Archive for Musicals.Net Musicals.Net |
| Xack |
My appreciation for SondheimI was driven to write this after having to sit through CATS at a state theatre convention, the cast was incredible, the tech work was amazing, and I hated every second of it.It seemed to me that the entire show was explained in the title, there were cats, that was it. The songs were annoying and the constant reuse of them made me want to kill myself. The one bright moment was the first rendition of "Memory", but the fact that it was then reused over and over in completely nonsensical situations grated me even more. The only thing that could be called a plot consisted of the cats going "We don't like you Grizzabella.....okay now we do". As everyone in the crowd jumped and cheered crazily I was left wondering, did I miss something? I find it impossible for this musical to be enjoyable in any capacity whatsoever. It was the most soul crushing experience of my life. /End CATS rant (sorry about the rant, it will be awhile before I'm over that.) As I stumbled back to my car in a horrified daze, The Frogs (my current obsession) was waiting for me, I then listened with a new appreciation and sheer joy that at the wonder of Sondheim's music. The complexity and originality, the fact that there was a plot. My love for Sondheim has grown porportionately to the growth of my hatred for Weber out of this experience. (Thanks for listening, I had to dump my feelings somewhere) |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dvarg |
Re: My appreciation for Sondheim
Haha, you've come to the right place 
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Laura |
couldn't agree more!! |
||||||||||||||||||||
| LaGataNegra |
Memory is used all of four times in the show, once during the instrumental Jellicle Ball. Words are changed, and there is a reason the second character sings it after Moments of Happiness, it is sung by Grizabella the second time for another reason. If you don't care to understand the reasons, I won't mention them. The Invitation to the Jellicle Ball is the only other repeated song in the piece. It is used as a thread to hold the show together. If this is beyond your comprehension, too bad. CATS has more story to it than you give it credit.
I believe Sweeney Todd has more repetition of themes than CATS does. Johanna is sung multiple times by several characters, Anthony, I believe repeats himself with same refrain 5 or 6 times. I've lost count of how often The Ballad of Sweeney Todd is used throughout the show. Raising one composer on a higher pedestal because of another composer's work is ludicrous. Sondheim and Lloyd Webber are both great composers. Sondheim has the added quality of being a stunning lyricist. Being able to appreciate each for what he brings to theatre is a sign of intelligence. Being able to admit that each has admirable qualities is a sign of maturity. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Xack |
But the repetition has meaning and purpose. and I am not raising Sondheim up because of Weber's work. I am stating that after I saw CATS (which I hated and believe that I'm allowed to have an opinion over) listening to Sondheim suddenly blew me away all over again (probably due to comparison. I would admit that Weber has his merits if I was able to find anything Weber's done that I enjoyed. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Salome |
ain addition to sondheim repeating theames for a reason. you mention "Johnna" being sung by three different characters. there are 3 different songs by that name but they do not use the same melody. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Not Dead Yet |
Thank you. .. By the way? Leitmotif. Look it up. Also, Sondheim's use of it is often ironic. And another thing: arguably any character in Cats can sing Memory. Only Anthony can sing ANTHONY'S Johanna. Only the Judge can sing HIS Johanna. And so on. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| LaGataNegra |
I see!
When ALW does it, it's annoying repetition. When Sondheim does it, it's meaningful Leitmotif! These two composers are more alike than you want to believe. Johanna 1-6 sound like the same melody to me, with minor differences, with changed lyrics. The reasons for singing Johanna change by character, but the tune is basically the same. I don't have a problem with Johanna, or Sondheim. I do have a problem with double standards. Memory is not just a filler song, it has a purpose each time it is used, just as Johanna does. And the Ballad of Sweeney Todd, and Mrs. Lovett's patter. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Salome |
they are not the same melody at all.
as for compisition. Webber's tunes can fit into phantom,cats,sunset,evita etc... there is nothing defining the music to the project. Sondheim writes for the subject,theme,era and plot. you cant plop a melody from Follies into Sweeney Tood or one from Assassins into Forum. its distinct. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| LaGataNegra |
I stand corrected. They are different tunes, though often blending into one another, and borrowing each other's phrases.
I've read your opinion of ALW many times, and no one has the guts to disagree with you. While ALW does have a definable style through much of his music (as all composers do), he does take chances and try to come out of his old habits. I could see much of Sweeney Todd plunked into Into the Woods. I could not see much of Jesus Christ Superstar plunked anywhere else. Aspects of Love and Sunset Blvd are nearly interchangeably musically, but I don't see Starlight Express and Song and Dance being terribly similar. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Salome |
ITW doesnt share musch at all musically with Sweeney . if anything tere are some similarities between the music in ITW and SITPWG
JCS ,Evita and Joseph all sound quite similar. particularly JCS and Evita. Starlight,Phantom and Cats are all interchangable in fact ecpt for By Jeeves Webber's style never changed. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Joshua |
True dat. That was the first thing I noticed when I started listening the SITPWG. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| LaGataNegra |
Are you hearing the same music I am? Evita and Jesus Christ Superstar have about as much in common stylistically as U2 and Hannah Montana. I’d say your ears need a tune-up.
