Jump to content

Talk:Stephen Sondheim

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 22, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 29, 2021.

Opera houses

[edit]

"Sweeney Todd (1979), Sondheim's most operatic score (and his only show to find a definite foothold in opera houses)..." Didn't A Little Night Music play at NYCO? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.255.41 (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¿Is he panning to do a new musical?

Classy but

[edit]

Good work but needs fantastic much touching up as readability is extremely low.

I found it a bit confusing that some of his works are in the text while others are in the list below. Should this get unified? Sebastian 03:07 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Made works list unified. This may be redundant, but I think the complete works list is beneficial. Minor works will be blurbed on the main page and not linked, I think. Dreamword 00:07 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

The Lloyd Webber bit is a bit misplaced. They are entirely different artists. Sondheim hasn't been commercially successful but don't think the Webber reference really gets to that point in a pithy way.

Homosexuality never stated

[edit]

Could someone please reinsert a section on Sonheim being homosexual, preferably with a source? He's listed in categories of gay musicians, LGBQ public figures, ectera - but it is NEVER mentioned in this version of the article. Thanks. Zakolantern 01:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe everyone thinks it's obvious.
I know typically we're not supposed to edit other user comments but- well, come on. ChrisStansfield 10:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's ludicrous this is never mentioned; it smacks of homophobia that such a central part of the man and his life is missing. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I just found out Bob Fosse was straight (surprise) by reading the article and having details of his personal life mentioned. The omission of any personal details (relationships, etc.) after adolescence is silly in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.55.112 (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there definitely needs to be a mention of this in the body of the article with a reliable source cited, especially if we're going to be including him in LGBT categories. Anyone have a reference handy? —MearsMan talk 03:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the Personal life section I added today, used direct quotes to avoid any problems with original research/opinion, etc; I think this is well-documented.JeanColumbia (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bump on his head

[edit]

What's with the bump on his head? It's pretty pronounced and I've done lots of searching and have found no answer except to find I'm not the only one to wonder.--Jhlynes 23:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality

[edit]

Is it really relevant to mention a highly questionnable hypothesis on the cause (if any could be found) of his homosexuality ??

No, it would be discrimination. I mean, you don't put a hypothesis of Francis Ford Coppola, or any other, for beign straight

User:Intones

.

Sotto voce?

[edit]

I think that's really odd phrasing for one's sexuality. Any suggestions to change that? IvanP 14:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Directors on list of major works

[edit]

I really think the list of major works should include the director. Harold Prince made a HUGE contribution to the shaping of those shows. Anyone object if I add it?

Directors of musicals are usually an integral part of the authorship team. Please do add directors to the list. TheScotch 07:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added directors for most of these myself. TheScotch 19:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

Definately needed in my opinion MikeyB! 19:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foxy

[edit]

Is it necessary to go into such detail about Foxy's alleged "sexually predatory" behaviour towards her son?

Yes, it was a mjor factor in the shape of Sondheim's life. She was one of the major reasons he ended up spending so much time with Hammerstein. -Luke Callahan

"Losing My Mind"

[edit]

Did Liza Minelli's version of "Losing My Mind" ever hit the top 40 in the United States or Europe? I think it might have, which would mean that "Send In The Clowns" wouldn't be his only Top 40 hit. Can anyone verify that? ChrisLK 23:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Liza Minelli#Hit Singles it reached #6 in UK in 1989 and #11 in US Dance charts footie 20:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I think I'll change the "Send in the Clowns" thing then. ChrisLK 20:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this is an old discussion, but many of the songs for Madonna for Dick Tracy did quite well.... —  MusicMaker 17:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonic style

[edit]

I have never heard someone's harmony described as being "angular" the way it is here: "He also displays a penchant for angular harmonies and intricate melodies..." Lush, dense, complex, open, etc., but how can harmony be angular? Is there a better word to use? Wspencer11 17:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The passage currently reads "He also displays a penchant for angular harmonies and intricate melodies reminiscent of Bach....".
Not only do I not know what an "angular [harmony]" is, I also don't see how Sondheim's melodies are "reminiscent of Bach" (or of Bach's melodies, for that matter). I suspect that the writer doesn't either, and that this is merely blowing smoke. (Actually, I think "intricate" would work better to describe Sondheim's harmonies than to describe his melodies.) TheScotch 09:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That whole section is typically pretentious - in a sophomoric way - of the entire article. Yea, of almost everything at Wikipedia where experts fear to tread and only fools contribute.

