Sondheim's weaker lyrics/rhymes- Page 5

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 9:46am

I've always been tripped up by:

"That's perfect for some people
of one hundred and five."

In an otherwise lyrically exquisite song, this always strikes my ear as awkward, easy, and abritrary. What am I missing?

Updated On: 12/30/13 at 09:46 AM

[metropolis10111]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 10:15am

I want to hit the nonexistent like button on g.d.e.l.g.i.'s post

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 10:42am

Except, g.d.e.l.g.i., that's not a very good basis for discussion, is it? If people want to say, “I don’t like XYZ lyric, and it’s fine if you disagree, but I’m not interested in thinking about my opinion or listening your counter opinion because all opinions are subjective,” well… okay, that’s their prerogative. But the most useful discussions in this thread – indeed, in any thread – have involved people reasoning out their opinions and (maturely) engaging with posters in disagreement.

You said, “That's all this is -- an exercise in pointing them out.” Well, no, that’s not what this thread is. If it were, it would just be a list. And that would be pretty boring.

[newintown]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 10:57am

Exactly - I think it's fine for someone to say "I don't like X," particularly when they can state an articulate and well-informed reason why. But that's a far cry from saying "this lyric is weak," or stating that the Tempest is "dramaturgically weak."

But if you're someone who says that the Tempest is "dramaturgically weak," you're probably not going to say instead "although I know it's acknowledged by better (and perhaps worse) minds than mine to be a masterpiece, I don't quite get Prospero's latter motivations."

[metropolis10111]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 11:59am

someone could be very well informed and yet still hate the lyric.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 12:04pm

Then they should be able to explain why.

[newintown]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 12:05pm

Growl, here's my defense of "That's perfect for some people of one hundred and five."

The meaning aimed for is easy - "living life in the living room is perfect for someone really old and done with life."

The structure, though - Sondheim doesn't take structural shortcuts. He's a master at perfect symmetrical construction, when he chooses to use it, which is often, particularly earlier in his career. That is: parallel stanzas have the same number of syllables with stresses in the exact same places and perfect rhymes.

In the prior stanza, he has set up:

That's okay for some people
who don't know they're alive.

So in the next one, we need a last line of 6 syllables with a heavy stress on the second syllable, the final syllable needs to rhyme with "five," and the whole phrase needs a meaning of "someone who's really old."

He could have written:

That's perfect for some people
of two thousand and five

But that's slightly Biblical and ridiculous. Yes, few people live to 105, but it's less outlandish, and it provides an image of someone truly elderly, infirm, and no longer engaging with the world as Rose wants to.

[darquegk]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 12:07pm

In response to After Eight's complaint that no other lyricist is as studied and analyzed as Sondheim...

In the eighteenth century, often considered the golden age of British poetry, there was a schism in popular imagination between two different schools of poetry. The first, the Wits (led by Alexander Pope and John Gay), held that the best poetry was that which showed wit: that which expressed what everyone may have thought or felt, but better than they could have said it. The second, the Visionaries (led by John Milton and Isaac Watts), insisted that great poetry came from unique individual inspiration and expression, that which no one but the specific poet could have created for its idiosyncratic uniqueness.

That schism has never healed. It's fairly easy to sort writers of today into Wit and Visionary categories, but very rarely do the two sides actually meet. The Visionaries, however, tend to get more analysis, since in writers where there is little ambiguity there can be little actual debate. Can one debate layers of meaning, contradiction and ambiguity in Jerry Herman? Not very easily, although that doesn't mean Jerry Herman is bad or a lesser writer. But visionary complexity is not Herman's bag- he is a Wit. He gives voice to life sentiments that all have felt, yet none have said as well as him.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 12:24pm

That's a good defense, newintown, and thank you for pointing out the perfect symmetry in the verses. As a nonsinger/nonmusician, those are the sorts of things that often escape my ear/readings.

But, while Rose is no spring chicken, she's nowhere near 105. If she's singing about things that might be okay for some people but not her, using such an unequal comparison seems faulty and a bit of a cheat. To me, it’s so outlandish that it weakens her message or seems beside the point.

