In Defense of Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber
by Larry O'ConnorWhile we’re in the business of revealing secrets from the entertainment industry, let me add a whopper for you all to chew on: Most people who work on Broadway hate Andrew Lloyd Webber.
That’s right. Despite creating more employment and wealth than any single person over the past three decades, the genius behind Jesus Christ Superstar, Evita, Cats, Starlight Express and Phantom of the Opera is secretly (and sometimes not so secretly) reviled.
When I first experienced the anti-ALW bias, it was all about his music. Just like being a PC person or a Mac person, or a Beatles person or a Stones person, you were either an Andrew Lloyd Webber person or a Sondheim person. Within the snobby theatre parties his shows were labeled as too commercial or his songs too repetitive. While ALW wrote a show about Jesus and Joseph and an adaptation of T.S. Eliot poems, Sondheim wrote about Georges Seraut, Sweeney Todd and presidential assassins.
ALW was too simple and accessible, Sondheim was challenging and esoteric. While ALW was temperamental and demanding, Sondheim was friendly and engaging. And, not coincidentally, while ALW’s shows ran for years and years and made fortunes and sold-out, Sondheim’s shows rarely recouped investment.
It was the age-old commercial theatre debate: Selling tickets vs. ART (please pronounce that with a faux British accent).
This was how I viewed the debate from the outside looking in. Then, I had the opportunity to fulfill a childhood dream and actually got to work on an ALW project. Then I saw a different side of the anti-ALW bias. Most of the people who worked for this man, who gladly took his paycheck and lived off the fat of his successes, also reviled him… and it was clear one of the reasons why: He’s a conservative.
I’m not outing anyone here. He came out as a conservative during the Thatcher era. He allowed his songs to be used in Tory Party campaign advertisements. He’s been quite out-spoken against the confiscatory tax policies of the Labour Party. His most honored guest at the American Premier of Sunset Blvd. in Los Angeles was not Billy Wilder, it was former-president Ronald Reagan.
He’d pop into a meeting and lend his advice about how best to maximize the front-of-house merchandise sales or give an idea for marketing to specific tour groups and when he left his employees would roll their eyes and say things like, “What, like he doesn’t have enough money yet?” or, “Sometimes I feel like I work for the devil when I think about what he does with his money.” (Meaning, his political donations).
The ingratitude always struck me as incredibly classless and despicable.
Is ALW difficult to work with? Yes. He knows what he wants and he expects the people he employs to step up and produce. Is he temperamental? Well, if raising your voice at people when they don’t meet your expectations is temperamental, then yes, he is. But look at the man’s track record. What more does he have to do to inspire people to put their best efforts into his projects? But you will still hear the constant criticisms of the man’s shows, his temperament, his success, and his politics. It always seems to creep its way into the dialogue.
Now, don’t get me wrong… I am a HUGE fan of Sondheim’s work. But let’s be honest: He is far from a commercial success. And on Broadway, I think it’s instructive to look at a person’s contribution not only in artistic achievement, but also in some pretty important aspects like: Number of tickets sold, number of actors and crew employed, number of children exposed to live theatre for the first time… You know, the tangible, objective criteria we in the business of SELLING theatre as a product look to. By those measures, ALW is the greatest success our business has ever seen.
But Mr. Sondheim travels in the right artistic and political circles. He famously turned down the 1992 National Medal of Arts from the NEA, saying the agency, “is being rapidly transformed into a conduit and a symbol of censorship and repression.” Sondheim also enjoyed a string of positive reviews from the New York Times that often left theatre insiders scratching their heads. His string of love letters from the Times was penned by none other than Frank Rich.
Meanwhile, Rich saved most of his vitriol and venom for Sir Andrew. He famously slammed Cats, Starlight Express and Phantom in succession, and then slammed them all over again when reviewing Aspects of Love, along with a jab at ALW’s politics:
Andrew Lloyd Webber, the composer who is second to none when writing musicals about cats, roller-skating trains and falling chandeliers, has made an earnest but bizarre career decision in “Aspects of Love”….He has written a musical about people.
