#76
Posted: 6/24/05 at 4:14pm
I have nothing against the guy or his music. The only thing is his songs are so fricken hard to sing.
Why does everyone hate Andrew Lloyd Webber? — Page 4
#77
Posted: 6/24/05 at 5:04pm
I think Sondheim's songs are more challenging to sing than Webber's.
#78
This has turned into a really thought provoking and FUN chat. Too bad it isn't taking place in a nice little bar in Manhattan. We could all go off to a show afterwards. (Of course we'd be heading for DIFFERENT shows - and that's OK!) Just a little thanks from me to all the parties who've contributed.
Posted: 6/24/05 at 7:29pm
This has turned into a really thought provoking and FUN chat. Too bad it isn't taking place in a nice little bar in Manhattan. We could all go off to a show afterwards. (Of course we'd be heading for DIFFERENT shows - and that's OK!) Just a little thanks from me to all the parties who've contributed.
www.thebreastcancersite.com
A click for life.
mamie4 5/14/03
A click for life.
mamie4 5/14/03
#79
Posted: 6/26/05 at 2:24am
seeing as he's the most financially successful theatre composer of all times, and he has created the world's highest grossing production, whether stage show or movie (POTO has grossed around a third more than titanic, the highest grossing movie of all time), i'd say no, everyone does not hate him.
#80
Posted: 6/26/05 at 3:22am
"POTO has grossed around a third more than titanic, the highest grossing movie of all time"
Do you have a link for this? First time I've herd of it.
Do you have a link for this? First time I've herd of it.
#81
Posted: 6/26/05 at 3:29am
Well, the title of this thread certainly is a little hyperbolic, but I didn't really think toodramatic really thinks that everyone hates Lloyd Webber. It does seem that a lot of people really don't care for ALW, or write him off as a hack, or a plagiarist, or guilty of not writing real (whatever that means) theatre. I've been guilty of that school of thought at times myself, but age has allowed me to let go of some of my own personal theatre snobbery. At least, I hope it has.
It may just be the circles one runs in. Most everyone I know hates Cats, but somebody must have liked it, or it wouldn't have run as long as it had.
This applies to popular music as well. I'm always hearing people crab about how music sucks these days and that Britney/Christina/Kelly/Whomever you want to say here are worthless and the that the product they produce is tripe. But, again, enough people must find something in it to support the sort of success these people have. Again, that sort of snap-judgement is something I've been guilty of myself. Frankly I wish Liz Phair or Rilo Kiley would achieve the sort of popularity that Britney and the like have achieved, but they haven't. And probably never well. (Um... I think I'm starting to lose my train of thought. Have I hijacked my own reply?)
Anyway, the point (which I seem to keep tripping over) that I'm trying to make was made much better by AdamChris when he said "I dont think people (on the whole) really want to go to the theatre to be challenged." I think he's right. And why should they, if they don't want to? They've got jobs and stress and a life to deal with. And professional theatre costs you a heck of a lot of money just to get in the door. If a plummeting chandelier, or dancing cats, or helicopters, or a misunderstood green girl, etc. etc. etc. make the people happy, good for them.
We all have our biases, our likes and dislikes. Certainly most (if not all) of the people who post to this board feel very passionately about theatre. But we all involve ourselves (whether as a spectator or actively)with theatre for a myriad of different reasons and we all have different ideas of what makes a good show, or a show worthy of awards, or critical/commercial popularity.
I'm hoping I've made even the slightest bit of sense here. I tend to confuse myself when I ramble.
It may just be the circles one runs in. Most everyone I know hates Cats, but somebody must have liked it, or it wouldn't have run as long as it had.
This applies to popular music as well. I'm always hearing people crab about how music sucks these days and that Britney/Christina/Kelly/Whomever you want to say here are worthless and the that the product they produce is tripe. But, again, enough people must find something in it to support the sort of success these people have. Again, that sort of snap-judgement is something I've been guilty of myself. Frankly I wish Liz Phair or Rilo Kiley would achieve the sort of popularity that Britney and the like have achieved, but they haven't. And probably never well. (Um... I think I'm starting to lose my train of thought. Have I hijacked my own reply?)
Anyway, the point (which I seem to keep tripping over) that I'm trying to make was made much better by AdamChris when he said "I dont think people (on the whole) really want to go to the theatre to be challenged." I think he's right. And why should they, if they don't want to? They've got jobs and stress and a life to deal with. And professional theatre costs you a heck of a lot of money just to get in the door. If a plummeting chandelier, or dancing cats, or helicopters, or a misunderstood green girl, etc. etc. etc. make the people happy, good for them.
