Andrew Lloyd Webber is a craptastic HACK

[Tracy Lord]

Not only has the man written about three tunes, tops, choosing instead to lift from other composers and himself -- over and over and over and over (I liked Phantom of the Opera better when Puccini wrote it. The first time), but in doing so he employs the stupid tricks that you learn on Day One of Composing For Dummies 101. Oh, a minor chord progression! Look, it's going back down the scale! Look, it's going...back up the scale! And...back down! How clever!

Then there are his duets, which I believe he may be psychologically incapable of writing without parallel thirds. Then there are his arrangements, which I believe he may be psychologically incapable of writing without parallel thirds. His only way of indicating emotional intensity is to have his singer pop up an octave. His key changes do nothing but wave flags and say "Hey! I'm a key change, and that means PAY ATTENTION, HE'S KICKING IT UP A NOTCH!"

And of course his crap lyricists (pointedly excepting the poetry of TS Eliot, of course) and their brave rhyming: "succumb to me" with "succumb to me". Where'd the bolt of inspiration have to strike you to produce that little gem?

No matter how you slice it, Andrew Lloyd Webber is a bigger hack than Paul Bunyan, and he STILL manages to make appr. one katrillion dollars for each overblown, overraten show he pumps out. Makes me wanna crash a chandelier ON HIS HEAD.

[roger thornhill]

Probably all true, but 'Music of the Night' is still my favourite karaoke number.

[Aeschines]

He's the Thomas Kinkade of composition: Not completely without talent but grotesquely kitschy and unsophisticated.

You didn't mention "Jesus Christ Superstar." I despise it equally, but it is not like the rest of his stuff.

You gotta give him cred for a piece here and there. "Memories" is an all-time lowbrow masterpiece. Its tune combines an ingenious organicness (you can barely imagine it not existing) with unalienable corn.

Some of his stuff works as simple pop. "Think of Me" from "Phantom" is just a decent pop song, and probably for that reason the least-remembered song therein.

[woodstockbirdybird]

"Andrew Lloyd Webber is a craptastic hack"? Why not just call the thread "People enjoy sex!"? It doesn't seem to be much in debate, is what I'm saying.

[Dunderman]

Hum. I kind of like him.

[bienville]

I liked Joseph, Superstar, and Evita. Not to say that they were musical masterpieces but there really wasn't any pretense. Just a fun evening of catchy tunes and a really easy to follow story. An enjoyable evening of simple musical theater. Joseph is particularly fun, probably my favorite.

Everything else has been crap.

[Elza B]

I don't mind Aspects of Love - and Love Changes Everything, but that's about it.

My poor husband has been treated to a huge rant from me every single time I see a commercial for Phantom. Lloyd Webber has sailed on simplistic melodies and basic harmonies for years. He appeals to a mass audience because, well, his music *is* simple and doesn't require thought. Never mind that he seems to take one theme and beat the hell out of it through the entire show. I feel like he listens to one of his pieces, says "These four bars sound a bit bare - I know! I'll throw the subject in underneath the melody! That's clever!", and he does it OVER AND OVER again.

Yet, shows like Wonderful Town and most Sondheim shows are completely overlooked and undervalued by anyone except the theatre community. Instead, we're treated to Lloyd Webber hacking his music to death. He's the Britney Spears of Broadway.

(Strong opinions about Broadway? Really? I didn't know that!)

E.

[Elysian]

Oh, this rant doesn't belong here, but you're talking about the upcoming Phantom, so I hope you don't mind me highjacking a little...

The other day I was at my favorite quilting/needlepoint store, and as usual there were an awful lot of grey-haired old biddies and me, and the grey-haired old biddies decided to stand in front of me whenever I tried to look at a fabric pattern, which is not part of this rant either. I digress.

One of them, in her best outdoor voice, yelled scratchily: "I am so glad that Phantom movie is coming out!"

