Andrew Lloyd Webber Vs. Sondheim - Page 6

[all that jazz]

Posted: 3/7/13 at 10:15pm

Chinto, while I agree with you for the most part in regards to Sondheim it is not fair or accurate to say that ALW doesn't love broadway. He has given Broadway some of its biggest milestones including its longest running show. During the 25th anniversary concer for Phantom in London he clearly stated that form all of the phantom companies around the world the most important one was Broadway's.
And while there's no denying he is a revolutionary he follows many of the traditions of the broadway musical. I don't think Sondheim respects that much of the broadway tradition.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 11:10am

This thread keeps getting funnier.

[jnb9872]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 12:27pm

...what did he just say?

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 4:33pm

I don't think anyone can fairly say that ALW doesn't ike the musical theatre tradition or Broadway--but to suggest Sondheim doesn't have much respect for the Broadway tradition?? Wha?

All That Jazz--just curious what George M Cohan shows have you seen?

[all that jazz]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 6:21pm

I have not seen any George M. show but I looove his music, know his stories, and Yankee Dodle Dandy is one of my favorite movies.

Sondheim values the Broadway tradition but sometimes goes against it. For instance in Company where he admits to writing the songs in favor of character development instead of the scenes as he was trained to do by Oscar Hammerstein. It is no secret that he also doesn't consider the audience when writing a show. He hates the classic ornamented lyrics which are so a part of the broadway tradition. He obviously loves broadway but he's known for breaking its rules, which is not really a bad thing. Perhaps this is why we love him so much.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 7:08pm

When did Sondheim say he "doesn't consider the audience very much"? And why would he say such a thing?

He doesn't coddle the audience, as Rodgers did, by writing endless reprises so the audience falls in love with tunes before they leave their seats. (This isn't a slam against Rodgers, one of my favorite composers. But Sondheim doesn't share Rodgers' desire to create hit songs, which is a good thing considering pop music departed Broadway just as Sondheim hit his stride.)

But no artist who pays so much attention to craft can be said to "ignore" his audience.

***

Eric, I actually brought up George M. Cohan first. I've only seen LITTLE JOHNNY JONES, but I think we can fairly guess we would find Cohan's books corny and simplistic (much like every other musical book of the period).

But as I said above, there's no shame in enjoying his work. I just wouldn't equate his output with that of his contemporary Puccini, or to that of Kern, Rodgers, Porter or Gershwin, the generation who came after.

Updated On: 3/8/13 at 07:08 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 7:17pm

Yeah, if anything Sondheim has been pretty clear about how much he hopes his audience does connect to his work. I think if anything this is one thing he's been disappointed about with his work--that it hasn't been more popular (though that's just conjecture from reading too many older interviews, and he seems to have come to terms with things more recently, partly as he's gotten so much more esteem.)

Re writing songs for character instread of plot progression with Company, I think he (rightly) saw that was the only way to progress, after Prince involved him when he thought Furth's plays should be combined. I don't think that shows any willingless to alienate an audience, however--anymore than going about writing the songs for Forum did.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 7:26pm

The other way to "level the playing field" between them is to compare the music (only) of Lloyd Webber and Sondheim, and leave the lyrics out of it entirely. Not an easy thing to do.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 7:28pm

Don't all of us who write musical theater (or any kind of theater, actually) basically write for ourselves and hope the audience will like what we like?

Sondheim just happens to be way smarter than the rest of us and, often, the audience as well. So sometimes we have to see a Sondheim show a couple of times to appreciate it. The same might be said of Tony Kushner and certainly of Caryl Churchill.

Thank God American culture has made a place for such challenging work.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 7:35pm

Though I think Sondheim's oft repeated point that currently the commercial theatre doesn't have the room to produce the experiments he did anymore is valid (albeit the opportunities elsewhere--certainly off Broadway in many ways are more vast.)

Random re Churchill--I had a friend in University who was obsessed with the idea of musicalizing Cloud 9, using sharp changes in terms of the music being referenced. At the time I thought the very idea was ridiculous--but now I think it actually holds possibilities.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 7:45pm

The first act of CLOUD 9 is such tightly written farce, I have trouble imagining where or why one would add songs. (Yes, of course, one could use the FORUM approach, but then Act I would become a full-length show.)

I'd be more curious to see a musicalized Act II if only because until the final tableau, I think audiences who haven't read the play have a lot of trouble relating Act II to Act I. (It all works fine on paper, but on stage it isn't always obvious who is who after intermission.)

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 7:50pm

I did a student grad's production--so obviously we played to an audience mainly of theatre freaks (though few seemed to know the show beforehand--I know before I auditioned I only knew that Tommy Tune had directed it in New York), and I thought Act II played brilliantly. People found it moving, and commented on how after Act I they thought it was a clever play, but Act II put everything in perspective (I would compare that reaction to Sunday in the Park's but knowing your feelings about Sunday... ).

But actuallyt hat makes a lot of sense, about musicalizing Act II--I think something clever could be done with using more Forum style comic songs in Act I and somehow relating them musically to Act II's songs, though...

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 7:58pm

I think college students see more experimentation with form than the general audience. I saw Tommy Tune's production and a lot of the audience seemed confused in Act II (I among them). But Act I was funnier than anything I'd ever seen, with the possible exception of ENTERTAINING MR. SLOANE.

I taught CLOUD 9 for 20 years and students loved it on the page. But I'm still not sure how the spectator is supposed to know that the flesh-and-blood Victoria in Act II was played by a doll in Act I.