Whether “Aspects of Love” is a musical for people is another matter. Mr. Lloyd Webber continues to compose in the official style that has made him an international favorite, sacrificing any personality of his own to the merchandisable common denominator of easy-listening pop music. [The musical]…generates about as much heated passion as a visit to the bank. Even when women strip to lacy undergarments, the lingerie doesn’t suggest the erotic fantasies of Frederick’s of Hollywood so much as the no-nonsense austerity of Margaret Thatcher’s Britain.
No need to read between the lines here…
Yet he continues to write and produce and employ and yes, spread the wealth! Because when a show is a hit in New York, the money {gasp} trickles down! Ask the restaurant employees and hotel employees and cabbies and bartenders all around the theatre district. They will give you a perfect lesson in market economics that can be boiled down to one statement: Andrew Lloyd Webber keeps them humming and that keeps me working!
So, from THIS musical theatre fan, and a man who has been lucky enough to live off the success of your efforts, I’d like to say “Thank You, Sir Andrew. Broadway wouldn’t be the same without you.”
Stage Right is on Facebook.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
44 Comments
Andrew Lloyd Webber (and his lyricists) have never written a song even remotely as conservative as Officer Krupke is.
Stage Right typed:
“Now, don’t get me wrong… I am a HUGE fan of Sondheim’s work. But let’s be honest: He is far from a commercial success. And on Broadway, I think it’s instructive to look at a person’s contribution not only in artistic achievement, but also in some pretty important aspects like: Number of tickets sold, number of actors and crew employed, number of children exposed to live theatre for the first time… You know, the tangible, objective criteria we in the business of SELLING theatre as a product look to. By those measures, ALW is the greatest success our business has ever seen.”
And more people drink Budweiser than any other beer. McDonalds is the most popular ‘restaurant’ in America and tens of millions of people follow NASCAR and listen to KennyG. ALW is perfectly in keeping with American mass market tastes. That’s why he’s a billionaire. But it doesn’t mean his music is particularly good.
I have a suggestion.
Instead of whining about Frank Rich giving ALW some harsh (and to my way of thinking completely deserved) reviews why not write a critical piece explaining just how wonderful ALW’s music really is after all?
Boy, are you a dope.
If ALW was a screaming lib and Stevo wrote the new theme song for Rush Limbaugh I STILL would come down on the Sondheim side of things. When it comes to art, at least for me, politics take a seat in the balcony.
Case in point. Until I read this, I assumed that Sondheim was a lib, but I had no idea whatsoever about ALW’s politics. I kinda figured that he was a lib as well. I never actually cared. I don’t listen to show tunes because of the politics of the composers. Lotsa libs write crap!
I give most of the credit for ALW’s success to Time Rice anyway. Strip the lyrics from Joseph, JCS and Evita and all you are really left with is watered down pop Puccini. It is the bite, the wit, the passion and the satire of Rice’s words, not the pedestrian show tune wrapper, that made those shows connect.
Were it not for the success of Evita, due in large part to not only to Rice, but to Mandy Patankin, Patti Lupone and Bob Gunton as well, do you think that anyone would have given him a dollar towards wrapping three themes around a dead poet’s canon and calling it a show? Doubtful.
Is he popular? Of course! ALW is a man of his day. The argument is not a Beatles vs. Stones as you would have it. It’s more like Beatles vs. Herman’s Hermits.
Cats and Phantom are populist pablum. They are bland entertainments for folks who don’t want anything from a show other than some eye candy and toe tappers. Sunset Blvd. was a boring disaster propped up by Glenn Close. Aspect of Love was an attempt to out Sondheim Sondheim, both paling buy comparison and failing at the box office. And lets not forget Whistle Down the Wind, Bombay Dreams and The Woman in White. I guess they all failed because the libs finally figured him out!
Face it. He had 2 loud mega-hits, 3 respectable collaborations and a bunch of duds.
Sondheim, however, is a true genius. If ALW is of his day (which is now behind him) Sondheim was ahead of his time. He failed on the GR way not because of a lack of depth, but for too much depth. Only now is his work really appreciated. His shows are being mounted and remounted everywhere! Festivals, regional productions and Bway remounts are showing not only an acceptance of his work, but seem to be doing great box office as well.
