An opinion

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 1/6/07 at 2:00am

You probably won't agree with me on this, considering that hatred towards this individual among those on this board . . . but I strongly believe that Andrew Lloyd Webber is to the 70-90's what Richard Rodgers was to the 20's-60's.

First off, Webber has publicly stated that Rodgers is his influence and idol. Both have written achingly beautiful melodies and I think Webber captures a lot of what made Rodgers great. Personally, I think Rodgers is and will always be THE great composer of Broadway and no one will match him, but in an age where people were trying new things and wanting to get away from what has come before, I believe Webber has retained some of the "old school" way of writing. He has slacked off from it in recent years but from "I Don't Know How to Love Him" to "Unexpected Song" to "Our Kind of Love" . . . all have harking back to the Rodgers and Hart/Hammerstein feel to it.

Anyone agree?

[Raviolisun]

Posted: 1/6/07 at 2:29am

Probably not on this board, but you might find a few supporters. :]

[COOOOLkid]

Posted: 1/6/07 at 5:09am

I personally love his music. However, his shows usually are full of repetitive music it's boring. Otherwise, I'm really in love with his songs.

[Pinguin]

Posted: 1/6/07 at 5:59am

eh, I don't think I really agree...I think Webber is more bland than Rodgers by a long shot.

[D2]

Posted: 1/6/07 at 8:13am

Rodgers had a gift for melodic invention that Webber can't begin to match. In addition, Rodgers knew how to write for the voice - singing his music is pure joy because it just fits. Webber's music just doesn't fit as well and his melodies, while haunting, are repetitive to the point of being annoying. (Why am I thinking of Don Lake in "Waiting For Guffman" here?)

[popculture37]

Posted: 1/6/07 at 1:17pm

Webber would have had a shot at being a modern-day Rodgers if he'd worked with a lyricist like Oscar Hammerstein instead of spending much of his career teamed up with people like Tim Rice. Sir Andrew's melodies, while repetitive, are often hauntingly beautiful, but they aren't helped by lyrics like "I am handsome, I am smart; I am a walking work of art" and the like.
I do think that a major difference between Rodgers and Webber is that Rodgers wrote about ordinary people-mill workers, governesses, cowboys, etc, whereas Webber tends to go for hugely popular figures like Jesus and Eva Peron. I would guess that that's one reason why, as D2 pointed out, Rodgers' songs fit the voice so well. Webber's characters are so much larger than life to begin with that it makes sense to have them cover the full stretch of the human vocal range, but it would seem odd to have Curly or Maria von Trapp sing in that way.

[ljay889]

Posted: 1/6/07 at 1:25pm

Webber should learn that re-using the same melody over and over again in one score isn't interesting anymore.

[Mistress_Spouzic]

Posted: 1/6/07 at 1:29pm

Webber is a guilty pleasure of mine. >< I got Dreamcoat on video for Christmas. What a crazy show.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 1/6/07 at 1:44pm

Both Webber & Wildhorn are guilty pleasures of Mr & Mrs R

[Trekkie2]

Posted: 1/6/07 at 1:52pm

NOOOOOOOOOO! Rodgers created art, and Webber creates spectacle.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 1/6/07 at 2:12pm

Early ALW might have been that way, but he's gone downhill. I love Evita, JCS, and Joseph, but I can't stand Phantom and whatnot.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 1/6/07 at 2:21pm

Trekkie (and a few others), am not talking about the shows itself . . . I mean the music alone.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/6/07 at 2:26pm

spiderdj82 --- I actually like the sound of Webber's music (no pun intended), but to me that's where the similarities between Rodgers and Webber end.

Now that more than half a century has passed since Richard Rodgers' biggest hits first appeared on Broadway, it's easy to forget that (at the time) he along with Hammerstein were breaking new ground and approaching subject matter that had never been explored before in musical theatre. They did it time and again, with many shows. The subjects of spousal abuse, sexism, racism, etc. were presented in ways that were pleasingly palpable to nearly ALL audiences, regardless of their private or public opinions. A hard-selling well-written drama would never have been able to get away with it back then because too many people would have been offended by the "preaching," but with the help of beautiful music, clever plots and likeable characters it was all somehow accepted and hugely successful. People left the theatre inspired, satisfied, uplifted, and (unknowingly) better people because of what Rodgers & Hammerstein had shown them. Webber's melodies, like Rodgers, are unapologetically "tuneful" for the most part. They go right for the soaring, solid, catchy melody, but rarely has Webber written musical "subtext" the way Rodgers did for most of his career.

Take "My Favorite Things." Why did Rodgers decide to switch back and forth between major and minor keys throughout the song? This gives a performer subtext that's not found in the lyrics. While singing the "list" of favorite things, and how good they make the singer feel, we are pulled into a melancholy, reflective mood when the musical key switches to minor. As if the things remembered are tainted with a touch of regret or sadness.

Therein separates the genius "tunesmith" from the highly capable "tunesmith," at least in my book.

Updated On: 1/6/07 at 02:26 PM