Half the store turned to look at her. I am thinking some of the customers did not because they were probably deaf (maybe from having their friends yelling at them all the time?). I turned to look too, because I was surprised that someone was actually excited to see the movie. I do not expect it to be anything but a TRAVESTY of the HIGHEST ORDER. But that also is a separate rant.

Another old biddy, probably half deaf, yelled back, "Why, Ethel?"

"Because I like the play so much but there's no story! Just a lot of singing! I can't wait to hear about the story!"



Why didn't Ethel just read the book? Just a lot of singing, pah!

[Mangetout]

I hated Phantom - we were given free tickets and I probably should have just gone home - I can't stand the stilted sung-dialog thing.

However, I liked Cats, mostly for the spectacle of the thing (although I don't like the theme song, Memories); I also like Joseph, but at least 50% of that is based on fond recollection of performing in it a couple of years ago.

Superstar isn't [b]bad[/i]; the 2000 movie version has a certain gritty appeal.

But yes; Webber is a cynical hack; he knows the formula and isn't afraid to exploit it.

[Little Bird]

As I opened this thread my boss had an all elevator music CD of Phantom and other Lloyd Webber muzak playing. She had it playing yesterday too. I don't mind the music if I only hear it now and again. This constant barrage is driving me slowly insane.

In other words: I hear ya, man.

[the Lady]

I totally see where you're coming from, Tracy but I must confess - I do still like him. I just like musicals, period. Haven't found one I dislike yet. (yeah - no taste, I know)

[Annie-Xmas]

Have you heard everything Andrew Lloyd Webber has ever written? The idea that the man who wrote The Likes of Us, Joseph, Jesus Christ Superstar, Gumshoe, Jeeves, The Odessa File, Evita, CATS, Variations, Tell Me on a Sunday, Song & Dance, Starlight Express, The Phantom of the Opera, Cricket, Requiem, Aspects of Love, By Jeeves, Sunset Boulevard, The Beautiful Game and Woman in White only writes three songs is ridiculous.

[Mangetout]

Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas

Have you heard everything Andrew Lloyd Webber has ever written? The idea that the man who wrote The Likes of Us, Joseph, Jesus Christ Superstar, Gumshoe, Jeeves, The Odessa File, Evita, CATS, Variations, Tell Me on a Sunday, Song & Dance, Starlight Express, The Phantom of the Opera, Cricket, Requiem, Aspects of Love, By Jeeves, Sunset Boulevard, The Beautiful Game and Woman in White only writes three songs is ridiculous.

You missed Whistle Down The Wind.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas

The idea that the man who wrote The Likes of Us, Joseph, Jesus Christ Superstar, Gumshoe, Jeeves, The Odessa File, Evita, CATS, Variations, Tell Me on a Sunday, Song & Dance, Starlight Express, The Phantom of the Opera, Cricket, Requiem, Aspects of Love, By Jeeves, Sunset Boulevard, The Beautiful Game and Woman in White only writes three songs is ridiculous.

I think you're missing the point of the OP in a big way.

In any event, I think we can all agree that he's a fucking hack.

Haj

[Zebra]

Musical geeks complaining about ALW is to movie geeks complaining about Titanic.

[Eonwe]

Originally Posted by Tracy Lord

No matter how you slice it, Andrew Lloyd Webber is a bigger hack than Paul Bunyan...

Haha! I'm using that one in the future.

Anyway, first off, I'll admit to only really being familiar with Webber's 'popular' successes (Joseph, Superstar, Cats, Phantom, Evita).

Webber can write. Based on all the music out there that gets produced, both in the theatre world and non-theatre world, I'd say that his use of well-worn chord progressions is both excusable and forgivable. Heck, most people writing popular music today are not innovating. It doesn't make them bad.

That said, if we're going to try to draw the line between the subjective 'good' (ie, popular), and objective 'good', which is always a tough line to draw, he definitely resides more in the former than the latter.

