TSR50_proof2.

qxd 10/19/2006 12:41 AM Page 25

BY MARK EDEN HOROWITZ

You Could Drive a Person Crazy

BACKGROUND: Company first entered the public’s consciousness in
December of 1968, when The New York Times announced it as a vehicle
for Kim Stanley. George Furth’s three-character comedy was then
scheduled to open in March of the following year. According to the
Times, “Miss Stanley … will be seen in each of the seven segments. The
plot concerns the various arrangements people make to sustain their
marriages.” One month later, the Los Angeles Times reported that she
had even begun taking judo lessons to prepare for the part. Furth, an
actor turned playwright, had conceived his work as a showcase for an
actress who would play each scene as a different character (a conceit
he revisited in Twigs). Suddenly, funding fell through and the produc-
tion was canceled. Furth turned to his friend Sondheim for advice.
Just after Company opened, Sondheim recalled in the Times:

I thought the plays terrific, the dialogue the best since Albee,
and I sent the script right over to Hal Prince. He said, “Why
don’t we make a musical out of this?” I said, “My God, what
an odd idea!” George was also surprised; but we started
meeting, and talked for weeks, and finally came up with the
notion of a third person, an observer of these marriages who
would put them in focus.”

By other accounts, there was some serendipity at play. Prince had

been actively seeking a musical project that dealt with contemporary
marriages and relationships in New York. As for the change in struc-
ture, they realized that most of Furth’s original scenes had featured a
couple and a third person. By making this third person the same per-
son, he could become the central character.
Furth began to rewrite his script (from which one and a half of the
original scenes remain), and Sondheim began work on the score. In
April 1969, the Times announced the musical for the next season —
with the title Threes, and Tony Perkins as the lead.
Company opened in April 1970, marking the beginning of a collabo-
ration between Sondheim and Prince (as director) that would change

CONTINUES ON PAGE 26

The Sondheim Review 25

TSR50_proof2.qxd 10/19/2006 12:41 AM Page 26
BIOGRAPHY OF A SONG, FROM PAGE 25
the course of musical theatre. It was clear that
Sondheim, without a hit since A Funny Thing
Happened on the Way to the Forum in 1962, had
matured into an artist of the first rank.
For those who find value in labels (and who
conveniently forget works like Love Life),
Company has been variously described as the
first plotless and the first concept musical.
Whatever Company’s attributes, Sondheim and
Prince shared an interest in style and experi-
mentation in form and presentation. With
Company, they forged a hybrid of musical and
topical revue. In fact, in an interview at the
time, Sondheim said of Company, “It’s an hilar-
iously funny show, with some of the aspects of
Hellzapoppin’ and Oh, What a Lovely War!” He
had obviously been thinking of Hellzapop-pin’,
The first page of notes
because he mentions it in another interview
for the song
26 The Sondheim Review
from the same period: “Theatre is something
else, too: surprise. I think Company has lots of
surprises … One of the virtues of Hair is its
constant surprise. It’s the Hellzapoppin’ of the
late Sixties, and Hellzapoppin’ was loaded with
surprise.”
The received wisdom is that Company takes
place in Bobby’s head at the moment when he’s
about to unlock the door to his apartment and
realizes that his friends are waiting to surprise
him for his birthday. Memories kaleidoscope in
his mind as he recalls past encounters with his
friends and dates. This has always reminded me
of the theory referred to as “Adam’s dream,”
positing that, while the Bible says God put
Adam to sleep so that he could remove the rib
to create Eve, nowhere does it say that God ever
woke him up again. So perhaps he’s still sleep-
ing, and all of us are just a part of Adam’s
dream of the future humanity he and Eve will
generate (apparently inspiring this line from
Keats, “The imagination may be compared to
Adam’s dream, he awoke and found it truth.”).
In essence, Company is Bobby’s dream. Other,
more prosaic sources are moments in movies
like The Sixth Sense or The Usual Suspects in
which the hero puts together the plot in a
series of flashbacks that add up to his final reve-
lation.
In considering the complete score for the
show, it occurred to me that almost half of the
show’s songs can be described as being put
together in Bobby’s head from snatches of
remembered conversations. They come across
as collected comments made to Robert that he
compiles into mosaics on various topics. The
clearest example is “Sorry-Grateful,” which
begins as a direct response to Robert’s ques-
tion: “Harry? You ever sorry you got married?”
Eventually, David and Larry join in. Though we
don’t hear Robert ask them the same question,
we assume that he is conflating similar conver-
sations with his three friends — focusing on
their shared ambivalent reactions.
Excluding the chorus, most of the title num-
ber, “Company,” comprises fragments of
remembered telephone calls in ellipsis — and
always the half spoken to Robert — starting
with the motif of nicknames that becomes a
recurring theme through the show: “Bobby …
Bobby baby … Bobby bubi … Robby …” etc.
Imagine Robert asking Joanne (in the same
way he asked Harry about regrets), “What do
you get out of being married?” Wouldn’t the
resulting song be “The Little Things You Do
Together”? “Have I Got a Girl for You” offers
the shared wisdom of his male married friends,
whereas “Poor Baby” is a collage of unsubtle
digs from their wives about his dates. “What
Would We Do Without You?” is almost a refor-
mulation of the opening number, but here it
comes to the less idyllic realization — “Just
what you usually do.” Finally, there’s “You Could
Drive a Person Crazy,” which is the combined
mantra of the various women Bobby has dated.
TSR50_proof2.qxd 10/19/2006 12:41 AM Page 27