NPOV and fact tags

[edit]

I did a little bit of work on this article; there are many unsourced quotes and statements that need sources. I also tried to work on the POV stuff, if anyone else wants to take a crack at it, feel free. It's a very detailed biographical study, and someone (or several people) obviously took great time and care in writing it, some of the language just needs to be toned down. Ckessler 03:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced statements are definitely all from Meryl Secrest's biography of him from about 10 years ago.

""Sond" means sound, or body of water"

[edit]

"Sond" is not a German word.

Yes it is, halfwit.

I don't speak German, but I can't find 'sond' or words that might be related (sond, sonder) in any online German dictionary. If it's German, it's mikely archaic. 157.131.202.151 (talk) 06:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"We don't know if this is really true," etc.

[edit]

Don't these count as "weasel words?"

Some random cites

[edit]

stuff about his mom being a bitch. She said her only regret in life was giving birth to him. http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0786412690&id=BfWyQ39xk0wC&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&ots=nqequ0AxI0&dq=%22Stephen+Sondheim%22+biography&sig=GCsJh0C2fH3KsSbRM2NPwvmbl7o#PPA109,M1

Personal life beyond childhood

[edit]

It seems that fears about controversy have really done damage to this entry- there is virtually nothing regarding Sondheim's personal life beyond childhood, and even the details of his childhood are lacking. The facts of Sondheim's relationship with his mother may be disquieting, but they are well-referenced and confirmed by Sondheim himself, so there's hardly a worry about libel. Considering the fact that the most common criticism of Sondheim's output during the 70's and 80's was "coldness," I think his troubled childhood has real relevance to the article. What about his relationship with Mary Rodgers, which both have described as a major turning point in their lives? Or the fact that even though the two were close, Sondheim and Richard Rodgers couldn't stand each other? The complete skirting of the fact of Sondheim's open homosexuality is also more than odd. Sondheim gave a pretty open and revealing interview to the New York Times Magazine a few years ago and there have been other articles that spoke at some length of his long-term relationship with a younger composer (whose name escapes me at the moment.) They were together several years- if Sondheim were heterosexual and had married a long-term lover, especially one of note herself, that would be considered important and appropriate in a biographical entry. It should be considered appropriate in this case, too.

I'd put all of this stuff back in myself, but looking over the history and the talk pages, I feel it would br promptly removed. Could somebody explain why? This deserves real discussion! ChrisStansfield 06:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A wikipedia biographical article should concern itself chiefly with the subject's professional career, and it should be pithy. In particular it should refrain from psychological analysis of the subject, whether or not that analysis may be grounds for "libel". Sondheim's friendship with Mary Rodgers and difficult relationship with Richard Rodgers are fairly trivial matters. Yes, they do come up in book-length biographies (Sondheim & Company, etc.), but even there they are typically dealt with only very briefly.
Re: "and there have been other articles that spoke at some length of his long-term relationship with a younger composer (whose name escapes me at the moment.) They were together several years- if Sondheim were heterosexual and had married a long-term lover, especially one of note herself, that would be considered important and appropriate in a biographical entry.":
If the "younger composer" is the one I'm thinking of (mentioned toward the end of Secrest's book), he wasn't with Sondheim very long, and he wasn't especially a person "of note" in his own right (which is why I can't remember his name either). I think you'll find that most wikipedia biographical articles don't mention spouses at all (certainly none of those I've chiefly authored have), even when the marriages in question have lasted many decades, and judging by Secrest's book Sondheim doesn't appear to have had any really long-term romantic relationships. He lives alone (except for his cook), and appears to have lived alone most of his life. TheScotch 10:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With no mention of Mr. Sondheim's personal life as an adult, especially of a romantic/dating/sexual (pick your word) life, this article is guilty of turning him into a metaphorical eunuch, so often done to gay men previously, less so today. It reminds me of how famous gay men, especially Hollywood actors, were treated and reported on in the 50s: girlfriends/wives were arranged, male love interests were never mentioned or referred to as friends, etc. This omission in the current article is retrograde. Savacek (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only child?