We all have our biases, our likes and dislikes. Certainly most (if not all) of the people who post to this board feel very passionately about theatre. But we all involve ourselves (whether as a spectator or actively)with theatre for a myriad of different reasons and we all have different ideas of what makes a good show, or a show worthy of awards, or critical/commercial popularity.
I'm hoping I've made even the slightest bit of sense here. I tend to confuse myself when I ramble.
"How do you like THAT 'misanthropic panache,' Mr. Goldstone?" - PalJoey
#82
Posted: 6/26/05 at 3:46am
jam_man: Because of that also, the "big" shows such as Cats and Phantom become the "must see show" for non-theatre folks.
But how do these shows become so big and must see if they "arent quality"? Obviously there must be something good about the or they wouldnt have attained all the acclaim that they have.
But how do these shows become so big and must see if they "arent quality"? Obviously there must be something good about the or they wouldnt have attained all the acclaim that they have.
Updated On: 2/15/14 at 03:46 AM
#83
Posted: 6/26/05 at 10:31am
I don't hate Andrew Lloyd Webber. I don't like some of his musicals. A few. Some I love, like Sunset Boulevard and Tell Me On A Sunday.
#84
Posted: 6/26/05 at 3:35pm
I like listening to a lot of Webber's stuff, but I'm pretty much of the opinion that he's a hamburger in a world of steak.
"The gods who nurse this universe think little of mortals' cares. They sit in crowds on exclusive clouds and laugh at our love affairs. I might have had a real romance if they'd given me a chance. I loved him, but he didn't love me. I wanted him, but he didn't want me. Then the gods had a spree and indulged in another whim. Now he loves me, but I don't love him." - Cole Porter
#85
Posted: 6/26/05 at 4:13pm
"Some British people hate RENT"
Well actually, some Americans too. It's all subjective.
Sorry, I know that's off topic, but I was gonna die if I couldn't get that in.
Well actually, some Americans too. It's all subjective.
Sorry, I know that's off topic, but I was gonna die if I couldn't get that in.
#86
Posted: 6/26/05 at 6:04pm
"Smart, intelligent shows run a season or two while these tourist attractions run 10 years or more."
Oh! Calcutta! (which proves the dumbing down started years before Grease) and A Chorus Line were the first to break the 10-year runs. Before that, even intelligent shows didn't run much longer than 3-4 years, so that argument doesn't hold up much. Grease had a fun score that became an international sensation, so there must have been something to it. It has become one of the most-performed musicals in the world. To say an 8-year run is not deserved makes no sense. The movie only carried the show for two of the eight years it ran. The show ran 6 years befor the film was released. Obviously, if it has been so universally embraced, then it did something that the so-called "intelligent shows" were not able to accomplish. How did it "dumb down" the audience any more than The Pajama Game or Anything Goes or No, No, Nanette? Even in the golden age, shows did not have the long runs they do now. Some of the long-running shows are very much deserved including Les Miserables, A Chorus Line and the revival of Chicago. But the length of the run has NEVER determined artistic value. It has always determined entertainment value. Hello Dolly is cute and fluffy, but I don't think the book and score are substantial enough to hold it open as long as it did. That would be credited to Carol Channing and the various stunt casting attempted to keep the show open after Channing left.
Oh! Calcutta! (which proves the dumbing down started years before Grease) and A Chorus Line were the first to break the 10-year runs. Before that, even intelligent shows didn't run much longer than 3-4 years, so that argument doesn't hold up much. Grease had a fun score that became an international sensation, so there must have been something to it. It has become one of the most-performed musicals in the world. To say an 8-year run is not deserved makes no sense. The movie only carried the show for two of the eight years it ran. The show ran 6 years befor the film was released. Obviously, if it has been so universally embraced, then it did something that the so-called "intelligent shows" were not able to accomplish. How did it "dumb down" the audience any more than The Pajama Game or Anything Goes or No, No, Nanette? Even in the golden age, shows did not have the long runs they do now. Some of the long-running shows are very much deserved including Les Miserables, A Chorus Line and the revival of Chicago. But the length of the run has NEVER determined artistic value. It has always determined entertainment value. Hello Dolly is cute and fluffy, but I don't think the book and score are substantial enough to hold it open as long as it did. That would be credited to Carol Channing and the various stunt casting attempted to keep the show open after Channing left.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#87
Posted: 6/26/05 at 11:19pm
The true test of the artistic worth of any "art" - theatre, music, film ...is how well it is regarded in the long run. It is probably to soon to know for sure, but in 50 years I doubt we will see many stragings of the Lloyd Webber pop operas, the juke box shows or junk shows like FOOTLOOSE, WICKED or CONTACT.