Joseph, while cute, and fun for the whole family, is a musical joke. I've put it on a few times (once concurrently with Mangetout, IIRC, and the parts, both vocally and instrumentally, are at their best cliche, and at their worst incessant and dull. I kind of like it. I like rockin' at the keyboard to "Jacob and Sons", and the brief, bombastic, uber-dramatic pre-finalle ("So Jacob came to Egypt *dun* *dun* *dun* no longer feeling old *dun* *dun* *dun* *dun* ,*dun*! And Joseph came to meet him in his charriot of gold! ... can you tell I've done this show too many times?), but, most of the fun I have is playing my own arrangements of the parts for the different songs (Oh, cool, I get to improvize a western tune!), because his arrangements are, as I said, cliche at best, and generally fall flat.

But, hey we can forgive him for that, 'cause he was what, in high school or something when he penned a lot of it? It ain't bad for a first effort, but certainly not objectively 'good'.

Superstar's a bit more skillfully written,with some interesting songs, and of all of the Webber I know is, IMO, his 'best' show.

Anyway, without rambling on too much about each show, I think that without a doubt Webber can pen some catchy tunes, though generally nothing too memorable, Memory (heh) being one of the few exceptions. From a musical standpoint, his songs lack the creativity to earn him 'intellectual' respect, or even much joy from pit musicians, but are close enough for rock-and-roll, so to speak.

[Tracy Lord]

Originally Posted by woodstockbirdybird

"Andrew Lloyd Webber is a craptastic hack"? Why not just call the thread "People enjoy sex!"? It doesn't seem to be much in debate, is what I'm saying.

One would think, and yet some people love him. I know people who have gone to see Phantom upwards of twenty times. It's insane. He inspires a sort of fanatical musical devotion to his shows, which I could understand if they were any GOOD, but he is such a stunning, amazingly shitty writer that I boggle.

Originally Posted by Elza B

He appeals to a mass audience because, well, his music *is* simple and doesn't require thought. Never mind that he seems to take one theme and beat the hell out of it through the entire show. I feel like he listens to one of his pieces, says "These four bars sound a bit bare - I know! I'll throw the subject in underneath the melody! That's clever!", and he does it OVER AND OVER again.

Yet, shows like Wonderful Town and most Sondheim shows are completely overlooked and undervalued by anyone except the theatre community. Instead, we're treated to Lloyd Webber hacking his music to death. He's the Britney Spears of Broadway.

Word. There is no leit to his leitmotif. It's just him, up there with a thematic club, hitting you about the head and shoulders until you give in. He's a lazy, shoddy crowd-pleaser, and I wish I could take the people who go to see his shows more than once and sit them down for Assassins or (going old-school) West Side Story or even Anything Goes.

"You see this? This is GOOD musical theater. You see Webber? That is CRAP. Let me give you a little tip about how capitalism works: if you don't give him any more money, he won't write any more shows."

Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas

Have you heard everything Andrew Lloyd Webber has ever written? The idea that the man who wrote The Likes of Us, Joseph, Jesus Christ Superstar, Gumshoe, Jeeves, The Odessa File, Evita, CATS, Variations, Tell Me on a Sunday, Song & Dance, Starlight Express, The Phantom of the Opera, Cricket, Requiem, Aspects of Love, By Jeeves, Sunset Boulevard, The Beautiful Game and Woman in White only writes three songs is ridiculous.

Nope. Three songs. Starlight Express, Sunset Boulevard, By Jeeves and CATS are all the same show. Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, Evita, and Jesus Christ Superstar are all the same show. Phantom of the Opera is Puccini. Quantity does not quality make.

[19ForMe]

Did anyone else notice that the peasant themed dancing song in "Woman in White" has the same tune as The Macarena? Walking out of the theatre, I mentioned it to my fiance. She thought I was nuts and then the orchestra started playing it. I was right and we both burst into laughter.

[stpauler]

"Can I have another piece of chocolate cake?"

[El Cid Viscoso]

Right on, stpauler!

