GeorgeandDot said: "His lyrics are unintelligible in the theatre. They're fine on recording (although they're really not anything special), but good theatre lyrics need to tell a story and they need to be intelligible in the theatre to do so. It's problematic if it takes me longer than the actual length of the song to comprehend the lyrics and realize why it was relevant to the plot. Thankfully the book does most of the character and plot development and the songs kind of comment on it, or else I probably would have been pretty lost. Sondheim's lyrics might be complicated and detailed, but at least they make immediate sense (at least most of them do) in the theatre. Spring Awakening's lyrics arenot bad at all, but I wouldn't have awarded it the Tony for Best Score."
I have no desire to dissuade you from your opinions, or preferences. Obviously, some of us feel differently, including folks who have given the lyrics awards and written about them in thoughtful and glowing terms. (And that doesn't detract from anything you have said.) This isn't all that different from the divide between plays that tell stories expressly and plays that don't. I recall taking a friend of mine, a very fine actor and director, to see a Foreman play. He had never been exposed to Foreman and was angry (at me, probably Richard too) when the show ended. He insisted that, when a play ends, the audience MUST know what happened, even when it is left with unknowns to ponder. I think a lot of people would say that Spring Awakening is more resonant than a lot of Sondheim (I have great affection for both), and I would say that no show owes its audience anything else. Of course, as you prove in this case, you can't please all the people all the time.