Why do you all hate Cats?- Page 4

[ALWrules]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 9:04pm

Which part was stolen? Where is the Chinese sequence in the show? I don't remember and I am actually curious what you are talking about. Do you mean the theme that is played during the overture?

[jv92]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 9:19pm

Cats....ughhh.
In response to your Porter and Rodgers & Hart shows of the 30s. They had songs! They had story! They ran for one year!
Cats has no plot, no decent song in my opinion and ran for 18 years.

[jimmirae]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 9:20pm

I should say that the thing I always enjoyed the MOST about "Cats" was that it was a piece of very enjoyable musical theater that had tunes and eye candy and you could take just about anyone without having to worry about subject matter and have a nice evening without a dramatic overload - I loved the simplicity yet the size of the piece and it certainly had a great run - I recall the last time I saw it on Broadway being in the lobby of the winter garden back in the summer of 87 and it being completely sold out and still a huge line for those waiting on possible canellations. I think it was a shame that the "Official Recording" of the show on Video/DVD did the actual piece no justice and was missing parts as well. I recall Sir John Mills sitting there doing "Gus" looking bewildered as if he had just woke up and noticed himself in this show by accident, and however much Miss Paige emoted in it she couldn't revive a fragment of the excitement that Miss Buckley did, or even many other women I saw in that role, Tours included did as well. Do you own stock in this show or something? I'm not being catty (no pun intended) but just wondering if by the looks of your avatar your next post may be "Why did you all hate Aspects of Love so much"? ALW has led a charmed life, and everyone knows his worth, like him or not, and he wont be going on national assistance in this lifetime so what are we trying to get at here if I might ask?

Updated On: 11/22/05 at 09:20 PM

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 9:32pm

I think the person was referring to the part about the peaks and the pollicles or whatever it is. And for a good example of Webber's shameless lifting, I refer you to listen to the clip on this site.

http://www.fgo.org/05-06/production1.shtml

Yeah... does that sound familiar?

[ALWrules]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 11:02pm

I don't recognize it. Music of the night maybe? Not a clear rip off to me.

[ALWrules]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 11:39pm

In response to you Jimmiare, my post is purely for me to see if I can hear a deep, valid opinion from someone who doesn't like Cats. It also seems to me that there is a strong disdain for ALW in the theatrical community, especially Cats. I don't think that everyone agrees, knows or appreciates his worth to musical theater.
I don't plan to start an Aspects of Love post, because there are a lot of very obvious flaws that I don't need people to convince me of. However, I may start a "why do you all hate Sunset Boulevard" post; its another one of my favorites that everyone hates. Any takers?

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 11:43pm

I hear much less disdain for Sunset Boulevard than Cats.

In fact, Sunset Boulevard ranks among the favorites of many persons on this board.

I think Phantom is a more polarizing show, partially for the same reason as Cats, the insane hype which has caused many to find it overrated.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 12:24am

I do indeed hate Cats and Phantom, but I like Sunset Boulevard because I believe it has a great story and Norma Desmond is one of those larger-than-life characters that I'm so fond of, plus, songs like "As If We Never Said Goodbye" are quite powerful, to me even more powerful than "Memory." I was surprised that it did not become a major hit since it has an actual substantial theme unlike other Lloyd Webber shows. Sondheim wanted to write a show based on the film Sunset Boulevard before Lloyd Webber, I wonder how that would have turned out.

[ALWrules]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 12:47am

Not to get to far off subject, but I think that Sunset wasn't a hit not because it wasn't a good show, but that it was so expensive to run and maintain.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 1:29am

I would accuse you of having a tin ear, but you pinpointed what song in Phantom is ripped off of that theme. You do have to admit that they are the same, give or take a few notes.

[ALWrules]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 1:55am

I hear four notes that are of the same melodic structure. The rest of it is quite different from "Music of the Night."

If you look at music throughout history it is something that is built along somewhat of a pyramid visual. there is a base, and to a certain extent everyone borrows things from the predecessors. There is nothing wrong with this, as new melodies can be presented with old ideas and sound just as beautiful. Almost all of rock and roll has the same chord progression, one, five, one, five, one, five, does that mean that all rock artists are ripping off of Bach who used that in Fugues? Composers will always have a certain amount of similarity to their predecessors.

