Let me start by stating for the record that I am a great admirer of the music and lyrics of Stephen Sondheim. No living songwriter approaches his level of intelligence, wit and grace that operate on all levels—the harmonic, melodic and lyrical. He is a genius.
Having said that, I am convinced that he has (indirectly) done more damage to the current landscape of new musical theatre composition than any other composer.
We are simply drowning in watered-down examples of music written by composers who worship at the Sondheim altar but apparently really don't understand what makes this music tic. More often than not, these composers employ Sondheimesque accoutrement to their scores without understanding the fundamental underpinnings (harmonic and rhythmic) that drive the work they so adore.
What I think lies at the root of the problem is basic harmonic fundamentals. Mr. Sondheim studied the masters and even studied composition with Milton Babbitt, who may not have been a very good composer but was certainly an excellent teacher of music composition.
One of the things that makes Mr. Sondheim's music unique is its use of dissonance. There are a variety of ways in which he employs dissonance to add tension and thus enliven his melodies but, I believe, they are all rooted in a firm understanding of the fundamentals of tonality and can be traced to the likes of J.S. Bach and Hayden, to name just two.
Unfortunately, many of this new breed of composers adorn their music with the superficial details of Sondheimesque dissonance without understanding their relationship to the larger tonal framework. In short, melodies are dressed up in Sondheimesque clothing but the harmonic framework on which they stand is completely square. It's as if they had tacked on a bunch of fancy epaulets onto a mechanic's jumpsuit. Or, to make an analogy to architecture, it would be as if a young architect had visited the Yale campus and upon falling in love with all the Gothic detail there, began applying such detail to the interior of a parking garage. It just doesn't make sense.
Most of what I hear today on the Broadway stage is harmonically square and boxed in to a predictable and quite limited harmonic language. I'm not sure why this is but I can venture a guess that most if not all of these young composers have been brought up listening to Pop music more than to Classical.
I'm not against Pop music. Really. I am old-fashioned but I love Pop music just as much as anyone. But I also know that in terms of harmonic content, no music is more bland and square. A steady diet of nothing but Pop songs may be at the root of the current harmonic drought on Broadway.
Cole Porter, George Gershwin, Richard Rodgers and their ilk all knew the Classical canon inside and out. In fact, many of their songs borrow liberally from both Classical and Romantic European traditions. One of the distinguishing traits of these European musical traditions is their dynamic use of harmony in relation to rhythm and meter. In short, the harmony moves in surprising and unexpected ways, often fighting against the overall meter. This is something that almost never occurs in American Pop music. But it is something that is inherently dramatic.
Because writing music for the theatre needs to be dramatic, I say, the composers who aspire to do so, need to immerse themselves in the European masters, just as Sondheim did.
That's all. Apologies if the musical talk has left some of you scratching your heads. It's easier for me to illustrate these points with the aid of a blackboard and a piano. Who knows... maybe the blogosphere will make this possible one day.
Until then, you'll just have to take my word for it. Or come over and we'll battle it out over my piano. That could be fun!
