Why does everyone hate Andrew Lloyd Webber?- Page 3

[Plum]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 9:55am

The 'theatre people' had better get over the idea that shows that appeal to the masses are basically lousy and only those that are artistically challenging are worth anything.

I'm sorry - but you only see this conceit on boards that are primarily attended by theatre professionals. And Theatre (capital T) cannot be sustained by only those. You BETTER appeal to the masses or the whole business is going to die away.

I think you're misframing the argument. First of all, this board is mostly, as far as I can see aspiring theater professionals in their teens, and older fans, with some actual professionals mixed in. I think that the simplistic view that any show that's popular is automatically bad is mostly held by the former demographic.

The way this board's membership tends to differ from the general Broadway-viewing population is that it sees more shows. When you've seen and listened to a lot of shows, it's harder to get taken in by those that are simple and/or formulaic. Formulas only work so many times before they become cliches. You look for things that are challenging, different, and new so you don't get bored. That doesn't mean you can no longer appreciate well-executed fluff, just that you won't fall in love with mediocrity as easily as someone who hasn't seen mediocrity 65 times before.

A distinction should be made between true snobbery, which is characterized by such inane statements as "if it's popular, it's bad," and the selectiveness that is a natural result of having a lot of theater exposure.

And no, I'm not saying that hatred of ALW is an inevitable consequence of seeing a lot of shows. A quick look around here (and even at the professional reviews of some of his shows) shows that that's patently untrue.

[Sant]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 10:06am

I personally like ALW's music. Some of his songs are boring and I would rather listen to water drip from the tap, but I find most of his songs (and shows) good. That doesn't mean I don't like Sondheim. He's written very clever lyrics and wonderful tunes (Broadway Baby being a personal Sondheim favorite) and I don't see why or how liking the other composer would automatically mean you don't like the other? Like it has been stated here already, ALW's music is very different from Sondheim's. But it doesn't mean his music is bad. It is a matter of opinion, and stating 'everyone hates ALW' is a bit of overstatement.

I wonder how would people feel about Sondheim's stuff if he was as famous, commercially successful and widely popular as ALW... (This doesn't mean Sondheim is not successful or popular, guys!)

[JasonM12480]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 10:08am

Well, here goes my attempt to explain my side of this ridiculous controversy. Please keep in mind as you read that this is simply MY opinion. It is not fact, it is not right, it is not wrong - it's simply what I, as an individual feel.

Everyone seems to be trying to compare and contrast Andrew Lloyd Webber to Stephen Sondheim. That is like comparing Puccini opera to Britany Spears. Night and day...two totally different genres, styles of music, etc. Both men have offered an incredible amount to modern American musical theatre, and should be respected for that fact alone. What one person considers horrific music, another considers breathtaking music. What one person considers to be a fantastic theatrical experience, another falls asleep at. It is simply a matter of taste.

I am not an enormous Lloyd Webber fan, but two of his shows, "Phantom of the Opera", and "Sunset Boulevard" hold very special places in my heart. My exposure to musical theater began when I was 12. I was going through my mother's CD collection one night at home alone, and I found "The Phantom of the Opera" highlights album. I didn't know what it was, but the title alone captured my imagination. I put it into my CD player, and turned the volume up. The minute that B flat minor organ chord struck, the hair on the back of my neck stood up, and I started crying. I will never forget it. I sat and listened to the entire album all the way through, and thought it was the most beautiful music I had ever heard - and the images in my head as the people sang - what a story...what sadness...it touched my soul, and I could not stop thinking about it for days after.

Many people think that Lloyd Webber sacrificed story for the sake of writing music. That's untrue. There is a marvelous love story, and a very tragic love story, at that, if you strip away everything and look at the meaning. Also, go out and buy a copy of the script - it is available (do your homework, people!) I've always personally identified with the character of the Phantom. As a young man, I was not very attractive, did not have many friends, and the only way I could express myself was through music, and through singing. I knew what it was like to be rejected by people; to never be able to go on dates, or experience love; to feel isolated and angry at the world. That's why, when I listen to the score, or see the show (have seen it 3 times - once in Canada, and 2 times on Broadway), it simply touches my soul, and makes me cry. It's a release. It's a breathtaking experience for me. So it has a lot of spectacle - big deal. It adds to the magic of the whole thing. I love "Phantom." And that's all there is to that.

As for "Sunset Boulevard", again, I find the music enthralling, one of his better works. It's an enjoyable piece of cinematic theatre. I hope it does come to the big screen, and that they do it right!