The early ‘80s shows are in a similar style probably because they were written within a few years of each other. The ‘90s shows are in a whole different category from his ‘60s/’70s work. ALW does have a fingerprint, so to speak, throughout his works, what composer doesn’t? Do you mean to tell me Sondheim has a unique style with each of his shows? That you can’t tell immediately that you’re hearing a Sondheim show (as opposed to, say, Porter) when someone fires up a CD? Baloney. I think you’re really a fan of Andrew Lloyd Webber. I think you just like to tick people off. You enjoy pushing buttons, spouting nonsense as if it’s fact just to get a rise out of people. You like to have synchophants chime in with their little ‘hear hears’ after you’ve insulted somebody. I’ve read quite a bit of your posting on this site. I’ve seen you compliment ALW, even stating that some of his music is brilliant, and displaying knowledge of his work equal to my own! You’ve studied the man’s work, yet claim to have come to a completely different conclusion than I. It’s as though you think that by claiming Sondheim to be the pinnacle of theatre, and dismissing ALW as a hack you are showing yourself to be an elite theatre-goer. Your true stripes are showing, whether you'll admit it or not! You know, I feel sorry for the Xack! (S)he lacks the capacity to enjoy entertainment for what it is. Those people put on a show, poured their hearts and souls out and (s)he sat there 'hating every minute of it'. This reminds me of something Rachel Ray said one time. She was talking about how people say she's not 'gourmet' enough. She says she likes having the ability to enjoy both caviar and a Big Mac. She gets the best of both worlds. It’s a shame, really, that some people lose that ability in an effort to appear academic. Not to call CATS a Big Mac, but if Sunday in the Park With George is caviar (which is an acquired taste), CATS can be a Big Mac. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Xack |
(he) Well, I've never liked musicals at all before I found Sondheim. So I really don't feel like I'm missing much from ALW. The fact that the people did work so hard hurt me more, because I hated hating a show that such talented people were performing. I |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Not Dead Yet |
Yeah, CATS will just kill you quicker. 
Honestly, I don't like to hate everything by one composer. I don't hate all Webber's songs. He writes some enjoyable stuff, but for my taste, I prefer Sondheim's more comlpex and profound music. I do hate Cats, though. I wouldn't mind watching it, because entertainent is entertainment. But give me anything above Cats, and I'll take it. Sorry *shrug* |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Not Dead Yet |
I didn't NOT like musicals, but I semi-enjoyed some of them. After discovering Sondheim, it opened doors to other musicals which I liked. Then the ones I semi-enjoyed (due to lack of knowledge of GOOD musicals), I started to just dislike-- aka Wicked. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| LaGataNegra |
I knew I'd get a crack about CATS and Big Macs!
In entertainment, quality is in the eye of the beholder. Most people see Picasso as genius, others see abstract crap. I, myself, see few redeeming qualities in most rap music, but you won't hear me say I hate it. I would usually rather hear a sweeping melody than pitter/patter/twitter/chatter, with language that may or may not apply to the theme of the piece. If you liked Wicked once upon a time, some part of you still gets a kick out of 'Defying Gravity'. To deny it would be to lie to yourself. You (and many others) seem to have the misguided notion that if you love Sondheim, then you are required hate what the "malicious Sondheimists" have declared is beneath them. In reality, their music collections contain all of the 'crap' they claim to dislike. Their CD changers have played their fair share of 'lesser' artists' work. It's all about appearances, really. You think you'll be part of the 'cool' clique if you prattle on about how great Sondheim is and how evil everyone else is. This is High School all over again. I'm too old for this nonsense. The more shows you learn about, the more you will fall in love with. It sounds like you two (Xack and Not Dead Yet) are still neophytes in relation to musicals. Here's my advice: 1. Give every show a listen. Once all the way through at least. If it strikes your fancy, listen to it again. Most shows require multiple listenings to really 'get'. 2. If you have a chance to see a show-go see it. 3. Don't let other people tell you what is good and what is bad-make your own decision. One man's trash is another man's treasure. 4. As corny a musical as Hairspray is, it's really quite a lot of fun! I was pleasantly surprised this past week when I finally watched the movie. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dvarg |
Don't you think that because they are knowledgeable of ALW, their arguments actually has worth? I'd be much more distrusting towards anyone who dislikes ALW without knowing what they talk about. Personally, I like a lot of ALW, but I also dislike a lot. I have all his shows on cd, not necessarily because I like those shows, but I think it's interesting knowing what he is up to (and I also miss what he used to do when he actually was good). |
||||||||||||||||||||
| LaGataNegra |
I do! A well-reasoned argument is a joy to behold!
