Monday 30 May 2011

Learning About Lerner

Finally finished Fi-n-ish-ing-the-Hat by Big Steve.

The best bits are the concise and sharp criticisms of some of the Great Broadway Lyricists. These, I suppose, are the “heresies” trailed in the title. Well, maybe you have to be a Broadway insider but they don’t seem that heretical to me: Gershwin over-rhymed; Hart was lazily inconsistent; Berlin, well-crafted but banal. Nothing too surprising there, I would have thought.
Except for Alan Jay Lerner.

Here Sondheim is unusually cryptic. He describes My Fair Lady as “one of his most entertaining nights in the theatre”. And yet is not particularly enamoured by the lyrics.

Yet Lerner has always struck me as the most polished of the Broadway writers. His lyrics, always singable and often elegant, sound as if they’ve been buffed to a high shine. In thinking this I admit that I’m probably as influenced by anecdotes as by the lyrics themselves. My favourite story is how he once locked himself in a hotel room for two weeks trying to come up with an alternative to one couplet from Gigi:

“Those little eyes so helpless and appealing
Some day will flash and send you crashing through the ceiling”

What’s wrong with the couplet? Well, should the mood take you, you would “crash” through a floor but more likely “fall” through a ceiling. But then, as well as gaining a few broken limbs, you’d also lose the internal rhyme (flash/crash). So Lerner spent two weeks holed up in a hotel room expending his nervous energy (he wore gloves whilst writing to stop him biting his fingernails) trying desperately to come up with something better. In the end he gave up and kept the lines as they were.

But that’s why I like Lerner; his lyrics (like Sondheim’s) are highly crafted.

So it’s surprising when Sondheim points out this bit of clumsiness in “I will Never Let a Woman in My Life”:

“I’d be equally as willing
For a dentist to be drilling
Than to ever let a woman in my life”

I never even noticed it before. Clearly I need to pay more attention. It’s a real grammatical pile-up, a convoluted way of saying “I’d rather go to the dentist than...”. (In addition I suspect that “drilling” really requires an object otherwise the implication is that you’re getting drilled by the dentist; very different indeed). This may seem nitpicky but remember who’s singing it. It wouldn’t matter if the character were a simple, uneducated “flahwer” girl who washed her face ‘n’ ‘ands before she come, she did. But it’s supposed to be a professor of English, one of the foremost linguistic experts in the world. The inelegant phrasing is uncharacteristic. Of Lerner too, for that matter.

Another one picked up by Sondheim is from “On the Street Where You Live”. The false rhyme:


“People stop and stare, they don’t bother me
For there’s nowhere else on earth that I would rather be”

Now I concede the dentist drilling but here I rush to Lerner’s defence. I’ve always thought that this was deliberate. Posh young Freddy has fallen head over heels for Eliza. But it’s not a grounded romance; it’s youthful and head-over-heels-y (“And oh, the towering feeling...the overpowering feeling”). I think Lerner’s indicating this by using that false rhyme. It’s letting the audience know in a very subtle and unobtrusive way that Eliza and Freddy aren’t quite the real deal; that the relationship we really should be paying attention to is Eliza and grumpy Higgins.

Or it could be that Alan Jay Lerner just ran out of fingernails.

3 comments:

  1. Interesting article as always and raises some good points. Sondheim’s “dissing” his alumni (the dead ones at least) was for me quite the most irritating thing in his book, and made me think considerably less of him. His article on WS Gilbert boiled down to “he bores me” which may be true but is not a valid criticism in the same way that failure of craft is. And nor is Sondheim himself immune. In his article on Lorenz Hart, whom he famously seems to resent more than most, he accuses him of being sloppy and says you can turn to almost any of his songs to find examples. Well, I have just idly played the same game with Stephen and alighted on “The Ballad of Guiteau” from “Assassins” (genuinely the first song I looked at), and found this:

    “But God was acquitted
    And Charlie committed
    Until he should hang.”

