Rhymes With Dramaturg is coming out of its unintentional hiatus today. In posts to come, I'll be sharing my experiences with bells, theatre and choir (including an exciting CD recording at Glenn Gould Studio) that I should have been sharing in a timely fashion, but life (including bells, theatre and choir) got in the way.
This week marks the birthdays of some music and theatre greats: JS Bach, Phyllis Newman, and Stephen Sondheim, and all of them are part of this post. I am performing Bach's Mass In B-Minor with Amadeus Choir, the Elmer Iseler Singers, orchestra and soloists tomorrow (Saturday March 23rd) night, in Toronto, at Metropolitan United Church, at 7:30pm. It will be an amazing concert; so much work has been poured into it. I'm even attending all rehearsals with an elbow that was broken badly enough to need surgery, so you can see the dedication this inspires! To top it off, CBC will be recording the performance and will broadcast it on Easter Sunday, so even if you can't come you can tune in and hear me on the radio.
Last month, I was interviewed for
an article about Stephen Sondheim's increasing mainstream popularity by Popbreak's Brent Johnson and John Elliott, partially due to my MFA in dramaturgy and partially because I worked for Phyllis, a good friend of Mr. Sondheim, for some time and so had a very tiny bit of insider knowledge. Most of what I said didn't get used (I said a lot) and I got permission to post the interview here, so without further ado, happy birthday Stephen!
pop-break: What do you do for a living? What is
your title/expertise?
RWD: I am a sessional faculty member in the
English Department at Centennial College (in Toronto). I studied English and
Theatre at Princeton University and hold an MFA in Dramaturgy from Columbia.At
Columbia, I was fortunate enough to take a musical theatre class with Andy
Hammerstein. I also spent a year as Phyllis Newman’s personal archivist; Ms.
Newman is the widow of Adolph Green (of Comden and Green) and a long-time
friend of Stephen Sondheim, so I was able to see some exceptional
correspondence and photos, and send the occasional photo to James Lapine for Sondheim on Sondheim. It seems like her
Playbill blog has been deleted, but here’s an archived copy of some of the
things we were finding: http://web.archive.org/web/20111226073601/http://www.playbill.com/playblog/2010/03/celeb-playblogger-phyllis-newman-march-30/
I am also a lifelong lover of musical theatre!
pop-break: What was your earliest exposure to
Sondheim?
RWD: I have to admit that I don’t remember what
show I was introduced to first. My grandparents were huge supporters of the
arts; they would go to theatre festivals and see everything, and when I was
about seven or eight, I was allowed to come to some of the shows, which meant I
was the only eight-year-old ever to select Yum Yum from The Mikado as a
Halloween costume. I started to enjoy Sondheim around that time as well, though
I’m sure some nuances were lost on me. My best friend growing up was a big
Sondheim fan, and so we shared our enjoyment through elementary, middle and
high school (where we used to practice our rendition of “It Takes Two” whenever
we had time). In my (arts) high school’s grade nine vocal class, they showed the
DVD of Into The Woods, and by that time the deal was sealed with most of my
theatrically-inclined friends.
pop-break: What is his biggest contribution to
the American musical theater canon?
RWD: Sondheim, though not by himself, helped
take us into a different era of musical theatre; an era of “serious” or
“thoughtful” musical theatre. Many people stereotype musical theatre as
“fluff,” with silly, contrived plots, chorus girls, and romance driving a light
entertainment. Obviously, there was “serious” musical theatre before Sondheim
(Rodgers and Hammerstein, particularly Hammerstein as his mentor, clearly
influenced him in that department), but very few pieces were challenging
structurally, thematically, linguistically AND musically. With Sondheim’s
pieces, you couldn’t just stand there and sing; you had to be an accomplished
actor, and an intelligent one, at that.
pop-break: What qualities do you think have kept
his work from achieving widespread mainstream success - a la Andrew Lloyd Webber and Stephen
Schwartz? (I guess I should also mention that it's ALW's birthday...)
RWD: Sondheim is a challenging writer, in a very
good way. His vocabulary, his rhyme schemes (can’t forget those lovely internal
rhymes!) and his musical lines are often unpredictable, difficult, and
fascinating. He’s not afraid to focus on the strange or unappealing, and his
characters are complex, very human, and therefore not always likable (look at
Fosca from Passion – if I remember correctly, preview audiences cheered when
she was in trouble, and someone even yelled “Die, Fosca, Die!”). Sondheim isn’t
afraid to take us backward in time or uproot us completely, sending us decades
forward in the second act to comment on the themes in the first. Sondheim
refuses to focus on the lowest common denominator, asks big questions, often
projects a “New York” sensibility, and occasionally descends into vicious
satire. Moreover, he doesn’t rely on familiar stories, for the most part, and
when he does use something popular such as fairy tales, they’re not your Disney
fairy tales. He pulls the rug out from under you. In fact, with certain shows,
I wonder if Sondheim would be a much more “populist” composer if he just
presented the first act of many of his shows, where things often seem to work
out in a deceptively simple way (Into the Woods, Sunday In the Park With
George). Webber has a tendency to
be simple, repetitive, romantic and big, and while there are elements of repetition,
romance and “big” gestures in Sondheim, that’s not what he’s about; mostly,
they tend to be tempered and carefully considered. Sondheim also has a tendency
to go for pastiche numbers (Pacific Overtures, Follies) and those numbers only
work if you have some historical or theatrical background to get the reference.