Not everyone in New York
would pay to see Andrew Lloyd Webber
may his trousers fall down
as he bows to the Queen and the Crown

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by Mangetout

You missed Whistle Down The Wind.

By him and Jim Steinman?!?!?

Or is the proper snarky rejoinder, "Everybody else did."

[fessie]

Nobody quoted Rowan Atkinson!

"ALW's latest rendition of Puccini's greatest hits."

[GuanoLad]

Where does Tim Rice fit into all this? Or is he strictly a lyricist?

[Delly]

I wanted to come in here and rant about peoples treatment & regard of ALW in the last few years. However I've decided I can't be bothered because the post would proably behave been broken down and disputed by many of you and I can't be bothered dealing with that.

However in saying that, I will say that some of you are being really offensive. If a person wants to appreciate the works of ALW who are any of you to berate them for it? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the people who go see Phantom 20 times do so because they like the experience of sitting in the theatre surrounded by other admirers of the work? Or that perhaps, even if you find it strange, they actually like the music and like to hear it performed well? Sure they could read the story, but is the story going to make them hear the music? And as for the old lady in the shop who cant wait to see Phantom, good luck to her! She is certainly not the only one. She too could have read the book to get the story, but maybe shes another one who shock horror actually likes the music, and knows that a movie will give a more definate storyline then the musical did?

And his music appeals to mass audiences because its simple? That kind of implies that the mass audiences know shit about music... Hmm I wonder how it is that I've liked Phantom for years and still ended up an honours music student? Odd that.

Why does everything have to be complicated in order to be good? Or have to be different in order to be considered great?

Sure ALW may not be as good as some of the other composers out there, but do you really need to shit all over it for other people?

[fessie]

Anybody started a John Williams thread? He's my other favorite plagiarist.

[buns3000]

Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas

Have you heard everything Andrew Lloyd Webber has ever written? The idea that the man who wrote The Likes of Us, Joseph, Jesus Christ Superstar, Gumshoe, Jeeves, The Odessa File, Evita, CATS, Variations, Tell Me on a Sunday, Song & Dance, Starlight Express, The Phantom of the Opera, Cricket, Requiem, Aspects of Love, By Jeeves, Sunset Boulevard, The Beautiful Game and Woman in White only writes three songs is ridiculous.

OK, so he's a prolific hack.

[JeffB]

Originally Posted by Tracy Lord

His key changes do nothing but wave flags and say "Hey! I'm a key change, and that means PAY ATTENTION, HE'S KICKING IT UP A NOTCH!"

Ah, so he's the Emeril of musicals. BAM!

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Delly

However in saying that, I will say that some of you are being really offensive. If a person wants to appreciate the works of ALW who are any of you to berate them for it?

Your cultural and intellectual superiors.

<Puts monocle in eye, nose in air, and strides out haugtily.>

[Elza B]

Originally Posted by JeffB

Ah, so he's the Emeril of musicals. BAM!

I just had an image of him slamming his baton to the ground and throwing a hunk of steak at the audience.

Thank you. It's going to take a lot of therapy and hard work to get that out of my head. In the meantime, I'll try not to snicker during work today.

E.

[Eonwe]

Originally Posted by Delly

I wanted to come in here and rant about peoples treatment & regard of ALW in the last few years. However I've decided I can't be bothered because the post would proably behave been broken down and disputed by many of you and I can't be bothered dealing with that.

However in saying that, I will say that some of you are being really offensive. If a person wants to appreciate the works of ALW who are any of you to berate them for it? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the people who go see Phantom 20 times do so because they like the experience of sitting in the theatre surrounded by other admirers of the work? Or that perhaps, even if you find it strange, they actually like the music and like to hear it performed well? Sure they could read the story, but is the story going to make them hear the music? And as for the old lady in the shop who cant wait to see Phantom, good luck to her! She is certainly not the only one. She too could have read the book to get the story, but maybe shes another one who shock horror actually likes the music, and knows that a movie will give a more definate storyline then the musical did?

