Ask the Flying Monkey: Are “South Park”’s Trey Parker and Matt Stone the Next Rodgers and Hammerstein?

Today: Are South Park’s Trey Parker and Matt Stone the next Rodgers and Hammerstein?

Have a question about gay male entertainment? Contact me here (and be sure and include your city and state and/or country)!

Q: I read an article on Slate.com praising the musical genius of South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker, who I enjoy as well. Some of the comparisons are great, like Satan's "Up There" to Ariel's "Part of Your World.” Basically, they equate the two as a modern Rodgers and Hammerstein duo. I don't know much about theater or Broadway productions, but I'd figure you (and most of AE) would. Could the guys who created a talking and singing piece of poo be on the same scale as Rodgers and Hammerstein? -- Daniel, Baltimore

Trey Parker (left) and Matt Stone

A: The article doesn’t actually equate them with Rodgers and Hammerstein, just sort of vaguely compares them in one aspect, which is a good thing. It would be totally outrageous for a media outlet to shamelessly troll for readers and controversy with a provocative, attention-getting, and totally stupid headline like “Are Matt Stone and Trey Parker the Next Rodgers and Hammerstein?”

Oops. Did I just do that?

The fact is, I absolutely believe a singing piece of poo could be on the same scale as Rodgers and Hammerstein.

But Parker and Stone? Come on. Rodgers and Hammerstein basically created, like, a quarter of the musical classics of the 20^th century. No, seriously: “People Will Say We’re in Love”? “You’ll Never Walk Alone”? “Some Enchanted Evening”? “Younger Than Springtime”? “My Favorite Things”? “Edelweiss”?

Not only that, they literally created the concept of the current Broadway musical – not to mention being the first widely popular artists to incorporate social themes into the musical theater.

Trey and Matt? Well, they can be amusing in the audaciousness and irreverence of their lyrics. But brilliant songwriters they’re not. Mostly, I think it just makes good copy: “the guys who made the movie about f**king puppets are actually great songwriters!”

It’s a little like the musical episode of Buffy written by the show’s creator, Joss Whedon. It had a couple of good songs and was, in general, a very impressive score … for a complete non-professional.

(Let the Buffy-related pillorying begin!)

And speaking of non-professionals? That Slate article also doesn’t mention that Stone and Parker’s new Broadway musical The Book of Mormon, which opened to rapturous reviews, was co-written with Avenue Q’s Robert Lopez.

This isn’t to diss them. But it does suggest that even they know they’re not really writing music of a professional caliber on their own.

Will Parker and Stone be remembered for generations? People always look like fools when they make predictions like this but … no. For one thing, as the Slate article says, they’re parodists, and parodists, by definition, don’t age well. Case in point: one of Carol Burnett’s first big successes was with a 1957 song called “I Made a Fool of Myself Over John Foster Dulles.”

It’s a good bet you don’t find that nearly as hilarious as audiences at the time did. Why? Because getting the joke depends on being in that time – or at least knowing who John Foster Dulles is.

It’s the same for most of Parker and Stone’s work. You can’t really understand “Blame Canada” or “America, F**k Yeah” without understanding the brainless xenophobia of the current American Republican party. For “Up There” to really make sense, you need to understand the Disney animated musical conventions of the 1990s, which are already fading into obscurity.

This isn’t to say that parody is a “lesser” art form than the other – parody has its place, after all. But much of the “art” of parody is in the humor, not the music.

Basically, you asked my opinion of the music of Parker and Stone, and, well, in my opinion, they ain’t Rodgers and Hammerstein.