[PerforMeg]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 2:28am

I did the national tour of CATS (That's me in the picture-I was Jennyanydots and a Griz understudy).

When I first saw it at age 13, I went, "This is garbage." And here was the reason: It makes no sense. Then I got into the rehearsal process and found out about all of the intricate relationships and themes going on under the surface. Which confused me even more. There is an idea behind it, and there is substance to it,but the show does not convey any of it. THAT to me is the problem with Cats.

As I performed in it over and over again I began to feel an attachment to the material, and the story began to make sense to me. Then I was "swung out" for the first time to watch the show while a swing did my part. And I was sitting in the audience, as someone who was involved in the show and had a personal connection to it, and I didn't get it.

There is some great music. It was the most challenging experience of my life-you'd be shocked at what acting like a cat can do to your body. I have injuries that still bug me from time to time and I didn't even dance as much as most of the cats. But I loved learning from it. I loved putting on the makeup and, for the most part, singing the music. And I loved how excited people would get about it. I loved going into the audience and interacting with the kids, who would just get so giddy! But that would make me say, "Was that the point of this? To be like theme park characters?"

So basically, it makes no sense. It's pretty, the design is cool, the concept is one of a kind, the music is nice, the dancing can be spectacular...but WOW it just makes no sense.

[Jimmcf]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 3:10am

For me, 'Cats' is really just one big warm up to hear 'Memory.' It is a great song (and yes, I am still not tired of it), but unless the actress in the production hits it out of the park (like Elaine Paige or Laurie Beechman), it is a giant waste of time. I do have some affection for it, but it is the weakest of the 80s mega musicals.

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 3:52am

No offense, but there are some real snobs on this board

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 4:07am

ALWrules: I believe Sunset Boulevard was a flop for more reasons than the fact it costed so much to run, Wicked is such an expensive show and yet it is such a hit. I still wonder why this show didn't give any profit on Broadway.
I agree Cats is all about "Memory," does anyone think this show would have been such a hit if "Memory" didn't exist in the musical? I honestly believe that-unlike Phantom,a show though I hate I admit has some fine songs-if you take out "Memory" from Cats, you are left with...nothing.

[Pinguin]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 4:25am

"The only reason I have gotten is that it doesn't send a message and all musicals should send a clear and deep message. I feel no one has given me a good warrent for that claim. I want to know why Cats doesn't affect you and it does affect me, not just that we have different opinions so I should drop it"

Allright ALW, this is why I believe in a musical that should, you know, have some semblance of intelligence: I believe in the power of theatre to affect change. And since I believe in that power, I expect to be changed when I see something on stage, and I'll even go so far as saying that being amused or stimulated by funny writing is a bare minimum requirement.

Cats does not even amuse me. The music has no dramatic power, so it bores me. Since the music doesn't engage me, I'm not affected by the story or the characters, and it all looks like a bunch of people dressed up like cats fiddling around the stage, and I have better things to do with my time. If you really want me to sit here and go through all the technical reasons why the music is bland, lulling instead of captivating, then PM me and I'll talk to you about it, but your question is like asking people why they like impressionist paintings rather than 16th century religious art. I have different criteria for evaluating pieces. You like faux opera music with pop synthesizers and slow predictable melodies, and I don't. You think theatre is the place for meaningless dancing and cool costumes, and I don't. And you're probably a happier person than I.