And his music appeals to mass audiences because its simple? That kind of implies that the mass audiences know shit about music... Hmm I wonder how it is that I've liked Phantom for years and still ended up an honours music student? Odd that.

Why does everything have to be complicated in order to be good? Or have to be different in order to be considered great?

Sure ALW may not be as good as some of the other composers out there, but do you really need to shit all over it for other people?

Oh, come now, be fair!

I think that it's perfectly reasonable to trash the work of an individual without saying that everyone who likes it is stupid and an ignoramous. The OP made no comment about fans. And, she presented an argument for her opinion that was based on actual things, not just, 'he's teh suxx0rz'.

Everything doesn't have to be 'complicated' to be good. It does have to be innovative or fresh to be critically good. I like plenty of things that aren't particularly impressive works of art. And, I'm not ashamed of it; there's no reason why my personal tastes need to obey some external law of goodness. But still, I know (usually) when the things I like are good, and when they're just fun for me personally.

So, again, no one is berating people who go buy ALW tickets. People are berating ALW.

And, that phrase you keep using, 'I can't be bothered' . . . I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by Eonwe

So, again, no one is berating people who go buy ALW tickets. People are berating ALW.

What about people who buy Thomas Kinkade prints? Can we at least berate them?

[gobear]

Originally Posted by Tracy Lord

Nope. Three songs. Starlight Express, Sunset Boulevard, By Jeeves and CATS are all the same show. Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, Evita, and Jesus Christ Superstar are all the same show. Phantom of the Opera is Puccini. Quantity does not quality make.

Same shows? Heck, they're the same songs in the show. For example, listen to Oh, What a Circus and Don't Cry For Me, Argentina--they're the same songs with tempo changes.

Leonard Bernstein's Candide is on PBS tonight (Wednesday, 1/12). with Kristin Chenoweth (Glinda in Wicked) singing the role of Cunegonde and Patti LuPone as the Old Lady. Candide has its flaws, but as a piece of theater it's head and shoulders above anything ALW has ever written. For parodies of coloratura singing in the opera buffa style, compare "Poor Fool, He Does Not Know" from Phantom and "Glitter and Be Gay" from Candide, and see which is more masterful.

[Eonwe]

Originally Posted by Metacom

What about people who buy Thomas Kinkade prints? Can we at least berate them?

Only if he's prepared.

[SlyFrog]

Originally Posted by Eonwe

Everything doesn't have to be 'complicated' to be good. It does have to be innovative or fresh to be critically good. I like plenty of things that aren't particularly impressive works of art. And, I'm not ashamed of it; there's no reason why my personal tastes need to obey some external law of goodness. But still, I know (usually) when the things I like are good, and when they're just fun for me personally.

Yes, but when there is a feeling of cross over to "How can anyone like that hack," then you can understand when someone who likes him, or understands why people like him, might step forward to explain.

By the way, I really like your statement regarding liking things that are not particularly impressive works of art. I think it's something too many people have a problem with; if they like something, then it has to be "as good" as any other form of art. There's nothing wrong with admitting that you are intellectually slumming it but enjoy something nonetheless (I've brought this up in arguments about rap, which I really don't want to restart here, just using the example whether you agree or disagree with the specific point).

For example, if I were to watch Desperate Housewives, I would not need to justify it saying that it's just as valid and important an art form as a Chekhov play, and that people who disagree just aren't getting it or are wrongfully disparaging the great art of Desperate Housewives.

[storyteller0910]

You know, I'm about as big a musical theatre geek as anyone on Earth. My CD rack at present holds 350 CDs, of which close to 300 are either cast recordings or musical theatre compilations. My three favorite shows are, in order, SWEENEY TODD, Jason Robert Brown's THE LAST FIVE YEARS, and William Finn's A NEW BRAIN. So my musical snob credentials are hopefully valid.

