"A Sondheim Show"

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 12/9/09 at 6:00pm

DISCLAIMER: Stephen Sondheim is a genius and my favorite Broadway composer of all time.

Am I the only one who's getting a little sick of every show Sondheim worked on becoming a "Sondheim show"? Yes, his music is obviously an integral part of shows such as Sweeney, Night Music, and Sunday in the Park, but people always seem to leave out Hugh Wheeler, James Lapine, and all the other marvelous bookwriters that made up the other half of the show. I mean, all I ever see is credit for him in the media, honorary awards for him, and the only opinion anybody wants to hear when a revival rolls around is his. (Yes, I'm aware Wheeler died some time ago, but Lapine and several others are still around.) Heck, even Hal Prince made Sweeney so much of what it was.

I'm just trying to spark a discussion here, don't lynch me - but despite Sondheim's genius and dominance of the Broadway landscape, does anybody else feel like he gets TOO much credit for the shows he's worked on?

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 12/9/09 at 6:02pm

Agreed.

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/9/09 at 6:08pm

Well Sondheim always credits his book writers. It's not like he wants all the credit.

[Pgenre]

Posted: 12/9/09 at 6:12pm

Love it or hate it he will only get MORE credit for each show as time goes on. Heck, this morning on GMA Robin Roberts remarked to Angie about how she had won Tonys for 2 Sondheim shows and she had to think for a moment, as did I, that Roberts was referring to SWEENEY TODD and GYPSY (and, later, Angie even forgot the title of ACW at first, bless her heart). GYPSY is certainly more Arthur's baby than Steve's and even that is now considered a "Sondheim show" and he contributed far less than Robbins or Arthur, if not Jule, as well. If anyone deserves more credit than absolutely necessary, it should be Steve, but not for GYPSY.

P
Updated On: 12/9/09 at 06:12 PM

[perfectlymarvelous]

Posted: 12/9/09 at 6:13pm

Like ljay said, he always goes out of his way to acknowledge his book writers and other collaborators so it definitely isn't him that makes it all about him.

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 12/9/09 at 6:16pm

No, but everybody else seems to.

[binau]

Posted: 12/10/09 at 1:46am

I agree Sondheim gets WAY too much credit.

Firstly, considering the initiation of all his musicals (except Sweeney and Passion) was not from himself, but from others. (I.e. The general and varied subject matter of all these shows that we find interest wasn't for the most part even his idea).

And obviously overrated because he didn't write the stories, characters etc.. (which when people discuss the shows I've read them throw around "Sondheim" as if he is responsible for it.)

BUT I wonder if even his own musical contribution is overrated. Consider, what he composed was basically on a piano only, right? Now, when we have all these scaled down orchestrations (Almost every production I think from the Mid 90s on, except for WSS and Gypsy), people complain about it (so they presumably enjoy it less than the 'full orchestrations). So it is obvious that people aren't just enjoying his compositions (his contribution musically is exactly the same in the original production of ALNM, as it is in this revival), but the orchestrations. Sondheim's Company Tony speech shows he values orchestrators contributions greatly.

I know I listen to many OBCRs and think that what I am hearing is Sondheim's work..but really, a massive part of it (the orchestrations) isn't his at all. Pretty obvious but still, I wonder if Sondheim would be as successful if (for example) the 95 Company Orchestrations were the originals etc.

Updated On: 12/10/09 at 01:46 AM

[jacobtsf]

Posted: 12/10/09 at 8:36am

Composers/Lyricists are almost ALWAYS given the most credit for a show. Look at Rodgers and Hammerstein, Andrew Lloyd Webber and even Stephen Schwartz for Wicked. Another great example is Frank Wildhorn (whose music is actually the best part of most of "his" shows. Sondheim, just like these others, has become a brand name.

The difference with Sondheim is that he shares the credit whenever he can and he truly believes in fostering good working relationships (his long relationships with certain collaborators shows that). I believe that the real Sondheim nuts (myself included) are just as much Lapine and Wheeler fans as we are Sondheim, but in this case Sondheim is a more public figure than Lapine and Wheeler is unfortunately no longer with us. John Weidman does speak publicly, and spends a lot of the time putting praise on Sondheim.

And to respond to your Gypsy statement, that is a Robbins show, possibly a Styne show. I would never consider it a Sondheim show. And as for Laurents, I feel the book is the weakest part of the show (not as weak as West Side Story, but weak) but that that is overlooked because of the amazing actors that are usually cast in the title role, which carries most of the book.

[darquegk]

Posted: 12/10/09 at 11:04am

The reason, I believe, is that a musical "lives on" in its recordings more than in its stage versions, which are temporary. Unless you have access to bootlegs or the Lincoln Center Archive, you're not likely to have seen a few of the less-produced Sondheim shows- but you might have heard the record. These preserve the songs and the score, but usually not the book. Hence, the composer gets the lion's share of the praise, because they get the lion's share of the exposure.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/10/09 at 11:35am

Firstly, considering the initiation of all his musicals (except Sweeney and Passion) was not from himself, but from others. (I.e. The general and varied subject matter of all these shows that we find interest wasn't for the most part even his idea).

How is that even relevant?

[binau]

Posted: 12/12/09 at 1:45am

Because 'Sondheim' is said to make interesting, challenging/new/innovative shows, but if he didn't concieve them, then I think it makes him 'overrated' if he is given this credit.

E.g. Company as a 'concept' musical. The credit belongs to George Furth and especially Harold Prince, whose idea it was to concieve a 'concept' musical, not Sondheim.

[chewy5000]

Posted: 12/12/09 at 4:17am

I love Jonathan Tunick. IMO the shows he orchestrated wouldn't have been the same had someone else done them.

