Delving into the Canadian legend. The post James Taylor on why Neil Young is “the ethical one” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Not the right fit just yet. The post Why Doug Aldrich failed his audition for Kiss first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

The worst kept secret in Washington is the President’s accelerating cognitive decline. Yet‚ when special counsel Robert Hur’s report on Biden’s mishandling of classified documents made note of this obvious fact‚ the White House responded with outrage. Hur opted not to bring charges against him for several reasons‚ including how a jury trial might play out: “Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury‚ as he did during our interview of him‚ as a sympathetic‚ well-meaning‚ elderly man with a poor memory.” This led to a hastily called news conference‚ during which a semi-coherent Biden shouted at reporters as if they were attempting to take away his car keys. He can’t get through a 13-minute press conference without shouting angrily at reporters‚ misidentifying the President of Egypt as the President of Mexico and misrepresenting the special counsel’s report. Allowing Biden to interact with the media before he calmed down was a serious blunder by Biden’s staff. Despite their claims to the contrary‚ they know his mental and physical health has long worried the public. For example‚ an ABC News/Washington Post survey conducted two years ago found that only 40 percent of adults believed Biden possessed the “mental sharpness it takes to serve effectively as president.” Recent surveys show this percentage shrinking. According to an NBC News poll released last week‚ “Three-quarters of voters‚ including half of Democrats‚ say they have concerns about President Joe Biden’s mental and physical health.” Biden’s contentious press conference likely exacerbated those concerns. Inevitably‚ this debacle has again raised questions concerning whether Biden should be running for a second term. There has been speculation about the Democratic National Committee “parachuting in” a replacement candidate at the party convention‚ but this would be virtually impossible. As I pointed out in the The American Spectator last month‚ the only elected incumbent ever denied the nomination of his party for reelection was President Franklin Pierce long before the modern primary system reduced party conventions to coronations. The possibility of resorting to the 25th Amendment has also been raised again‚ but constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley explains in The Hill why that isn’t a realistic choice. It is Section 4 [of the amendment] that allows the removal of a president … It requires a vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to declare that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office‚” and notify Congress that the vice president intends to take over. If Vice President Kamala Harris could get eight Cabinet officers to go along with a letter to Congress‚ her status as the “Acting President” would likely be short-lived. Joe Biden (who yesterday declared‚ “I’m elderly and know what the hell I’m doing”) would only have to declare to Congress that “no inability exists.” Biden would then resume his powers. Nonetheless‚ the Democrats and the corporate media are clearly casting about for a way to rid themselves of their turbulent 2024 reelection candidate. On Saturday‚ veteran Clinton hit man James Carville was asked by CNN’s Michael Smerconish‚ “Is it too late for Democrats to change horses?” Carville responded with his trademark candor: “Well‚ in a sense‚ it’s never too late. If you had a nominee‚ and the nominee dropped dead in the last week of October‚ you have some mechanism to have a replacement.” Then‚ realizing that this wasn’t quite what Smerconish was expecting‚ he cited the example of Lyndon Johnson’s decision not to run in 1968‚ failing to note that Johnson faced serious primary challengers and Biden does not.  (READ MORE from David Catron: Trump’s Swing State Challenge) As the Democrats search for a way to jettison Biden‚ they have reverted to what might be styled “the Ken Starr strategy.” Starr‚ you will recall‚ was the independent counsel whose report led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton. He was daily subjected to withering attacks‚ usually false‚ from the Democrats and the White House. It became clear over the weekend that special counsel Robert Hur is going to get the same treatment. The corporate news media has already labeled him as a “Trump appointee‚” usually without noting that it was Biden’s own attorney general who chose him for the special counsel position. Significantly‚ even the editors of the New York Times pointed out that Biden and his supporters must do better: Mr. Biden’s allies are already going to the usual Washington playbook of dismissing