Sondheim vs. ALW

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 2:05am

How come ALW's shows are perceived as mindless moneymakers, only created to make money, while Sondheim shows are perceived as being utter genius. I'm not bad, and really don't care either way. About 3 Months ago, I would have been all for ALW, but I'm slowly becoming a Sondheim fan. I'm not usually a fan of typical "musical theater" sounding stuff, but I feel in love with Assassians, and can't wait to hear the new Sweeny. Anyways, just curious why this is so? ALW did give us Phantom - Cats (which w/o the song "memory" would suck). Yet, Sondheim has never had a blockbuster? It just seems so weird to me that one of the most famous guys in modern musical theater, has never had a long running success on Broadway (or has he?)...

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 2:10am

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think his longest running shows were A Little Night Music (box office success but not an astonishing run) and Into the Woods and--again correct me if I'm wrong--it didn't get back its investment. Actually, I believe most of his shows didn't make any profit to the producers, especially "Follies." Sondheim is more recognized for the way he has changed musical theater and his clever and superb songwriting which is unlike any other composer. Lloyd Webber did "give" us "Cats" and "Phantom" which he should have kept to himself, ALW is famous for his big spectacles and Sondheim is famous because his shows are a work of a art.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 2:29am

So you wouldn't consider like Women in White, Cats, and Phantom works of art? I would think at least WiW and Phantom would be considered works of art and are really just beautiful. Cats is pretty groundbreaking in its story line and the guttsiness (sp?) of the musical. I mean, I think its common knowledge that both of them have contributed to musical theater, you just tend to hear about them in different ways.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 2:40am

Watch "Broadway: the Golden Age" documentary and you'll see Lloyd Webber's so-called contribution to Broadway. I haven't seen Woman in White but I certainly think that a musical about dancing and singing cats is not a work of art, Lloyd Webber has made it very clear that there's no subtext or major intent to this show whatsoever. And I do think people could validly argue about "Phantom" with me because although I think it's only intend is to make money with a chandelier falling, some people disagree and sometimes they actually have a strong argument.

[jam_man]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 2:40am

As far as runs go, Sondheim's longest run was the original A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum (960-something), definetly his most accessable.

This argument is had a fair amount on this board, for better or worse. And let me say up front (for those who don't remember from last time) that I am NOT a fan of Andrew Llyod Webber, but am a HUGE fan of Stephen Sondheim.

In any case, I think the biggest thing is resentment. To put it into simple TV terms (not that I feel I need to for some of you, I just feel like it for some reason), ALW shows are like American Idol. A lot of people love them, a lot of people hate them, but EVERYONE knows about them, and they make money for it. Sondheim, on the other hand, is like Arrested Development. It's quite possibly the best show on TV, but practically no one watches it. (Hey, I'm complaining about 2 society problems at once! Yay, me!)

The bottom line is that they represent the 2 polar end of the musical theatre spectrum. ALW shows are about entertainment and giving people a good time, whereas Sondheim shows are about making an audience think, ask questions, and most importantly, feel.

If I may premire a theory in this thread: I call it, "The Rodgers & Hammerstein Theory." It says this: both ALW and Sondheim loved R&H shows growing up - Sondheim right up front and ALW from way accross the pond. However, Sondheim was taught from Hammerstein his experimentation with characters and the musical theatre in general, while ALW was influenced more by the lovely and popular tunes of Dick Rodgers. Whereas R&H were able to put those things together for shows that were both very popular AND daring and inventive, ALW has popular tunes and shows while Sondheim is very inventive and daring. If we could ever have a team (or for that matter one person) who could put those things together again, the musical theatre, I hypothosize, will once again be one of the most popular forms of entertainment. Take it or leave it, that's what I think.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 2:50am

I agree Jam Man. See, I not a big fan of either. Granted, i own more cast recordings of ALW shows, but anyways...I think Webber has given musical theater some of its best songs. I mean "Memory" (which is why I started this thread, after listening to it) is such a good song. I also thing Evermore without you" from WiW is amazing. At the same thing, I love the song "something just broke" from assasians. I think both can be considered art, just on different terms. In most of Webbers' shows, the orchestrations are rather "large." So therefore, the production needs to be large. Whereas most sondheim shows are intimate shows focusing on the characters and such.