Now, as for Mr. Sondheim, I really enjoy his work, too. It's a different kind of love and enjoyment. Personally, I think the audience has to work too hard to catch the meaning, and all the words he throws into any of his shows. You have to watch it/see it/listen to it more than once. I've been in "Into the Woods" 3 times...I've been in "Merrily We Roll Along"...it's all brilliant, and it's all excellent theatre. Does he write more "intelligent" lyrics than some of Lloyd Webber's lyricists? Perhaps...perhaps not. Music is a craft and an art form - who are we to judge? We simply know what works for us as individuals.

I think another problem is that there *seem* to be many young people on this website...young actors, or young people who enjoy Broadway shows, but don't really know what they're talking about...now, I could be wrong. And, I hope, in a way, that I am. But I see many comments that make no sense, and are simply posted without even thinking. Saying "Andrew Lloyd Webber should die", or something to that effect - well, back yourself up. Why should he die? Has he committed a horrible crime against humanity? Should he die by lethal injection, or by electric chair? Maybe he should have a chandalier dropped on his head...either way, THINK about the comments you're posting before posting them. You never know what Broadway celebrities might be reading these posts. And, if there are Broadway actors reading these....you don't want to offend any of them that might be in a Sondheim or Lloyd Webber show!

So, that's my view. I have posted intelligently...I have thought about the words that have come out of my mind and my cyber-mouth. I enjoy both Lloyd Webber and Sondheim. Their work will live on in the hearts and minds of many people for generations to come. Both have left impressionable footprints on the ground of musical theatre forever, and it is my sincere hope and wish that more people can learn to appreciate both composers for their different, individual, and marvelous gifts that they have shared with so many.

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 10:42am

It's jsut that when people hear that name they think it's going to be brilliant. He is very overated, though I'm a fan of Phantom and I enjoyed his newest, THE WOMAN IN WHITE. But he is overrated.

[Avigdor]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 10:50am

i think ALW speaks to the very largest emotions in a grand a vivid manor..with sweeping moments of vocal and emotional ecstasy...sondheim...stays closer to home with very specific emotions and feelings..peeling each one apart and shining light on it from a variety of angles...i think some people are just merely uncomfortable with the accuracy that sondheim hits the emotional plane and doesnt let loose of it.

[Adam Chris]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 11:48am

Jason ... good job on your post. It was well balanced.

And for the record... I LOVE Andrew Lloyd Webber's music!
:)
A.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 12:00pm

toodramatic - "It seems many Brits have a great dislike for our beloved rent. One guy called it ‘overly sentimental American Rubish.’"

LOL I know exactly the post you're talking about and I put in my rants as well. That guy always says meaningless crap like that. Still, as I mentioned on that board, I think it's interesting how on British boards, they will often credit the failings of American musicals to the fact that they are simply American. I believe one said that Americans specialize in oversentimentalizing our material. Yet on the American boards, you never see sweeping generalizations that all British shows are crap. You see them about Lloyd Webber specifically, but that's it. The funny thing is, this anti-American sentiment is strictly on newer material. You never see them say things like that regarding something like A Chorus Line, anything Sondheim, West Side Story, Guys and Dolls, etc.

The term "American rubbish" is used quite frequently there without much thought.

As for Lloyd Webber, his shows were immensely popular. With popularity comes cynicism and bitterness. Nearly every popular show is immediately denounced and those who criticise it believe they are elitist for doing so. I don't think everyone does that, but probably more than are willing to admit it.

Updated On: 6/24/05 at 12:00 PM

[jam_man]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 1:11pm

Great posts, Plum and JasonM.

Also, if I may add one more thing: like all classic and timeless plays from Antigone to Death of a Salesman, Sondheim's best stuff has so many different levels to it. Not that I'm saying all Sonheim shows are as good as Shakespeare, but I've seen Sweeney (all be it only on DVD) probably close to 40 times, and literaly everytime I get something new out of it, which, as at least mentioned by Mandy Patinkin on the commentary for Sunday in the Park with George, is a quality shared with Shakespeare. Lloyd Webber's stuff, on the other hand, is mostly (not strictly, I'll admit, but mostly) all on the surface. If you see Phantom once, you may be affected by it a lot, even I was. But if you go back multiple times, even if you're still crying at the end, there's not much new that you can learn. Lloyd Webber is more about the music experience, whereas Sondheim is much more about the theatrical experience. And you know what? That's fine! And that might be one reason why Lloyd Webber is so much more popular than Sondheim - music is more popular than theatre.