LYRICS: Sondheim has said, “I remember the

last song I wrote [for Company] was ‘You Could
Drive a Person Crazy,’ because I couldn’t figure
out how to make a song work in that scene.”
Apparently his initial impulse was to have the
song be from Bobby’s point of view. The first
page of notes for the song has Sondheim writ-
ing a sort of stream-of-consciousness subtext.
Crossed out at the top are what was perhaps a
title, “LOOKING FOR OUTS” followed by “Am I
guilty? Maybe it’s her fault.” But, no, that’s not
right. After first attempting the song from
Robert’s point of view, he begins again from a
different perspective. In the middle of the page
he writes “3 GIRLS”. Now the ideas flow more
fully:

Rage — there are few enough men

around, he’s not a fag, what’s wrong?
They would settle for second best
Elusive is attractive.
What does he want? I’ll be it.
Girls are whores till they’re married —
then they can go back to being what they
were.
I’m tired of pushing the curlers around +
finding out what he (they) like.

This is not a flattering portrait of Robert, the

three women or their perceptions of one anoth-
er. But on the next page Sondheim begins
experimenting with several ideas, and the tone
is lightened considerably — “An eel, a heel, a
schlemiel.” He suggests the idea of describing a
date, but doesn’t pursue it. He revisits a couple
of lines from the first page, “What do you want
— I’ll be it,” and “Elusive is attractive.” And he
obviously likes the pairing, “cut off/shut off,” as
he lists it twice. Most thrilling are the new bits
that presage the final song either closely or
exactly: “What’s wrong”; “Bobby, you’re my
hobby”; “Knock! Knock! Nobody home/Is any-
body home in there?”; and, most impressively:

When a person’s personality is personable
He shouldn’t be so hard to make jump
It’s as bad as any matador coercin’ a bull
To try to get you off your behind
I’m still flummoxed by that last line, but it’s
followed immediately by “Who tries to get it off
of its rump,” which is in turn followed by the
exclamatory, “Ump ump”, which I surmise is
the beginning of the idea of including nonsense
syllables.
The next page is a cornucopia of ideas. In
the top margin Sondheim makes some staging
notes: “Microphone trio? Mmmm (warming up)
mmm-mmm —/Robert distracted during
speech/30s radio —/meaningless motions.”
And Sondheim begins the body of the page with
two near-perfect quatrains:
You could drive a person mad The second page of
First you get a person crazy lyric sketches
When a person can be had
I could understand a person
If a person was an ug
Or the nothing type of person
That a person wants to slug
For that first line he considers the alterna-
tive, “Boy you make a girl bananas.” Inspired by
crazy and bananas, he lists several additional
alternatives in the left margin: silly, wacky,
buggy, crackers and bonkers. Also in the margin
is the rhyme, “worse ’n that/a person that”
This is followed by a section that focuses on
the not a fag phrase on the first page. Here it
evolves from:

You could drive a person crazy

CONTINUES ON PAGE 28

The Sondheim Review 27

TSR50_proof2.qxd 10/19/2006 12:41 AM
The first page of lyric
sketches that focuses
on the release
28 The Sondheim Review
Page 28
BIOGRAPHY OF A SONG, FROM PAGE 27
You’re not a drag – no, no, no
You’re not a fag – no, no, no
to:
You [I] could understand a person
If it’s not a person’s bag
You [I] could understand a person
If a person was a fag
and an odd aside,
But [When] it’s not a person’s bag
You’re not a drag, you’re not a
fag it’s not a gag
The first couplet’s no, no, nos again seems to
presage the Doo-doo doo-doos which are still to
come. There has been much disagreement and
discussion regarding Bobby’s sexuality. The
authors have been consistently clear — whatev-
er others may read into the text, the character
they wrote is straight. In fact, I suspect the pri-
mary reason that Sondheim wanted to include
this section was to explicitly deal with the issue
in order to dismiss it.
On the next page, Sondheim lists words and
phrases that grow from person, including:
impersonal, impersonate, personify, persona non
grata, personification. He seems determined to
take full advantage of that lovely inner rhyme,
“But worse’n that/a person that.” He also starts
with the quatrain:
I could understand a person
If he didn’t want to wed
I could understand a person
If he actually was dead
And then for the second line considers “…
wasn’t good in bed” or “… didn’t like to shtup.”
At the bottom of the page he arrives at two top-
pers for the song: “Is a really crazy
person/Himself” and “He’s a deeply maladjust-
ed/Never-to-be-trusted.” By now the tone is
firmly established — hurt and pissy, frustrated
and vindictive.
The next page starts with another tag line,
“Bobby is my hobby and I’m giving it up,” and
then quickly begins working out the lyric for
the second part of the release:
Knock knock — It really isn’t fair
Knock knock — a person’s in despair
Knock knock — a person tears her hair
Knock knock — is anybody there
Several lines on the page use the word
Martian for what will ultimately be zombie, such
as “I’m using all my charms/A Martian’s in my
arms.” Now that Sondheim has a rhythmic pat-
tern, he comes up with several rhyming cou-
plets: “I thought I saw a crack/Tomorrow I’ll be
back,” “I thought I saw a tear/I know I saw a
leer,” “How can a person cope/You’re slippery
as soap.”
And then there’s this delicious quatrain (so
near and yet so far):
How often does a girl meet so attractive a
man
So sweet and such a beautiful bod
The way you turn a girl on is the act of a
man
Who studied with the Marquis de Sade
To the right of the fourth line he posits its
replacement, “Who likes to pull the hooks out
of fish.” Then, with a few modifications, he ends
the page with:
All that dear affection
What is wrong
Where’s the loose connection
How long, oh, Lord, how long?
TSR50_proof2.qxd 10/19/2006 12:41 AM Page 29