And I still like most of Andrew Lloyd Webber's stuff. No, it's (mostly) not as good as Sondheim, at least in part because ALW chooses to work with second-rate lyricists who make his songs sound more generic than they perhaps are. But I think it's sort of ludicrous to say that "all of his songs are the same." "Love Changes Everything" sounds nothing like "Gethsemane" sounds nothing like "Take That Look Off Your Face" sounds nothing like "The Vaults of Heaven" sounds nothing like "One More Angel in Heaven" sounds nothing like "Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again." Yes, "Oh, What a Circus" and "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" are the same song, with a tempo variation, a different arrangement, and a bridge that's been added to the former. But if we're going to say ALW is a hack for that, then we'll have to say it about just about every composer who's ever lived. "It's Hard to Speak My Mind" from PARADE has big chunks of the same melody as "How Can I Call This Home?" from the same show, and PARADE is considered one of the better scores written in recent years. Stephen Flaherty reuses melodies throughout ONCE ON THIS ISLAND, especially the opening lines of "We Dance." That's what musicals *do*, most of the time.

I get that ALW's music is not generally particularly innovative, especially not nowadays (THE WOMAN IN WHITE is really horrible, for anyone fortunate enough to have avoided it so far). But I don't get why that should be the only criterion by which we judge the quality of a piece of entertainment. The fact that Bruce Springsteen doesn't write music that's as technically impressive as, say, Tchiakovsky, doesn't mean I can't think it's entertaining. HAPPY GILMORE was not as well-made a film as, say, CASABLANCA, but I like both.

Lloyd Webber writes melodies that are mostly memorable, and his productions are always flawlessly put together - well cast, generally well directed, and well performed with outstanding design work surrounding them. His music, while not always brilliant, is pleasing to hear and usually suited to the tone of the piece (contrast with Frank Wildhorn, a true hack, who writes the same songs - almost literally - for every show, heedless of setting or style).

I don't get the venomous distaste for the man's music, is what I'm saying. I think it's objectively adequate, and there's room for that right alongside the objectively great. There's room for entertainment that doesn't make you think alongside the entertainment that does.

Or, on preview: what Eonwe said.

[fessie]

Heck yeah, "lowbrow" can be tons of fun. I'm somewhat suspicious of people who never indulge in a guilty pleasure - who on earth can remain highbrow at all times?

It's when people can't tell the difference that it's infuriating to those of us who can.

[Bean Counter]

I'm sorry, but is anyone else getting slapped in the face by the irony of someone with the screen-name "Tracy Lord" berating the writer of musical opera shows?

How about if we substitute an "I" instead of the the "Y" in Tracy and make the last name plural? Now do you see it?

You mean like the porn star?

My apologies if that is you real name, but my irony meter was pinging off the scale.

[CuriousCanuck]

Originally Posted by fessie

It's when people can't tell the difference that it's infuriating to those of us who can.

I would be interested to know from your point of view what exactly the difference is between the two.

Why is it that anytime something gains popularity over a broad spectrum it is automatically not "good" anymore. That seems counter intuitive to me. ALW might be using the same formula over and over, but it works, it is enjoyed by millions, and makes a lot of people happy. His art might not be in writing the most musically complicated classical pieces out there, but that does not make his form of art any less valid, or any less good than Sondheim, or the like. Ultimately it is the people that decide what popular means, and if popular maeans ALW then far be it for anyone to say that it is not a real, valid, and good form of artistic expression.

The same goes for the people that write Britney Spears music. I may think it is contrived, and I don't quite understand why it is quite so popular, but the fact remains that it is. And just because I think that other artists out there are better, it does not mean that the Spears Corp. and their music is any less of an art than Jeff Buckley, the Beatles, or anyone else.

[CuriousCanuck]

On review it appears I may have taken that quote a tad out of context. In any case, I stand by my point.

[BJMoose]

A couple of weeks back I was subjected to a CD worth of ALWs greatest hits. While I was initially tickled that I guessed the composer on the basis of his style, I was soon depressed by the sameness of so much of it, and decided he was a hack. Needless to say, I enjoy seeing this thread pop up with the same opinion expressed by so many.