[zzannahk]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 6:10am

but I certainly think that a musical about dancing and singing cats is not a work of art

I cant help but think that T S Elliot would disagree with you. While Cats may not be up to par with the Wasteland, they were written by the same man. And the Wasteland is one of the greatest pieces of American and British (due to his citizenship change) literature.

[Alex LaVelle]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 8:27am

Personally, I'm a fan of both ALW and Sondheim. Usually, if I am just listening to random songs from different shows, I will lean towards ALW since the music tends to stand better individually, but I have done work on more Sondheim shows. I have a pretty equal amount of both that I listen to, when all is said and done.

An actor friend of mine has sort of a low tolerance for performing Sondheim in amateur productions, though. Part of it is the fact that Into the Woods was shoved on him repeatedly in school and he burned out, but I the other point he makes relates to the debate here. He wont' do amateur productions of Sondheim, generally, because the music is more complex in many cases, and it is so often butchered. ALW, though, while not the easiest music to perform, tends to be generally more accessible to performers. I've seen ALW songs picked out for use in chorus shows and whatnot all the time, but there is almost never any Sondheim (in my experience). I think the complexity of some of Sondheim's works (both on the musical level and in terms of the underlying themes) may be part of the reason why it tends not to be held in the same way as ALW's. Also, ALW productions do tend to have more pomp and flash than Sondheim shows. It's like Billy says, "Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it, and the reaction will be passionate."

Are ALW's shows works of art? Yes, I think so. I'm not the biggest fan of Cats, but shows like Phantom and Woman in White (which I personally think blows Phantom out of the water) do have very compelling books and scores. I think that the difference betweent he artistic values of ALW and Sondheim is a matter of accessibility. It's like the difference between the paintings of Goya and Picasso. ALW paints a beautiful picture, as does Sondheim, but there is more interpretation involved in Sondheim.

[lamentingenvelope]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 12:09pm

I think they are both works of art. Let me take a moment and defend Cats. (Wow, did I just say that?) Cats fascinates me for several reasons: the costumes, the makeup, and the dancing. Purely spectacle reasons, yes, but they are reasons. As a dancer, watching the Jellicle Ball sequence, knowing the completely hell those dancers are in, and knowing they are doing it anyway... that's amazing. I love to watch it. And yes, Cats is pointless and silly but I've seen it twice just to watch that scene and if given the oppurtunity I will probably see it again.

Now. I love Sondheim for a completely different reason.

I've only really been in two shows in my life though I've been involved with quite a few more - I was a dancer in Oklahoma! and Cinderella's Stepmother in Into the Woods. Yeah, I know, Cinderella's Stepmother doesn't exactly get the profoundest of lines, but (as the director of the production will most certainly verify!) I wasn't all that concerned with my lines anyway. I remember reading my script, reading the lyrics to 'No More' (before ever having heard the music, mind you) and thinking "My god." At the time I was very into musicals such as... well, such as Cats, Cats and Wicked. I'd never read or listened to lyrics that made me think like that. The contrast between the 'Into the Woods' at the end of the first act and the 'Into the Woods' in the finale fascinated me. I remember the rest of the cast complaining about how difficult it was to learn the lines in the finale and Act I finale, but I never had that problem simply because I read them over and over trying to figure them out. 'No One is Alone' was like no other show tune I'd ever heard: it was comfort that was only temporary. And I got to thinking... well, isn't that how it is, really?

'Someone is on your side / someone else is not / While we're seeing our side / Maybe we forgot / They are not alone'

At that point I'd been a fan of musical theatre for about a year and I'd never encountered such real lyrics. I've been a huge fan of Sondheim since then.

I think the reason ALW shows are so popular is that people oftentimes don't want to think when they go to the theatre. My parents, for example, have this mentality of 'If I'm going to spend all that money I certainly don't want to be depressed' which they pulled on me when I was begging for them to take me to see Virginia Woolf.

