Sondheim Flaws--a discussion — Page 2

I like Bounce a lot, and I've heard this said, but the Bounce score is exactly what it needs to be for the show.

If you listen, a story is being told musically, through motifs, and recurring lyrics, and such.

It's about ownership, and taking over something (land, or a person) without asking, talent, and oppurtunity.
This I all learned through the music.
I haven't seen the show, or read the book, so I can't really comment on the whole show itself, but I think it is an awesome score, but it's just, not somehow, as new and inventive as her other stuff.

It seems familiar, in that it's like something we've heard before, and Sondheim reinvents his style with every show, I think this territory is similar to Funny Thing, and perhaps that's why people didn't take to this score as much as his others.

---

I have nothing to add to this discussion except to say I have to write a 15-page-minimum paper on Sondheim's flaws for my writing seminar for college. It's freaking HARD to do, and as other people have said, I keep saying "the book wasn't strong enough" or "the plot didn't appeal to the audience..." There's hardly anything wrong with his actual writing. Plus, my professor thinks if you go up to any random person and ask who Sondheim is, they'll know, and then spout off a list of all his works. He's a composer, so he might have a skewed view, but I'm a music freak too, and I know if I asked 100 random people who Sondheim was, probably at least 80% of them would look at me with blank looks.

I love "Green Finch and Linnet Bird." And what is it but Johanna's introduction and "I want" song?

Sondheim is a purebred Broadway Baby. Let's not forget that.

---

"However, most of you on this post are ignoring the topic: his flaws."

Heh, shouldn't be surprised, but didn't take long before most of the thread was praising him. Further explaining why I was curious to hear flaws you all believe he has since you all see the rarity they're discussed or even acknowledged to exist.

---

ALWrules I agree completly. I think his music works in the context of the show, but most of the songs aren't that melodic and do seem like filler. Esp, a lot of Into the Woods. Its hard to just sit down and listen to it.

Now I know that this is quite delayed, but when talking about "show-stoppers", I truly believe that Sondheim doesn't write a song just to stop the show. He writes for the time, place, and person. And in many ways, when comparing Sondheim to some great lyricist/songwriters, many people find this the flaw. I don't consider it so, but people like fluff, they like getting lost for a few hours. And his choices are bold, and unique, which sets him apart from everyone else, flaw or not. He writes for the show, not the audience.

Yeah, somebody already mentioned that one earlier in the thread. I suppose excuses can be made for a very young Sondheim. I think that is the moment where you can very clearly hear the voice of the lyricist. For a lot of witty lyricists you can pretty much always hear them rather than the character (Porter and Coward immediately come to mind). While some people would argue that you can ALWAYS hear the voice of Sondheim in his characters due to the sheer complexity of the lyrics, this is only semi true. You can hear Sondheim's wit, but only when he's writing for witty characters. Otherwise his characters make points in spite of themselves. I think in Into the Woods you hear his voice a lot, because it's a psychological play where the characters aren't really... real. Like in the case of Little Red, why's she singing about what she sings about?

But a lot of times Sondheim is like Harburg. The tricky rhyming is what gives it character.

Also, it's a matter of taste when it comes to Sondheim's music. I find when he's melodious he's gorgeous, and his dissonant, complicated melodies are always theatrically honest and arguably another expression of beauty. There may not be one wrong note in South Pacific but I find Sondheim more interesting at nearly every turn (except for cases like "This Nearly Was Mine," which is just a gorgeous song).

You know. "Pretty isn't beautiful, mother. Pretty is what changes." I like that. It speaks to me in volumes.

I'm curious if anyone can think of actual flaws rather than matters of opinion. It really does seem like a subjective question, doesn't it?

For example, let's talk about Forum. Sondheim has said himself he got a little gimmicky with the score, anxious to show himself off as the hot new composer who wants to write some off kilter music. As such songs like "Pretty Little Picture" go down in history as his cut songs because they're weird. The same goes for Anyone Can Whistle, the score of which can be enormously complicated. A lot of marks of genius there though. The sheer wry sound of the title song... his trademark maniac songs like "Everybody Says Don't".

Do you think weird works in the musical theater? There are songs in Floyd Collins (one of my favorites) that are just plain weird, same goes for Piazza, of course anything LaChiusa. It's interesting musical experimentation.

Um, a "flaw" that always kinds of irks me. The end of "If You Can Find Me, I'm Here" and "I'm Still Here" are the same give or take a still and an am. Seems a pretty obvious way to end a song, I guess, but still. "Everybody Rise!" "For me!" What else can you think of?

---

Jose', many people also cite some of Dot's songs in Sunday in the Park With George as examples of a person who is singing things that are quite a bit higher than their alleged academic standard. "Everybody Loves Louis" being one of them.

---

"Everybody Loves Louis"? Really? What is it, the knead/need pun, or the art being "hard to swallow"? :P Maybe it rhymes too much, since combinations like perfection/objection/connection are associated with more witty characters than Dot, who isn't dumb but isn't ultra-articulate, either.

And "London town" sounds fine to me; that's a certain section of central London that marks the city's old borders, I believe. Or is that "city" rather than "town"? Hm.

ALWrules, define "melodic." Becuase I really, really hate that damn criticism. "Melodic" seems to mean whatever people want it to mean, especially if they're using it to criticize Sondheim wholesale. And if you think you must have Rodgers (or, dare I say, ALW)-esque lyrics to make good music, congratulations, you've dismissed rap as a genre.

Updated On: 11/22/05 at 09:38 AM

As far as Sondheim as collaborator, my problem hasn't been with his ability to write a song that furthers the plot, or furthers the character. My problem has been that more often than not with Sondheim, the style of the book doesn't match the style of the music (for example, one is a two-dimensional farce, and one is intimately realistic). As a collaborator, what Sondheim seems to have not done is to switch up his style to fit the book. I think that gives a director a very difficult task of favoring one over the other (you've got to pick, or you'll get panned). Now mind you, I usually think the style Sondheim chooses for his music is far smarter than the book writer, but I have noticed this trend with Sondheim. This is also not to say that sometimes this juxt makes for an interesting theatre piece. I just am not sure that this choice is always a choice. I would also assert that a good collaborator would have many many meetings deciding the style of the show before putting pen to paper (or keys to software).

---

Ok, we'll start with a few:

Passion (BBCish book, ultra-modern (almost atonal) score)

Into the Woods (farce book, romantic score -- with a few exceptions)

Anyone Can Whistle (need we even go into this incongruency?)

---