[edit]

Speaking of lack-of-detail in the childhood section, he is not an only child, he has a brother named Walt.

Just to clarify the family situation. Sondheim's father, Herbert, and Alicia Babe had two sons, Herbert Sondheim, Jr, (born in Autumn 1943) and Walter Sondheim (born in Feb. 1946). Herbert Sr. and Alicia were married in a registry office in Stamford, Connecticut, in 1943, having obtained a Mexican divorce earlier. There was a legal separation between Herbert Sr and Foxy (Sondheim's mother) in autumn 1941, and a New York divorce was obtained in 1946. This rather long-winded account is just to set the stage for this: Herbert Jr. and Walter are Stephen Sondheim's HALF brothers. (reference: Stephen Sondheim, A Life, Meryle Secrest, 1998, ISBN 0-385-33412-5, pages 28-30).JeanColumbia 19:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Herbert Sr. and Alicia were married in a registry office in Stamford, Connecticut, in 1943, having obtained a Mexican divorce earlier.":

That sounds like Merrily We Roll Along: backward. I take it you mean, "Herbert, Sr having obtained a Mexican divorce from Foxy earlier". TheScotch 10:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up some relevant portions in the book via Amazon's 'search inside,' and it indicates that Stephen and the younger kids lived in the same house for several years after Stephen moved in with his father. I was not assaulting the family tree with my original question of only-child-hood, just pointing out that I didn't think the statement in the article was accurate. I personally do not think that children with half-siblings can accurately be described as "only children" ... don't half siblings count as children? Is there another word; can you be a half-only-child? Sure, he was the only child for the first few years, but that's always true until the second child is born. The sentence in question seems to be from the book review at amazon.com, anyway, rather than a direct source (like the book). I propose changing it to reflect the family situation. Again, I'm not taking issue with your distinction about the parentage of the younger two, just saying that the description "an only child" doesn't fit -- not by the definition provided at the linked-to page on "only child." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.31.27 (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In reading the Conversations with Sondheim Frank Rich had with Sondheim, he was quoted saying he was an only child. Shouldn't we base his sibling status on what Sondheim said? He might of had half siblings but was maybe not close with them, or didn't consider them to be family? "I was an only child. I was the youngest and got the best marks in the class -- I won't say the smartest. Right away that means some people love you and some people hate you."

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000312mag-sondheim.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.57.82 (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even with half-siblings on the father's side, he remained his mother's only child. WordwizardW (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does "might of had" mean? TheScotch (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only listens to Bach?

[edit]

The part in the Maturity section about Sondheim saying he only listens to Bach really needs a citation. Especially since Sondheim donated his record collection of over 13,000 recordings to the Library of Congress and they were not all Bach.--Timmyk0385 16:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heard Sondheim speak today (6 July 2007) in Sydney and he seemed bemused by the suggestion that Bach was his favourite composer. He expressed a preference for composers from Brahms to Stravinsky, including Ravel and Racmaninoff. 125.255.8.224 15:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)QP[reply]

Besides, his Desert Island collection (of recordings, in response to a question from a BBC Radio interviewer) was topped, not by a performance of a Bach work, but by a recording of Porgy and Bess- unsurprising, considering his fairly well-known (I think) admiration/enjoyment/... for George Gershwin's music in general and Porgy and Bess in particular. (It would surprise me if his listening background weren't quite wide, in any case. There's a fair amount more that's tip-of-the-hat-ish-to-Mozart- mostly in subtle, clever ways, if you ask me, but true all the same...- about A Little Night Music than just the title, for instance!) Schissel | Sound the Note! 02:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia section

[edit]

