Loving You: The Untold Sondheim podcast — Page 2

So... I finished this podcast today.

I'm disappointed that the focus of every episode was less about Sondheim, and more about Martin Milnes going on regarding his interpretation of how important Peter E. Jones was in Sondheim's life. Milnes uses the phrase, "you, P.J." in every episode when I wanted to hear something more akin to, "you, Stephen".

No matter how each narrative began, the focus always turned to Jones at some point. Even participants like Mia Farrow contributed to massaging Jones' ego in regards to his relationship w/Sondheim, and Sondheim's affection for Jones.

I found it interesting that it's very difficult to find any photos, or information about either Jones or Milnes online. Based on the info in the podcast, I get the impression that both ares fairly unaccomplished beyond their connection with/to Sondheim's work.

Although Sondheim lists the song, "Bluello" (from Jones' never-completed musical, 'Peyton Place') in his list of Songs I Wish I'd Written (At Least in Part), its only recording is in (and was made specifically for) the last episode of the podcast. Jones uses the episode to relay an anecdote to Mia Farrow that is completely self-serving in conveying a message of "that's how much Stephen loved me", and Farrow placates Jones. How telling that the last minutes of a podcast series meant to be about Sondheim should be used to feature a song, and a self-serving "revelation" by his ex (IMO,slacker) boyfriend.

The series ends with this question from Milnes to Jones: "What has your life been because of Steve, and what might your life had been if you had never sent that letter to him back in 1990?" That question and its answer are why I believe this is a podcast made by two nobodies whose only notoriety is having had the great fortune to have ridden the coattails of Stephen Sondheim.

I am mistaken. There's one more episode (total of 12). My wording was unintentionally deceptive, but as far as I'm concerned, I'm done.

Updated On: 5/20/26 at 10:52 AM

I bailed after two episodes.

Very harsh, indeed.

I really have enjoyed this angle on Sondheims life. My main complaint being it feels a bit over produced (impressions, audio of “parties”, etc) that I think take away from the authenticity of the podcast

TotallyEffed said: "Very harsh, indeed."

As harsh as it may seem (or be), my objection to how Jones and Milnes have created this series is that they have inserted themselves into the podcast to a point where Sondheim too often shares lesser focus than the podcast's creators/narrators.

Episodes 10 and 11 (which focus on the relationship between Sondheim and Jones) are especially guilty of this. I suppose it could be chalked up to a matter of "tastes", but I don't see how it can be denied that, especially E11, is more about Jones and Jones' still uncompleted work than Sondheim, or Sondheim's work.

I'm glad that people find the podcast enjoyable, and I, too have learned things I wasn't aware of before. Still, I feel and sense an overarching tone of "I was his boyfriend!" running throughout that wouldn't be present if created/produced by others who weren't so connected.

IMO, Milnes and Jones were too close to the subject to be able restrict their inclusion to a lesser highlighted degree.

Updated On: 5/21/26 at 07:56 AM

I'm about 2/3's through the series, and there are two things that continually irk me. 1) Use of the word "camp" where it really doesn't apply: witty or satirical or off-beat would often be the more accurate adjective in a given case (and I love camp, btw, so this isn't some kind of attempt to distance Sondheim from an enjoyment of it). 2) A seeming inability to recognize that a combination of Sondheim's unique relationship with them or their meeting him at a fairly late stage in his life probably accounts for why they never saw the "prickly," "cold" persona many others describe. Leonard Bernstein's children have talked about this, and about his effect on other people around him in the 1950's, not to mention Mary Rodgers' own assessment; just looking at his most frequent collaborators for the first three decades of his career helps to explain why he would have developed those personality traits, it they weren't innate to him. He worked with some pretty fierce, ascerbic people--giants in their field, so this isn't meant as a put-down, just an acknowledgement of fact.

Both of these issues are two strands of the same problem: for all their (cherry-picked?) interviewees, they don't seem capable of looking beyond their personal experience/opinion to a wider view of their subject.

That said, this gives a nice, unique insight into Sondheim. It's another piece to fit into the puzzle.

TotallyEffed said: "The English have a different definition of camp than Americans."

Want to go into detail?

TotallyEffed said: "Sure. The biggest difference is that in England, camp oftensimply means that something or someone isvery gay. We might refer to someone as a queen, over there they'd say that person is camp.If you go out to a piano or drag bar, you could say you had a "camp time." It can also be used similarlyto the way we use it, to describe someone or something that is over the top, theatrical, flamboyant, orexaggerated.