[Plum]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 1:15pm

I really have to disagree with your post, Mister Matt. I've seen plenty of complaints against the invasion of the British megamusical epitomized by ALW. Nowadays it's downright stylish to sneer at British directors taking on any kind of American material, and especially musicals. Trevor Nunn, David Leveaux, Sam Mendes- all of them have been trashed on nationalistic terms.

[gavrochegirl]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 1:19pm

I just think that his music isn't the greatest. I absolutely HATED Cats, and I thought Joseph was too cheesy and campy for me. The only piece of Webber's work that I like is POTO. Very good musical.

[grizzabella]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 1:28pm

Jason, I loved your post. You make some valid and balanced points. For myself, I have no problem with either ALW or Sondheim existing in the same universe. There is a place for both of them, economically for theatre and artistically, and both, in particular shows, can be enjoyed for vastly different reasons. I know that in my life, there are times I want to "escape" and POTO, for example, does it very well. So does Into the Woods. The greatest things ever written? No, of course not, but then, I think there is strength and weakness in both composers. For me it has less to do with who is "better", than who I'm in the mood for. I'm not particularly impressed with either deification or vilification of either composer.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 1:30pm

Plum - The British invasion is almost always credited strictly ALW, which really is the only British bashing I see around here. I don't think I've seen anything here trashing Nunn, Leveaux or Mendes simply because they are British. But my point is, on the British boards, you see a lot of American musicals put down simply because the shows came from the US. They don't put down the individual directors, composers or writers. They make sweeping statements about American musicals as if they are all the same. That is what I'm talking about.

[Plum]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 1:32pm

Maybe we've been looking in different places. :) I stand by what I said.

[twogaab2]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 1:35pm

I don't. Even if he is the Myerbeer of his day-there a lot of times I enjoy Myerbeer as well. (He also writes very nicely for voices).

[arishmoof]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 1:37pm

to me he is the britney spears of broadway- a lot of people like him but i cant figure out why. i find his stuff overly sentimental and campy. he wrote musicals he knew would make a lot of money. they did. i really dont think you can judge the artistic merit of a show on how long it runs or how popular it is. and you cant compare ALW to Sondheim. if ALW is britney spears, Sondheim is Hendrix.

[keggss23]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 1:40pm

I don't hate ALW either. ALW and Sondheim are so completely different it is almost completely impossible to compare them, but if we must go down that road, then her I go:

I think some people hate ALW because his shows are big, money-making spectacles and it isn't considered "cool" to like the corporate machine. I am not ashamed in any way to admit that Phantom was the first Broadway musical I had ever heard and it is the reason that I became interested in other shows and Broadway in general. I still like Phantom to this day. As far as tourist trap shows, you could do worse than ALW.

Yes, Sondheim shows are way more complex, but his shows are far from being a box office draw. The truth is, we need to have tourist trap shows in order for Broadway to run. I love Sondheim, but if the only shows running on Broadway were his shows, think of what the box office and attendence would be.

[toodramatic]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 2:44pm

Mister Matt-
U really got to the point I was trying to make. I just thought it was hilarious that most people on BWW think so highly of rent and dont bat an eyelash at starting an anti-ALW thread, when on british boards its often the exact opposite.

(Yes I know not EVERYONE thinks highly of rent on BWW, but most do)

I never intended to re-start this circular Sondheim-Lloyd Webber debate, but oh well.

And for the last time...The question 'Why does everybody hate Andrew Lloyd Webber?' was referencing the british thread 'Why does everybody hate rent?' in my original post. I NEVER SAID NOR IMPLIED THAT EVERYONE HATES ANDREW LLOYD WEBBER. Jeez...

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 2:47pm

I do not buy the argument that as shows become popular and successful resentment grows towards them. OKLAHOMA! was phenomenally popular in the 40s and still is. MY FAIR LADY in the 1950s. FIDDLER ON THE ROOF in the 1960s. A CHORUS LINE in the 1970s. These were all great shows and deserved their success and popularity. What gets upsetting to theatre fans is when mediocre shows achieve this type of longevity.

GREASE was in no way deserving of its 8 year run. In fact it spent most of its first five years on two-fers and being offered through TKTS. Because it was a cheap show to run, it was able to stay profitable but when the movie came out in the summer of 1978 ticket sales for the Broadway production zoomed, so much so that it moved into the much larger Majestic theatre for the last few months of its run.

The popular success of GREASE, CATS, and PHANTOM reveals a frightening "dumbing down" of the theatre-going audiences. (It's not exclusive to theatre: Movies and TV shows have shown this disturbing decline as well.) Smart, intelligent shows run a season or two while these tourist attractions run 10 years or more.