I buy the setup of "people who don't know they're alive" because she's specifically the opposite. She's active, headstrong, and impassioned because she refuses to resign herself to complacency, unlike “some people.” The reason the rhyming lyric is awkward to me is because I think it would be stronger if it could conceivably apply to her and point to something that she could be, but, because of her personality, she is not.

Maybe I don't see any thematic parallelism because being elderly or homebound doesn't, to me, equate to not knowing you're alive. 105-year-olds can be full of joie de vivre, and 25-year-olds can be complacent.

Does that make sense?

Updated On: 12/30/13 at 12:24 PM

[newintown]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 12:39pm

I understand completely what you say, and would definitely ask for a different lyric for the Mysteriousgrowl musical.

But Rose isn't you; what can be truly wonderful about other people is how they're different, and how they think and express themselves in ways we might not. In other words, we explore them, rather than expecting them to adhere to our expectations. (or, at least, that's what I like to think.)

Updated On: 12/30/13 at 12:39 PM

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 12:52pm

Oh, absolutely, and -- ding ding ding -- there's our subjectivity. I guess I'm bugged because it's the one moment in the song that's inconsistent to me, and Sondheim's consistency-of-character-slash-internal-logic is typically exexmplary. I can live with Rose making an weird, jarring comparison; I still question Sondheim writing her to do it.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 1:03pm

Does that make sense?

No, not really.

You're missing the point that people frequently make offhand references to chronological age equating infirmity or inactivity. It's part of common everyday speech to say things like "I feel so old" or "I'm not that old!" or "Oh, come on, you're not that old" or "Stop acting like such an old woman." So for Rose to say the lyrical equivalent of "That's okay for old people but not for me" is good character writing.

But, yes, you have every right to question, "Why 105"? Is it just for the rhyme? Perhaps, but the history of songwriting provides much more cringe-worthy examples of words shoe-horned in just for a rhyme. And, besides, people often use an uneven number to make a point: It can seem more emphatic to say "if I live to be a hundred and a half..." or "if I live to be 117..." than to simply say "if I live to be a hundred..."

But if it really bothers you that the rhyming lyric has her say "some people of 105," what would be your solution? To have something else there that doesn't rhyme? To have her not refer to age at all because "105-year-olds can be full of joie de vivre"?

Okay, then, here's your assignment: Finish that quatrain with two lines that are better than "That's okay for some people / Of one hundred and five." All right, GO!

But don't forget that the beginning of that verse refers to people who live their lives in living rooms: meaning that they stay at home and go nowhere and do nothing, for their whole lives. It's possible, isn't it, that idea leads inexorably and inevitably to the idea of STILL being in that living room at a chronological age equaling something around a hundred? Well, let's see what you come up with.

The point is that so many of the examples in this thread--from using "career" as a verb to "not even figs...raisins" to "instead of just kept on" to "better than not"--are not "weak lyrics" or cheats"--they are twists on colloquialisms, versions of things people say, idiosyncratic choices that define character.

They "bother" you not because they're "weak," but because they are sharp.

Updated On: 12/30/13 at 01:03 PM

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 1:13pm

Uh, it doesn't "bother" me, in quotes. It bothers me.

And, yes, more questionable rhymes have been written. That doesn't make this one unquestionable.

And now I can only criticize if I can provide a better solution?

You're a smart guy, and I respect you, but you can be a real sh!t sometimes, PJ.

Now, if you'll excuse us, we were having a civil conversation.

Updated On: 12/30/13 at 01:13 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 1:20pm

I meant it seriously, as a sort of game. I'll offer one myself--see if it's any better than Sondheim's:

Some people can thrive and bloom
Living life in the living room.
That's perfect for some people
But no way to survive.

But I...

Better than 105?

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 1:27pm

What is it about Sondheim that brings out the best and worst in theater lovers.

I say everyone take a step back from your devices, cool off and re-convene.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 1:38pm

I do like that better, PJ, no facetiousness at all.

The logic is better, more consistent, and the lyric is smoother.

And I did take your challenge seriously and wrote my own.

You can see that we approached it the same way.

“Some people can get a thrill
Knitting sweaters and sitting still
That's okay for some people
Who don't know they're alive

Some people can thrive and bloom
Living life in a living room
That's perfect for some people
Content just to survive”

I like both yours and mine better than Sondheim's.

Burn me at the stake.