Bobby baby Bobby bubi Bobby
There are two more pages of lyric sketches,
but they mostly involve experiments and small
refinements based on what has come before. As
happens so frequently with Sondheim’s sketch-
es, there are several wonderful bits on these
pages that are left behind. Among my favorites
are: “Knock knock — The tiniest response/
Knock knock — Is all a person wants,” “deeply
shallow,” “Still waters run (crazy),” “I think I
saw a human being underneath the charm
there.” Sondheim also considers quite a bit of
late-’60s/early-’70s argot: “flip a person out,”
“blow a person’s cool” and “I could understand
a person/If he couldn’t make the scene.”
Indeed, part of the surprise of the song is the
pleasant tension between its contemporary jar-
gon and period style.
What follows are three pages of typescript
lyrics with Sondheim’s annotations in pencil.
The names and order of the three girls change
slightly, including April, Marta, Susan and
Catherine. There are three primary points of
interest about this final typescript. (1) Penciled
just before the first line and after the second
are indications of the “Doo-doo-doo-doo”s. I
suspect he realizes that the song needs more air
and playfulness, not to mention an opportunity
to highlight the idea of an all-girl trio. (2) The
two occurrences of “Martian” are crossed out
and replaced by “Zombie.” While the idea of
men being alien is in some ways apropos,
zombie is far more likely to generate a shared
image with audiences, and it pairs more appro-
priately with “If he actually was dead.” (3) The
“Knock, knock” section is twice as long as it
will end up being — eight lines instead of four.
these is an obvious precursor to the accompani-
ment for the bridge — the slightly jazzy arpeg-
gios whose lower notes trace a descending line.
The next page continues to play with that
pattern for a few measures and then spins out
an almost perfect rendition of the melody for
the chorus — sans the “Doo-doo doo-doo” sec-
tions. The third page of music sketches begins
with a refinement of an accompaniment pattern
for the bridge, followed by a complete version of
its melody. Ironically, the notes that will end up
being jazzed up with a half-tone dip and return
— there … fair … charms … arms — here in
their first incarnation are rendered as single
sustained notes. What didn’t work as a musical
setting for “crazy” in the chorus will ultimately
provide some musical playfulness and propul-
sion in the release.
The melody of the chorus is unusually
straightforward for Sondheim. While perhaps
not his most distinguished tune, it is jaunty and
CONTINUES ON PAGE 30 The first page of
music sketches

MUSIC, Part I. Company is a rare Sondheim

attempt at a musically contemporary score.
Following on the heels of Hair and Promises,
Promises, it is not a true rock score, but it cer-
tainly includes some rock figures and treat-
ments, and what Sondheim describes as “rock
oriented orchestration in terms of heavy beats
and a certain amount of anger and ferocity.”
But there’s also a lighter, more traditional
musical comedy strain that runs through the
score, and “You Could Drive a Person Crazy”
falls squarely in that category.
There are three pages of music sketches. The
cover page is titled in the center “I Could
Understand a Person,” with the subheading “3
Girls.” At the very top is a four-measure melody
sketch setting the first two lines of the song
proper. It is the final melody of the song with
the exception of the second measure, which
sets the word “crazy.” Here the first syllable
does a melismatic leap up a third and down,
resolving the second syllable down a half tone
to a surprising sharped second of the scale.
Perhaps it was too spot-on “crazy.” The rest of
the page is filled with chord progressions, rhyth-
mic ideas and accompaniment figures. One of

