#26
Posted: 4/15/06 at 4:52pm
It is stupid. I guess that's what I'm getting at. There's no comparison.
I thought my prose was pretty clear, but I'll clarify for Spider and FreeAdmission if they're done patting each other on the back. Please go back and reread my post. What I was saying is that Sondheim, as an invidivual, writes his own lyrics and his own music. I believe that lyrics are a vital element of musical theater because the meaning and messages of the story, and the character and personality must be conveyed through the lyrics. Andrew Lloyd Webber not only does not write his own lyrics, but he picks lyricists who write nothing but cliches, over and over. You could mix the lyrics up in a Webber show to no ill effect. That said, this does not have anything to do with Andrew Lloyd Webber's personal worth to the musical theater, just in relation to Stephen Sondheim. It's like saying two people are worth as much as one person, you dig? Yes, Rogers and Hammerstein contributed seperately to different areas for musical theater, but Sondheim contributed to both of those areas as just one person. That's just what I'm saying. He's important both as a lyricist and as a composer seperately.
It's stupid to imply that I'm saying being just a composer is less important. Richard Rodgers contributed enormously to the sound of musical theater. And he hardly wrote simple music. A composer of merit will garner the acknowledgement they deserve. I believe that in their day Sullivan was very jealous of Gilbert because his music was usually little more than incident to set Gilbert's lyrics to.
Porter, Berlin, Rodgers, etc... they wrote complicated music. It just happened to be the popular music of the day. There's all kinds of things to be said about, say Jerome Kern's music, which is apparently "simple". It's craft, not simplicity. If you look at Webber's shows, the ones that enjoy immense popularity are the ones that are very gimmicky. I'd go see a show if they were going to have a falling chandelier halfway through. That's cool. That's like Cirque Du Soleil. And gimmicks have their place too. That's why I say there's no comparison.
Andrew Lloyd Webber has worked with good lyricists who were obviously influenced by the better lyricists that preceded them, Sondheim included. Namely Tim Rice. In fact, I wouldn't call Tim Rice's lyrics simplistic. I think they're precocious. Not really that great, but certainly trying, at least.
Andrew Lloyd Webber has had absolutely no influence on the world of composition. He did not invent recitative, the sung through musical, or gothic/controversal subject matter. In fact, the point of musical theater is contentiously to NOT be sung through. You move the story through SONGS, not dialogue set to music. When you blur the line you're moving into another area, and there are people who do it well and people who don't. If he championed anything, he championed the Come Up With 7 Melodies And Just Use Them Over and Over musical. Who invents anything? What has Sondheim invented? I don't see how a person is being revolutionary by simply singing the recitative to guitars instead of brass. I don't really see him taking us forwards very often rather than backwards, man, is all I'm saying.
While I'm not trying to raise Stephen Sondheim on a golden pedestal (although he does deserve it!) I'm just saying that if you really look at it seriously, Andrew Lloyd Webber is little more than a glorified tune smith. While there's merit in being a good tune smith, lots of people are good tune smiths.
PS, The Who's Tommy (another rock opera) came out before Jesus Christ Superstar, but I do find JCS, as I pointed out, to be one of his better shows. But in other words, somebody wrote a sung through musical to guitars before he did.
I thought my prose was pretty clear, but I'll clarify for Spider and FreeAdmission if they're done patting each other on the back. Please go back and reread my post. What I was saying is that Sondheim, as an invidivual, writes his own lyrics and his own music. I believe that lyrics are a vital element of musical theater because the meaning and messages of the story, and the character and personality must be conveyed through the lyrics. Andrew Lloyd Webber not only does not write his own lyrics, but he picks lyricists who write nothing but cliches, over and over. You could mix the lyrics up in a Webber show to no ill effect. That said, this does not have anything to do with Andrew Lloyd Webber's personal worth to the musical theater, just in relation to Stephen Sondheim. It's like saying two people are worth as much as one person, you dig? Yes, Rogers and Hammerstein contributed seperately to different areas for musical theater, but Sondheim contributed to both of those areas as just one person. That's just what I'm saying. He's important both as a lyricist and as a composer seperately.
It's stupid to imply that I'm saying being just a composer is less important. Richard Rodgers contributed enormously to the sound of musical theater. And he hardly wrote simple music. A composer of merit will garner the acknowledgement they deserve. I believe that in their day Sullivan was very jealous of Gilbert because his music was usually little more than incident to set Gilbert's lyrics to.
Porter, Berlin, Rodgers, etc... they wrote complicated music. It just happened to be the popular music of the day. There's all kinds of things to be said about, say Jerome Kern's music, which is apparently "simple". It's craft, not simplicity. If you look at Webber's shows, the ones that enjoy immense popularity are the ones that are very gimmicky. I'd go see a show if they were going to have a falling chandelier halfway through. That's cool. That's like Cirque Du Soleil. And gimmicks have their place too. That's why I say there's no comparison.
Andrew Lloyd Webber has worked with good lyricists who were obviously influenced by the better lyricists that preceded them, Sondheim included. Namely Tim Rice. In fact, I wouldn't call Tim Rice's lyrics simplistic. I think they're precocious. Not really that great, but certainly trying, at least.
Andrew Lloyd Webber has had absolutely no influence on the world of composition. He did not invent recitative, the sung through musical, or gothic/controversal subject matter. In fact, the point of musical theater is contentiously to NOT be sung through. You move the story through SONGS, not dialogue set to music. When you blur the line you're moving into another area, and there are people who do it well and people who don't. If he championed anything, he championed the Come Up With 7 Melodies And Just Use Them Over and Over musical. Who invents anything? What has Sondheim invented? I don't see how a person is being revolutionary by simply singing the recitative to guitars instead of brass. I don't really see him taking us forwards very often rather than backwards, man, is all I'm saying.
While I'm not trying to raise Stephen Sondheim on a golden pedestal (although he does deserve it!) I'm just saying that if you really look at it seriously, Andrew Lloyd Webber is little more than a glorified tune smith. While there's merit in being a good tune smith, lots of people are good tune smiths.
PS, The Who's Tommy (another rock opera) came out before Jesus Christ Superstar, but I do find JCS, as I pointed out, to be one of his better shows. But in other words, somebody wrote a sung through musical to guitars before he did.
yr ronin,
joey
joey