I have removed the Trivia section - please see WP:BLP for Trivia sections and living persons. --Ozgod 04:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily reverted the edit. According to WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. Instead, relevant sourced claims should be woven into the article." (Emphasis mine.) According to Trivia Section: ...Trivia sections are considered by some contributors to be a poor method of laying out an entry and believe that the information would better be presented in the body of the article instead of within a separate section...
There is no official ruling on trivia sections. It is a matter of style of presentation that is up for debate by wiki contributors. (Emphasis mine). I agree with you that a trivia section in this case is poor style, but rather than simply delete it, I feel that, as per recommendations, the relevant info (of which there is some) should be incorporated into the main article. If you can't be bothered to do so, than at least leave it alone for a couple of days until I or someone else can set aside the time necessary to do so. ChrisStansfield 18:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only entry here I can see being reasonably worked into the article proper is the reference to the "Theatre Arts" school. TheScotch 10:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now "removed" the others. TheScotch 10:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've gone further and removed the last remaining bit of trivia and with it the section heading (since there's nothing left). I really did try to incorporate it in the article, but after investigation it appeared to me not worthy. It would be different maybe if Sondheim were on the faculty, but he seems to be only nominally connected with the organization. TheScotch 19:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence - weasel words?

[edit]

Sondheim is widely seen as his generation's leading writer of the stage musical...

Wouldn't it be more encyclopedic to open it with something like "Sondheim is an American composer?"

Thoughts? Springreturning 20:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments of Springreturning, and rearranged the opening to be less POV and to omit the "weasel" words. JeanColumbia 23:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

[edit]

I have expanded some sections a little bit - adding the "work away from Broadway" section, for example, which I think could stand expansion itself. I would really like to add a section on his later personal life, since that bit ends pretty much when he's 16. I have Secrest's biography as a source, and all I want to see is a couple of paragraphs, just to round the article out. I see this was a bone of contention before, so I'll wait on it in case somebody objects.

Also, I am noticing a really adoring tone in a lot of the prose of the article which isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia; there's also a lot of show jargon ("concept musical" and the like) that I'm trying to either define or eliminate. -67.85.180.72 14:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

[edit]

From the Manual of Style: "In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers (from zero to nine) are spelled out; numbers of more than one digit are generally rendered as digits, but may be spelled out if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)." [1]

I have therefore changed the "numbers of more than one digit" to comply with the prescribed MOS. JeanColumbia 10:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way in hell ten should not be spelled out except within an arithmetic problem or an accounting spreadsheet. Nineteen could conceivably rendered as a numeral but generally should not be. TheScotch 10:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concede to your obviously rather emotional argument, which seems to mean a great deal to you. You certainly may override the MOS-it's not set in stone, anyway, and I am not the style police. The world is certainly full enough of shoulds. Have a nice day. JeanColumbia 11:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you quote it, it may be written with odd emphasis. The point of these sorts of stipulations is that the smaller numbers should be spelled out, not that the larger numbers should necessarily be rendered as numerals. (There is no precise cut-off point.) It seems to me you're looking at this backward, and the unfortunate wording of the quote may have helped to give you the wrong impression. TheScotch 11:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At risk of belaboring the point, here, for perspective, are some citations:
Donald Hall, Writing Well, p.299:
"Print out the figures except when they are long to the point of being ridiculous. If you can write that a town has 'one hundred and four thousand inhabitants,' write it. If necessity requires precision, '104,627' will do, and 'one hundred and four thousand, six hundred and twenty-seven' might be precious."
Margaret Shertzer, The Elements of Grammar, p. 125:
"Spell out numbers from one through ten, except in a series of related numbers. In formal writing, numbers that can be expressed in one or two words are spelled out, but figures may be used in letters or reports."
Hodges and Whitten, Harbrace College Handbook, p. 100:
"Although usage varies, writers tend to spell out numbers that can be expressed in one word or two; they regularly use figures for other numbers."
I submit that since wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, it needs to use formal prose, and thus the rule should not be worded such that it implies that spelling out one-word or two-word numbers greater than nine is an exceptional practice. TheScotch 05:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanted?

[edit]

I was watching the Academy Awards and heard that he did work for the 2007 movie "enchanted". Can anyone back up this claim or am I going senile at only 14 years? Thanks, Lazylaces (Talk to me 01:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're thinking of Stephen Schwartz? AJD (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Great Performances broadcast of Carnegie Hall concert

[edit]

I was surprised to see that their is no mention of Sondheim - A Celebration at Carnegie Hall on this page. It was released on DVD and CD as well as being aired on PBS on Great Performances and had a lot of great performers involved.Nrswanson (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opera question

[edit]

