The Art of Making Art

Wonderful article — can’t wait to read the book.
Interesting points about Sondheim’s own identity — and his non-embrace of his own Judaism. It’s interesting that of the popular musical theatre folks who followed Sondheim or were contemporaries, much fewer were Jewish than those who preceded him (Webber/Rice, Boublil/Schoenberg etc)

I cannot agree with you about late perido Sondheim — or early period Sondheim for that matter. As for His being a gay Jew you appear blithely unaware of history.
Speaking as gay half-Jew of 64, I was well aware at an early age that the chrge the Jews “control everything” was a central tenet of what’s commonly referred to as “The American Character.” As for “homosexuality” (a term invented by a Hungarian journalist at the close of the 19th century — and taken up by the medical profession as a cash cow) so-called “Sodomy” laws kept me, Sondheim and zillions of us under the aegis of being a “suspect class” in American until the Lawrence vs. Texas wiped such statures from the books in 2003.

Let me repeat that — IN 2003.

Like the vas majority of straight you know nothing at all about this, yet imagine that you do. I would adise you to “get a clue” as the children say nowadays. But when it comes to “Teh Ghey” that’s simply not possible.

Kirsch is way out of line demanding Jewish and gay confessions from Sondheim. I’m with Sondheim here: The interest IS prurient. Sondheim may have written about Cole Porter’s “gay sensibility.” But Porter’s lyrics could be imbued with gay sensibility and Sondheim’s not. It could be a legitimate question about Sondheim’s art, but the answer could be, “Not in this case.” And Kirsch is exactly one hundred years out of date with his equation of modernism with impersonality. Stravinsky’s “Petrushka” and “Rite of Springs” were composed in 1911. Those works fit the equation, and Stravinsky then made a fetish out of formalism, faux-objectivity, ironic detachment, impersonality, and coolness. But everything changed back decades ago, or has Kirsch never heard of the “confessional poets”? Today modernism is associated with the memoir, real or faked but personal to a fault in either case.

It is condescending for Kirsch to imagine that when Sondheim creates the character of a confirmed bachelor, we have gay shadows falling all over the character. Is “Our Town” suffused in gay sensibility? Only if we take Wilder’s unusual empathy for women to be indicative.

I think my cultural literacy includes some ability to understand a discussion of Noel Coward and Cole Porter in terms of giveaway gay mannerisms, but I don’t like those discussions, because they seem reductive. I suppose I’m more comfortable indicting Hemingway for his macho sensibility, but there too it can unhelpfully diminish good work.

In classical music, there is now an ongoing “Was he or wasn’t he” debate about Ravel. On Kirsch’s theory, either we should be able to answer the question by listening to the music, since music written by a gay man will differ in some quickly detectable way from music written by a straight man; or if we can’t, IT IS BECAUSE RAVEL FAILED US THE WAY KIRSCH THINKS SONDHEIM FAILED US, refusing to honestly reveal himself in his art. This is offensive and silly.

Terrific analysis and commentary by Mr. Kirsch. Sondheim writes at such a skilled level that I suspect Jewishness and homosexuality are too commonplace, too generic to be important parts of his deeper, truer identity as an artist. Isn’t it the artwork that in the end stands alone, independent of biography and influences. The topics Sondheim addresses in his art are not in themselves universal or at the onset meaningful to the audience member, but it is the way Sondheim handles the topic, plays with it, illuminates it that makes it suddenly, unexpectedly connect.

I have to agree with most of these comments, particularly the last four.

Kirsch has written an interesting read, but the more I read it, the more I’m not even sure what it’s trying to say… Aside from obvious errors (“Everything’s Coming Up Roses” was a trunk song, melody wise, but “Someday” in West Side Story wasn’t–”One Hand, One Heart” and “Officer Krupke” musically were first intended for Candide, which Bernstein was working on as well), the very point of the article doesn’t hold.

Sondheim has made it clear how much he loves the collaborative process of theatre–indeed only three of his projects (Road Show, Passion and Sweeney Todd) were ones he instigated, and not the book writer, or director. Book writers often get forgotten when critics are discussing musicals, but, while they brought out the best in Sondheim, a character like Ben Stone is just as much James Goldman’s, or George is James Lapine’s. Two Jewish men who were straight, for whatever it matters.

Cole Porter, who actually I get the impression Sondheim does like as a lyricist (unlike Hart and Coward), rarely wrote so much for character as Sondheim–it’s very diferent to give his lyrics which could be sung by nearly anyone a gay reading.

Sondheim’s love is for the *commercial* theatre–his shows are rarely megahits, but they do attract audiences.

This isn’t some obscure avant garde musical theatre that never gets produced. Sunday in the Park With George, which Kirsh seems to find hopeless, was a much bigger success originally and in revival than anyone expected. And Into the Woods is arguably one of his top three shows commercially (now of course that the audience knows to return after the self contained Act I, thanks to the added To Be Continued).

Kirsh seems to think the common theme to Sondheim’s work is misanthropy–I’d argue it’s about people trying and needing to connect, if anything.

I very much agree with that. Although I will point out he DID openly say (on some TV interviews in fact), when Passion came out, that he had fallen truly in love for the first time (and did appear in public with the guy–whose name I’m blanking on Peter Jones though I want to say), so he didn’t full on hide it, but he still didn’t exactly want to go into Lady Gaga details about how that informed his art.

While I do think one of Sondheim’s strengths is how much he does write for and in the voice of his characters, but one of the few things I do disagree with him is when he says so often that his own personal life and voice doesn’t come through in his writing–I don’t think that’s possible with such an instinctual composer (more so than lyricis which he does see as more of a craft). But that’s my own opinion, I certainly don’t have to know exactly and precisely where those parts might come from.

Your website has to be the elcetornic Swiss army knife for this topic.

W2ra8C oniastfdwnkr