the special counsel’s report as partisan. Regardless of Mr. Hur’s motivation‚ the details that he presented spoke to worries voters already had. The president has to reassure and build confidence with the public by doing things that he has so far been unwilling to do convincingly. He needs to be out campaigning with voters far more in unrehearsed interactions. He could undertake more town hall meetings in communities and on national television. He should hold regular news conferences to demonstrate his command of and direction for leading the country. This is good advice but there is no realistic way President Biden can follow it. He can’t get through a 13-minute press conference without shouting angrily at reporters‚ misidentifying the President of Egypt as the President of Mexico and misrepresenting the special counsel’s report. How can he possibly campaign in venues that require unrehearsed interactions with voters when his memory is so far gone that he discusses recent conversations with long dead heads of state? How can the President reassure and build confidence with the public when he refuses to take the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) test that his likely opponent in the upcoming presidential election has voluntarily taken on several occasions? (READ MORE: Is This What Biden Meant By ‘Unity’?) Moreover‚ it isn’t just the voters who worry about President Biden’s mental acuity. As early as 2021‚ Reps. Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.) and Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) wrote to Biden expressing doubt that he should have the sole authority to order a nuclear strike. These two congressmen are Democrats‚ mind you‚ not “MAGA extremists.” Think about that for a moment. Biden can’t remember that Abdel Fattah El-Sisi isn’t the president of Mexico or that François Mitterrand shuffled off his mortal coil during the last century. Nonetheless‚ he can reduce any city on the planet to rubble. Talk about sound and fury — President Biden is dangerous. READ MORE from David Catron: College Grads for Trump White House Coordinating Trump Prosecutions The post Biden’s Sound and Fury appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The dirty secret of Hollywood’s subservience to wokeness is that even the minorities it depicts are sick of it. Any group would rather be entertained like they once were — regardless of the racial representation on screen — than preached about by warped reflection. New proof of this came from one of my few remaining film-industry friends‚ Randy. “I was walking down the street in Hollywood yesterday‚ and overheard two black guys talking‚” Randy said. “One said‚ ‘Man‚ we need to make a film.’ The other said‚ ‘Yeah‚ but no oppression movie. I’m tired of seeing movies about being oppressed because I’m black‚ and all this pandering sh_t.’” According to The Hollywood Reporter‚ domestic box-office revenue is running 43 percent behind the 2016-19 average. For Hollywoke lemmings‚ virtue signaling is not just their raison d’etre‚ it’s all they know how to do and have been hired to do over the last decade. If they can’t keep doing it‚ then everyone will see how utterly untalented they are. They’re already finding out. Saturday Night Live‚ Colbert‚ Kimmel‚ and the rest may play to their liberal audiences‚ but they won’t get a genuine laugh out of them. (READ MORE from Lou Aguilar: The Woke of Zorro) Because comedy requires skill and guts‚ both of which modern screen writers lack‚ and a Trump mock is easier than a funny joke. Though the latter would attract more viewers from both ideological camps‚ as SNL‚ Carson‚ Leno‚ and Conan once did‚ the writers simply can’t rise to that level even if they wanted to‚ which they certainly do not. And the good writing deficiency extends to every aspect of the screen trade. The headline of a Red State article last week identifies the trouble: Hollywood Doesn’t Have a ‘Toxic Fan’ Problem‚ It Has a Bad Writing Problem. Columnist Brandon Morse jabs Marvel Comics Eternals actor Kumail Nanjiani‚ who said he had to go to counseling after his lousy movie bombed. (What a contrast to 1941 Hollywood‚ when practically every combat-age male star enlisted in the military following Pearl Harbor.) Nanjiani blamed “a weird soup in the atmosphere” for the picture’s failure‚ but Morse correctly faults the writers and the politics that spawned them. “Today‚ many studios hire writers based on two really bad criteria‚” Morse wrote. “First‚ do their ideological beliefs fit with the ‘modern’ direction the company is trying to go with? … Secondly‚ does the person fit the right identity for being at the head of the project?” Just imagine if the classic studios had subscribed to this insane philosophy. There would be no Wilder‚ Mankiewicz‚ Brooks‚ Chayefsky‚ Serling‚ Rodenberry‚ Chase‚ and a hundred other geniuses‚ consequently no Double Indemnity‚ All About Eve‚ The Producers‚ Network‚ The Twilight Zone‚ Star Trek‚ The Sopranos and a thousand other screen treasures. What film or series in the past 10 years has come close to any of them? Perhaps one of the Best Picture Oscar winners of the past decade? (READ MORE: Look What They’ve Done to My Song) Take your pick: Twelve Years a Slave (2014)‚ Birdman (or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2015)‚ Spotlight (2016)‚ Moonlight (2017)‚ The Shape of Water (2018)‚ Green Book (2019)‚ Parasite (2020)‚ Nomadland (2021)‚ CODA (2022)‚ Everything Everywhere All at Once (2023). Few of these films will even be remembered‚ let alone ever watched again‚ unlike every Best Picture loser of 1940: Dark Victory‚ Goodbye‚ Mr. Chips‚ Love Affair‚ Mr. Smith Goes to Washington‚ Ninotchka‚ Of Mice and Men‚ Stagecoach‚ The Wizard of Oz‚ not to mention the winner‚ Gone with the Wind. But they sure had diversity and liberal messaging. Hollywood went woke and is going broke‚ despite deceptive exceptions like Barbie. According to The Hollywood Reporter‚ domestic box-office revenue is running 43 percent behind the 2016-19 average‚ when movie ticket sales topped one billion dollars in January. Last month’s ticket sales totaled just $513.6 million‚ the lowest other than during the COVID period. And the rest of the year looks even bleaker. But that hasn’t stopped the masterminds at Disney. Undeterred by a continuous slew of woke-driven disasters‚ including three from its Marvel Comics leaden goose (The Marvels‚ Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania‚ and the forementioned Eternals)‚ the Mouse House is all in on more diversity behind and in front of the camera. The studio is considering a female-led (read‚ feminist) new installment in The Pirates of the Caribbean series to star black starlet Ayo Edebiri‚ supposedly inspired by Irish pirate girl Anne Bonny. The suicidal idiocy was not lost on powerful new Disney nemesis Elon Musk. “Disney sucks‚” Musk said about the idea. But Musk did more than lambast Disney. He posted the corporation’s lunatic Inclusion Standards with the comment‚ “An anonymous source just sent me this from Disney. It is mandatory‚ institutionalized racism and sexism.” The document makes unbelievable demands on casting‚ producing‚ crewing‚ and training‚ such as‚ “Characters: 50 percent or more of regular and recurring written characters come from Underrepresented Groups.” “Actors: 50 percent or more of regular and recurring actors come from Underrepresented Groups.” “Series Premise: Meaningful integration of Underrepresented Groups in overall themes and narratives.” I‘d hate to be a writer bound by that last stipulation. But whoever complies with it‚ the movie will suck‚ and bomb. (READ MORE: Beauty Survives the Left) Musk also put his money where his mouth is. He’s backing actress Gina Carano’s lawsuit against Disney for her unwarranted firing from The Mandalorian over her non-racist conservative views. Disney sure knows how to pick its enemies. Last month‚ Florida governor Ron DeSantis totally thrashed it in court. Now it’s Elon Musk’s turn. Maybe someday it will make a movie that two creative black guys in Hollywood will enjoy‚ and not feel victimized. The post The Decline and Fall of Hollywoke appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Just whose side is President Biden on? That’s the question that has to be asked after President Biden’s conduct over the past week. Biden and his minions have been pressuring the Israelis for weeks now‚ seeking their consent to a deal that would grant Hamas terrorists an extended cease-fire in the Gaza Strip and possibly — only possibly — lead to the release of the more than one hundred hostages Hamas holds‚ among them several Americans. (READ MORE from Jed Babbin: Biden’s Random Bombings) Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has rejected all of Biden’s peace plans because‚ among other things‚ they would guarantee that Hamas would still control Gaza and the proposed deals wouldn’t guarantee the hostages’ release. After Netanyahu said he planned to penetrate Rafah city‚ near the Egyptian border‚ National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said that the U.S. would oppose any Israeli operations in Rafah city. Then‚ in an angry statement at an impromptu press conference Biden said‚ “The conduct of the response in the Gaza Strip has been over the top.” Biden would do better by demanding the release of Hamas’s hostages and the cessation of its rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. On Thursday night‚ Biden issued a memorandum that requires all countries receiving U.S. military aid to prove‚ within 45 days‚ that they are following international humanitarian and human rights laws‚ threatening that they would lose all U.S. military assistance if they didn’t do so. It was Biden’s most serious shot at Israel to date. Israel is both the recipient of the most U.S. military aid and the most dependent on it. As a dysphemist of long standing‚ I would rather be accurate than polite. Biden has all of the brainpower of an Idaho potato. Within the past ten days‚ he has claimed he met with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl (who died in 2017; Biden’s supposed meeting with him was in 2021) and to have met recently with French President Francois Mitterand (who died in 1996). He also said that Egyptian President el-Sisi was president of Mexico. Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report said that Biden couldn’t be indicted for his retention and disclosure of classified documents because — based on his poor memory — he couldn’t remember what he had said or done. According to Hur’s report‚ Biden would come across as a well-meaning elderly guy with a poor memory. To state the obvious‚ anyone who lacks the mental capacity to stand trial for his federal crimes is incapable of serving as president. But he won’t be removed from the presidency under the 25th Amendment because the Dems would be stuck with Kamala Harris or Gavin Newsome or — a thought devoutly to be wished — Hillary Clinton. (READ MORE: Biden Wants Hamas To Win) Together with all that‚ there’s one more set of facts that comprise the context for Biden’s 45-day ultimatum to Israel. Israeli air strikes have devastated Gaza. There are‚ I’m sure‚ many innocent civilians who have been killed. Have the Israelis abided by every part of U.S. humanitarian and human rights laws? Probably not. Could they have killed fewer civilians in Gaza? Probably. But they are fighting a war for their national existence and wars against an enemy that routinely targets civilians‚ engages in indiscriminate attacks and commits war crimes as a matter of policy. No one‚ especially Biden‚ is willing to even talk about those facts. Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions‚ Article 51 confirms the longstanding rule that civilians must be kept safe from hostilities as much as possible. And there are limits to the expectations that military action can prevent civilian deaths. Intentionally targeting civilians is a war crime and indiscriminate attacks can be. Indiscriminate attacks are defined as those not directed at a specific military objective and (or) employing a means of combat that cannot be directed at a specific military objective. Which means that in Israel’s attacks on Hamas strongholds they are excused from killing civilians who are killed in pursuing a specific military objective by legitimate means of combat. Such as the ground troops and the precision-guided munitions Israel uses. Israel will point this out in its response to Biden’s memorandum which‚ we can only hope‚ will have a considerable effect on Biden’s decision on whether to stop military aid. Stopping U.S. military aid to Israel is a way to help Israel’s adversaries‚ including Iran and its Lebanese proxy‚ Hizballah‚ which is attacking Israel regularly. But what of Hamas? Hamas intentionally killed hundreds of civilians on October 7 and took many of them hostage. Random Hamas rockets are still — at a lesser rate —  raining down on Israeli civilians. Biden’s possible punishment of Israel by cutting off U.S. military aid is his purely political response to a letter sent to him and the Government Accountability Office by Rashida Tlaib (D-Mi) — the only Palestinian member of Congress — and several other “progressives.” They demand that the State Department assess U.S. compliance with the laws governing arms transfers to Israel. Their letter said‚ “We write today regarding your administration’s ongoing weapons transfers to the Israeli government despite considerable evidence that these transfers are flagrantly violating American and international law and being used in the commission of war crimes.” (READ MORE: Israel’s Implacable Court) But what comprises the “considerable evidence” Tlaib and the others cite? The media reports and Hamas propaganda they rely on isn’t evidence of anything. By demanding Israel respond to his memorandum‚ Biden is only adding pressure to the Israelis to consent to his idiotic “peace” deals. Biden would do better by demanding the release of Hamas’s hostages and the cessation of its rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. But he won’t do that because it is politically inconvenient for him to do so. It’s much easier to blackmail Israel by saying that we might cut off military aid unless they justify all of their actions. Israel‚ as Biden’s staff must know‚ is all too dependent on the U.S. to do things such as supply rockets for its “Iron Dome” system. It cannot fight for long without our aid. Israel will not be able to justify each and every one of its actions in Gaza in accordance with