James Zehm wrote:

>It might be enough to listen to Gershwins Pianoconcerto to hear that he
>didn't had enough technique.  He could write effectfully characteristics
>sometimes though, like in "Cuban Ouverture", but in the pianoconcerto
>anyway, he didn't know what he was doing.

Excuse me? Technique for what? If you're trying to say that he couldn't
built the structure for a large movement, you're not listening closely
enough.  I've actually analyzed the concerto and found, contrary to
received opinion, that it is very subtly constructed.  I'm pleased to say
that the leading scholarly analyst, the late Steven Gilbert (The Music
of Gershwin, Yale Univ. Press), agrees with me, although I came to my
conclusion separately and with not nearly the detail he comes up with.
I've also purchased a facsimile of Gershwin's original manuscript.  It
shows me that he knew exactly what he was doing.

What "mistakes" there are in the score are generally the equivalent of
typos, although he does have a habit (which he never lost) of overdividing
the strings.  Perhaps he was fonder of the effect than I.  But let's scotch
this "naive genius" persona that's dogged Gershwin and flies in the face of
known facts of his career.

James Zehm wrote in response to Gerry Kelly:

>>The problem with Stravinsky is that he never again displayed the genius of
>>the Rite of Spring, Petroushka or the Firebird
>
>What about the Symphony in C?

I don't know who wrote the original, but I agree with James.  My favorite
Stravinsky happens later than any of those three ballets, wonderful as they
are.  He didn't write in those veins afterwards because he had already done
it and didn't want to do it again.  His genius invented so many new styles
and brought those styles to their height.  As far as I'm concerned, he's
as great a creator as Beethoven and as consummate a composer as Mozart
(at Mozart's best).

So there.

Steve Schwartz