[blaxx]

Posted: 12/12/09 at 4:19am

and even Stephen Schwartz for Wicked.

That's discredit.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 12/12/09 at 8:35am

"Look at Rodgers and Hammerstein, Andrew Lloyd Webber and even Stephen Schwartz for Wicked."

Hammerstein also wrote the book for a lot of his shows, though.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/12/09 at 9:11am

So go ahead and call Company a "Furth Show" or call Wicked "the new Winnie Holzman piece." Those who don't much about theatre wont have any idea what you're talking about and people who do will think you're a prig.

I think there's an argument to be made that some people worship so fervently at the altar of Sondheim they refuse to accept that he can have his duds, but to dismiss Stephen Sondheim as getting "way too much credit" is just a silly argument. It reads like you're trying so hard to post some proactive, transgressive thesis and all you're really doing is sounding silly.

[AndAllThatJazz22]

Posted: 12/12/09 at 1:43pm

Even King Sondheim admits to getting too much credit for the shows he's done.

[Brick]

Posted: 12/12/09 at 1:51pm

jacobtsf is right.

HELLO, DOLLY. MAME. MACK AND MABEL. All Jerry Herman shows. (Perhaps the only exception being LA CAGE, which we also associate with Harvey.)

NINE. Maury Yeston. No one mentions Arthur Kopit.

SONG AND DANCE. CATS. PHANTOM, SUNSET BLVD. Andrew Lloyd Webber. (His shows with Tim Rice being possible exception. And I think teams in general are better acknowledged for the collaborations.)

[binau]

Posted: 12/12/09 at 2:45pm

"but to dismiss Stephen Sondheim as getting "way too much credit" is just a silly argument. It reads like you're trying so hard to post some proactive, transgressive thesis and all you're really doing is sounding silly."

I don't understand - even if I'm not being particularly insightful, or 'sound silly', I don't see what (in a broader sense) is 'silly' about noticing Sondheim's contributions to his shows are exaggerated, and his collaborators' work goes unnoticed,,

[Fanb]

Posted: 12/12/09 at 7:40pm

The star always gets more credit than he/she deserves, but also gets more blame when things go badly. You make good points that both should be shared evenly, but unfortunately the public (and many critics) don't seem to really understand the contribution of each collaborator.

[Brick]

Posted: 12/12/09 at 7:51pm

^ And they never will.

Those who weren't there for the creation of a production, and sometimes ones who are, do not know who contributed what. And that's fine. Theatre is collaboration.

Sure, it's frustrating when someone gets the credit for something you did, but that goes with it. Someone will one day give you credit for something someone else did.

It should also be mentioned, we're in a All Hail Sondheim Age. (I must admit I'm happy for it.) He certainly took his knocks when some of his shows premiered, and continues to with his new material.

[Fanb]

Posted: 12/13/09 at 11:51am

Agreed

Posted: 12/14/09 at 10:47am

Well back int he 70s it was very much "Prince/Sondheim" spoken int he same sentence (and whoever happened to work with them--be it Hugh Wheeler or Michael Bennett, be damned lol) but that has started to change of course. I dunno, Sondheim himself is always VERY quick to point out its a collaboration who he worked with, etc, etc so I don't blame him but this is common--and is common of all musicals. Every ALW show is "ALW's...", we creidt Fiddler on the Roof to Bock/Harnick, etc etc

Qolbinau the orchestrations play a huge part but I only know a few VERY strict show queens who would listen to a score because Tunick orchestrated, composer be damned. Sondheim gives huge credit to his orchestrators but he's not an Irving Berlin--he doesn't write the melody line on pianoandleve the rest to the orchestration--he's VERY involved in the process, writes detailed piano lines, suggests orchestration, etc, etc. Read Sondheim on Music or some other vols sometime for details

[Eastwickian]

Posted: 12/14/09 at 11:36am

The role of the orchestrator varies from composer to composer – some create an appropriate tone and instrumental colour from the notes and chord structures given by the composer, others may have to construct a score from the composer humming to a dictaphone, many more are in-between the two. Whilst they will put their own flourishes into the music (Tunick famously quoting Mahler in 'Ladies Who Lunch') 99% of what you hear is Sondheim. When people complain about reduced orchestrations it's never because it makes them believe that the score isn't as good but that the orchestrator hasn’t made the right choices. I could orchestrate the whole of Pacific Overtures for kettle drums from Sondheim’s lead sheets – it wouldn’t diminish the brilliance of the score, but it would sound entirely inappropriate.

Having said that, I’m one of the few who liked the orchestration of the recent ‘Sunday’ revival – now where’s that ‘Unpopular Opinions’ thread gone…

Posted: 12/14/09 at 1:30pm

Or Tunick famously quoting from "Someone is Waiting" in the "Being Alive" orchestrations (something that Sondheim has been quoted as both saying he loved and didn't like lol). I don't mind the Sunday ones myself, at least as they are on the CD (though when I saw that producton, with Hugh Panaro in Seattle they used a full orchestra) I don't miss the full orchestra the way I do when hearing the later versions of Company (any that lose that original oh so 70s synth sound and the pit voices) or Merrily's later smaller orchestrations Tunick did.

[binau]

Posted: 12/14/09 at 4:20pm

So are the Piano/Vocal scores a good indication of Sondheim's 'contribution'?

In the Sweeney vocal score it says it "has been prepared from the composer's piano copy"...I guess this doesn't show his suggestions for orchestrations etc.. though. I will try and find that book, thanks!

Updated On: 12/14/09 at 04:20 PM