Steve Schwartz wrote:

>Not according to Charles Schwartz, author of Gershwin: His Life & Music
>(Da Capo Press).  In the general way of things, this is a terrible book,
>mainly due to Schwartz's (no relation) dislike of Gershwin's music -

Have not read the book, though must wonder about the author's motivation
to write on music he cares so little for.  Why commit to such a project?
Not that anyone needs a fan-bio, but still, some sense of passion, albeit
a critical one, would seem prerequisite for the job.

Granted, a biographer need not be an advocate of the likes of Hitler or
Stalin to write about them - in fact, it is better that they not be if they
ask to be taken seriously.  (Enough historically compelling reasons exist
to write about them aside from how the biographer may feel about the
subject.) But I'm not such detachment is suitable in the case of writing
about an artist - or is it? What makes an artist compelling to a biographer
even if the artist's work, in the biographer's opinion, intrinsically
isn't? Should we trust such a biography?

"Chris L Beckwith" <[log in to unmask]>