The Resource For Musicals



Simply Sondheim Forum


Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
"Children and Art" 
Author Message
Broadway Legend
Broadway Legend
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:26 am
Posts: 1147
Location: Australia
Current Obsession: next to normal
Post Re: "Children and Art"
scottinkc wrote:
Well, I suppose that it is possible that we are to believe that Marie thinks "Hmm, I've said the same thing the same way so many times, but now I'll say the same thing using a word structure which I've never used in my 98 years, and by doing so I'll shock him into understanding." And then it's possible that George hears this and says "Wow, the old bat just said 'got', this must be serious. Therefore, when I go on my already planned trip to the island several weeks in the future, I'm going to take that red book, but I'm not going to read it until I get there, in an effort to 'connect' with my past." I guess all that is possible.

Or, it's possible that Sondheim couldn't think of a good word to rhyme with 'have'.


+1. I'm waiting in anticipation for his book.


Wed Oct 06, 2010 1:53 pm
Profile
Broadway Legend / MdN Veteran
Broadway Legend / MdN Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 8:33 am
Posts: 3056
Location: Musical Cyberspace
Current Obsession: Musicals!
Post "Children and Art"
scottinkc wrote:
Well, I suppose that it is possible that we are to believe that Marie thinks "Hmm, I've said the same thing the same way so many times, but now I'll say the same thing using a word structure which I've never used in my 98 years, and by doing so I'll shock him into understanding." And then it's possible that George hears this and says "Wow, the old bat just said 'got', this must be serious. Therefore, when I go on my already planned trip to the island several weeks in the future, I'm going to take that red book, but I'm not going to read it until I get there, in an effort to 'connect' with my past." I guess all that is possible.

It might also be possible that your intent in posting here was merely to be disagreeable, which is the most likely argument of all as it appears that this is your usual modus operandi on these boards. You consistently post from such a completely negative place that it is no surprise, to me at least, that you constantly appear bitter when anyone attempts to make any kind of meaning from a text in any manner that surpasses the mundane or the obvious. One wonders why you even post here other than to cause dissent.

scottinkc wrote:
Or, it's possible that Sondheim couldn't think of a good word to rhyme with 'have'.

That's because there really isn't a good word that rhymes with 'have'. That being very obviously the case, James Lapine could quite easily have altered the two lines in the book. Obviously he didn't, so therefore a choice was made at some point to keep the alteration to Marie's linguistic pattern intact. After all, Marie doesn't have to say that sentence; she's not a real person, but a character constructed to serve the needs of the play: there are a dozen other couplets that could fill that same space or the lyrics could very easily have been rearranged so that "have" would not have had to fall in a rhyming position. With so many alternatives, might it not just be possible that a choice was made to indicate a shift in Marie's tone from the universal to the personal, the same shift from statement to connection that thematically draws together all of the characters in the play? Of course it might, and it does - and whether or not it matters in the greater scheme of things, the choice still allows a thinking, insightful, active audience to make sensible meaning from what appears on both the page and the stage. It is not sloppy in the way that, say, Ben Elton's rhymes in The Beautiful Game are. The choice does not diffuse the resonance of the play itself.

_________________
Image
VISIT MUSICAL CYBERSPACE: A TRIBUTE TO THE MUSICALS OF BROADWAY AND BEYOND.


Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:25 am
Profile WWW
Tony Winner
Tony Winner

Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:50 am
Posts: 465
Post Re: "Children and Art"
RainbowJude wrote:
It might also be possible that your intent in posting here was merely to be disagreeable, which is the most likely argument of all as it appears that this is your usual modus operandi on these boards. You consistently post from such a completely negative place that it is no surprise, to me at least, that you constantly appear bitter when anyone attempts to make any kind of meaning from a text in any manner that surpasses the mundane or the obvious. One wonders why you even post here other than to cause dissent.