[toodramatic]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 2:58pm

FRC-

Exactly, these shows are less theatre and more amusement park. I'm not saying theres no artistic value to the ALW or Disney shows theres just more thrill ride in them than art. There in another category, much like movies. Similar but different.

That being said I dont think its disturbing that these shows are popular, rather artistic musical theatre should note why these thrill rides are so popular and learn something.

Maybe with the right marketing Light in the Piazza could run for 20 years...

[RYANWOODS]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 3:01pm

Well I think he has produced some amazing stuff but recently i, personally, am not liking his material

Look at his new stuff:
WHISTLE DOWN THE WIND
THE BEAUTIFUL GAME
BOMBAY DREAMS
WOMAN IN WHITE

In The West End they have really failed to pick up a good returning audiences so they have had to close after 1-2 years. woman in white is already featuring nearly everyday on tkts, in my opinion it only has a year left in the West End.

But look at this old stuff -
STARLIGHT EXPRESS
CATS
EVITA
SUNSET BOULEVARDE
PHANTOM
ASPECTS OF LOVE

All great musicals which have some great music and are some of the best around.

No doubt about is his old stuff is the best - his knew stuff has failed to hit off 0 but that coul dbe down to the book aswell.

Lets hope he produces one more brilliant piece so he can go out on a high!

Youll see in Woman In White just how similar the music is in every song! Having only seen it about month ago - i couldnt name you two songs.

[toodramatic]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 3:06pm

Not that I don't love rollerskating trains...but Starlight Exspress is not a 'great musical'

And Sunset Boulevard (sp?) is what 10 years old and your grouping it in an 'old musicals' category.

[Sant]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 3:11pm

"I'm not saying theres no artistic value to the ALW or Disney shows theres just more thrill ride in them than art."

Define 'art'.

[Adam Chris]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 3:17pm

I have an opinon...only based on observation. I'm sure many would disagree with it and that is ok.

I'm thinking about some of the things that have happened in our country in the past 30 years or so and compared to the 40's and 50's the climate of our county can be considered more dangerous. VIETNAM, AIDS, SCHOOL SHOOTINGS, POVERTY, PLANES CRASHING INTO BUILDINGS ect. It would seem to me people are afraid and need their distractions. People want the special effects in their movies and expect it in their live shows too.
I dont think people (on the whole) really want to go to the theatre to be challenged. Rather, like movies, they want to escape. They want to slip in to fantasy ....CATS, WICKED, LIONKING, reveal in self pity with LES MIS, PHANTOM and MISS SAIGON and taken in a hearty laugh, SPAMALOT, DRS and PRODUCERS.
I think that is why poor Sondheim, with all his great shows, doesnt have long runs. Our country is not ready to embrace theatre as a tool to provoke thought. Yes, some people do...but on a whole people do not. They want to be entertained. That is why Andrew Lloyd Webber is so popular with audiences. He is able to provide that. Sondhiem on the other hand, as great as he is...is uncomfortable to deal with.

I remember then mayor Guliani in an interview about a week and a half after the towers fell told the people of New York to go on with their lives...he then said, "Go see The Producers." He understood people need to take their mind off of preasures and stresses they are experiencing.

For me, nothing is as relaxing to me as live theatre. I slip into fantasy.



Updated On: 6/24/05 at 03:17 PM

[toodramatic]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 3:27pm

Well said...

I suppose art is in the eye of the beholder. I stand by my statement but would like to change it from a statement to an opinion.

In my opinion,

when I saw Passion I had to explore the complexites of the characters in my head and in doing so came to understand more the diferances b/t love and passion and could reflect on my life in both broad and specific terms. It was a profound (I would say more artistic experience).

On the other hand I recently saw The Lion King. This show had great characters too, but nothing greatly thought provoking. I didnt mill over the characters in my head for more than a minute or two. That being said I had a GREAT time. I even audibly gasped when Scar was about to throw Simba off the cliff (I would say more thrill ride).

[Kringas]

Posted: 6/24/05 at 4:12pm

These shows have attrcated more than their share of attention while other, more deserving shows, have been neglected. Because the Lloyd Webber shows (CATS, STARLIGHT EXPRESS, POTO, SUNSET BLVD) were the main culprits, they take the blame along with the man who wrote the music and produced them.

But who is to say which shows are more deserving than others? Because you (or I, or anyone) finds them be of better quality than the shows being embraced by "the masses"? People obviously want shows like Phantom, etc. It's a shame that you (or I, or Lucie Arnaz) loved -(insert your favorite "more deserving" show here)- and people avoided it. It's a crap shoot. People have been flocking to see Phantom for, what, close to twenty years? Methinks it does deserve some of it's success, then.