Finally, Frank Rich is a brilliant theatrical critic. I seriously doubt that ALW’s conservative stance is why ole Frank refused to cut him some slack. His shows stink is the more likely reason
Ummmm…didn’t Tim Rice co/write JCSS?
Yes… and he’s a conservative too.
-SR
Interesting and diverse responses so far. I feel compelled to jump in and clarify before it gets too carried away…
Please understand, my post is in no way a comment on the artistic or musical merits or even entertainment value of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s works. The theme of this post is about the hostility from inside the theatre community towards a man that the industry owes so much to. And much of that hostility stems from his politics… I know, I saw it.
I never suggested that the theatre-going public knew of or even cared about Sir Andrew’s politics, but in the case of Frank Rich purposely drawing out a Thatcher reference in his review, and the fact that he stood alone in his very harsh criticism of Phantom of the Opera easily drew me to take a leap about Rich’s bias. It’s just a hunch, but Rich’s track record and objectivity over the past 25 years speaks for itself, I think.
My role here is not to dissect the art of these shows, necessarily. Believe me, I would punch anyone’s nose who said that “Sunday in the Park With George” was anything less than a masterpiece… it changed my life!
It’s always amusing to me that people so self-righteaous about how they care about “the little people” find art loved by those same people per se contemptable.
Orrin Johnson said: It’s always amusing to me that people so self-righteaous about how they care about “the little people” find art loved by those same people per se contemptable.
OOOOOOO – Orrin SLAMMED you Funny Guy (and you’re absolutely right, Orrin – funny how those with the Noblesse Oblige gracing the little people with their beneficience suddenly screech in high decibels when those same little people collectively like something…or worse yet, when something artistic becomes accessible to people at large. Its all about being ‘PO-pu-laaar!’)
Populist, eh? That word alone gives you away Funny Guy as someone who likes to hoard things, not someone who likes to share.
Let’s all be honest-Starlight Express DID suck. I think Funny Guy pretty much nails it, and I say this as someone who likes to crank up my “Joseph” concept album in the car, yes, that tinny one credited to “The Joseph Consortium.” In the 80’s I proudly wore my Cats t-shirt to tatters, and I have a healthy ALW playlist in my iTunes, separate from my bloated showtunes playlist with which I torment my co-workers. It’s comfort music, it goes down as easily and joyously as an ice cream sundae. Sondheim is a much more complex composer/lyricist. He’s sushi, if you will–those who love it can’t get enough, but waaaay more people prefer hot dogs, and always will. (I am SO happy Sweeney Todd was a success on film!) Excellent post, and just a reminder why so many critics are snobby douches who Just Don’t Get what audiences like. (critics also sneered at Wicked, another juggernaut that will run for decades) But as I recall, back in the day Jesus Christ Superstar was seen as quite blasphemous, what with the evil rock n’ roll music, and the lack of the Resurrection at the end.
Lola (that’s you, Stephanie, isn’t it?), I agree totally about the opening of the film Phantom, but I feel the rest of the movie really didn’t hold up, and I mainly think it’s because the singers weren’t strong enough, and like Rent, the plot really seemed much, much thinner on screen than stage. One of those movies I wanted to love but couldn’t. (Also–the movie was set in France, yet only Miranda Richardson was doing a french accent. Why?? But who knew Gerard Butler would be such a revelation in 300??) SNL did a brilliant skit on “saving Broadway” last week. NBC.com has the clip up–it’s quite funny and accurate.
That ALW is the greatest success that Broadway/West End has ever known is a perfectly legitimate observation, and your right to call snickering employees ungrateful and to give Lloyd Weber his due for his keeping people employed, his principles and activism, and his contribution to keeping the theatre a healthy artform in society at large.