our laws and the Geneva Conventions. The Monday morning quarterbacks and the Hamas propaganda machine will ensure against that. It would be far wiser for Biden to put all the pressure he is putting on the Israelis on Hamas. The post Biden Blackmails Israel appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In the last eight or nine years‚ it’s felt to many Americans as if the country has changed very dramatically‚ if not irreversibly. A century ago‚ our forebears had a similar feeling. In 2016‚ Donald Trump was elected president and managed to get through a full term without dragging us into another war; in 1916‚ Woodrow Wilson was reelected on the promise to keep us out of war and a month after his inauguration took us into World War I. During these last years‚ woke ideology has poisoned American culture; a hundred years ago‚ the phenomenon that was shaking up American culture‚ although not (for the most part) in a toxic way‚ was modernism. The year 1922‚ for example‚ saw the publication of both James Joyce’s novel Ulysses and T.S. Eliot’s poem The Waste Land‚ two works that represented striking departures from literary tradition.  All I need to know is that … it’s as stirring as ever‚ an American classic and a modern milestone. American popular song also underwent a sea change. Before World War I‚ the hit parade had been dominated by tunes like “A Bird in a Gilded Cage” (1900)‚ “Meet Me in St. Louis‚ Louis” (1904)‚ and “Down by the Old Mill Stream” (1910)‚ which today conjure quaint images of Midwestern homes with antimacassars and Tiffany lamps. Just a few years later — on the other side of the war and in a time when Americans were highly conscious of living in a new world‚ defined and dominated not by old Europe but by their own young country — the popular songs were‚ thanks to the influence of black New Orleans jazz and the genius of New York songwriters‚ most of them Jewish and from poor immigrant families‚ quite different. Many of those songs‚ indeed‚ became standards. The year 1924 alone — exactly one century before our own current year — gave us Irving Berlin’s “What’ll I Do‚” Gus Kahn and Isham Jones’s “The One I Love Belongs to Somebody Else‚” and the Gershwins’ “Oh Lady‚ Be Good.” (READ MORE from Bruce Bawer: Biting the (Left) Hand That Feeds Him) In that same year‚ there was another little Gershwin ditty. The story goes that on January 3‚ 1924‚ the Gershwin brothers‚ composer George and lyricist Ira‚ were hanging out at a pool hall in New York with their then collaborator Buddy DeSylva — later to become one-third of the songwriting team DeSylva‚ Henderson‚ and Brown (“The Best Things in Life Are Free”) — when Ira read in the New York Tribune that the centerpiece of an important event on February 12‚ entitled “An Experiment in Modern Music‚” taking place at New York’s Aeolian Hall‚ and featuring Paul Whiteman and his orchestra‚ was to be a new “jazz concerto” by George. Whiteman‚ who dubbed himself “The King of Jazz‚” was putting the program together‚ and his principal goal was to demonstrate that jazz had come to stay and deserved to be taken seriously.  George was all of 25 years old. At age 15‚ he’d gone to work as a “song plugger” on Tin Pan Alley — demonstrating new songs on a piano for prospective purchasers of sheet music. He’d started composing his own songs at age 17‚ and in 1920‚ when he was 21‚ the biggest singer of the era‚ Al Jolson‚ made his song “Swanee” (with lyrics by Irving Caesar) a megahit. Two years later‚ when Whiteman’s band introduced “I’ll Build a Stairway to Paradise” (music by George‚ lyrics by Ira and DeSylva) in the show George White’s Scandals of 1922‚ George mentioned to Whiteman his desire to someday write a piece that combined jazz and classical elements. The next year‚ George and Whiteman took part — Whiteman as conductor‚ George as piano accompanist — in a concert of jazz tunes‚ and afterwards‚ according to at least some accounts‚ Whiteman asked George “for a serious piece to be performed during a concert Whiteman was planning to present with his band in Aeolian Hall.” (By the way‚ Aeolian Hall‚ which in its day was a major performance space and which closed its doors in 1927‚ was located on the first and second floors of the still extant Aeolian Building‚ across 42nd Street from Bryant Park.) George‚ if these accounts are to be credited‚ “promised a piece‚ and promptly forgot about it.” Even Gershwin’s friend and fellow songwriter Arthur Schwartz … would later say that the piece’s structural elements were reflective more of “intuition than tuition.” Now the Tribune had joggged his memory. Contacting Whiteman‚ he agreed to write something. But a concerto? He didn’t have time for that. Nor‚ he claimed at the time‚ was he capable — as he most assuredly would be a few years later — of contriving the kind of orchestration that such a piece would require. (Biographer William G. Hyland challenges this assertion‚ noting that manuscripts discovered in a Warner Brothers warehouse in the 1980s indicate that Gershwin‚ by that point in his career‚ was much more skilled at orchestration than he let on.) In any event‚ George set about writing a rhapsody with a piano solo part‚ and another piano part that Whiteman’s sturdy arranger‚ Ferde Grofé‚ would whip up into a score for jazz band.  