These were written for their time, and while popular they will not last as part of standard repretoire. Just as today we see very few revivals of the big 1920s hits like THE STUDENT PRINCE or BLOSSOM TIME.
For one thing, few theatre groups will be able to afford the sets for CATS or SUNSET or PHANTOM or WICKED. And without the scenery those shows lose much of their appeal.
Even amongst Tony winners, very few of the shows from the last 10 years will still be regularly staged when they celebrate their 50th anniversaries.
These were written for their time, and while popular they will not last as part of standard repretoire. Just as today we see very few revivals of the big 1920s hits like THE STUDENT PRINCE or BLOSSOM TIME.
For one thing, few theatre groups will be able to afford the sets for CATS or SUNSET or PHANTOM or WICKED. And without the scenery those shows lose much of their appeal.
Even amongst Tony winners, very few of the shows from the last 10 years will still be regularly staged when they celebrate their 50th anniversaries.
Cast albums are NOT "soundtracks."
Live theatre does not use a "soundtrack." If it did, it wouldn't be live theatre!
I host a weekly one-hour radio program featuring cast album selections as well as songs by cabaret, jazz and theatre artists. The program, FRONT ROW CENTRE is heard Sundays 9 to 10 am and also Saturdays from 8 to 9 am (eastern times) on www.proudfm.com
#88
Posted: 6/26/05 at 11:31pm
The trend towards "feast or famine" in terms of the length of runs is probably due to the increase in the proportion of audiences that's comprised of out-of-town tourists. Some shows become tourist attractions- people don't know what they're about or who wrote them, just that they're a "must see," like the Empire State Building and Statue of Liberty. Those shows feast- everyone else has to fight for what's left over.
#89
Posted: 6/26/05 at 11:32pm
this has probably been said before, but i'm too lazy to read all the posts.
sondheim is god. god. god. ...god.
ok, i really do hate andrew lloyd webber, but everyone is entitled to their own opinions. i think the webber schwartz variety is nice if you want some excapism from life with little thought required, and i think they're both good for bringing more people into the theater community. but webber's work in general is not of top quality..people just like it because it's catchy and mindless. and sometimes that's good.
the reason i love sondheim is because he captures real life in his songs. i love his dialogue-y songs because they move the way that dialogue does. everything he writes has a specific purpose..and sure he's written some bad stuff too, but everyone has. (cats?! i mean geez.. what.. just..what)
actually, i'm from hicksville, and mostly all the theater-goers here hate rent. i'm sorry. (not me though..) i think rent itself is not a great work of genius, but i think that larson has some serious potential. the way he writes and speaks not only in his shows but in real life proves that he is an artist and he's not out to has some mindless drama. the reason he wrote rent was to bring the younger generation to broadway, and he succeeded. he loved the older musicals too, and i think he was such a beautiful individual, and so much of himself is portrayed in rent that i can't help but love it.
sondheim is god. god. god. ...god.
ok, i really do hate andrew lloyd webber, but everyone is entitled to their own opinions. i think the webber schwartz variety is nice if you want some excapism from life with little thought required, and i think they're both good for bringing more people into the theater community. but webber's work in general is not of top quality..people just like it because it's catchy and mindless. and sometimes that's good.
the reason i love sondheim is because he captures real life in his songs. i love his dialogue-y songs because they move the way that dialogue does. everything he writes has a specific purpose..and sure he's written some bad stuff too, but everyone has. (cats?! i mean geez.. what.. just..what)
actually, i'm from hicksville, and mostly all the theater-goers here hate rent. i'm sorry. (not me though..) i think rent itself is not a great work of genius, but i think that larson has some serious potential. the way he writes and speaks not only in his shows but in real life proves that he is an artist and he's not out to has some mindless drama. the reason he wrote rent was to bring the younger generation to broadway, and he succeeded. he loved the older musicals too, and i think he was such a beautiful individual, and so much of himself is portrayed in rent that i can't help but love it.
"I was good at everything in high school...except gym" -William Finn
Are you in the TFT cult?
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95