What do you think?
Rate this book


421 pages, Hardcover
First published October 26, 2009
{Musical-theater} Lyrics, even poetic ones, are not poems. Poems are written to be read, silently or aloud, not sung....
Poetry is an art of concision, lyrics of expansion. Poems depend on packed images, on resonance and juxtaposition, on density. Every reader absorbs a poem at his own pace, inflecting it with his own rhythms, stresses, and tone. The tempo is dictated less by what the poet intends than by the reader's comprehension. All of us, as we read poetry (prose, too), slow down, speed up, even stop to reread when overwhelmed by the extravagance of the images or confused by the grammatical eccentricities. The poet may guide us with punctuation and layout and seduce us with the subtle abutment of words and sounds, but it is we {readers} who supply the musical treatment.
Poetry can be set to music gracefully, as Franz Schubert and a long line of others have proved, but... {p}oetry doesn't need music; lyrics do.
Lyrics are not light verse, either. Light verse doesn't demand music because it supplies its own. All those emphatic rhythms, ringing rhymes, repeated refrains: the poem sings as it's being read.... This is why "The Pied Piper" has never been set well: take away the singsong and you destroy the poem, keep it in the music and you bore the listener mercilessly with rhythmic repetition. Music tends to hammer light verse into monotony or shatter its grace.... Light verse is complete unto itself. Lyrics by definition lack something; if they don't, they're probably not good lyrics.
When now it smiles,There's probably some Hammerstein influence here ("Hello Young Lovers" from The King and I), and perhaps a bit of Lorenz Hart as well ("Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered" from Pal Joey). Sondheim's rightfully proud of the song as a whole, which was cut for reasons of pacing and character, but then he finds it necessary to add:
It smiles for lovers.
When next it smiles,
It smiles for fools.
The last it smiles
It smiles for them,
The others,
The rememberers,
The truly silly people.
One point in the lyric worth noting: the unfortunate juxtaposition of "lovers" and "others." When a musical parallel seems to call for a rhyme and either none is available or it would neaten the structure too much, the solution is to use two words which sonically have nothing to do with each other so that the ear doesn't register them as a near-miss. That had been (for me, anyhow) a problem with "Together Wherever We Go" in Gypsy, where at the end of the chorus "Together" and "Wherever" were sung slowly, sounding as if they should rhyme. In that case, the fogginess of the near-rhyme was partly mitigated by the two words coming together in the title, so that it seemed part of the fabric of the lyric. Here, the word "others" was the only word that I wanted to use, and I couldn't avoid the juxtaposition. Much as I like this song, the sound of "others" still makes the word a wrong choice.Given comments like this, one might suppose that Sondheim would accede to the idea that a computer program could be devised which through algorithm and dictionary alone (as opposed to databases of exemplars) could consistently churn out original and emotionally resonant works with few, if any boners. No doubt there are AI's out there that produce good facsimiles of poetry and song (I've heard some great MIDI fractal generators, which, fed enough pieces to analyze, can occasionally mimic music composition fairly well), and no doubt either that eventually, a Kurzweill will produce a program that devises one or more pieces which an educated musicologist cannot distinguish as automated in origin (though I would nonetheless credit the programmer for the output). I don't ultimately see a distinction between the creative abilities of human versus artificial intelligence; I just think that any effective artistic statement requires variation among a set of one or many factors (including changeable rules and input) while strict adherence to a one-size-fits-all approach will be sterile. While I don't dare dispute that good works can be found to adhere to articulatable principles and that craft can be found in the consistent application of those principles, I guess I would take issue with Sondheim's view that there is an invariable, RIGHT way to compose lyrics, music, or what-have-you.
In the movies, life is finer,or
Life is cleaner.
But in Brooklyn, it's a minor
Misdemeanor.
(-- "In the Movies" from Saturday Night, p. 9)
Hyphenated Harriet,deserves to be celebrated, not condemned. Sondheim claims that collections of song lyrics are superfluous given the existence of performable shows and extant recordings. Neither this work nor its anticipated sequel (Look, I Made a Hat) would have been written had not his publisher goaded him into it. Well, good on his publisher. I'm hard pressed to imagine a curmudgeon I'd rather read.
The nouveau
From New Ro-
Chelle…. sits
At the Ritz
With her splits
Of Mumm's
And starts to pine
For a stein
With her village chums,
But with a Schlitz
In her mitts
Down in Fitz-
Roy's Bar,
She thinks of the Ritz – oh,
It's so
Schizo.
("Uptown/Downtown" cut from Follies, p. 236)
--