An editor revised the headings of the works section to show (among other edits) that Sweeney Todd and A Little Night Music are Opera. I reverted these changes because I do not believe that it has been established that they are operas. I believe that any such classification should be discussed on the talk page and, per good Wikipedia practice, referenced so as not to be original research (see WP:OR). Here is one reference for Sweeney Todd: "He [Sondheim} considers Sweeney Todd:The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, which opened on Broadway in 1979, a musical, not an opera." Source:[Opera: a critic's guide to the 100 most important works and and the best recordings, Author: Anthony Tommasini, Macmillan, 2004, p. 202]. The title page of the Sweeny Todd script shows:"A musical Thriller". I think in the actual articles on these musicals it would be interesting to note if any writers, scholars, or reviewers called the musical an opera, operetta, chamber operetta, or any variation (with appropriate referencing). JeanColumbia (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sondheim has made various statements about this, sometimes saying that they are musicals when played in a theatre but operas when played in an opera house. But whether or not they are "operas" also depends on what critics and audiences think. There is certainly no critical consensus that they are operas. I think the most that can be said is that, on occasion, these pieces, particularly Sweeney, have received operatic treatment. I definitely agree that they should not be described as operas in general, and I also agree that a well-referenced treatment of the question would be helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! By the way, I saw Sweeney Todd performed by the Wolf Trap Opera Company (and also on Broadway, etc in the more usual "musical theatre" style) and ALNM performed by New York City Opera (and also in several standard "musical theatre" productions), so I can understand where some are coming from with this idea of opera.JeanColumbia (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday, Stephen!

[edit]

Happy 80th birthday, Mr. Sondheim. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! re: Nathan Lane. OK, so did the event really happen? Did anyone cancel? Now we can put it in past tense. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 31st July, 2010, the BBC broadcast "Sondheim at 80" as Prom 19 in its 2010 season of Promenade Concerts. Is there any way of adding that here? and, if so, where would it go? See Sondheim at 80 I have temporarily put it in the "Revues and Anthologies" section but, because it was a one off, I wasn't sure if that was the best place. Kuitan (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million for this! I wanted to add it, but was too lazy to get a good reference. How about putting it in the "Honors and awards", subsection "Sondheim at 80"?? If you agree, you can do it or I will.JeanColumbia (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

[edit]

For goodness sake, doesn't anyone have a photo of Sondheim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we use the Hirschfield illustration? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here he is as a very young man and many other photos. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More images: here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Name from the Shakespeare quote?

[edit]

Hi all,

I'm trying to introduce appropriate links to the orphaned article All that glitters is not gold (about the familiar quotation from Shakespeare), and I'm guessing the title of Sondheim's musical is taken from there; but I'm not sufficiently familiar with it be sure, or where to introduce it if so. If any of the regular editors of this article could take a look, I'd much appreciate it. --Xover (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd be happy to help out but I'm a little confused--what musical are you refering to? (If it's Road Show, which at an early stage was titled Gold, that refers to the "Gold Rush".) JeanColumbia (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm thinking of the musical mentioned in this section (the redlink in the first list item), which is apparently titled All That Glitters. --Xover (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! OK, I have just finished looking at three reference books-- Martin Gottfried's Sondheim, Meryle Secrest's Stephen Sondheim: A Life, and Craig Zadan's Sondheim & Co. All 3 write about All That Glitters but none say where Sondheim got the title. I also looked at google books and, although finding many references to the musical, found nothing to show where he got the title. Sorry I can't be more helpful, but I'm stumped. JeanColumbia (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. Is there anything about "All that glitters" in the original play, Beggar on Horseback, on which the Sondheim musical All That Glitters is based (according to

Sondheim.com?) Schissel | Sound the Note! 03:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference list

[edit]

Would anyone oppose if I was replacing {{Reflist|3}} with {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} on this article? —bender235 (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Les Mis

[edit]

Why Les Miserables are not even mentioned in this article? One of his major participation's. --WhiteWriter speaks 23:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sondheim had nothing to do with Les Miz.--Bialytock&Bloom (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I find no references to any involvement by Sondheim with Les Miserables; I looked at several books I have, including the Secrest biography and the Craig Zadan book. Also see the extensive listing at [sondheimguide.com].JeanColumbia (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images again

[edit]

There are images of Sondheim here: Hirschfield illustration (see also this); as a very young man and many other photos. More images: here. More Hirschfeld images And some explanation. None of these are free images, so you would need a fair use summary, which is very difficult to make with a living person. The article would have to *discuss* the image so that you could make the case that the image is necessary to illustrate something in particular that is discussed in the article. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, especially criterion #8. Ooh! THIS might be a free image. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By George

[edit]

"But if you want to know why it's terrible," Hammerstein offered, "I'll tell you."