Updated On: 11/23/05 at 04:25 AM

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 4:44am

I never give ALW a hard-time, but a lot of my friends do. I think the reason why I don't mind him so much is the variety in the success he's had. I mean... middle-class family in an apartment on the corner of town. Undiscovered composer for a father (or one that should have been more recognized) and a family of all-music lovers. I admire the diversity in Andrew's achievements... more so than Sondheim (although I happen to be a fan of him):

Just look at this track-record: Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, a 20-minute oratorio to the longest running musical in Broadway history! Jesus Christ Superstar, a topic that would never have been attempted in musical theatre had Tim Rice and Lloyd Webber not come along and tried it out. Maybe it would have been tried, but not in the way that they wrote it: sung-through with the music of the times. Hair revived that phenomenon, of the music of the theatre resembling the music of the time.. and Superstar brought it around full-circle. There was the bold attempt with Jeeves, the true disaster, and (in a matter of a year) a turn to a "popera" on the First Lady of Argentina. From Superstar to Evita, look at the diversity there: even Carousel wasn't quite so different to its predecessor

Then a one-eighty with Cats! which could have ruined him completely. The thing I love about Cats is: it's a testament that anything is really possible if it's done right. There is no idea in the world that can't be staged.. Lloyd Webber proved to the world that he could take something that could (otherwise) be a massive disaster into the longest running musical in Broadway history. And it's not like his record, before that, included Birds the Musical and Dogs the Opera. It was Jesus, Argentina and a bunch of cats! Then the first successful attempt of a revolutionary double-bill in the form of Song and Dance which ran (around) two or three years in London and a while on Broadway. Starlight Express, I admit, was a bit of a setback: and not a surprising new turn. Although it happened to be the most expensive and "new" form of theatre that had ever been in England at that stage. It was a nightmare on Broadway, a true nightmare, but that's another story...

From Cats to Double-Bills (a one-woman show then a ballet), to trains to a church requiem! If Andy never existed, and I told someone that I could be successful with this track-record I'd be locked in a mental asylum. And yet he did it! And, after that, what's about to come the new longest running musical on Broadway. Lloyd Webber has even surpassed his own heroes Rodgers and Hammerstein, and may well be the most successful theatrical composer of the 20th century. And after Phantoms, he could have easily done another a gothic project. But no. Along came a small show named Aspects of Love:. That didn't do so well, so he made an attempt at another gothicy big show Sunset Boulevard. Disaster or not, it's probably his most fascinating score of his I've heard.

Then we have the Jeeves revival. What flop, and I mean a true disastrous flop, has been revived to fine success (in London at least?). And don't mention Grand Hotel. That was an out-of-towner: it doesn't count. Jeeves was in the West End: flopped spectacularly, then did successfully 20 years later (and the public never forgets!). Whistle Down the Wind, another unexpected choice & The Beautiful Game. And finally The Woman in White. I'm in awe at the diversity this man has achieved, and if he didn't exist, if no one ever heard of him, the concept of this man writing all these musicals to greatsuccess would be laughed out of court. That's why I'm not so hard on him.

However, his long-running shows have made it hard on new theatrical writers. There are no mountainous epics or "blockbusters" to replace the shows that Lloyd Webber so obviously succeeded with. Him and Mackintosh.. there will never be another freakish force like that again. The shows are still running, but nothing new may ever replace them on the scale of these successes. I like Cats for the sheer guts and bravado it took on the musical scene. I won't judge it and toss it aside: I am in awe of a person who can succeed this much with so many different ideas. I will never want to talk them down

As a true fan of theatre, with all the different forms of theatre on my mind, (and personal preferences aside), I welcome Cats and commend it for conquering its odds.

Updated On: 11/23/05 at 04:44 AM

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 4:46am

There's a difference between lifting a style of music and lifting melody. Even lifting harmonic structure of a song... when it's so clear and direct, it's a bit suspect.

He certainly emulates Puccini's style of writing. One could consider it a reference to be nice. He's said himself that "Memory" is a Puccini parody. But in my experience parody is meant to be funny.

Rockfenris is right, I sound like a snob. People have been ripping one another off throughout history. Art, literature, science, whatever. It's how we make NEW things. I just don't think someone like Webber is to be admired for his musical ability when he really has yet to do much for music (or even the musical) besides give us more of what we've already heard. You know what I mean? It's nice ear candy, great pastiche, but I would be the last person to say it's genius or even great art.