However, I still think Hack of the Millennium honors stay with Mozart. Now, there was a guy who could take a tiny idea and beat the poor thing to death!

Someone mentioned John Williams. I find most of his stuff good, though I've noticed some "tricks" common to many of his themes. But then, all composers accumulate a drawer full of habits. Hell, Old Bach had an annoying fondness for bringing a fugue to a screeching halt on a Neapolitan Second.


P.S.: I too feel a need to steal the metaphor "a bigger hack than Paul Bunyan". Where do I send the royalty check?

[Eonwe]

storyteller0910, well put. And, hey, don't knock the boss, he's got some great rock arrangements on a lot of his albums! (sorry, uber-Springsteen fan here)

Also, I think 'Objectively Adequate' would be an OK band name.



CuriousCanuck,

...it does not mean that the Spears Corp. and their music is any less of an art than Jeff Buckley...


That made me think of something kind of interesting (though perhaps more suited to CS than tagged at the end of this thread). There is, in the visual arts, a line (though it's not always clear where it is) between an art and a craft. Might it be that the entity that is Britney Spears, for example, is more of a craft than an art? Repeating formulaic tropes for general mass consumption and personal gain, without endeavouring to push the creative envelope? Interesting thought to ponder, anyway.

[CuriousCanuck]

Originally Posted by Eonwe

Interesting thought to ponder, anyway.

You are making me think in an ALW thread?

[Tracy Lord]

Originally Posted by Bean Counter

I'm sorry, but is anyone else getting slapped in the face by the irony of someone with the screen-name "Tracy Lord" berating the writer of musical opera shows?

How about if we substitute an "I" instead of the the "Y" in Tracy and make the last name plural? Now do you see it?

You mean like the porn star?

My apologies if that is you real name, but my irony meter was pinging off the scale.

*sigh* No, like Katharine Hepburn's character in The Philadelphia Story, but thank you for playing.

[Tracy Lord]

Originally Posted by fessie

Heck yeah, "lowbrow" can be tons of fun. I'm somewhat suspicious of people who never indulge in a guilty pleasure - who on earth can remain highbrow at all times?

It's when people can't tell the difference that it's infuriating to those of us who can.

This is very true. My original rant was really directed at two targets: Sir Lloyd-Webber himself, and the people who think he's a "great" composer. Who here doesn't intellectually slum it every once in a while? My problem is when the perception that popularity = quality starts to grow, and especially when Webber makes so much more money than other, better composers. The latter really just needles me, I'm sure Sondheim et al don't need the money.

Webber's so popular, I think, because people want to go to "the theater" but not actually have to see an intelligent show. He's the Jerry Bruckheimer of the West End and Broadway. CATS and Phantom *feel* like high-brow musicals, as opposed to, say, Avenue Q (it's got puppets!) and The Producers (it's got Hitler!), and especially Assassins, for example.

I'm not talking who one should and shouldn't like -- if you want to belt out "Don't Cry For Me, Argentina" into a hairbrush in the shower, that is, as Ms. Spears would say, your perogative. But when you tell me that Jesus Christ Superstar is a *better* show than West Side Story? Nope. Not so. HAAAAAAAAAAACK.

[Elza B]

Originally Posted by storyteller0910

Lloyd Webber writes melodies that are mostly memorable, and his productions are always flawlessly put together - well cast, generally well directed, and well performed with outstanding design work surrounding them. His music, while not always brilliant, is pleasing to hear and usually suited to the tone of the piece (contrast with Frank Wildhorn, a true hack, who writes the same songs - almost literally - for every show, heedless of setting or style).

I don't get the venomous distaste for the man's music, is what I'm saying. I think it's objectively adequate, and there's room for that right alongside the objectively great. There's room for entertainment that doesn't make you think alongside the entertainment that does.

Or, on preview: what Eonwe said.

Well, we agree on Wildhorn.