What did Hammerstein tell him about his first musical he wrote? What was bad about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.123.240 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. Part of the answer seems to be at Sondheim.com - in the documentary Six by Sondheim the composer, without going to lengthy detail, does say that Mr. Hammerstein told him to think of a musical, a lyric, or a song as a play: it needs to have a definite beginning, a middle, and an end, and to have ended somewhere other from where it began (he added a bit more.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 03:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My little pony songs

[edit]

Why is that under minor works when he only influenced them, not created them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.137.15.69 (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hummability issue?

[edit]

Seems to me that a major omission in this article is that it doesn't mention how most of Sondheim's songs (even the ones with the most clever wordplay and stinging insights) are not hummable or instantly catchy. Reliable sources are as follows: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] As opposed to Webber's "Memory," Boublil/Schonberg's "I Dreamed A Dream," the Lopezes' "Let It Go," etc. Any objections before I add this information to the article? --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VERY subjective "information" for an encyclopedia. What is "hummability" anyway? Very much "in the ear of the beholder", i.e. fails WP:NPOV. This is a biography of a person rather than a critical discussion of his work. All in all, I honestly think (in this context anyway) I'd leave it out.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But it is the single most widely reported criticism of Sondheim's work, and one that reportedly frustrates him so much that he made it a plot point in one of his musicals, Merrily We Roll Along (which actually discusses whether a Broadway composer is required to write hummable music). For example, most middle-class or upper-class Americans can recognize Memory, I Dreamed A Dream, or Let It Go whenever someone hums a few notes, but very few people will recognize No One Is Alone, and even those that vaguely recognize Send in the Clowns are unlikely to recall that Sondheim wrote it. Furthermore, under WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not censored. This is why, for example, we include verifiable negative critiques of Celine Dion and Andrew Lloyd Webber. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know where "censorship" comes into it. We simply do not present critical assessments (either favourable or otherwise) of artists' work. In the same way our articles about (say) books, plays, musicals, pictures etc. are (or should be) objective descriptions, not reviews. We can get away with general statements about what the critics said (such as "critical response was favourable/unfavourable/mixed") provided they are well-cited, but to say that a particular song is "hummable", or that "hummability" or any other vague criterion, is typical (or not so typical) of a composer's work is highly subjective, and not the sort of "information" that we normally think of as forming a useful part of an encyclopedia article. The balanced treatment of accusations of plagiarism against Andrew Lloyd Webber and "aggressive sentimentality" against Celine Dion (which I have just read, in a sincere effort to understand where you are coming from) are both in another category really, apart from being doggedly "third party" (X says A but Y says B). Incidentally, if "Send in the clowns" (not to mention a rack of other Sondheim melodies) aren't "hummable" I have no idea what the word is supposed to mean - and as for the idea that many people couldn't tell you where SITC is from, I have been soundly berated for hinting that the score of "Les Mis" WASN'T by ALW but a French chap called Schonberg (who's he?). The ignorance of the aggressively ignorant who know everything without ever checking to make sure they are right should not dictate what an encyclopedia says about a subject (among other considerations, they'll never "look it up" here or anywhere else anyway). We are here to facilitate information, not discuss patent misinformation (see WP:UNDUE). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you're missing the point. Under your own criteria, Wikipedia could never present critical views of artistic works or an artist's body of work, except at a very superficial level. But we do so all the time, provided that such views are properly attributed and stated in a neutral fashion.
I just ran a search on "Sondheim" and "hummable" on Google Books---it looks like this issue is heavily discussed in the published academic literature on Sondheim and by Sondheim himself in his own books on his work. I'll have to figure out how to add citations to those sources when I have the time. Unfortunately, unless you are in the U.S., it is unlikely that you can view those works on Google Books since most countries are very far behind U.S. copyright law in terms of developing the law of fair use.
