Andrew lloyd webber ?

[alxscrz2]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 6:08am

Why do so many people dislike the material that andrew lloyd webber writes ? Some one told me that some of his music is taken from other shows that he wrote before and he just arranges up the song differently and puts it in another show, is this true ?
Updated On: 7/18/07 at 06:08 AM

[musical_devotee]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 6:21am

Here are two quotes my friend used on another board:

The great Harold Prince himself stated in an interview:

"there is a whole snob attitude towards Andrew because he is so successful." And later on he stated that Webber is "..a darn good composer."

Stephen 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." He (Webber) knows what excites, energizes the empty space......His scores reflect a contemporary appreciation of rock and pop and blend them with the more traditional opera, music theatre, even liturgical canon....He creates musical motifs for each character, developing, then intertwining them into everything from duets to sextets to full chorus numbers, always deferring to the dramatic needs of the show....His songs (arias, if you prefer) are scenes- making this directors work such fun to do."


------

I think it's quite impossible to be so successful and accepted by your peers, theatre critics, etc.

I fell for his scores (Evita, Superstar, Phantom, etc), without knowing much about the way they are staged. That's one of his greatest assets: his music speaks for himself, not much else is needed.

[dramarama2]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 8:10am

You hit the nail on the head, musical_devotee.

It's like SA, people don't like it, especially on this board, because it was very succesful at the Tony's.

Andrew Lloyd Webber is successful.

If you really wanna know, a lot of his work in the past 20 years, is a lot similar to some of his earlier works, but it's like anything. It's his own style, so of course it sounds similar.

Stephen Sondeim's said that he's cautious not to write something he's already written. I'm sure it's the same with successful composers like Webber, along with many others (e.g Schwartz)

Well, actually, Schwartz's scores are all the same to me. I was actually just comparing "For Good" with "If I Never Knew You" from POCOHONTAS. Strangely, similar...

[JP2]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 8:14am

I'm not a fan, but only because I find his shows utterly boring. It's like one long boring song that never seems to end.

I actually didn't know other people didn't like him until reading this thread, so now I feel better.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 8:48am

Indeed, people dislike him on this board, because he is successful and talented, and most of the people on here...aren't.
Just because he is hated on BWW, it doesn't mean that people in general hate him.

[WickedBoy2]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 8:50am

A complete and utter gentleman. I worked at RUG when Aspects was opening in London and later its transfer to Broadway. He's a showman and loves the theatre with a great passion. Anyone who is successful always gets a bashing but i think they are imune to it. I had a great 18mths with him and he certainly knows how to look after and keep staff.

[Patti LuPone FANatic]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 10:06am

"A Complete and Utter Gentleman".....try telling that to Patti LuPone. from Roman in Austin, Texas... T.O.P.L.F.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 10:09am

Yeah muscle. Everyone hates Webber because he's sucessful and talented and we aren't.

Of course, NO ONE doesn't like him simply because they don't like his music. Perish the thought!

[Raviolisun]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 10:15am

He creeps me out, but I don't mind a lot of the stuff he writes. Anyone who works for theatre gets at least a little respect from me.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 10:44am

I love his musicals . . . and I have only seen one of them on stage. His songs are just gorgeous (Our Kind of Love, Unexpected Song, Whistle Down the Wind, etc) and EVITA and JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR are staples in the history of American musicals.

[jv92]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 11:02am

I'm sure his a nice man, but his music is just unappealing to me. He also hires some of the worst lyricists in the business, at least in his latter post-Cats work. (Elliot and Rice were damned good, the former, superb.)

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 11:58am

Minus JCS, Joseph, and Evita, his shows bore the living daylights out of me. And he's very arrogant (the opera written by Erik, a "musical genius," was all ALW's music. Ugh.)

Oh, and he had the audacity to make fun of Mozart. MOZART!

Updated On: 7/18/07 at 11:58 AM

[Katurian2]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 12:11pm

He isn't just hated on BWW, he is pretty much the bane of every educated theatre-persons' existence. Everywhere.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 1:13pm

No, he's not. Educated theatre people like his work as well. Especially JCS and Evita, both of which were strong, innovative, highly intelligent works.

[musical_devotee]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 1:15pm

No need to generalize things. Calling his fans uneducated is just not called for, not to mention the fact it's untrue and patronizing. Tastes differ and there is nothing wrong with that.

[Wildcard]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 1:24pm

I am not generalizing here but part of it is the elitism in the theater community. Andrew's shows seem to be more accessible to the general public and when that happens, the community seems to start thinking that the work is populist and is less than a work of art. The big successful musicals like Hairspray and Lion King were initially loved but once they became so popular, people start saying they were over-rated, etc. However, when something like Passion flops, it's because it was too smart for the public (not that Sondheim doesn't have his detractors too).

The other thing with Andrew's shows is that they usually get huge productions -- the mega musicals. Again, this turns some people off since they think that it takes away from leaving some room in the audience members' imaginations with regards to filling in what's missing. However, people come to theater to be entertained, if not amazed. Sure, there are ways to amaze an audience with minimalist sets but if you're paying a lot for tickets, why not see something that looks like it was worth it (physically, if not for content).

[vfd88]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 1:30pm

While I'm not a fan of his, I have to admit that the score to Evita is fantastic. Otherwise, his works don't interest me. Phantom bored me when I saw it.

[dented146]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 1:36pm

Irving Berlin once commented to the effect that he had only written three ot four melodies and that everything else was just those twisted around some. Maybe some think of Webber in those terms. To me, the body of his work and his success speaks for itself. He is a BCG ( board certified genius).