But I must say that I’m very familiar with the Sondheim/ALW divide, I see it in much the same terms and I’m a Sondheim person for strictly artistic reasons. There’s just more meat to Sondheim while Llyod Weber can be a little, well, bubblegum, though not all the time. That said, I think Sondheim is the one who’s temperamental and demanding while ALW is friendly and engaging. Maybe that was an editing error.
I appreciate ALW’s contribution to the business of theatre, his contribution to theatre’s standing with the public, his ability to grow the audience, his contributions to politics, and even his art. I just think Sondheim’s art is better. That’s just my opinion.
Wicked, while I like the show it lost a crap load of it’s lustre for me because of the shot it takes at Reagan and the crap line about “regime change”.
Forgive my ignorance, but weren’t Mozart and Shakesphere’s works the populist stuff of their day?
I’m not saying ALW is on their level but he’s in good company if the yardstick is someone’s work being populist.
Wow, I totally didn’t know that about ALW. Not saying that I’m a huge fan or anything (my experience with him is Phantom and a few minutes of Cats that scarred me for life), but the music of Phantom is amazing. I seriously need to go listen to some of the other soundtracks…
Thanks for the commentary SR, but you might want to be a little more careful with mentioning who worked with.
FG,
On the “Beatles vs. Rolling Stones” thing. I’d say more like Beatles vs. Buffalo Springfield.
ALW is VERY comparable to the Beatles. Sondheim is more like B.S.
To whom do the Beatles owe their early success and riches? Screaming teenage girls. Think Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers.
ALW has Paul and Ringo out-sophisticated by miles. “Hard Days Night”? “Please, Please Me”? as ART? Are you kidding?
and BTW, what does the “ART” community have against broad appreciation and success? Is it just a non-conformist snobbery thing?
For example, why is the only Oscar buzz about “The Dark Knight” centered around Ledger’s death? That movie had depth of characters, a unique and not completely predictable plot, and did the best job of transporting the audience to an alternate reality.
Say what you will about ALW’s artistic credibility. His songs are catchy, and that’s how you’re remembered, whether you’re Beethoven, Wagner, or Paul McCartney. Can’t say the same thing about Sondheim. Directly after sitting through Tim Burton’s version of “Sweeney Todd,” the only snipit of melody I could remember was that which accompanied, “I will have vengance!” On the other hand, I could sing any number of a dozen ALW tunes off the top of my head, though I’ve never seen one of his plays.
Also, I wasn’t aware that musicals were supposed to be fine art. “The Magic Flute” is good and all, but can it compare to “Don Giovanni”? Musicals are sitcoms to the feature film of opera. Arguing over Sondheim and ALW, in my opinion, is like arguing over the relative significance of Seinfeld and Friends.
I had no idea that Weber was so disliked amongst his own. Interesting. It is rather ungrateful of those working for him to disparage him so openly. Why don’t they go work somewhere else if he’s so awful? Oh, right…they are willing to take the paychecks.
err….TUBLECANE, Magic Flute and Don Giovanni are both operas. I know we’re discussing Sondheim as more a composer than just his work as a lyricist, but I have to add that West Side Story and Gypsy have certainly been bona fide successes over the years, and “Send in the Clowns” has surely been butchered at as many occasions as “Memory.” But I think some musicals are definitely fine art, certainly the classics are–and I wonder, Stage Right, if Rogers and Hammerstein might not take the crown for biggest theater successes ever, given their phenomenal success not only on stage but on screen, where I daresay most of us got our first look at them? (Sound of Music, King and I, Oklahoma, Carousel, etc. etc.)
I had the unpleasant opportunity to work with ALW earlier this year and can attest that yes, everybody does seem to hate him. I’m not in the theater industry, this was a side project, but there is no question, he’s a jerk and is known for it.
But I will warn you, nothing will get his ire more than calling him SIR Andrew Lloyd Weber. It is the LORD Lloyd Weber. That is the fastest way to make him angry.
Spiro, okay, maybe “Hard Day’s Night” might not be art, but it is fun and catchy. “Elenor Rigby”, “Yesterday” and many others are art. Like ALW, the Beatles wrote songs that millions have enjoyed for decades. Not a small accomplishment.