Also, if you read my statement carefully above, I mentioned Send in the Clowns specifically as an example of a Sondheim work that is hummable, so it is really odd that you read my sentence the other way around. (This is clearly implicit in the sentence structure I used.) Please look at a refresher text on close reading. --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "point" is that an encyclopedia, in particular this one, is very specifically NOT (primarily at least) "concerned with critical views of artistic works or an artist's body of work, except at a very superficial level". When such things are mentioned here at all they are usually incidental to something else, they are "third person" (A says X), and balanced (but B says Y). When we do mention such matters we tend to objectivity: "show S had a Broadway run of only Y performances" is better, and more in keeping with our general ethos than "show s had a poor reception on Broadway". Either is much more likely than "the tunes from show s were utterly unhummable", which would be patent POV. You seem concerned that such matter as "hummability" may be discussed elsewhere, even in Sondheim's own writings. Of course they might. In a review, for instance, writing is (often intensely) subjective and personal - even the most objective review (or other work that is mainly a critical assessment) will be full of stuff that would be inappropriate in an encyclopedia. As I think I already mentioned, so what? An excellent review may have very little material we could use in an encyclopedia article, and of course vice versa - they are simply different animals. Lapses from this standard in Wiki are of course no excuse whatsoever to introduce fresh examples - more likely to indicate stuff that needs rewriting or excising. Finally, I must apologise for my little flippant flight into the personal in re. Send in the clowns. All I meant is that as well as being inappropriate here the idea of Sondheim being "unhummable" is far from being universally sustainable anyway - especially if "hummable" is taken as a synonym for "memorable" rather than "consisting of predictable cadences, lacking unusual intervals, and never deviating from familiar rhythmic patterns - in short, melodic cliche". The germ of truth in all this lies in the fact that many listeners find Sondheim "difficult" because even his most memorable melodies tend to be a little unpredictable, free of the the musical equivalents of always rhyming "love" with "dove" and such like. This assessment is incidentally my own opinion, utterly NPOV, and has no more place in the article than any other "review type" information. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But many great artists do have controversies surrounding their style and encyclopedias do mention those controversies directly even when they involve subjective judgments. For example, Britannica mentions the various perspectives onShakespeare's style. They also discuss criticism of Picasso. An encyclopedia that is completely expurgated of any mention of any controversy about any creative person's style would be a very poor encyclopedia. I see nothing in WP:NOT or WP:NPOV that warrants that. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Controversies surrounding style" can only very occasionally be raised, much less discussed at any depth, without becoming NPOV. Circumstances really need to be special. Britannica can afford to be a little more subjective than us, since most articles are substantially the work of a single author; an Encyclopedia like The Oxford Companion to Music (originally entirely by one author - Percy Scholes wrote everything but the opera plot synopses) can be a bit more subjective again - but even there the kind of free reign a reviewer has would simply be inappropriate and is largely forgone. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike you, I actually got around to reading up on Sondheim. He acknowledges the hummability critique in his 2010 book Finishing The Hat in his comments on Merrily We Roll Along, where he discusses the song "Opening Doors." In that song, Joe Josephson, a character in the musical, harshly criticizes another character for not writing a hummable melody. Sondheim notes that the song "Opening Doors" is drawn directly from his own "external life experiences." He goes on to explain: "In my heyday as a young songwriter, I played many requests at many parties through the short attention span of the requesters and suffered many opinions of producers and directors who felt that their credentials demanded that they have something critical to say. I have spent a good deal of my professional life with the Joe Josephsons of the theater. All young songwriters have, and my heart goes out to them." --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Stephen Sondheim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 27 external links on Stephen Sondheim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Stephen Sondheim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephen Sondheim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pic of Hammerstein

[edit]

We can't tell whether this is the father or the son. Valetude (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible improvements to intro

[edit]

Just passing by as a non-expert, and the intro is very strong, but the transition between the first two sentences feels awkward due to repetition of the same thought (know for work in theater, one of the most important figures in musical theater). What do you think of the following simplification?

Stephen Joshua Sondheim (/ˈsɒndhaɪm/; born March 22, 1930) is an American composer and lyricist. One of the most important figures in 20th-century musical theater, Sondheim has been praised for having “reinvented the American musical" ...

