American Theatre has published a really interesting interview with Stephen Sondheim in this month’s edition of the journal. Titled “A Playwright in Song”, the interview deals with his work, his influences, the dramatic language of musicals, pop and rock music, hip-hop, directors, his writing methods and the future of the theatre, about which he states:
It’s an interesting read – enjoy it!
I have to say, I do not think this is right at all. Rock has as much potential for emotion, story, character, humour and drama as any other style of music. I think maybe he is forgetting that rock used in musicals is far more complicated and varied and expressive than the type you usually get in rock bands.
But then again, he earlier said:
So I would say he simply does not understand rock, and therefore, assumes that it is weak in expression (expressivity is not a word), rather than he simply cannot interpret and/or connect with it as those a decade or more younger can.
I think you misunderstood him. The way I interpret it is that rock does not LEND itself to theatre, not that it is impossible, because Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice proved him wrong with Jesus Christ Superstar! But how many other musicals have integrated rock with success?
The difference between rock and the monodic style Sondheim uses, is that the monodic sound suits musical theatre beautifully, but rock isn’t made for musicals. Therefore it is harder to integrate the sound into theatre.
I think there is also some selective quoting and interpretation being done here. Although Sondheim does indeed say that he feels that rock does not lend itself to musical theatre storytelling, but he says quite a bit more than just that in the interview, including that it can be done but that ‘it’s rare, ’cause it’s hard.’
I don’t see how any style of music can be more made for musicals than another. The music is made to serve the story. I see no reason one can be said to do this better than another. A few example of other successes:
Theses are but a few examples.