far to say we have a distinct musical culture apart from those two continents in the first place. The point I was trying to make in my original post is that the musical cultures of New Orleans and New York at the time the Rhapsody in Blue was composed are completely diametric in terms of cultural adaptations that exist due to the extreme geographical distances and the ethnic groups that clearly had their listening preferences established.

New York City was one of the last metropolitan areas to accept jazz as a legitimate form of artwork simply because it had a tremendous bias towards the European traditions that classical music listenership had imported through the decades of convenient immigration and import of customs due to proximity. The musical development of Memphis, St. Louis, and Chicago provide clear evidence that geography and ease of travel played a huge role in disseminating a culturally different musical orientation than that which was experienced by residents of NYC. New Orleans was populated by a tremendous number of French-African descendants who were forcefully brought into Europe during the religious wars around 700 to 800 A.D. by the Muslim hoards wishing to eradicate the Christian influence (but were effectively halted by Charles Martel in their tracks), a then redeposited into the bayou when colonization was a thing prior to Independence. From there, those customs spread north via the Mississippi. Follow the river!

Although the musical style of New Orleans is certainly based in European musical systems, such as the scales, chord progressions, and general formal structures that are often found in artwork of the era, the style of jazz, blues, and gospel purposefully transformed some of the performance practices to deviate from the rigid European style that you might find in Schumann and Schubert. Listening to the vocal production and instrumental techniques evidenced in jazz/blues/gospel would convince most that there was a conscious desire to separate the interpretation of “that” music as a means to truly establishing a style that didn’t abandon the elements and tools of music making, but would transform it into an artform that held great meaning within the social context.

Paul Whiteman and George Gershwin did the same thing. They simply “appropriated” a foreign musical language from an exotic geographic location (New Orleans) to be deemed “acceptable” to the listenership that had an overwhelming preference for European classical traditions. And they made a ton of money doing it. They slowly but surely integrated the style of N.O. Jazz tradition into the mindset of the typical “white” American of the time, and once it took hold, it spread like wildfire during the Roaring 20s into the 30s with the ever-popular Swing Era. By that time, the style that had influenced it was all but gone… The work of pioneers like Buddy Bolden, Freddy Keppard, “Jelly Roll” Morton, King Oliver, et al. was eaten alive by the rampage of musical fusion we now call symphonic jazz and swing. Perhaps the only one to survive the mayhem and retain some level of influence from ago was Louis Armstrong. But that was only due to his unique prowess from a musical and technical standpoint. Even he was super cynical of all the madness by the end…

Lastly, I’m not saying the Rhapsody is a terrible piece or deserves undue criticism from a musical standpoint. The critique of the formal structure is ridiculous… A Rhapsody, by definition, is musically a one movement work that has constrasting sections pieced together in a fluid, improvisatory manner. “Bohemian Rhapsody,” anyone?  Heck, I played it with the orchestra in undergrad school and love it to this day. However, the historical placement of its creation, and the rationale for its existence, is usually not on the forefront of the minds of the typical patron who attends a concert to hear great melodies and pianism within the work take place. Quite frankly, it would be nice if people were more musically educated to notice such things…