Also, in the intro last paragraph, more Tonys than any other composer is added as an afterthought but packs more punch than the content of the sentence, and is not specific about what kind of Tony award, what about something like the following?

Sondheim has won eight Tony Awards for best musical, more than any other composer. His other awards include an Academy Award, a Special Tony Award, eight Grammy Awards, a Pulitzer Prize, a Laurence Olivier Award, and a 2015 Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Thoughts? Cstanford.math (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any discussion I went ahead and made the edits, but if they are not good please feel free to revert and post a response here. Cstanford.math (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Knives Out

[edit]

Knives Out did not win any Oscars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.216.158 (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birth place

[edit]

Why is Pakistan listed? 162.83.190.121 (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because: Vandalism. General Ization Talk 18:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not Vandalstan, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the birthplace in the article is correct. I did not find any other instances vandalism in the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lack here of information about Sondheim's personal life effectively ghettoizes him as a gay person.

[edit]

I have to agree with user Savacek above that "... this article is guilty of turning him into a metaphorical eunuch, so often done to gay men previously, less so today. It reminds me of how famous gay men, especially Hollywood actors were treated and reported on in the '50s... This omission in the current article is retrograde."

Compare this article's very short (one brief paragraph and a one-sentence mention of his death) "Personal life" section with the comparatively detailed "Personal life" section of the article on Leonard Bernstein.

The lack here of information about Sondheim's personal life is, in my opinion, an egregious omission and effectively ghettoizes him as a gay person. Carlstak (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add some? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, soon as I have a chance. I wanted to revive the subject in light of the previous, but old (dating to 2005) conversations about this issue, hoping that someone else might get around to it, as I'm still knee deep in reading for expansion of the Bo Diddley article.;-) Carlstak (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

text

[edit]

fix the repeated phrase at ...wit 2600:100F:B027:412:1127:F9EA:6073:314E (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, which phrase? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intro mischaracterization?

[edit]

The intro describes Sondheim as a lyricist who "becomes" a lyricist and composer after "Gypsy". This badly describes someone who had been writing both music and lyrics since his youth, and had already written both for one unproduced Broadway show ("Saturday Night"). He was a lyricist because the opportunity to write lyrics for "West Side Story and "Gypsy" had presented themselves, and Hammerstein had encouraged him to take them, not because he wasn't already a composer.

I'm not familiar with etiquette and standards for editing long, important articles or I'd have written a better version of the current text. It only requires minor restatement not to be misleading. 157.131.202.151 (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The external link to "sondheimcenter.com" has shown a redirect at archive.org to "fairfieldacc.com" since at least December 2007. The Fairfield ACC's 'About Us' page shows the Sondheim Center more clearly than the home page, so I have revised the external link to "fairfieldacc.com/about" and removed the "dead link" (Dead link|date=October 2019 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes) notation. Old Beeg ..warble·· 19:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be candid...

[edit]

Currently, the article lacks any mention of Sondheim's lyrical contribution to Candide. Phil wink (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone going to correct this omission?! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New York City

[edit]

@Ponyo: please revert per WP:STATUS QUO. NYC hasn't been linked since Sunshineisles2's 2021 edit. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MOS:OVERLINK specifically gives "New York City" as an example of a location that does not have to be linked under most circumstances, because it is so well-known. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here We Are

[edit]

Shouldn't we create a page for Sondheim's last musical, Here We Are? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be cautious about calling a posthumous work "last". Sondheim didn't finish this thing, and there are plenty of other unfinished Sondheim works that could conceivably be dredged up and produced later. TheScotch (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sondheim redirect

[edit]

The searchterm "Sondheim" currently redirects to a disambiguation. It would make more sense for it to redirect here; the other pages in the disambiguation redirect are extremely limited (4), and they're either related to the Sondheim Theatre (named after Sondheim himself), a small municipality in Germany with under 1000 citizens, or the surname "Sondheim". Gambitenthusiast99 (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Frogs

Thank you for a fine and thorough piece. In the interest of completeness I suggest you add the history of "The Frogs" from its initial production with the Yale swim team at the Yale pool to the 2005 revival initiated by Nathan Lane to the recent production under the auspicious of Jazz at Lincoln Center. Dedpubserv (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Sondheim&oldid=1252179787"