Perhaps some people just accept Act II on its own terms and don't worry about precise equivalences. That's probably how I'd view it if I saw it for the first time today. But I've had a lot of schooling since the first time I saw the play.

[all that jazz]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 8:15pm

Best, I agree with you on comparing them solely on their music.

I never said Sonsheim shouldn't break the rules, I just said he does it which I actually admire. The part about not taking the audience into consideration was referenced to in the documentary Broadway, The American Musical. I don't remember who he said it to, but I believe it was after Pacific Overtures flopped. Someone suggested him to come up with something the audience liked and he replied "I'd never do that." Again I'm a huge Sondheim fan but I think he contributes to the musical theatre tradition more than he follows it.

George M. Cohan music is NOT by any means high art, but I just think that for his time he was a genius and tremendously talented. He produced, wrote book, music and lyrics and starred in his shows, that to me is a star. I think I'm way more obsessed with him than his music.

Updated On: 3/8/13 at 08:15 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 8:25pm

I hope I was clear that I share your view of Cohan's historical importance, all that jazz. And I like his tunes well enough. I just don't think he's in the same league as Puccini.

I don't understand the anecdote you mention from the documentary. What did the question mean? It seems to me that Sondheim's response might mean a lot of things other than that he doesn't care about his audience.

If that were true, he could write poems and put them in drawers a la Emily Dickinson.

[binau]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 8:32pm

I assume the meaning is taken out of context or too literally. Obviously Sondheim cares about audience response. That's why LOVING YOU was written in Passion. But he probably does not set out to write a 'crowd pleaser' from the start and compromise his 'artistic integrity' (cringeworthy phrase, I know). Rather, he writes what interests him and hopes an audience will follow. I assume this is quite common....

[all that jazz]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 8:48pm

I completely agree with you on George.

It means that he is an artist first and I respect him even more for it, but sadly a big part of the broadway tradition relies on pleasing the audience and composers trying to write big hits. In that sense he certainly goes against tradition.

Updated On: 3/9/13 at 08:48 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 8:50pm

Well put, guys.

I think Jerry Herman does exactly what Sondheim does: writes the show he wants to see and hear. It's just that Herman's taste (at least in his day) had more popular appeal.

I assume Lord Andrew does the same.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 8:51pm

Actually it was after MERRILY flopped and Sondheim gave out an interview saying he was going to give up writing musicals and write mystery novels instead (he may have been making a reference to Hugh Wheeler who did mysteries under another name.) Sondheim met with James Lapine who tells a story about saying that if Sondheim really wanted a big commercial hit he could probably write one and that was when SS gave the response "I woudl never do that."

He Later explained to Larry King that if anyone knew what would be a big hit ahead of time "they could retire after the first show."

He was very correct about INTO THE WOODS, however, telling Lapine that the show would be their annuity and indeed look how many productions of it are listed in THE SONDHEIM REVIEW each quarter.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 9:02pm

Thanks, frontrow. To me, Sondheim merely means he wouldn't write a show JUST to have a hit. (And he's right: Broadway history is littered with the corpses of shows that were created just because they were "sure-fire" successes.)

I don't think that's the same as saying he doesn't care about the audience. He just doesn't care so desperately that he will write something that doesn't interest him. (I suspect he learned his lesson with DO I HEAR A WALTZ?)

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 9:37pm

No doubt. And as Prince said one time when people say that certain property is a natural for a musical, it rarely turns out so well. He says it's better when people start off wondering "how the hell are they going to make a musical out of THAT?" And then they do. KISS OF THE SPIDER WOMAN was the show he was talking about then.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/8/13 at 11:06pm

For me, KISS proved the first assertion better than the second. But I know many disagree and we don't have to rehash it here.

[broadwaybabywannabe2]

Posted: 3/9/13 at 4:42am

i am the OFFICIAL SONDHEIMMANIAC man so whom do you think i would go for?...

i do love SONG AND DANCE alot...but it's
STEPHEN SONDHEIM for his complete body of work...

the SONDHEIMMANIAC!

[metropolis10111]

Posted: 3/9/13 at 8:02am

I don't think ANY composers complete body of work is 100% perfect, but some fans can't see the forest through the trees.


For me I think both have their strong points, but in the end only time will tell. Both have had works that help re-define the way theater is done. Once a show leaves Broadway is when the true life of a show begins. It is there in the world of regional and community productions that a show or composer begins to seed themselves for a new generation. Look around and see how many of each composer's shows are being done around you. Is your local theater doing Company or Evita, Joseph or Follies? Theatre, much like opera, has a repertoire shows or composers that are almost always done because they are the draw that brings the common person into the theater for the experience. Truth be told for me, I think the shows that Sondheim wrote only the lyrics for are the stronger ones in his cannon. For a large segment of your just run of the mill regional theater crowd his music just does not strike a cord. (This may or may not be the case in your area, I'm sure there will be the person that fights back " MY THEATER GROUP GETS SOLD OUT CROUDS FOR SONDHEIM") Webber, for better or worse, has some shows that are staples for the younger crowed to perform and in some ways get him fans early on. I like shows by both, bit if I had to choose what composer's works were going to be more performed in 50 years time... I'd have to go with Webber

[all that jazz]

Posted: 3/9/13 at 8:27am

^Right on
I also prefer Sondheim's lyrics over his music. If we were to discuss music alone ALW wins hands down. Also if we were to discuss their respective productions as wholes, most of Webber's are flawless.

Updated On: 3/9/13 at 08:27 AM