Not negative at all. Unless you count disagreeing with you as being negative. You write so eloquently, and usually say nothing. For instance "Look at how perfectly married the lyrics are with the cadence of the melodic line". Well, that's rather subjective, is it not? How are they married? The whole song is triplets, so the cadence of that particular line is not unusual. The even in your favorite line "The child is so sweet and the girls are so rapturous. Isn't it funny how artists can capture us", there is nothing earth-shattering about the music. I mean, both phrases are exactly the same. Is that how Marie thinks that? Two thoughts, or one thought leading to the next thought, with exactly the same inflection behind it? Nothing different? No epiphany after the first thought that makes her think the second? It's like my mom the math teacher always said "Show your work."

And lest you think that I write only negative things, I will point out that my favorite line of this song is the one that comes write before the lot/got line. "Isn't she beautiful, there she is, there she is, there she is, there she is, Mama is everywhere, he must have loved her so much." Now that is a marriage of music and words.


Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:19 am
Profile
Broadway Legend / MdN Veteran
Broadway Legend / MdN Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 8:33 am
Posts: 3056
Location: Musical Cyberspace
Current Obsession: Musicals!
Post "Children and Art" Digression: a response to 'scottinkc'
scottinkc wrote:
Not negative at all. Unless you count disagreeing with you as being negative.

I don't. Your negativity stems not from this disagreement, but from how completely disagreeable you are in just about every post you write on this site. There are plenty of people around here with whom I disagree regarding particular points, but I would not call any of them negative.

scottinkc wrote:
Even in your favorite line "The child is so sweet and the girls are so rapturous. Isn't it funny how artists can capture us", there is nothing earth-shattering about the music. I mean, both phrases are exactly the same. Is that how Marie thinks that? Two thoughts, or one thought leading to the next thought, with exactly the same inflection behind it? Nothing different? No epiphany after the first thought that makes her think the second? It's like my mom the math teacher always said "Show your work."

      1. I never said it was my favourite line.
      2. Not everything has to be earth-shattering to be effective.
      3. If you can't get to the answer, don't expect someone else to do the work for you.
      4. Postured negativity suppresses meaning. Open yourself up to the work and the work will reveal itself to you.
      5. I don't believe that someone 'showing their work' would make a difference to you.

On the latter three points, as with my impression of your negativity, the reasons for my opinions on this matter lie not in this thread, but in what your posts on this site communicate in general.

scottinkc wrote:
And lest you think that I write only negative things, I will point out that my favorite line of this song is the one that comes write before the lot/got line. "Isn't she beautiful, there she is, there she is, there she is, there she is, Mama is everywhere, he must have loved her so much." Now that is a marriage of music and words.

Although you didn't "show your work" here, it is wonderful that some positivity can be forced out of you under extreme pressure. Well done! :thumbup: :roll:

scottinkc wrote:
You write so eloquently, and usually say nothing.

Now you see, that really is only your opinion, though it is misguided and even contradictory in its conception. There are many people here who would disagree with you and clearly there is something in what I have to say, or you wouldn't feel so driven to respond in your standard negative, dismissive manner. A statement like this might have really bothered me in the past, but since I read this post in part 9 of the "Random Facts" thread -

scottinkc wrote:
I find it depressing that I have no "friends" who would pay money to see me in a show, but the minute I have two comp tickets they all come out of the woodwork. I also find it depressing that I have no friends period.

- and was left feeling unsurprised, with only the tiniest amount of very easily dismissed pity, it really just me shrug my shoulders and move on. There are other people here whose posts interest me more, whose discussions really challenge me and make me learn more about particular aspects of musical theatre than I could do on my own. In particular circumstances, some of those people and I have reached out to one another and become friends outside of the boundaries of this board and that has been an enriching experience. However, it started with a positive connection grounded in mutual respect and a mutual passion for the form of musical theatre and all it can accomplish as an art form. To them, and they know who they are, thank you - you guys rock.

_________________
Image
VISIT MUSICAL CYBERSPACE: A TRIBUTE TO THE MUSICALS OF BROADWAY AND BEYOND.


Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:54 am
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 16 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.