The Sondheim Review 29

TSR50_proof2.qxd 10/19/2006 12:41 AM Page 30

Doo-doo doo-doos, with their syncopated down-

beat on an eighth note followed by the quarter
note on the offbeat. (The only contemporary
reviewer I’ve found who actively comments on
the song is Walter Kerr, who says, “… three of
them do yodel their way splendidly, using ocari-
na notes I haven’t heard since the Duncan sis-
ters left us …” The Duncan sisters were vaude-
ville stars of the 1920s.) Much of the tune is in
a jazzy, slightly swinging 12/8. Several of the
melodic phrases and accompaniment figures
feature dotted quarter-notes accents and beats
— a feature of the Charleston — including the
setting of words like “crazy” and “dangling
sadly.” Also reminiscent of the period are musi-
cal phrases first stated in the major then
repeated in the minor, as happens at “But worse
’n that, A person that …” (It’s a technique I
particularly associate with Cole Porter, as in “I
Get a Kick Out of You” — ”When I’m out on a
quiet spree/Fighting vainly the old ennui …”)
Company and Follies (whose composition
overlapped) reveal a marked increase in
Sondheim’s use of pianistically-flavored accom-
paniment figures. Prior to this point, though
there is much care in the use of chordal vamps,
walking basses and textured accompaniments,
there is very little in the scores for Saturday
Night, Forum or Anyone Can Whistle that
presage this new emphasis. In Follies it occurs
notably in “Don’t Look at Me,” “The Road You
Didn’t Take,” “Too Many Mornings” (mostly
reflected in the cut portion of “Pleasant Little
Kingdom”), “The Right Girl” and “Could I
Leave You.” In Company it’s in “Another
Hundred People,” “Marry Me a Little,” to a less-
er degree in “Getting Married Today” and “Poor
Baby,” and in the release for “You Could Drive a
Person Crazy.” These accompaniment figures
usually comprise an eighth-note filigree.
Typically a pattern is established that offers sur-
The second page of
music sketches
prises as to where downbeats and held notes
occur, there are often chromaticisms, or at the
least unexpected notes that aren’t part of the
BIOGRAPHY OF A SONG, FROM PAGE 29
primary chord. There are usually other aspects
of the accompaniment that are in conflict, cre-
playful and includes some artful turns of phrase.
ating a sense of tension and energy.
I was struck by the fact that, while the song is
The structure of the song is fairly unusual in
written in the key of F major, much of the
having a release of three distinct musical parts.
melody and accompaniment of the chorus sug-
The second part is the “Knock, knock” section
gests we may actually be in G minor. The open-
— an immediately winning tune, characterized
ing phrase, “You could drive a person crazy,”
by its chromatic dips. In his original manuscript
starts on a D and appears to hit an appoggiatu-
Sondheim stays squarely in F, but in the show
ra at an A on “cra-” and resolve down to the G
score there is a key change here up a whole
on “-zy”, matching the G in the bass. Even the
step. Interestingly, this is retained in the “25th
“Doo-doo”s always culminate at a high G. In
Anniversary Edition” of the vocal selections
fact, it’s not until the very end of the A section,
based on the original arrangements. This sug-
approximately 40 measures into the song, at
gests that the modulation was Sondheim’s. The
“… crazy person himself,” that it’s resolutely
manuscript version for this section is some 32
clear that the song is in F. I wonder if the goal
measures, as opposed to the 16 in the score.
is to be ever so slightly unsettling, perhaps
This is due to the extra set of lyrics that begins,
echoing how Robert is feeling at the assault.
“Knock knock, the tiniest response/Knock
While I wouldn’t describe the song as one of
knock, is all a person wants … .” Musically, this
Sondheim’s pastiches, there are aspects that
repeat in the manuscript is enriched by now
suggest a piece from the 1920s or ’30s, particu-
adding the filigree from the first half of the
larly in the rhythms. These include the opening

30 The Sondheim Review

TSR50_proof2.qxd 10/19/2006 12:41 AM Page 31

release high in the soprano as an extra layer (a

development lost in the final version).
The release ends with the driving “All that
sweet affection …” section, which concludes
with the tongue-twisting, a cappella, “Bobby,
baby, Bobby, bubi, Bobby …” I can think of no
other song with a similar transition, and there’s
something in its daring playfulness that invari-
ably brings a smile.

MUSIC, Part II: The primary reason I chose “You

Could Drive a Person Crazy” as the subject for
this article is a recording of a backers’ audition
for Company in which the final chorus for the
song is markedly different from the version with
which we are familiar. Not the lyrics, but the
music. Before discussing the specific differ-
ences, the introduction to the song by Prince
and Sondheim is worthy of quotation in its
entirety. We join Prince in the middle of
describing the scene with the couple smoking
marijuana:

Prince: It’s their first time, and they

really are silly people. And they’re
dear and you love them, and she’s
very much the wife, and the husband
is very much the protective husband.
And they’re just really quite foolish.
During the course of this high that
they’re having, the husband says,
“You really ought to get married
sometime, Robert.” And he explains
what marriage has meant to him, in
a way that dooms it for anyone
who’s listening. And the wife says,
“That’s just wonderful honey, you say
that one all over again.” And then
our hero assures them that it’s not
that he is not married because he
doesn’t want to be married, he fully
intends to now finally settle down A page of the fair copy
that I want to make is that it’s
with the original version
and get married. And at that point a absolutely tonelessly done. There’s of the final chorus
girl, who is a girl named Donna absolutely no emotion whatsoever in
McKechnie (who you may have seen their voices to what they sing. And
in Promises, Promises; a great it’s right in the middle of this speech,
dancer), comes out with a micro- as he’s phumphering around trying
phone and sets it up, and another to explain to himself, as well to the
girl comes out, and still a third girl, couple, why he isn’t married and
and they stand around the micro- how he intends to get married and
phone, and this is very much the what’s wrong with it and what’s
Andrews Sisters, ’cause of course our right with it, and just making all the
hero very much remembers the ridiculous rationales, he keeps get-
Andrews Sisters. And they do this ting distracted, because he sees these
song right dead in the middle of the girls setting up a microphone, but of
scene, at the point when he’s course it’s in his head, so the others
protesting the hardest that he fully don’t. As the song goes on they do
intends to get married. These are the kind of close harmony things, and
single girls in the show. you’ll hear me play what sound like
a lot of wrong notes in the second
Sondheim: It may be an Andrews chorus. But I want them to harmo-
Sisters treatment, or it may be a nize as if they were perfect notes, all
Lennon Sisters, or it may even be the the wrong notes, so it’s all kind of
Sergio Mendes … [laughter from the crazy.
audience]. The point about the style
CONTINUES ON PAGE 32