    It seems to me that “should” is wrong here and it draws attention to a sentence that feels awkward. It is a clumsy usage which has been selected only to fit the scansion (or metrics as the peerless Gilbert would have it). Would anyone ever say “and the police took him away until he should hang”? No, “until he was hanged” is more likely. And nor can Sondheim hide behind it being an obscure legal usage as a Google search shows that it is only used in the lyrics to this song and no-where else!

    So on the clumsiness front is seems to 1-1 in the battle of Lerner (deceased) and Sondheim.

    But then in the same song, we get this:

    “Charlie Guiteau
    Had a crowd at the scaffold-

    [GUITEAU]
    I am so glad...

    [BALLADEER]
    -Filled up the square,
    Som many people
    That tickets were raffled”

    Now, “scaffold” and “raffled” don’t rhyme. Close but no cigar, and as Sondheim gives no quarter to his dead colleagues, nor can we give him any leeway.

    Looking at “The Street Where You Live” I think that Sondheim has spotted a genuine false rhyme. Lerner earlier in the same song uses the same pattern correctly. We get it three times:

    street before/feet before
    heart of town/part of town
    bother me/rather be

    The rhyming scheme here is set up as the antepenultimate syllable rhyming and the next two being the same – until that is, we get to the last time it comes round, when only the middle syllable is the same, the latter syllable suddenly rhymes and the antepenultimate one doesn’t. It is a double deviation from the set up and for my money the suggestion of “youthful exuberance” in the character doesn’t pardon it (sorry). So, I have to conclude that Lerner hoped no-one would notice. But they have. Sadly, the person who brought it to the world’s attention does the same thing.

    So, Lerner unusually erred, but Sondheim has unusually “Lernered” too and as the person who brought the former to our attention, he has all the more to answer for. So that makes it Lerner 2 - Sondheim 2 in the clumsiness battle. But as Sondheim made the same errors in the same song, I have to award him another point and award him the clumsiness trophy: 2-3.

    Sorry Steve!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Having had another look at the Ballad of Guiteau, I have spotted this:

    “Shine on his shoes
    Charlie mounted the stair,
    Said, "Never sorrow,
    Just wait till tomorrow,
    Today isn't fair.”

    Now, I’d normally let this pass, but if we are criticising

    “I’d be equally as willing
    For a dentist to be drilling
    Than to ever let a woman in my life”

    for missing the words “my teeth” after “drilling” or some such, then we have to bash the Narrator in Assassins for missing the preposition “With a” before “Shine on his shoes” unless we are arguing that the character is known as “Shine-On-His Shoes-Charlie”.

    2-4 after extra time!

    ReplyDelete
  3. OK, so we’re Giteau-ing down to brass tacks. Well, Big Steve did remind us that God is in the details.

    On the Ballad of Giteau, I’m with you on “And Charlie committed/Until he should hang”. Feels clumsy. And technically I think you can either get sentenced to hang OR committed (sent to prison) and then be hanged. Not that you’d be too worried about such things if you happened to be the hangee.

    “Shine on his shoes” requiring “with a” before? Hmm, I’d say 50-50. Doesn’t really make a difference to my ear but I’ll give it to you. On the other hand I think that “scaffold” can be rhymed with “raffled”. Depending on the accent you can get away with an “uld” sound for both. And I don’t think that spotting the mistakes of others and then committing yourself deserves an extra point. Just goes to show that this songwriting lark is no cakewalk (wahey!). We’ll have to wait for volume 2 to see if Big Steve agrees.

    On “On the Street Where You Live” I’m sticking with Lerner. The fact that he rhymes properly in the other verses AND blows the antpenultimatiness (?) of the rhyme makes me think that it’s deliberate. One deviation would be careless; two deviations seems intentionally careless. And even if it wasn’t intended that way I still think the effect in the context of the show is to strike a false note in Freddy’s affections.

    So I make that Lerner 1 – Sondheim 2. Same result, different score. Does this mean that W.S. Gilbert is the ref?

    ReplyDelete