I don't have any problem with people going to see ALW shows - I don't like them and will not pay to see them when I can see others I like better. And hell, if it gets people to the theatre? Great. Perhaps they'll branch out to more sophisticated musicals like Sondheim or Bernstein or what-have-you. But, then again, if all they see is ALW, at least it's money that goes to support the arts, whether you or I agree on how MUCH of it is art.

But what's objectively adequate to some may not be objectively adequate to others. To me, they don't even APPROACH adequate in terms of what I listen and look for in a show. I want music that's layered - I want story that's intense and well-crafted - I want acting that brings me to a tear with one glance or word. And I just don't get that from ALW's shows. Someone else may, but not me.

A friend and I have had this discussion since the last Tonys regarding Wicked and Avenue Q - the music in Wicked is so much more intense, it has more depth to it, just the amazing orchestration can put me in tears - without any singing. Avenue Q - I love the show. It's a fun, crazy show. It's new and inventive. But musically, it can't hold a candle to Wicked. The orchestration is fairly basic and standard, although lyrically, I think it's pretty much a riot. And Wicked is a flawless production in terms of staging, costuming, acting, singing, and directing. Should Avenue Q have won the Tony for the inventiveness and fun? Or did Wicked deserve it for the rich orchestration and solid production? (FTR, I've seen both of these, so I'm not just spouting out of my ass here).

We both feel like Wicked was robbed, but others think that Avenue Q was deserving. When it comes down to it, we're probably both right. And it's always going to be the same with the theatre - some will like Lloyd Webber and sneer at seeing a Sondheim show, some will champion Sondheim and belittle Webber's talent (yes, I'm one of the latter). Others may like both. Doesn't necessarily mean anyone is wrong or right, just means we have different tastes. So if some of us want to go in a thread in the Pit and bitch to high heaven that we think ALW's music sucks, big flippin' deal.

E.

[Bean Counter]

Originally Posted by Tracy Lord

*sigh* No, like Katharine Hepburn's character in The Philadelphia Story, but thank you for playing.

I would have chosen the "Tracy Lord" from High Society myself. Katharine Hepburn instead of Grace Kelly? Please...

But now the screen name makes sense, especially after reading Amazon's synopsis of the movie.

[Zebra]

Have you all completly forgotten ALW's contribution to the field of outdoor cooking?

[Already in Use]

Eh, I don't think his simplicity is necessarily a bad thing. I mean, millions of blues bands play basically the same song night after night, and some of them are pretty good. I don't really like Webber's music these days because I find some of it a bit cloying and over-the-top, but then again, I wouldn't say those qualities are unique to Webber's work. I have the same complaints about much of Les Misérables.

I did, however, like Webber a lot as a young child, and I think my interest in the genre-crossing aspects of his musical form (cheesy though it may be) started me on the path into more interesting stuff like the Beatles, Zappa, and noise rock. So I can't say my exposure to his work was really a bad thing. And I have to admit that "Don't Cry For Me, Argentina" and "Another Suitcase in Another Hall" are pretty decent songs.

[Tracy Lord]

Originally Posted by Bean Counter

Katharine Hepburn instead of Grace Kelly? Please...

Them's fightin' words! *grin*

Considering that Philadelphia Story has the most recognizable incarnation of Ms. Lord -- and that it came first, seeing that High Society is just a musical version of the show -- and that Philip Barry wrote the character of Tracy Lord with Ms. Hepburn in mind -- I'll stick with my original reference. No offense to Princess Grace, of course.

[Bean Counter]

[Complete hijack]

Originally Posted by Tracy Lord

Them's fightin' words! *grin*

Considering that Philadelphia Story has the most recognizable incarnation of Ms. Lord -- and that it came first, seeing that High Society is just a musical version of the show -- and that Philip Barry wrote the character of Tracy Lord with Ms. Hepburn in mind -- I'll stick with my original reference. No offense to Princess Grace, of course.

Ok, now I'm intrigued and must rent Philadelphia Story for sake of comparison.

[/Complete hijack]