The Sondheim Review 31

TSR50_proof2.qxd 10/19/2006 12:41 AM Page 32
Xxxxxxxxxx
BIOGRAPHY OF A SONG, FROM PAGE 31
Indeed, as Sondheim performs the final third
for the song, it is fairly shocking and rife with
atonalities. These notes are here in Sondheim’s
fair copy manuscript — clashing major seventh
accompaniment figures, and “Doo-doo Doo-doo”s
that hit notes that are far afield and out of the
key signature. My guess is that part of the initial
concept for the song was to become increasingly
nightmarish for Robert — that the three girl-
friends would transform from scolds to harpies.
According to Sondheim, this was changed during
rehearsals, when it was realized that onstage it
came across as self-conscious and out of left field.
In his performance note on the manuscript he
writes, “Toneless, even rhythm,” but in the pub-
lished score this has been changed to “With a
lilt.” Even the recently published 25th
Anniversary vocal selections, based on the origi-
nal manuscripts and containing most of these
“wrong” notes, retain the “with a lilt” direction.
Interestingly, while most of the discordant notes
32 The Sondheim Review
are retained (which Sondheim now thinks may
have been a mistake on his part), the particularly
harrowing “Doo-doo” notes continue to reflect
the score version. Another surprise is that in
both Sondheim’s original manuscript and in the
score, the accompaniment figure from the first
release is added as an additional layer to the final
chorus beginning at “You’ve upset her …,”
though it’s not included in those Anniversary
vocal selections. Perhaps Sondheim now believes
it’s unnecessary, and just a bit too much.
The fair copy reveals one final thing: the two
measures that comprise “Deeply maladjusted,
Never to be trusted” were an afterthought,
added as an insert.
RECORDINGS AND END NOTES: There are 27
commercial recordings of “You Could Drive a
Person Crazy”; I have listened to 21 of them.
Five are included in recordings of Company,
four in recordings of Side by Side by Sondheim
and another six are from various tribute con-
certs. As usual, the original cast recording
seems the most definitive. It’s crisp and bright,
and in comparison to other cast recordings,
what stands out in particular are all the detail
and color that Jonathan Tunick’s orchestration
provides. There’s also the D. A. Pennebaker doc-
umentary on the making of the original cast
album that includes almost two complete takes,
plus an amusing aside in which Sondheim
coaches the clearly shiksa Pamela Myers on the
correct pronunciation of bubi. Harder to find is
a 1982 video of a lengthily titled concert,
“That’s Singing: The Best of Broadway: A
Celebration of American Musical Comedy.” Here
the original performers do a newly (and heavily)
choreographed rendition of the song.
Surprising delights are two Brazilian record-
ings — one from a production of Company and
one from a production of Side by Side (Lado a
Lado). They’re both fast and bright with a cer-
tain daring quality, and while the Lado a Lado
only uses piano accompaniment, I think it gen-
erates the wider grin.
Several recordings have odd and quirky takes
to recommend them. Dorothy Loudon’s medley
of “Losing My Mind” and “Crazy” is a master
class in how an expert comedienne can reshape
material to her own brilliant ends. Even better,
it’s also available on video as part of the
Sondheim Celebration at Carnegie Hall. In anoth-
er Sondheim celebration concert (this one an
AIDS benefit for S.T.A.G.E.), the brothers Cassidy
— David, Patrick and Shaun — perform the song
(you’ll forgive the expression) straight, and
according to the liner notes, even re-create the
original choreography. There are two other gen-
der-reversal recordings worthy of note. In the
cast recording for Putting It Together, Christopher
Durang sings the entire song in the first person
— “I could drive a person crazy …” — and that
pronouncement rings absolutely true. Even more
bizarre is Mandy Patinkin’s recording. Frantic,
frenetic and full of sound effects, in its way it’s
TSR50_proof2.qxd 10/19/2006 12:41 AM Page 33
the equal of Dorothy Loudon’s as an example of
how a master performer can bend (or distort) a
piece to his own will.
Most other solo recordings are fine if unre-
markable. Bernadette Peters and Cleo Laine dis-
appoint only because their names set expecta-
tions a bit high. Australian soprano Marina
Prior’s recording doesn’t have much character,
but it’s very musical and, by overdubbing all
three voices, the vocal harmonies have never
blended so perfectly. I find that Barbara Cook’s
recording continues to grow on me. It’s slower
and more thoughtful than most, and it’s rich
with intent and intelligence. The only instru-
mental recording is on Company in Jazz by the
Trotter Trio; here the melody is mostly given to
an added alto saxophone. Without the distrac-
tions of its wicked lyric, the song’s tasty little
tune is more clearly revealed.
In general, Sondheim has fought attempts to
update any of his shows, but for the 1995 pro-
duction by the Roundabout Theatre Company,
he changed one of the sections as follows:
I could understand a person
If he said to go away…
I could understand a person
If he happened to be gay.
At the time he explained, “I’ve changed the
lyric for the new New York production because
the word ‘fag’ is no longer politically accept-
able. I use the word ‘gay’ instead, but the mean-
ing is the same.”
I leave you with this final fantasy. In a 1970
article in The Los Angeles Times, George Furth
shares his casting suggestions should Company
be made into a film. In addition to Warren
Beatty as Robert (adding that he was the model
for the hero), Furth imagined “as the couple
who abstained respectively from food and drink,
Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton; as the
couple living together divorced rather than mar-
ried, George C. Scott and Colleen Dewhurst; as
the Jewish boy and the gentile girl, Dick
Benjamin and Paula Prentiss; other couples
Joanne Woodward and Paul Newman, Anne
Bancroft and Mel Brooks.” And for the three
girlfriends who sing our song, he posits Julie
Christie, Natalie Wood and Leslie Caron — with
no indication as to whether any of them might
be dubbed by Marni Nixon. |TSR|
MARK EDEN HOROWITZ is a senior music specialist
at the Library of Congress. This column reflects his
personal, not professional, observations. Horowitz
is the author of Sondheim on Music and has
taught courses at Georgetown University about
the history of musical theatre and specifically
about Sondheim. “Biography of a Song” is a regu-
lar feature of TSR.
SIMPLY SONDHEIM
A 75th Birthday Salute
Recorded Live in San Francisco
On the occasion of Mr. Sondheim’s 75th
birthday there were several concerts
presented around the world. One of the
best was performed in San Francisco,
and we’re pleased to present the specially-
priced 2 CD live recording, which features
classic Sondheim along with a few rarities.
A cast of talented Bay Area artists, including
special guest star LISA VROMAN, has its
way with Stephen Sondheim’s brilliant
theatre music.
Available on Kritzerland
(www.kritzerland.com), amazon.com,
cdbaby.com and fine stores everywhere.
Produced by James Brewer
for A-J Productions
The Sondheim Review 33