Sondheim / Llyod Webber Subject Matter...some thoughts

[Flahooley]

Posted: 4/14/06 at 5:01pm

Hi Everyone -

I was just thinking about some similarities in the subject matter these two composers have musicalized.

CATS / COMPANY - Both fall in that grey area of revue/book musical.

ASPECTS OF LOVE/ A LITTE NIGHT MUSIC - Both deal with an actress and explore the themes of love and sex.

PHANTOM OF THE OPERA / SWEENEY TODD - Both are based on melodramas that concern embittered, isolated and murderous leading men.

Any thoughts?



Updated On: 4/14/06 at 05:01 PM

[Pinguin]

Posted: 4/14/06 at 5:09pm

ahhhh...so alike...

BUT SO SO SO DIFFERENT.

[aspiringactress]

Posted: 4/14/06 at 5:11pm

CATS / COMPANY

::giggle:: That made me laugh.

[Flahooley]

Posted: 4/14/06 at 5:12pm

How true. I start to wonder if Llyod Webber is on some level responding to Sondheim.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 4/14/06 at 5:25pm

I actually don't know why I said this. Maybe I was possessed. I think Jazzy pointed out what I was getting at better (that they were slightly facile links but I was interested if you had anything better on the subject).

Updated On: 4/14/06 at 05:25 PM

[Flahooley]

Posted: 4/14/06 at 5:43pm

Well.. I haven't really come to any conclusion. Just the intial thought. I don't know if goes any deeper than that... but if it does, and you have something to say on the matter..feel free to post it.

Updated On: 4/14/06 at 05:43 PM

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 4/14/06 at 6:10pm

Company is a book musical. It's got a plot and a book. It just happens to be a concept musical (nonlinear). Cats IS a book...that was made a musical. Also, isn't everything in theatre about Love and/or sex when you really think about it. I don't think the link between the two is that tangible.

[Katurian2]

Posted: 4/14/06 at 7:22pm

So true Jazzy. You could draw a clos line between most any shows on Broadway if you used the love aspect of it. As a matter of fact, at this moment, I can't think of more than 5 musicals that don't have that as a major plot point. And, many shows that were created over 20 years ago, deal with showbiz, it's a very common theme among shows.

[jasonf]

Posted: 4/14/06 at 7:28pm

Oooh - maybe they're the REAL Jekyll and Hyde of theater. Sondheim, good, trying to help the theater along...Webber, evil, trying to destroy it!

They're the SAME PERSON!

(Please disregard all of the above. I'm punchy tonight, I'll try to restrain myself)

[Flahooley]

Posted: 4/14/06 at 7:45pm

Too cute, jasonf! But I know that they have been in the same room together publicly... but a very good guess nonetheless.

[caitiesus1522]

Posted: 4/14/06 at 8:39pm

RIGHT Jason *smiles and nods*

Actually I laughed really hard when I read that...thanks!

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 4/14/06 at 8:58pm

Good God! Now this is going to turn into a "Sondheim is the best and Webber is the worst" thread. Jeez!

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 4/14/06 at 9:21pm

In the words of Big River, they're "Worlds Apart." I see the same stars through my window, as you see through yours, but we're worlds apart.

[Chrysanthemum62001]

Posted: 4/14/06 at 9:37pm

I can't beleive someone compared Company to Cats. That is just...wrong.

[Katurian2]

Posted: 4/14/06 at 10:00pm

Haha- Too true. Who would compare a crud fest like Comapny to a classic like Cats? How idiotic could you be?

In case someone didn't pick it up, that was a sarcastic comment

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 4/14/06 at 10:00pm

Cats is not a concept musical because dancing cats is more of a gimmick reall. Company is THE concept musical.

[jasonf]

Posted: 4/14/06 at 10:09pm

"dancing cats is a gimmick"

Are you sure "gimmick" is the word you wanted? Not "Really stupid idea" or something along those lines?

(For the record, I'm not a Webber hater - well, I'd say about half...and I know they've been in the same room together - I have the Hey, Mr. Producer video...)

Still, if you're comparing....there is no comparison. And to equate Company with Cats - well, that's like comparing Rent with a Britney Spears video...

Updated On: 4/14/06 at 10:09 PM

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 4/14/06 at 10:11pm

Ah, Sondheim. The second Webber.

[jasonf]

Posted: 4/14/06 at 10:13pm

Sorry, that was the sound of me gagging. I just watched Saw for the first time and I'm fine. THAT though....Bleeeeeeeehhhhhhh

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 4/14/06 at 11:16pm

Yes, Sondheim is a great composer, but come on!!! He is not the be all end all of musical theatre. People give him WAY too much credit. I mean, yes . . . he wrote shows that dealt with concepts and so on never tried before but give me a break. I'm sorry. Both men are great and have contributed much to the world of theatre, so lets just leave it at that.

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 4/14/06 at 11:49pm

I'm not going to leave it at that because I don't believe that Lloyd Webber has contributed nearly as much to the past, present and future of musical theatre. Sondheim is leaving a legacy of composers that do not copy him, but are just as adventurous and are guided by his hand. For artistic musical theatre, Sondheim has left an indelible impression. For pure commercial theatre, Lloyd Webber is king. I'll take art over commercialism any day. Lloyd Webber has done almost nothing to advance musical theatre as a medium, Sondheim has been the driving force.