In addition, you get the feeling that much of the goings on in the West End has Webber's fingerprints on it in his capacity as a producer. Anyone with that kind of power is bound to know some unhappy folks.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 1:40pm

Some claim that ALW just rips off Puccini.

Also, another complaint is that he does not know how to write for the voice. A good example is the role of Evita; she has to be able to sing low, yet belt high. Christine from Phantom's another example: that title cadenza is hell for a singer, even a high soprano.

[jv92]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 1:48pm

He doesn't really understand a singer's limitations. SporkGoddess is right.

[[e-mail]]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 1:52pm

Everyone writes rangy these days except Sondheim, Alan Menken has gone on the record saying "I know I write music that is very rangy and hard to sing" or something to that end.

Ahrens & Flaherty do it, everyone really does. It's just the way modern broadway is.

I think that ALW has had some brilliant works. Evita is a masterwork, and I would call the first act just about sheer perfection. He (along with Menken IMO) is one of the two melodic genuises of our age. He writes dazzling melodies that you will remember and be haunted by beauty for years.

Sunset Boulevard is brilliant, and he doesn't always do the megamusicals, he's done Tell Me on a Sunday, Aspects of Love, and others. People tend to (especially in the 80s) flock to the Mega-Musicals such as Cats (the only one of his works I personally don't care for as much, though once again Memory is haunting, powerful, epic and beautiful) and Phantom.

That being said, he writes a lot of stuff that I could personally do without, the recitative in Phantom I think inhibits the storytelling, makes it harder to understand, and in Sunset Boulevard the melodies become re-used a few too many times for my tastes, I would have preferred maybe one or two additional melodies as well as more dialogue.

People pick on him for his successes, and are quick to point out his flaws. Personally, I prefer his music to several current broadway song-writers, once again, just my tastes.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 1:54pm

It isn't just that it's rangey. I mean, come on, when you have to prerecord some parts of the score because the human voice can't handle it 8 times a week, you know that something's wrong with the way that it's written.

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 2:02pm

I was one of those "snobs," then I heard Frank Wildhorn's music and ALW began to sound like Brahms!

My intial dislike of Lloyd Webber stemmed from a couple things...

When I first discovered him I had also started to understand the richness Sondheim. Sondheim's work made my brain cells buzz and my heartstrings vibrate. Next to that avalanche of artistic understanding Lloyd Webber came off as a panderer.

Couple that with being an adolescent - and Lord knows adolencense is the ONLY time in your life where you know EVERYTHING - I was staunch Sondheim fan that felt to enjoy his work I had to tear down others.

Of course, with age, I've since learned that is not the case.

As for my feelings about his work now. I still have problems with his choice in Lyricists. Aspects of Love is still one of the most boring evenings I have spent in the theatre.

But I give him credit - along with Cameron Mackintosh - for really getting Broadway through the eighties, financially and artistically.

On top of all that, I had a chance to speak to him a few years back. His love of musical theatre is palpable; there is no denying that it comes through in his work. He gets my respect for that alone.

Updated On: 7/18/07 at 02:02 PM

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 2:06pm

There's nothing wrong with him as a composer. He certainly knows how to write and arrange tunes to have the best effect. And if he does borrow a phrase or two from Puccini, well whom better to borrow from.

I just find his shows in general unsatisfying. They exhibit poor writing in lyrics and dialogue, the decline very much apparent after the spit with Tim Rice. As producer the blame lies with Lloyd Webber.

The fact that he is popular isn't by itself a problem. It's the fact that these imperfect shows have achieved such incredible popularity while other, better shows seem to fall by the wayside.

Since the shows have such a reliance on scenic effects, it will be impossible for a community group to effectively stage the shows. EVITA was a very spare show scenically and that has helped it achieve such ongoing popularity beyond the professional stagings.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 7/18/07 at 2:06pm

He is pretty much the bane of every educated theatre-persons' existence. Everywhere.

And you just showed your ignorance right there. Why don't you list shows that you like and let me judge you on whether or not I think you are "educated" or not! Everyone has different tastes and if Broadway was just for Sondheim snobs (this is not meant for everyone who likes Sondheim, because I do too) then Broadway would die out quickly.


Andrew's shows seem to be more accessible to the general public and when that happens, the community seems to start thinking that the work is populist and is less than a work of art


And a lot of the classics weren't "works of art" either (Hello Dolly, Funny Girl, Sound of Music, etc.) I don't care what anyone says, the number one goal in show business from movies, to television, to the Broadway stage is to entertain. I bet there are many Broadway and Off-Broadway shows that pushed the "artistic" quality of the play or musical that was just plain boring, and went no where. There are folks that have the gift to combine the two elements to perfection and there are some that don't. Andrew Lloyd Webber is just like Irving Berlin, Jerry Herman, Cole Porter, etc. They write catchy, gorgeous music that gets stuck in your head for days, that end up being very popular. And people keep saying, "I saw PHANTOM and it was boring." Well, you know that it is not ALL Andrew Lloyd Webber. Hal Prince directed it, and if you thought the show itself was boring, why don't you blame him? Oh yeah, I forgot . . . he worked with Sondheim and can't do no wrong in many people's eyes. **Eye roll**


Also, another complaint is that he does not know how to write for the voice.

Okay. It's either "his songs are too easy to sing" or "he can't write for the voice." I wish people would make up their minds.