Andrew Lloyd Webber Vs. Sondheim — Page 6

This thread keeps getting funnier.

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?

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

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.

---

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.

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...

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

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....

---

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.

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?)

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.

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