I’m not much of a ALW fan (had no idea of his politics previously), his only show that I’ve really enjoyed was “By Jeeves”, which I like very much.
*Shrugs*
I don’t like to try and pretend I know what’s going on inside other folk’s heads. Probably there are plenty of theater folks like Funny Guy who are on the up and up and completly dislike ALW. On the other hand I’ve met too many folks who SAY (not what I think, they’ll tell ya point blank) that they don’t like [insert name here] because of [insert idea, belief here]. So I think Stage Right’s comments are perfectly valid, are they theater wide? Probably not as wide spread as he alludes to, but I doubt it’s totally unwarrented as Funny Guy thinks.
Funny Guy – I appreciate your time in commenting and I want to address a couple of things in your latest response…
The first part of your comment is re-iterating in greater detail my description of the two sides at work and I appreciate you validating my narrative.
Then comes: “What offends me is the implication that this is somehow a political argument. You imply that the distaste for ALW is based on his conservative stance. You further imply that theatrical professionals are somehow influenced by a NYT/liberal Frank Rich poisoning of the well. ”
Let’s take the first part first: I did not imply this was a political argument. I said “it was clear one of the reasons why: He’s a conservative.” It’s a generalization and then I gave a few anecdotal experiences to support my generalization. I surely don’t think it is the ONLY reason that the debate rages.
Second part: I NEVER implied that the NYT or any other critic influenced the inside industry folks’ opinions… read my post.. that’s all you. i merely brought up the Frank Rich criticism as indicative of the elitist liberal (he is a pretty good example of an elitist liberal) and I drew out a specific nasty-worded review with a completely gratuitous political reference.
I’ll close with an appeal to your heart of hearts. As a member of the industry… and I’ll make a guess that you might be close to my age.. you might remember 1984 Tony’s. the big contest was between La Cage and Sunday. Jerry Herman vs. Sondheim. Many of the same debates about ALW vs. Sondheim were heard then as well. Remember Jerry accepting his Tony and decrying the “rumor that the simple hummable show tune is dead, well, it;s alive and well at the Palace!” Remember? It was a slam at Sondheim, and the battle lines were drawn. Everyone took sides… big difference: People didn’t HATE Jerry Herman. Why? Ask yourself why ALW attracts so much venom? All three of these guys (ALW, Sondheim and Herman) had reputations as being difficult to work with. But the hate is saved for ALW.
Maybe my experience is a bit different because I worked with many people from his London office too, and maybe his politics are more renowned over there. But, I know what I heard and I know what I saw and as I said… one of the reasons for the hate is his politics.
I have often wondered – who has been the more influential in plays – Andrew Lloyd Webber or Rogers & Hammerstein? Probably like comparing Babe Ruth to Hank Aaron – 2 different eras.
Amazing that people who work for him and cash his paychecks should revile him simply for his politics. Think of the all the conservatives who work for liberals in the industry and say nothing derogatory about their boss (as it should be)
Until you mentioned that he was conservative I didn’t know -
Wow!
Now I see where the hostility toward ALW comes from.
I have taught music and musical theater for 25 years.
Saw my first ALW show at the Brooklyn Academy of Music in 1977 when “Joseph” was staged there and not too many on Broadway knew of him.
Thank you for this great piece. I shall add it to my musical theater lessons when I do my unit on ALW and “Cats”.
Just as a member of the general public, I’d like to say that Sondheim’s efforts are very entertaining, but easily forgotten though enjoyed time after time. They are great fun. Nothing gets thorough to the soul. Weber gets into one’s mind and soul, and so much it’s scary. As a conservative I am concerned that I could feel so much sympathy for a killer as found in Phantom, but every time I hear Weber’s music it reaches something in me that goes way beyond the music and lyrics itself. Weber’s music is worthy of academic analysis. Sondheim’s works are enjoyable and will be for many years in the future.
There is one egregious error in this article which must be corrected.
“MAC,” since it is in capitals, is an acronym. It stands for Media Access Control. It refers to a hardware address that every piece of equipment which is connected to any network must have. “Mac” is the appropriate abbreviation for Macintosh.
