Andrew Lloyd Webber — Page 2

Whether you like him or not, that was one of the funniest videos I have ever seen. I have not laughed out loud like that in a long time.

Anyway, beyond what music they showed he has stolen, they forgot to mention:

"Come to me, Bend to me" is the same as the opening to Music of the Night. Just listen to anyone sing that song, and when they sing the words "come to me, bend to me" you'll be surprised.

For the same song, I'm not quite sure where exactly it comes in the opera, but when the Phantom sings "Open up your mind, let your fantasies unwind....." That entire phrase, beyond those words I just typed, is the love them from La Fanciulla del West by Puccini.

Now the case can be made that many composers have stolen/borrowed from those that came before them, so this is nothing new. Heck, even a genius like Bernstein borrowed from Beethoven when he was writing "Somewhere." I have even on occasion heard a Sondheim tune or two that sounded like something from a 19th century piece.

I think where the distinction must be made is
A) What the composer does to expand on the melody they have chosen to borrow, or
B) What the composer creates that is his own to show his/her ability.

This is where I think ALW has his biggest problem. When he gets a nice melody, he often doesn't know how to expand on it. He just repeats it over and over again....and when you think that it can't be repeated anymore, the key changes.

His songs never seem to have a beginning, middle, and end. It doesn't follow the traditional Intro, then A section (main theme), a1 (repeated main theme, usually different lyrics), then B (middle section, different melody), back to the A section (again, usually with different lyrics) which leads into the end of the song. Rodgers and Hammerstein worked this model to absolute perfection, especially in South Pacific. Jus t think of the different sections of "Younger than Springtime."

With ALW, he just has that main theme he repeats over and over again...then maybe a one line bridge that's different that brings him back to that main theme again. As good as a song that it is, how many times is that main theme used again and again in "As if we never said goodbye???????"

Also, for every good song that he has written, he has 5 songs that are bland, derivitive, clumsy, and generic in their composition. The rest of his ouevre just does not justify the fact that he borrows all the time.

For Bernstein, yes, he may have stolen a bit from Beethoven, but looking at the music that man produced was just extraordinary.

Also, it certainly does NOT help that ALW seems to never have a good lyricist....ever.

Hope this helps a bit?

---

That just sounds like sour grapes to me. To not sue him (basically because it's unprovable) and then to bash him in a song (that no one will ever hear compared to ALW) is just childish.

Ah well, life's too short. I guess he's right about that much.

Edit: I don't hear the ALW is 12/8, I'd have to see a score though.

Updated On: 3/20/08 at 11:40 AM

Thank you, Not Barker, Todd, Collector and musical_devotee.

---

First of all, FUNNIEST video EVER!! It sums up much of this.

Secondly, this has been a great and very insightful discussion thread.

I've worked with ALW and know SS as a friend.

Apples and Oranges. One comment, though: When I worked on the casting team of the original CATS, ALW pretty much nixed anyone who sang a SS song at their audition. Know your composers' enemies and plan accordingly! LOL.

There is a famous quote: "Genius steals; Amateurs borrow"

ALW is the amateur: while one might think he's "stealing", he's really only borrowing--you always know where he lifted it! The true "thief" is SS--he always makes it his own.

Musikman is particularly correct in my assessment of ALW's music: he just doesn't seem to know what to do with a melody once he finds it. No development save a key change. That simplicity, however, does explain, somewhat his appeal to the masses who don't really want to think about a tune...

SS strives at musical development. While his music may be difficult for some to connect with on a first hearing, his lyrics are so profound and character driven that the story telling is clear. Of course, on multiple hearings, his craft and genius continues to inspire.

Performers love to perform both: ALW for the immediate reaction from an audience; SS for the challenge and exploration. One never gets bored performing in a Sondheim show! (Of course, they don't often run long enough to allow boredom!!

---

To me, ALW spends his time on one song. You instantly know which one he made the best and the rest fail in comparison.

metropolis: We're not saying everything Sondheim wrote is original. But what it steals, he adds to it. He makes it his own. He's never had a direct copy in any of songs.

I think, in 100 years, Sondheim's music will still be studied and heard, while ALW will be in the history books.

RE: ALW's Lordship. That's a joke! All a British person has to do is be famous. It's a useless title.

---

Re Sondheim vs. ALW, I don't think the two of them see each other as rivals; there is plenty of room for them both.

Sondheim stated: "I don't write shows to be successful. Nobody does. Not even Andrew Lloyd Webber...The point with Andrew is that people just happen to like what he likes."

Well if we look at ALW's 'stolen songs they all come from classical sources so I think those melodies have already stood the test of time. Stevie takes a susa(sp) march and note for note puts it into Assassins for How I Saved Roosevelt and snobs every where cheer it on as art. (Assassins is one of my favorite shows by the way) As for who's work will last longer, remember in Mozart's day he was scoffed at by critics but the public loved him. I'm not saying that Webber is as great as Mozart, but both were very successful composers that were written off by critics and snobs alike. Will ALL of Andy's stuff be remembered?...no, but neither will Steve's, both have had great shows and those others that I'm sure will only be loved by fanatics.

Updated On: 3/20/08 at 05:24 PM

"Stevie takes a susa(sp) march and note for note puts it into Assassins for How I Saved Roosevelt and snobs every where cheer it on as art."

Yes, because only snobs can appreciate Sondheims work.

---

Well put, metropolis!

Yes, but SS never claims to have written the tune--he makes it clear he was using it as a device to tell the story.

If ALW had done the same with Phantom--using opera themes as his story telling device, he, too, would be considered a genius. He claimed to have written those themes. Different ball of wax.

---

The difference is that he'll admit to it.

---

ALW also has said what has influenced him, but I guess that's different. Steve changes a note here or there or none at all but that's ok, Andy does it, but makes bank off it, and the snobs all bitch. Andrew said time and time again about the opera influences he used for Phantom but I guess that's not enough. If someone can link to an interview where Steve cops to having taking the march note for note then I'd LOVE to read it, I'm not saying he hasn't but I've never seen an article on it.

That's the difference. SS admits to it.

And he will lift the entire phrase. BK is correct. SS will then make it his own when the tune DEVELOPS into his own.

ALW never develops. He just re-arranges--i.e., changes the key.

Not really good writing IMO.

I used to use "Unexpected Song" and "Good Thing Going" as examples of writing styles.

"Unexpected Song" has NO rhythmic variation--you can sing the lyric 'Unexpected Song' within each phrase.

"Good Thing Going" constantly changes; each phrase being unique, yet evolved from the previous phrase--and then the payoff: 'going, going, gone' is a surprise and completes the story. That's development.

However, both have their merits. With ALW the singer has to FIND the story. With SS, the story finds the singer.

---