And being pro Webber, I do think that Jesus Christ Superstar and Evita were both great. Like Jonathon Larson he took a few styles of music and attempted to create his own style. This was probably in his younger, more ambitious days. And there are very few composers who successfully write "rock musicals". In my opinion Elton John is not one of them. Not to say he invented the genre, and Hair did infinitely more for it than he did. But Webber is a lazy composer. I get sick of people talking about Cats and POTO when he preceeded them with two much better shows (in my opinion). I can't figure the guy out. He apparently has operatic ambitions, he picks interesting and ambitious material, he can certainly write catchy melodies, but he's such a lazy writer! It's maddening. Don't even tell me "Well, he has money so he doesn't need to." Give me a break. He's clearly a guy interested in writing great things for the theater, but either he's lazy or really just can't back it up. One wonders if he sold his soul for success :P

And I am a snob. You're bound to run into lots of snobs when you are interested in the arts. I'm just not as interested in bathos as I am in genuine emotion. Two people standing on stage singing to each other about how much they love each other for five minutes repeatedly throughout the course of a show is nice and all, but it doesn't start a fire in my pants. I'd be more tempted to call people who go to Webber but not LaChiusa snobs. Sure, I can listen to a Webber score and enjoy it, but I can appreciate a LaChiusa score too, because I've opened my mind to it and made the effort for a more challenging composer.

The road between Bach and Elvis is both long and short, but by any accounts (at least if you are ignorant of music theory) rock music is trying to do something different than what Bach was doing. The genre is infamous for how unimaginative it often is anyway. It's a bloated genre that has its share of great artists and it has its share of artists who are simply ripping one another off. Most people counted by the genre who I would consider musical geniuses defy categorization anyway.

Lastly... I am excited to see Woman in White. While I know it doesn't satisfy Webber's apparent operatic ambitions, it's apparently a better show than a lot of his others (I haven't heard The Beautiful Game but it interests me). I'm still a bit wary of digital CGI sets or whatever they are.

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 5:08am

I really don't care if there are snobs or there are not. I just don't like the kind, and I'm not even referring to you personally, who walk around and talk down the success of Lloyd Webber as if it's non-existent. I have issues with his shows, personally, but I can't deny (as an enthuser myself) the success he has had. And the diversity in his shows

I love Andrew Lloyd Webber. But I also love Richard Rodgers and Frederick Loewe (and it was fourth time's a charm with him! Not something that can happen on Broadway today). I love Stephen Sondheim. But I also love Frank Wildhorn. I love the potential of theatre, and most of all: echoing your influences but doing something different.. something completely untried in the history of theatre. That's always been the way I've looked at things. Showboat was unlike anything of its kind. Oklahoma was unlikethe musicalsof the day: it was more like a play with "integrated" songs. Even R&H said My Fair Lady couldn't be done, but it has gone on, taking the writers with them, to be one of the most successful and influential break-throughs in the theatre. Take, for example, the recent Batman the Musical rumour. Will that ever happen? And will it be the most stupid thing since Cats? Then again... as a biased fan of Jim Steinman I'm definitely gonna love it: and I have every hope it could be as big a breakthrough as Cats and My Fair Lady. And who could ever think a dreary show like Les Miserables would be the blockbuster it was: running somewhere in the world with someone singing People Sing every ten minutes. Seriously. And only five people have ever sung my songs LIVE in three years!

And you knw what? I'm a hypocrite, because I am a snob too: but more of a subverted one. I'm a snob to the banal, same old shows that plague Broadway... the follow-ups to the tried and true formulas: nothing as fascinating since, say, Miss Saigon. That's why I prefer the West End: because I love the gutsiness in Billy Elliot, I love the way Woman in White turned out and challenged such a well-loved source. And I love the spin on Mary Poppins... which really didn't seem to be that "Disney enterprise" anymore. But I laughed through Producers, thought it was fluff (personally) but will not deny its succeess. I've never ahd enough interest to check out Rent.. and I could not give a flying houdini about Wicked. But I don't mind Schwartz in general. I just love that world of emotional artists who are willing to go out on a limb and re-write the world of theatre.