So referencingBette Davis movies, impersonating Ethel Merman, bitchy gossip,etc. is "camp." Gays having a gay time, making classic gay references."

I really appreciate that. But 1) isn't it odd that Milnes doesn't take into account that when Sondheim says "A litte camp goes a long way" (I'm probably not getting that quote exaclty right) might be referring to the American concept of camp and explain the discrepancy? Also, Milnes calls Beat the Devil "camp," which is just weird, in terms of either the American or British use of the term.

joevitus said: "[...] for all their (cherry-picked?) interviewees, they don't seem capable of looking beyond their personal experience/opinion to a wider view of their subject."

I agree.

I feel that the inability to look "beyond their personal experience/opinion to a wider view of their subject" creates an unintended bias that colors the podcast in a way that I found to be off-putting, and even self-aggrandizing on occasion.

Even with all the info I found to be interesting, I think that I (personally) would have enjoyed the podcast more had they relayed their personal stories to an outside source, who then compiled and produced the podcast.

Updated On: 5/21/26 at 12:44 PM

Someone in a Tree2 said: "

But gee whiz, after titling the episode "Goodbye for Now", why oh why didn't they play the song itself, sung by Maria Friedman or any other of the great Sondheim interpreters they have on hand anyway."

There's an anecdote about this song in the notes @ the YouTube page for Goodbye For Now - Unsung Sondheim that makes Warren Beatty look like a complete dolt. (I got a kick out of it!)

I've been asked to interview Martin about the series, so I won't get to my main criticism... OK, I was never really comfortable with the re-enactments. In theory they make great sense and obviously a lot of work went into them--even some clever casting--but... (Especially when we heard a young Sondheim calling everything swell--admittedly a word his friends said he used an awful lot.)

But like Someone in a Tree said: " Just listened to episode 12. Yes there's too much of Martin and Peter, yes there's too much gushing sentiment rather than factual anecdotes, but ya know what? It's astonishing the amount of good work is here in the series as a whole, so I'll forgive them the swerve to mawkishness in the final 3 or so episodes. "

I feel exactly the same way. It seems in poor taste for me to nitpick as I do, because this really is such an amazing gift.I actually thought the first PJ episode especially was one of the strongest, but maybe that's because ever since reading the Secrest when it came out when I was 16, I've wanted to know more. He really sounds kinda like a young idiot in the Secrest, so it was nice hearing it from his perspective and finding out some great romcom stuff like Sondheim breaking his leg so Peter was asked to stay with him, Sondheim not knowing how to make oatmeal or whatever, etc.

Also, as great as I've found a lot of recent writing about Sondheim including Okrent's book (interessting both this and the book for the first time really address the fact that Sondheim seemed to drink every single day--Okrent calls him an alcoholic but the podcast makes a point that they don't think he is. I have to assume by that they mean he wasn't slurring by 3pm or passed out.) I think it DID make a difference to hear about Sondheim from gay men. Usually I wouldn't say that mattered, but I've gotten a bit annoyed lately with the writing about Sondheim that seems to keep his sexuality as a footnote and I think it is because it's mostly been written by straight men who either aren't comfortable addressing that, or feel his sexuality shouldn't be relevant (even though there's been much talk about just how being Jewish bears on his work or not--and let me tell you, he was a nonpracticing homosexual, not a practising Jew.)

Connected to that I loved that they talked about the anecdote that there was an actress at a dinner party Sondheim was having who went to the wrong room while looking for the bathroom and found a naked guy chained to the sink, or whatever. I believe PJ says he had heard that this was Phyllis Newman and Martin says he had heard Angela Lansbury. And both heard it (I think they said) in the early 90s. When I was 13 in 1993 I got my first email account (through my mom's university) and joined the Sondheim mailing list. And I swear this was one of the first things I heard about (in my version it was Lansbury) It was so pervasive a story at the time, and yet when I've mentioned it lately no one seems to know what I was talking about. So I appreciated that (and of course it's not true--we all know about one type of sex Sondheim was into--in the podcast they make this clear as well I thought--but even if that went as extreme as tying someone up, he would have never done it during a dinner party. I don't think Sondheim would have risked something like that.)