I loved “Please Hello” so much more because of my deeply-rooted, eight-year-old’s
obsession with Gilbert and Sullivan. We have to remember that much of Broadway
tourism, particularly recently, has been from countries where English is not a
first language, and if tourists are coming to see a show and they don’t
necessarily have a strong grasp of the language, Sondheim might be difficult to
fully appreciate. Challenging subjects (for example, Assassins) are also a
factor. However, remember that this is a Sondheim stereotype, and that if you
go back, he was part of the teams for some of the most popular musicals of all
time.
pop-break: What do you like most about his
work? What do you find most challenging about it?
RWD: Sondheim’s words and wit never fail to
dazzle me, though I think people actually have a tendency to focus on the
intricacy of the words and not give him proper credit for the engaging music.
Sometimes I find the structure of Sondheim’s works to be challenging; they are
occasionally overly ambitious, and my dramaturg instinct is both to celebrate
that while making it clearer to the audience. I would say that, particularly
with some of Sondheim’s pricklier characters, there is a danger of not being
able to emotionally connect. That is a stereotype of his work, but I do
occasionally find it to be true (again, why he might be less “popular.”)
pop-break: What are the important qualities to
remember when teaching Sondheim?
RWD: Context is very important, as many of
his pieces deal with historical reference and cultural or social factors that
make much more sense once contextualized. A study of narrative structure is
important, if only to see how he subverts it. An exploration of theme is
important, as the shows are often much more than just the sum of their parts.
It’s important to think about how the shows work on stage, not just on the
page, particularly with a show like Follies with its big showpieces, dancers
reflected with their younger selves, etc. Here I think it’s important to talk
about Sondheim’s relationship with Hal Prince and the designer Boris Aronson,
among others (remembering that a show is affected by everyone on the team).
Obviously, it’s important to deal with rhythm and rhyme, and to see how the
musical lines correspond with emotional or thematic elements in the songs. I
thought the way I studied a Sondheim show in one of my dramaturgy classes was
quite effective; along with contextual research, we made a “casebook” that
dealt with music, character, theme, language, etc…all that Aristotle-y
goodness.
pop-break: Why do you think his work has now
entered the mainstream over the last decade -- with Glee, Tim Burton, etc.?
What do you think has changed?
RWD: I’m honestly not sure that his work has
“entered the mainstream” over the last decade, or that it was not at all part
of the mainstream before. The man worked on West Side Story and Gypsy – those
were hugely popular shows! I don’t know about this narrative. All I can say is
that it’s more okay to be someone who enjoys a niche than ever; there’s geek
pride, “freak” pride, fandom pride, musical theatre pride. Because of the
Internet, among other social forces, small communities actually found out that
they’re larger than they thought. What the rise of technology means is that
it’s easier to share the theatre experience than ever, if not truly the
experience of live theatre. So many recordings and videos are being shared;
though there have always been touring companies, Broadway has of late been able to become a larger experience than just
New York. People can find others like them. People who were younger and musical
theatre geeks got older and found themselves with entertainment power, so they
could do what they wanted to. Glee, horrible as it has become, I believe both
made it more okay to like to sing, more acceptable in this ironic age to burst
out into song, and became a gateway drug for younger audiences less familiar
with Sondheim. Maybe someone tuned in for “No Air” and left singing
“Everything’s Coming Up Roses.” It’s all about shifts in social conception.
Musical theatre was silly, then serious, then silly again, then perhaps silly,
serious and socially acceptable.
pop-break: Do you feel he is the Broadway
composer who has the most crossover appeal to people who like classical or
opera or rock music? Why is that?
RWD: That’s a bit of a leading question, but
it’s probably accurate. He’s the most well-known artist with the largest body
of work with that kind of crossover appeal. He’s thought of as smart and
cultured, which attracts the classical/opera crowd, and he’s edgy enough to
appeal to rock sensibilities. However, there are many other artists who would
have that sort of appeal, particularly some younger artists; the “Broadway
musical” doesn’t have one sound anymore. For example, Adam Guettel’s The Light In The Piazza
skews classical and Tom Kitt and Brian Yorkey’s Next to Normal skews rock, to
say nothing of artists like Michael John LaChiusa and Jason Robert Brown. These
artists, I would say, all have Sondheim to thank, in some way, for this changing
and malleable sound, and for this heightened potential for crossover appeal.
Maybe, with Sondheim as a compelling background, accompanied by the next
generation(s) of artists, we’ll have more people coming in for Piazza and staying for Normal, and vice versa.