Sondheim did it. Nothing was ever like Sweeney Todd and Sunday, and I worship him for it. Lloyd Webber did it too. I sat through Cats and Into the Woods with the same amount of equal delight and awe of just what exactly can be achieved. And it's really put upon for a writer myself.. who dreams, if given the advantage, I can change the direction in my own way. I have enough diverse ideas of my own. I'm a snob to people who don't go all-out: who expect normality and anticipate the same shows

But if they are out there, and I had the time to find them all, I would most likely want to do that. And I also love Wildhorn's persistence; I love how he won't stop fighting.. how he won't be kept down by a bunch of people who wish he would stop. He's done a helluva lot for a less fortunate age for composers

But that's my 2 cents on that. Anything else, just shoot me a PM or reply

Updated On: 11/23/05 at 05:08 AM

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 6:09am

Thanks for recognizing that Andrew Lloyd Webber, no matter what his detractors say, definitely picks interesting topics to musicalize. People tend to regard him as someone who only musicalizes classic books. Um, Phantom of the Opera and recently Woman in White are the only ones that come to mind (besides the bible) right away. Cats is a book of children's poetry. Joseph and JCS bible stories (and JCS was very controversial in its day). Yeah, the man is ambitious. Wholly successful as a composer? No. While he picks ambitious projects, I don't think any of his shows really succeed as lasting drama or even always as good music. Jesus Christ Superstar may be so bold as to incorporate rock music into its score, but it also pretty much white washes the story. I give it props for humanizing Judas and Jesus. I'm crazy though, I like really provocative Pillowman style things. But you'd think ALW would hone his craft rather than get worse at what he does, you know?

I really don't think much of his music will survive in the public's memory in fifty years. No, not even Memory. Some things are just phenomenons of their time. But then again, Sondheim will live on in the minds of academics. Such is the fickle nature of popular culture. A Chorus Line was a cultural sensation, and now not so long afterwards, it is a relic.

I think a big reason why so many of his shows succeed is that people are predisposed to liking what he puts out. Sometimes what he writes is downright bad (Whistle Down the Wind) so even his name can't save them. But we all unfortunately play the "Oh my favorite composer isn't as popular as your crappy favorite composer" game. It's like we duke it out for them, and they laugh at us.

PS I'm afraid I'm still a little sour on the whole Batman the musical thing. Some source material is too precious. You can't tell me you could possibly ever imagine Batman singing. What would he sing about?!

[Urban]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 7:29am

I don't like CATS. Though I do like Starlight Express.

Actually call me weird, but I think ALW materials works much better in German then English. Starlight Express in German rocks. Okay it is still hokey but heck, I enjoyed it.

But I didn't like CATS because it bored me to sleep. There was no character, nobody that I connected with and followed. Heck by the middle of act one, I wanted to start spaying all those fracking kitties. I just couldn't muster any emotional attachment ever to CATS.

Heck other shows I do not like I enjoy because I have been able to muster some sort of emotion.

Posted: 11/23/05 at 7:52am

I was bored----and I rarely am bored at broadway shows. My theory is "a bad night on broadway is better than a good night at home"---BUT.........Cats bored me silly.

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 8:49am

Roninjoe: I'm not sure if you're having a go at me or you're agreeing with me? But I like your POV. If you must know..

Re: Batman. I'm only supporting it because I'm a fan of Jim Steinman. If I think he sees something in it, and knows what he's doing, then I'll trust him on it. But then again I trusted him on Dance of the Vampires and look what happened there...

Honestly, I'm a fan of the Batman movies: and I can only ever imagine the villains singing (not the Bat). FYI, I have heard one of the songs and it's quite charming

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 11:55am

ALW, there doesn't seem to be anything we can say that will make you happy...your questions are akin to asking "Why don't you like the color blue?" IS there a good reason why? Beyond some buried childhood trauma about the color blue? And not liking Cats is NOTHING like two sides of a political issue, which is based in economic philosophy, religion, social status, education, etc...that's specious reasoning AT BEST.

Every show is born from a creative process, regardless of its quality, so I'm not sure why you can use that as a rationale for liking it--it's perfectly acceptable for you to love the show, just as it is for me or anyone else to not like the show. It's not an indicator of intelligence or taste.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 12:20pm

i hate Cats becuz it was terrible!