That being said, it took me a while to warm to ALW’s particular style of music. Having a wife who’s a huge fan of his certainly helped. The fact this his music is just so dang catchy helps too. In the end, I think his genius lies in the elegant simplicity of his music. I’ll find random pieces from “Superstar” popping into my head at the oddest of times.
At the end of the day, I go to the theater for entertainment. Anyone who can provide that for me is okay in my book.
Noted and fixed. Thanks so much!
– SR
Opus-
What potshot at Reagan did Wicked take? Not that I’m doubting you, I just didn’t catch it when I saw the show.
Never knew about ALW’s politics, but like others, it wouldn’t have mattered. One either likes certain music or one does not, but apparently that isn’t the case with Lefties.
It is strange that an artist’s political ideology is a governing factor in determining their merit from Lefties, and stranger still that only the Left seems afflicted with this bias. There seems to be a tie-in here with religious zealotry: if you’re not a Lefty, you’re the equivalent of an infidel. The Left has become religiously secular, ultimately doing precisely what it condemns, sort of like a Sondheim self portrait.
I always LOVED the music he wrote, and now I know why. Beauty of soul has a peaceful melody that comes through without even trying. Bitter lefties write mostly irritating tunes because that’s what is in their soul.
[...] Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » In Defense of Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber [...]
James S., Amazon has a dvd of “Into the Woods” that was taped live years ago and features most of the original cast. I never saw it as 80’s-bound–it takes on the old stories and you realize how bizarre they are even though we ate them up as kids (Jack really was an out-an-out thief when you really think about it.) And it was recently revived successfully, so it ages pretty well. A lot of amazingly creative people have been known to be difficult to work for, from Jerome Robbins to Danny Kaye. Hell, is there one person here who hasn’t deeply hated their boss but keeps their job? And I agree that most of the ALW hate is probably due to his being so successful, but I’d argue that his glory days are far behind him. Bottom line is, there’s room for both guys, and anyone interested in theater should experience both.
I saw an entirely well done production of Into the Woods recently… I found the metaphor ham fisted, couldn’t recall one tune, and the jokes were all obvious and corny. Sweeny Todd, a slight step up, basically advocates nihilism.
Webber might be simple, and at times story-less (Cats), but at least he doesn’t write pretentious, emperor has no clothes drivel.
“I saw an entirely well done production of Into the Woods recently… I found the metaphor ham fisted, couldn’t recall one tune, and the jokes were all obvious and corny. Sweeny Todd, a slight step up, basically advocates nihilism.
Webber might be simple, and at times story-less (Cats), but at least he doesn’t write pretentious, emperor has no clothes drivel.”
Oh dear. Is Mr. Sondheim’s work too deep for you? Are emotional complexity and realistically damaged and interesting work something to avoid in a show? If you are willing to dumb your work down in order to make a few bucks, you are not an artist. You’re a gold-digger. If the best music you can write wasn’t even written by you (See Phantom. Seriously, buy some of Puccini’s music and compare the two. Nessun Dorma and O Mio Babbino Caro tie in humorously closely Angel of Music and Think of Me. The Phantom theme is just a chromatic scale, so Phantom was really a joint collaboration between Public Domain and Puccini [posthumously]), you shouldn’t be published. Call me elitist or overly intellectual or snobbish, I take that as a complement. It means I have standards. I like music to challenge me. If I’m going to spend fifty dollars or more to see a show, I better be impressed with more than the effects. I want music that works on multiple levels, I want characters that think on multiple levels, and I certainly want a message that speaks on multiple levels. If a show doesn’t have that, it shouldn’t be published. But that isn’t enough. The music should be as effective as the actors in terms of setting the mood. You should be able to tell from the harmony and chord structure, independently of the harmony or lyrics, what is going on, or at least the mood. If you think a musical is a play with songs, go watch High School Musical and shoot yourself. Don’t waste the rest of the world’s time with your lack of intellectual depth.