ALW shows are about entertainment, nothing more. (With one notable exception in my eyes - Evita, which is my favorite ALW and one of my favorite musicals. I'm not very familiar with a wide range of ALW but this is the only one I've really encountered that doesn't give an answer, it doesn't say 'She was good' and it doesn't say 'She was bad', it says 'She was human.') And there's nothing wrong with that. There's certainly a market for it. And you know what? He does a darned good job at it. It's like the TV metaphor used a few posts above (which I adore, by the way, so 10 points to jam_man.)

In this way for me it's hard to compare ALW with Sondheim because they both obviously had such different intentions with their work.

They both have their good points and their bad, and they both have an equally nutso, don't-give-them-any-sharp-objects fanbase. It depends on what your tastes are. Most of the time I go for the question and eyebrow raising Assassins. But every now and then I'll get in a mood and put on Phantom of the Opera and dance around to the unbelievable catchy Masquerade. It's a matter of what you like.

[MyDreamsRecurring]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 12:23pm

"Yet, Sondheim has never had a blockbuster? It just seems so weird to me that one of the most famous guys in modern musical theater, has never had a long running success on Broadway (or has he?)..."

Tourists bring in the money to Broadway. For the most part, tourists don't know about Sondheim, or are just want to have a fun night at the theater- which is why they would go see something like Cats over Sweeny Todd. Sondheim's success shouldn't be measured in dollars-the storylines, complex music and lyrics, are superior to Webber's, (in my opinion) so in the theater world he is considered a genius.

by the way, nice post, lamenting envelope

Updated On: 9/11/05 at 12:23 PM

[Sant]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 12:24pm

"In most of Webbers' shows, the orchestrations are rather "large." So therefore, the production needs to be large."

I'd say it's the other way around - the orchestrations are made to suit the scale & mood of the show.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 12:39pm

Well I think that ALW and Sondheim are both good, in the kinds of musicals they make. For instance, Sondheim makes very complex and beautiful musicals, that not only have an outward story, but it also has a more subtleter, inward story that makes you think. For example: ITW, Sweeney, etc.

ALW musicals, are big spectacles, but they are good musicals. Phantom is great, as well as CATS, Evita, etc. But I think his work is good, but it is no way up to par with Sondheim.

[Sant]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 1:23pm

I think it's pretty pointless to compare ALW and Sondheim.
Their styles of music are totally different from each other.

Also, ALW doesn't write lyrics to his songs and Sondheim does, so... comparing these two WITHOUT considering lyrics is a bit useless.

[jam_man]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 1:37pm

lamentingenvelop: 10 points! That brings my career total to 11!

Also, another key difference (though this my end up bashing ALW a bit - sorry in advance) is that Sondheim shows have so much stuff, that like the classic plays (Oedopus Rex(sp?), Shakespeare, Death of a Salesman, and the like) they have SO MUCH subtext and extra things that it's still just as new and enthralling the 25th time as the first. Example, I've had the Hearn-Lansbury DVD of Sweeney Todd for about a year and a half now. I've watched it probably 40-45 times by now. And EVERY SINGLE TIME I watch it, I get something new out of it. And I'm really not overtalking. Inversly, ALW shows are almost exclusivly all on the single level the first time. You may get a simialr experiance the second, third, even fourth time, but it probably won't be different experiances.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 2:12pm

hey...i like the song "Jellical song for jellical cats" from CATs too...but yeah..the show sucked

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 2:26pm

well, i didn't intend to try to compare the two, I was just wondering why Sondheim is seem in such high regard, whereas Webber is seen as mainstream crap. I can't wait for the new Sweeny Todd, I have yet to become a huge Sondheim fan, but I'm really intrigued by Todd, I really like dark musicals. It'll be interesting to see WiW & Sweeny both on Broadway battling out - not really, but whatever. Anyways, I would also argue that Sondheim shows take more of a risk. I remember telling my parents about the show Assassians, and them being like "I don't think that'd be a very fun show." When in reality it is, but I guess its hard for people to laugh at Assassians.

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 2:33pm

I watched the film of "Amadeus" not too long ago, and it struck me... for some reason I kept thinking how odd it was these two composers kept reminding me of Webber (similar to Salieri) and Sondheim (similar to Mozart).

Not in personality, and certainly not an identical match... but here are the similarities: Both are contemporaries vying for a similar "theatrical" audience. Salieri was by far the more commercially successful of the two in his day, choosing more accessible and popular source material in general. Mozart was branded a "genius" at a very early age, but he decided to choose less obvious and sometimes controversial source material, and ultimately didn't give a damn about being commercial.