Until they say 'everything sounds alike' or 'all of it is interchangeable' or 'ALW hasn't changed his style at all in the last 30 years'. Then I think they're just pushing buttons. Lloyd Webber isn't the be-all end-all to musicals. Neither is Sondheim. I think that's my biggest problem. The bashing of one composer in an effort to raise up another. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dots Parasole |
LaGataNegra I am not trying to be rude but I don't think you truly understand the point that some of these Sondheim lovers are trying to make. Let me see if I can help. When one becomes exposed to Stephen's work it is a truly eye opening experience. Especially if that Sondheim lover happens to also be a performer. As a performer you want to play a character who is fully realized and who's soul is already written on the page, whether that is the book or the score. Match that with a good director and it is heaven for any performer. Sondheim ALWAYS writes for the character. In fact he is so adamant about it that when he does not due a character justice it will haunt him for years (half the characters in West Side Story). It is for this reason that many, if not all, of his songs do not do well when standing alone. How many people, who have not seen Night Music, know what "Send in the Clowns" is really about? ALW has NEVER picked a lyricist who writes strictly for character. This, in my opinion, is the reason many people do not take him seriously. Most of his songs can simply swap characters and nobody would ever notice. "The Music of the Night" is a perfect example of this. I hate when people say they leave a Sondheim show with a sense of cold. These people cannot possibly be actors/artists. If anything I leave an ALW show feeling that. How can one possibly leave shows like "Gypsy" or "Sunday" and not feel something for those characters? I wish people would stop ragging on Sondheim lovers by calling them elitist. It has nothing to do with money or social standing or even age. It has everything to do with wanting to go to a show and get lost in the language and the music and truly get to the soul of a character. Sondheim takes his audience very seriously. He comes from the school of "if you're going to invest your time in my characters I better get you aquainted with them the best I know how. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Set_Buildin_Dad |
I totally agree with you. So many of the posters on this board argue with generalizations. As the old saying goes: "all generalizations are false (including this one)". I like much, but not all, of what Sondheim has written. In a similar fashion I have enjoyed much of ALWs work. Neither man is a hack. I happen to like both ALW and Sondheim's earlier works that some of their later works (ALW more so than Sondheim). To be fair I haven't seen all of the shows on stage that I would like. I live in a city where the arts are available, but not in the quantitiy or quality of a place like NYC or London. I have also found that both men's work is best viewed on stage performed by a good cast. I have been underwhelmed by movies and 2nd rate productions of both men's work. I also find Sondheim's music on cast recordings less approachable than ALW's. I find less of the soaring melodies in Sondheim's work. These songs are what I enjoy listening to between show opportunities. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| mastachen |
Dots Parasole pretty much articulated what all of the Sondheimists, and me, have been trying to say for years.
LaGateNegra - please attack the opinion, and not the person. There's actually a Latin phrase for this, but it escapes me at the moment. Ad Hominum, or something like that? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Set_Buildin_Dad |
I too think that Sondheim is more of a performer's composer. I think that is one of the reasons he has such a rabid folloing on this forum. i also agree that his characterizations is shows that you mentioned (like Gypsy) have wonderful depth. Because Sondheim writes both the music and the lyrics for most of his shows he can really articulate the character's feelings well. I also agree that much of ALW's scores can fit any character, but I think it is unfair to say that none of them bring out the essence of a character. I especially like the following songs of his because they do expose the character beneath: Phantom - All I ask of you reprise (I gave you my music) Sunset Boulevard - As if we never said goodbye, with one look Evita - I'd be surprisingly good for you JCS - Gethsemene |
||||||||||||||||||||
| LaGataNegra |
You know, DP, I think we're at two ends of the same teeter-totter!