George threw himself into the task. As he later recounted‚ he got started while taking a train to Boston for the out-of-town opening of his musical Sweet Little Devil.  His account exists in multiple versions‚ of which the following is‚ like his rhapsody itself‚ something of a pastiche:  It was on the train‚ with its steely rhythms‚ its rattle-ty bang that is often so stimulating to a composer (I frequently hear music in the very heart of noise) that I suddenly heard — and even saw on paper — the complete construction of the Rhapsody from beginning to end.  No new themes came to me‚ but I worked on the thematic material already in my mind‚ and tried to conceive the composition as a whole. I heard it as a sort of musical kaleidoscope of America — of our vast melting pot‚ of our unduplicated national pep‚ of our blues‚ of our metropolitan madness. By the time I reached Boston I had the definite plot of the piece‚ as distinguished from its actual substance. As for the middle theme‚ it came upon me suddenly‚ as my music sometimes does. It was at the home of a friend‚ just after I got back to Gotham … Well‚ there I was‚ rattling away [at the piano] without a thought of rhapsodies in blue or any other color. All at once I heard myself playing a theme that must have been haunting me inside‚ seeking an outlet. No sooner had it oozed out of my fingers than I knew I had found it…. A week after my return from Boston I completed the Rhapsody in Blue.” Well‚ that’s one version of how it came to be written. Other versions say that Gershwin began composing the piece on January 7‚ at the upright piano in the apartment on Amsterdam Avenue and 100th Street where he and Ira lived with their immigrant parents. According to some sources‚ the composition took a week‚ with Grofé turning up every day to pick up the newest pages; according to other sources‚ it took three weeks‚ with George handing his completed work to Grofé on February 3. Hyland writes that Grofé‚ the scale of whose contribution to the Rhapsody is immense‚ finished his orchestration the next day. (READ MORE: Nordic Musicians Want to Ban Israel From This Year’s Eurovision) As for the “theme” that had been “seeking an outlet‚” Hyland records that in fact George had originally used another melody in that place‚ but that when Grofé disapproved‚ Ira urged George to use instead another one that he’d written earlier. “Grofé was enthusiastic‚” writes Hyland. This account is consistent with the statement in other sources that it was Ira’s idea to incorporate in the piece “an expressive romantic theme” that George had “previously improvised at a party.” (“George objected that it was too sweet‚” writes Hyland‚ “but finally gave in.”)  It was Ira‚ later George’s regular lyricist‚ who came up with the piece’s title — Rhapsody in Blue‚ which was purportedly inspired by James McNeill Whistler’s practice of giving his paintings titles like “Symphony in White.” A couple of the sources I consulted for this article state that the famous glissando with which Rhapsody in Blue begins was actually improvised in rehearsal — “as a joke‚” one account suggests — by clarinetist Ross Gorman‚ but Hyland adduces evidence to the effect that this tale is “nonsense.” Hyland does note‚ however‚ that the songwriter Victor Herbert (“Ah! Sweet Mystery of Life”)‚ then 85 years old‚ who had ruled over the prewar era of operettas‚ “made one suggestion to Gershwin to precede the opening passage of the slow theme‚ and it was incorporated by Gershwin.”     Many of the specifics surrounding the creation of Rhapsody in Blue‚ then‚ are in dispute. But “[w]hatever the details‚” writes Hyland‚ “the composition was a remarkable achievement. With no particular background or experience in writing longer forms‚ Gershwin assembled a masterpiece in a very short time.” Partly for this reason‚ and partly because its “popularity made it suspect‚” it “faded” for a while “from the classical repertory of the major orchestras. As planned‚ Rhapsody in Blue had its premiere at New York’s Aeolian Hall on the afternoon of February 12‚ 1924‚ and was performed with George himself at the piano‚ actually improvising (or playing from memory: accounts differ) the piano solos‚ which he hadn’t yet had time to get down on paper. The Rhapsody was just the penultimate item in a long — by all accounts‚ overlong — program of twenty-six jazz compositions‚ beginning with what Whiteman described as the very earliest jazz tune‚ “Livery Stable Blues” (1917); the audience included a blue-ribbon committee of judges (including composer Sergei Rachmaninoff‚ violinist Jascha Heifetz‚ conductor Efrem Zimbalist‚ and soprano Alma Gluck) who were supposedly tasked with answering the question “What Is American Music?