In the end, Salieri's works (big hits in their day) were largely forgotten, while Mozart's only continued to grow in popularity after his death.

I found this whole parallel drawn between them to be fascinating.

Time will tell...

Updated On: 9/11/05 at 02:33 PM

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 4:53pm

best12bars that is definitely an amazing parallel, I think your post has been the most relevant to this discussion. About Cats and the whole T.S. Elliot issue, I've had this discussion before and everyone always tells me that; T.S. Elliot is my favorite poet but I believe that the poems ALW chose are not exactly Elliot's most profound poetry. I just think Sondheim is brilliant, a genius, his lyrics can be studied as literature and his music is so touching and sincere. Lloyd Webber knows how to appeal to audiences, he knows how to please the crowd, so I guess he is a different type of genius.

[CastAlbumFan]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 7:15pm

I just think the biggest irony between the two of them is that Sondheim and Webber share the same birthday (March 22nd)!

Updated On: 9/11/05 at 07:15 PM

[ashley0139]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 7:29pm

CastAlbum- that's pretty funny.

I think a lot of the differences in the two are the perceptions. Theatre conoisseurs, if you will, tend to lean to Sondheim. I find it to be almost a "snob" thing. If someone asks me who is my favorite composer, and I say Sondheim because it makes me sound better and like I know more. Granted, it's also true- I love Sondheim and ITW is one of my favorite musicals. But it just sounds good. If someone asks me who my favorite composer is and I say ALW, it makes me sound like I'm following the crowd and like I don't know about theatre. Whether this is true or not. It is percieved that Sondheim is "better" than ALW and many people don't think about WHY that's true. Now, here, we talk about everything and I think people make great points. I just think it happens more often than people think.

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 7:37pm

Thanks ray-andallthatjazz86! I agree with you that Webber is a different kind of genius. To say that he just caters to popular tastes, and write him off as merely that, would be a shame. If it was that easy to write mega-hit shows, don't you think more people would be doing it? He has a rare gift and a keen perception. I also don't want to insinuate that Webber hasn't taken a few risks as well with material and subject matter... (though nothing like Sondheim's pioneering attempts!) Eva Peron, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and a poetry book about Cats aren't exactly obvious or easy choices to musicalize. BUT they were popular subject matter (unlike, say, the modernization of Japan, for example.) Webber definitely has insight... just a different kind.

And CastAlbumFan, ain't it strange?? I wonder if one of them had a secretary named "Kennedy" and the other one "Lincoln."

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 7:38pm

Yeah, i agree Ashley. It seems like "theater snobs" automatically go to Sondheim, it seems like it helps them reassure the fact that they know a lot about theater. See, for me, I think Jonathan Larson is the best composer, hands down. But anyways, i totally see all of your points. It was just interesting to me to see how "non theater" ppl think Webber is utterly amazing (i.e. my family) and "theater" folk seem to be in love with Sondheim. Maybe its because I've never seen a professional sondheim show, but I just don't really care for Into the Woods. But then again, it was high school.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 8:10pm

So far I think best12bars is the one that has sort of made me understand more about ALW's kind of genius because it is true that it takes someone very smart to put the elements together for a show that runs 15+ years. But I still think Sondheim's music is so brilliant just because to me, his shows are going to become classics that are going to be analyzed by English majors and AP English students in the future. It's not about being a "theater snob" because I agree that Jonathan Larson is a brilliant composer, I just think Lloyd Webber is more of a businessman rather than a composer.

[toodramatic]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 8:40pm

Read this thread there was quite an interesting debate...
Why Does Everyone Hate Andrew Lloyd Webber?

[chrissly]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 8:53pm

Once when I was bartending I told this joke:

"What's the difference between ALW and and Uzi? An Uzi only repeats itself one hundred times a minute."

One of my customers responded by singing the following to the tune of "Send in the Clowns:"

"Aren't I rich?/Aren't I queer?/Writing this dissonant sh!t, year after year."

My personal opinion, though, is that one hundred years from now there will be more productions of SS than of ALW.