Hmmmm. It apppears in my enthusiasm I omitted a few words in at least one sentence The sentence that reads “Are emotional complexity and realistically damaged and interesting work…” should be corrected so that the word “work” is replaced with “characters”. I’m not sure why I put “work” there. I used it in the next sentence. I get excited sometimes. That also explains why I neglected to use commas where appropriate. I apologize for my carelessness.
“Call me elitist or overly intellectual or snobbish, I take that as a complement. It means I have standards.”
“Don’t waste the rest of the world’s time with your lack of intellectual depth.”
“Sondheim is believed to be the true genius of the two, whereas ALW is considered a populist hack. Sondheim speaks to the artist. Weber plays to the cheap seats.”
These comments are very typical of the left. It’s not that two people can have a legitimate – even fundamental – disagreement about something. One MUST be evil, wrong, and/or stupid. That’s what makes the left so dangerous.
At least in politics I can start to fathom it – I think the slavery of socialism is evil, wrong, and stupid. But I at least understand that most of its adherents in good faith honestly think it’s a better system.
When it comes to art, different people have different tastes. More people appreciate ALW than Sondheim. That doesn’t make them “unwashed”, “cheap”, stupid, hacks, etc., it just makes them different from you. Diverse, even. And isn’t that what you supposedly champion? If your minds were any narrower, you’d suffocate.
It is because of growing up with POTO,that I came to love music and Michael Crawford.
But…you didn't mention ALW's Requiem Mass,which I absolutely love. His exwife singing Pie Jesu is still beautiful,and his arrangement for the "Hosanna" is so uplifting.
Interesting about his politics though.
Conservative-TheaterGeek–Thanks for the link, but I may have to summon the flying monkeys on you–Wicked was fantastic!
And Funny Guy, another good post–if there’s any ‘feud’ between the partisans of the two men, it’s artistic, not political. I’m sure there are painters who gnash their teeth over the success of Thomas Kinkade, and modern dancers who hate that Michael Flately is so popular. ALW even got slammed by name in Spamalot, but the “The Song that Goes Like This” was pretty damn funny and spot on.
Great post, LIZL. Question, and don’t mean to get all chat-roomy: what’s everyone’s first Broadway experience? I’ll date myself with mine: my mom got us standby seats to “Gypsy”–the Angela Lansbury revival in the 70’s, and I clearly remember running up the aisle to our seats as the overture played. My first “solo” B’way with girlfriends in the 80s? ALW’s “Joseph” with the late Laurie Beechman as the narrator. How sophisticated we were!
So long life and good health to both Steven and Andrew!
I much prefer ALW. I like music that I can hum, whistle or sing to. His music sticks with you. And those that provide the lyrics to his music, say more within one song, than others could put in a whole book.
I never liked Sondheim’s music, sorry Ms.”Funny Girl”, Barbra!
[...] previous posts on Rent and Andrew Lloyd Webber have elicited debates about the artistic worth of the plays in question and although I never [...]
This article had me actually look up “Into the Woods” on Wikipedia. The plot synopsis made me realize something: “Into the Woods” reflects the time and politics it was written in, 1987, the end of the cold war. Unfortunately, by doing this, it dates its self.
But only if you see it in that prism. It’s also been compared to the AIDS epidemic, but again, that prism is one applied by critics. Sondheim himself said that the overall message was working together to overcome a common menace. Though, the second acts of Sondheim-Lapine shows are generally weaker than the first act.
Do also take into account that it’s the LIBRETTIST that sets the tone for the musical, for without it, the music means nothing.
Now, for my take. I like both of them for different reasons. I do think that ALW in later years (post Rice) has relied a little too much on specacle than advancing a plot, and Sondheim, when he gets TOO clever, is when he is his weakest (he’s admitted this himself.) The person who wrote that Sondheim writes “atonal” music obviously does not understand what “atonality” is…but then, some of the best composers (Debussy, Prokoffiev, Stravinsky) have been accused of the same thing. The main complaint about Sondheim is usually that he writes no “hummable” tunes. This is due to his infrequent use of reprises (No slur to ALW, but of course you can hum “Music of the Night” or “Think of Me”…the melodies of both are repeated at least 20 times in the piece.)