Updated On: 12/30/13 at 01:38 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 1:57pm

If they burn you, let them burn me with you.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 2:59pm

Growler--what kind of message board would that be if people explained their comments? I think you should just hang out at datalounge.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 3:02pm

I actually like growl's revised lyric.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 3:19pm

I prefer it too. Does that place me in Hell? (Which looks a lot more fun if it's PJs Hell--do I have to disagree with certain other posters to make sure I get into his?)

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 5:30pm

But if you're someone who says that the Tempest is "dramaturgically weak," you're probably not going to say instead "although I know it's acknowledged by better (and perhaps worse) minds than mine to be a masterpiece, I don't quite get Prospero's latter motivations."

I used The Tempest precisely because it is considered a masterpiece in so many English literature classes (and I've been forced to teach it more than once). I didn't think its status required clarification.

And I did say why I think it is problematic as tragicomedy. It isn't that I don't "get" Prospero's revelation; it isn't in the script. If YOU, newintown, want to make a case for it, by all means quote me act, scene and line. I'm not going to reread a play I don't like when my comment wasn't even the subject of the thread. I mentioned The Tempest only to suggest I can criticize a master without thinking myself superior to him or her.

As for "career", Sondheim himself has claimed that Maria wouldn't say "It's alarming how charming I feel". The line doesn't bother me, but the writer's own claim establishes the idea that a dramatic persona is limited to the diction that is appropriate to his/her character.

Since I've never heard a p*ucking Ph.D. use "career" as a verb, I have to wonder how the hell Carlotta knows it?!

***

mysteriousgrowl, "one hundred and five" = "nearly deceased" or "on their deathbeds"

Perhaps it sounds strange to your ear because we usually say "a hundred and five" rather than "ONE hundred and five (emphasis added)". Sondheim uses the word "one" instead of "a" because the word falls on a downbeat and good lyricists don't usually put a weak word like the indefinite article on the downbeat. (There are exceptions, but I'm speaking generally.)

Updated On: 12/30/13 at 05:30 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 5:53pm

I have never had a problem with Prospero's revelation, nor with his decision to break his staff and give up magic. Nor with his difficulty in letting Ariel go free, nor with his startling acceptance of Caliban with "this thing of darkness, I acknowledge mine."

It's all there in the text, for them what's open to seeing it.


Since I've never heard a p*ucking Ph.D. use "career" as a verb, I have to wonder how the hell Carlotta knows it?!

Oh fer chrissakes, stop going on about "career" as a verb. It was common in the early twentieth century, when Carolotta was a girl. She uses it--wittily--because saying career three times emphasizes just how many career changes she's had.

To paraphrase Shakespeare: There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your PhD program.

Updated On: 12/30/13 at 05:53 PM

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 5:57pm

She uses it--wittily because saying career three times emphasizes just how many career changes she's had.

Exactly! That's why it works so well for me.
Also, the rewrites of the lyrics for Sondheim don't suggest Sondheim's original intention of expressing old age, again, an important theme in GYPSY. By the time Rose's Turn arrives, IMO (this is not necessarily in the script), she is worried she is one of those people of "one hundred and five," without that lyric, you lose some of that emphasis. I think it's there much more than for the sake of a rhyme.

[newintown]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 6:06pm

Personally, I have no problem with Prospero's actions because it's always seemed clear to me that he always intended to forgive everyone and rejoin the world (like Dolly Levi). I'd need to revisit the text to remember why this is how I've always seen it, but there you are. It is clear that his efforts to keep Ferdinand and Miranda apart are clearly sham and more of an effort to bring them together, so it's not much more of a jump to see the trials he puts upon the others as tests to improve them (like El Gallo's role in The Fantasticks - he doesn't want to take Luisa from Matt, but he knows they both need to be hurt before they can grow).

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 6:12pm

"I have never had a problem with Prospero's revelation, nor with his decision to break his staff and give up magic. Nor with his difficulty in letting Ariel go free, nor with his startling acceptance of Caliban with "this thing of darkness, I acknowledge mine."

It's all there in the text, for them what's open to seeing it. "

Really? I accept it because I like the play an awful lot, more, I think, than Gaveston does. But I do think you have to reach to find that conclusion.

(And just to be clear, I love PJ and Newintown's posts--they are a reason I am on this forum.)