‚” although it appears that no official answers to the query were ever forthcoming.  The other items on Whiteman’s program didn’t leave much of an impression; but Rhapsody in Blue was an immediate smash. Over the next three years‚ Whiteman’s recording of it sold a million copies. It marked Gershwin’s transformation from popular tunesmith to serious composer. And it marked a transformation in American music‚ too. It was fitting‚ Milton Cross later wrote‚ that Rhapsody in Blue had its premiere on Lincoln’s Birthday‚ because “it proved to be the emancipation proclamation of American popular music.” Other commentators have since characterized Gershwin’s Rhapsody as “uniquely describ[ing] the American spirit of the 1920s‚” as “manifest[ing] the confidence and nervous energy of the ‘Roaring Twenties‚’” and as being‚ quite simply‚ “modernity’s anthem.” (READ MORE: Bradley Cooper Is Leonard Bernstein — And I Am Marie of Romania) To be sure‚ some of the serious critics of the day felt obliged to carp. While two writers for the New York Sun found the Rhapsody “stunning” and “ingenious‚” Olin Downes of the Times maintained that while it revealed “extraordinary talent” and was most assuredly “fresh and new and full of promise‚” it also exhibited “technical immaturity” and showed that Gershwin had yet to “master” the form that he had ventured to tackle. Other critics were even tougher‚ using words like “grotesque”; writing about the Rhapsody in the Tribune‚ Lawrence Gilman lamented “the lifelessness of its melody and harmony‚ so derivative‚ so stale‚ so inexpressive.” Later‚ the twin towers of American classical music‚ Aaron Copland and Virgil Thompson‚ would both refer dismissively to the Rhapsody. Even Gershwin’s friend and fellow songwriter Arthur Schwartz (“Dancing in the Dark‚” “I See Your Face Before Me”) would later say that the piece’s structural elements were reflective more of “intuition than tuition.” And thirty-one years after its premiere‚ Leonard Bernstein more or less agreed: the Rhapsody is not a composition at all. It’s a string of separate paragraphs stuck together — with a thin paste of flour and water. Composing is a very different thing from writing tunes‚ after all. I find that the themes‚ or tunes‚ or whatever you want to call them‚ in the Rhapsody are terrific — inspired‚ God-given…. But you can’t just put four tunes together‚ God-given though they may be‚ and call them a composition.  Well‚ maybe you’re not supposed to do that‚ but Gershwin did‚ to the delight of generations of music lovers. After George’s untimely death in 1937‚ Grofé’s full orchestral version of Rhapsody in Blue‚ completed in 1926‚ became a staple in the repertoires of symphony orchestras around the world. The line I quoted above from Milton Cross appears in his two-volume 1953 Encyclopedia of the Great Composers and their Music‚ in which the chapter on Gershwin is sandwiched triumphantly between those about the solidly classical César Franck and Christoph Willibald Gluck‚ and in which Cross describes Rhapsody in Blue as “the best loved and most frequently heard serious American work in the entire literature for orchestra.” To be sure‚ as Hyland reports‚ the Rhapsody has had its up and downs over the decades: there were new arrangements‚ some better than others‚ and orchestras that gave it “increasingly sweet treatment” or that‚ alternately‚ delivered “wooden and uninspired” performances; he quotes the musicologist Gunther Schuller as writing in 1997 that “no famous work has been more mishandled‚ bowdlerized‚ dismembered and misinterpreted” than the Rhapsody. (READ MORE: The Crown’s Surprisingly Touching Finale) Partly for this reason‚ and partly because its “popularity made it suspect‚” it “faded” for a while “from the classical repertory of the major orchestras” and became consigned to the “pops” category‚ only to make a major comeback in recent years‚ not only with the best orchestras but with some music critics who decided‚ after years of disparaging it‚ that Rhapsody in Blue was‚ after all‚ a masterwork. All I need to know is that — a century after its creation‚ and decades after I first thrilled to it in my childhood — it’s as stirring as ever‚ an American classic and a modern milestone. George Gershwin had a healthy ego‚ but did even he imagine that the work he began contemplating on that Boston train and raced to complete in a matter of days would still be blowing audiences away a hundred years later?      The post Happy Birthday‚ <;i>;Rhapsody in Blue<;/i>; appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.