I think a great deal of the jealousy against ALW is not so much politics, but because he rose to prominance during the time when Broadway was saturated with “spectacle” British shows that ran forever. This, unfortunately, has affected how new shows come to Broadway…gone are the days of Angels and individual investors, but now muli-million dollar companies have to finance the new shows, hence the shows are “safe” (i.e. guaranteed to run a long time to pay back on the investment), the cycle perpetuates.
Broadway is no longer an reasonably priced entertainment…it costs big money to go see a show, and I think there is where the real resentment is.
I think Broadway could learn a thing or two about drawing audiences from modern spectacle shows like Cirque’s KA, which I got to see in Vegas over the Christmas break and which was absolutely breathtaking. The rotating stage and digital effects were mindblowing and has helped it do well financially. I can’t help but wonder if Disney’s Little Mermaid and Tarzan musicals would have done better if they had included more elements like that.
I think the problem is Broadway HAS learned a thing or two about it, see my previous post. Because they are relying more on the spectacle or “brand name” recognision (Disney), or regurgitating old pop tunes and repackaging them as a “musical”, they have caused the theatre audiences to become accustomed to expecting this ALL the time. And since these technical shows are very expensive, have priced themselves into a corner.
New composers and writers in the heyday used to have a much better chance of seeing their show make it on the great White Way. It didn’t have to take YEARS for a show to make back it’s investment. And, sadly, even off-broadway is now starting to become overpriced. This is not good for anyone, not even ALW or Sondheim.
I did enjoy Avenue Q until the “George Bush, is for now” line at the end. Hehe. Don’t even care for Bush the last couple years, but it sure seemed infantile.
The whole show was infantile. They had a good concept (Seasame Street parody). But, once again, the same tired tropes(Gay Republican in this instance) sort of ruin it. As far as the “George Bush” line goes (Only for Now), well, that was put in obviously to get the “Daily Show applause” response, but now has made it entirely dated and stale. My guess is that line will eventually be rewritten in order to get a chance to play better regionally.
You don’t see “Angels in America” being revived much, do you?
Ryan:
But I must say that I’m very familiar with the Sondheim/ALW divide, I see it in much the same terms and I’m a Sondheim person for strictly artistic reasons. There’s just more meat to Sondheim while Llyod Weber can be a little, well, bubblegum, though not all the time.
“There’s not a tune you can hum,
There’s not a tune to go bum-bum-bum-da-bum.
You need a tune to go bum-bum-bum-da-bum,
Give me a melody!
Why can’t you throw them a crumb?
What’s wrong with letting them tap their toes a bit?
I’ll let you know when Stravinsky has a hit.
Give me some melody!”
I have often wondered – who has been the more influential in plays – Andrew Lloyd Webber or Rogers & Hammerstein? Probably like comparing Babe Ruth to Hank Aaron – 2 different eras.
R&H hands down, for it was through “Oklahoma” that transformed the musical from a series of disparate songs strung together with a paper-thin plot, to a full integration of story, music, and dance.
ALW and Sondheim both owe what they are to them (Literally so with Sondheim, for it was Oscar Hammerstein who was his first instructor on the art of writing for the theatre).
James, really great points in your comments and I really appreciate quoting Joe Josephson! I understand they HAVE re-written the George Bush line in Ave. Q, but they are still going for the Jon Stewart applause… I heard it’s going to be “Prop 8 is for now.” I agree that R & H has been the most influential on the art form… but, as I said in my post: “I think it’s instructive to look at a person’s contribution not only in artistic achievement, but also in some pretty important aspects like: Number of tickets sold, number of actors and crew employed, number of children exposed to live theatre for the first time… You know, the tangible, objective criteria we in the business of SELLING theatre as a product look to. By those measures, ALW is the greatest success our business has ever seen.” If you look beyond the art form you might concede ALW has influenced more aspects of the business than even R & H.
[...] already risked losing any credibility I might have in the theatre community by defending Andrew Lloyd Webber and his conservative politics, but I have to go back to that well once again because Webber has written an op-ed piece for [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.