I personally don't think it is possible to give Sondheim too much credit. To limit his revolutionizing of musical theatre to the "concept" musical does not properly cover the breadth of his contributions.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 4/15/06 at 3:11am

Some people would contend that Sondheim has raised the bar so high that he's pretty much ruined it for everybody. I do agree that he's given reign to contemporary musical theater composers to go wild, and that they do. I don't see Andrew Lloyd Webber having any signature style that seems to be inherent to him, so I would say that the whole genre of British Mega Musical has inspired people like Frankl Wildhorn to continue fashioning poperettas from the mold.

Spider, there's honestly absolutely no comparison. While there's an argument here, it is my belief that Webber is not half the composer that Stephen Sondheim is. That aside, Webber does not write his own lyrics. What Stephen Sondheim has done for lyrics and musical theater storytelling alone makes him more important by a long shot than Andrew Lloyd Webber, who quotes other people's music and theater when he isn't quoting himself. What gives Andrew Lloyd Webber his popular appeal is his sense of familiarity. It's music that feels like you've heard it before, a story you've heard before, everything is predictable.

Sondheim is the offspring of the generation before him of witty, intelligent composers and lyricists who shaped the musical theater. He took it in directions nobody ever expected from frothy entertainment (and while he certainly wasn't the only one to do such things, he is the most prominent). I'm not sure where Andrew Lloyd Webber is coming from besides a general music background and the 60's, but he rarely interests me. It's like white noise.

I give Andrew Lloyd Webber credit for picking adventurous subject matter, but while he may pick challenging or titillating concepts, they never really get explored. I would fault his lyricists rather than him.

There's something very kitschy about Andrew Lloyd Webber, in my opinion, that substitutes for the real emotion that you find in Stephen Sondheim's work. But still, both are capable of bad and good. I really like many Andrew Lloyd Webber songs. But if you're comparing the entire body of work of two men, there's no question.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 4/15/06 at 9:00am

Now, I never said that Webber was better or needs to be equalled to Sondheim. I am just saying that everytime there comes a thread like this Webber gets completely bashed while Sondheim is raised on a golden pedistle. And Webber HAS contributed to the world of musical theatre. Yes, Hair is "offically" the first musical to have a score completely made up of Rock and Roll, but Webber and Rice took a very controversial topic (Last days of Christ) and built a complete sung through musical around that concept using Rock and Roll music as a vehicle for story telling and dialogue. Hair had rock songs in it, but it was not used as dialogue. Also, he has championed the "complete sung through" musical which was not hardly used until he came along. Also, you are damning him because he does not write his own lyrics? So, you are saying that because Rodgers (in his early years) and Kander did not write their own lyrics, that they don't count as much as Sondheim?

The reason I like Webber is because his music brings us back to the days of Rodgers and Hammerstein, Irving Berlin, Cole Porter, etc. where you have a musical that can be loved by anyone and the tunes are stuck with you the moment you leave the theatre (or take out the cd), as well as their is usually and underlying social commentary used throughout his musicals. I like Sondheim, because he challenges you to listen to the lyrics and music and makes theatre more of an "art form."

Now, I am not damning one or the other because both men are great at what they do. But, if there was a world of nothing but Sondheim and Sondheim rip-offs, the theatre will shrivel up and die because there would be no variety. Not everyone likes the same thing and not every composer is the same. That is why I like an array of musical composers because they all offer something different that I can appreciate.

[freeadmission]

Posted: 4/15/06 at 10:23am

"Also, you are damning him because he does not write his own lyrics? So, you are saying that because Rodgers (in his early years) and Kander did not write their own lyrics, that they don't count as much as Sondheim? "

Thank you for saying that. I'm lukewarm on Webber, at best, but I hate it when people pull out that arguement. People have different strengths. Webber can compose damn catchy music, but probably can't write lyrics worth a damn and, frankly, I'm thankful he doesn't attempt something at which he'd likely fail in a miserable fashion. Likewise, Hammerstein wrote beautifully simple lyrics that complimented Rodgers' beautifully simple compositions. It's a matter of doing what you're good at: Webber is good at composing catchy scores, Rice is good at writing simplistic lyrics that fit Webber's music -- a match made in mediocracy heaven.

Altogether well said by spider. I take my hat off to you, man.

[jasonf]

Posted: 4/15/06 at 10:41am

Please do not trot out the "Sondheim's music is unsingable/umhummable" crap argument that doesn't hold water at all. Everyone here can name dozens of songs that Sondheim wrote that fit that criteria.

Look, aside from some missteps (ahem, Cats) I DO admire Webber. I have recordings of every single one of his shows (including Cats even) and from time to time listen to them. However, the depth and intricacies that Sondheim puts into a score and lyrics is absolutely unparalleled in Webber shows.

Honestly, many of Webber's shows (Phantom, Cats, Sunset Boulevard, Aspects of Love, Starlight Express) are just the same six or seven melodies over and over and over (SB and Aspects being by far the worst offenders here). I fully admire JCS and Evita and Joseph, as well as his more recent shows, but that middle period is overblown and SO repetitive.

Let me put it this way - you listen to a Webber score once, you pretty much have it. I've listened to Sweeney Todd and Follies and Company etc. MANY times and I STILL find new stuff in them that I hadn't heard before.

In a way, the debate is almost stupid. Sondheim and Webber are as alike as Bruce Springsteen and Britney Spears. Both are mainstream, both are going to found in the same section of the music store (LITERALLY right next to each other), both have justly huge fan bases -- but when it comes to sheer artistry, there's very little competition. One speaks for a whole class of people, his music is influential and ranks up there with the greats of his genre, the other is pop candy - enjoyable, but ultimately without much substance (I guess by this analogy Hit Me Baby One More Time is JCS - that's gotta be sacrilegous in some way - but hey, I'm Jewish so happy Passover).