We both enjoy musicals, but in different ways. I've become absorbed completely by every show I've seen live. (which isn't many) I can soak myself in a cast recording and feel as refreshed as if it were a bubble bath. The music is what gets me, moreso than the lyrics. I think the lyrics are what appeal to you most. I am not an actress, nor do I want to be. (I would like to live in a theatre, though.) You say Music of The Night could be sung by any other character. Not so sure on that. MOTN is a seduction song, the Phantom craves Christine's attention, and is expressing love in the only way he knows. He's obsessed and controlling. If you switched Raoul's love song (All I Ask of You) with the Phantom's, it would change the entire dynamic of the show. Raoul is offering a stable, equal, enduring love, while the Phantom's offering exciting, passionate, empty, one-sided, selfish love. Later, during 'Past the Point of No Return', he sexes it up a bit, but is still offering the same thing. He tries to mimic Raoul's song, finally opening up his heart properly, but it's too little too late and she removes his mask literally just as he has done figuratively. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dots Parasole |
Isn't she asleep when he sings that song? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dots Parasole |
I'm sorry to say this but none of those songs tell us anything about the character that we did not already know. "We Never Said Goodbye" is the best example of this. Instead of letting us get inside this seemingly insane womans head it just tells us things that are fairly obvious. Norma has already told the audience how she feels about her career earlier in the show during the "This was dawn" lyric while watching her old movies. Webber and his lyricist/bookwriters never dig deep into the adapted material the way Sondheim did for both "Sweeney Todd" and "A Little Night Music". He copies the sentiment from the original text and puts music to it. Sunset Blvd was an incredible film/story and the musical doesn't really show us anything new. Same can be said of Phantom. Did the Phantom really give Christine "my music"? I never saw that in the actual show. They talk about it a lot "She has been well taught" but we never actually see how that happened. It would have been fascinating to see what the Phantom actually did to teach this girl. It seems, to me anyway, that Christine is given her big shot because the people working in the theater are afraid of the big bad monster. It is also clear that Carlotta is clearly better than Christine but is shoved out the door by the jealous Phantom. Evita is one of ALW's most beautiful scores (when orchestrated right) and one of the worst as far as lyrics. "Don't cry for me Argentina/the truth is I never left you" Ummmmmm what? Rice himself has said that lyric was put in there because he simply could not think of anything else to write. As far as "Surprisingly Good For You" that song is so boggled down with confusion that one is left to wonder "who the hell is this woman"? According to the ALW version of her life we are supposed to believe this was a woman who would stop at nothing to get to the top but then we are supposed to believe all of the sudden that there was "nothing calculated nothing planned"? It would be one thing if the lyric was meant as a joke the audience was "in on" but we are never given that option. It's clumsy and stupid. Is Eva a saint as some believe or is she a demon? They never tell us. I could see if it was planned that way but it clearly was not. JCS I will say nothing about because that is one of his shows I actually do like. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Set_Buildin_Dad |
No, but she's in an almost hypnotic state as he is singing to her in a seductive fashion. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Set_Buildin_Dad |
I haven't seen Sunset Boulevard yet, only heard the music so I can't say if the song expresses already understood character attributes. I can only say that it does speak to me about the character's inner feelings. This is one of shows I intend to see when te opportunity arises. In PoTO the phantom has taught Christine to sing. That was established earlier in the show as Christine relates her story of being taught by an "angel of music" to Meg. His heartache of being turned asside in favor of Raoul is beautifully carried off in "I gave you my music". Christine was given her "big shot" at the suggestion of Mdme Giry to the naive new thatre owners, not because of an initial coersion by the Phantom. Later in the show (after her debut performance) the Phantom does use coersion to promote her career. I didn't use "Don't cry for me Argentina" as an example of character insight because it doesn't deliver any. It is a purely political speech (and we all know that politicians speak their ture beliefs all of the time). BTW - my understanding of the lyrics are that this is an almost identical translation of a speach the Eva Peron made IRL. I cited the example of "I'd be surprisingly Good for You" because it shows just how devious and self serving she really is. "Nothing calculate, nothing planned" is a sarcastic statement she is making. It is only the people of Argentina who she decieved that think she is a "saint". We in the audience know otherwise. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dots Parasole |
How do we know otherwise? Who is telling the story? Is it Che? When were we let in on this sarcasm? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Set_Buildin_Dad |
Her true nature as a planner has been established earlier in "good by and thank you whomever". This is just one of her tease lines to Peron on her way towards her true ambition which is power. Peron is shown to be susceptible to her schemes by falling for this line. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dots Parasole |
Yes but it was established by Che, no? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Set_Buildin_Dad |
I think you're right (it's been about 15 years since i last saw the show). |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dvarg |
I totally agree with this. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| LaGataNegra |
Christine is not sleeping during Music of the Night. She is letting herself get carried away by the seductive music, allowing herself to confuse the (loving father figure) Angel of Music with the loonytune murderer doing the singing. This can also be seen as the only way the Phantom can deal with having a person so close to him. He needs her to be 'in thrall' or else he can't function. If she is alert, she has the power. Later, she pulls his mask off, and he comes unglued. (damn you, you prying Pandora!...) The next time they come face to face (Masquerade), he has arranged to be in a position of total power and domination, and treats her with contempt. (your chains are still mine!) These two characters aren't on an even playing field until the very end when they 'shout it out' and come to terms with each other.
Don't Cry For Me Argentina is a political speech. 'The truth is, I never left you' is an attempt to ingratiate herself with the poverty stricken people she's talking to. She wants them to think she feels just like they do, that her life is the same as theirs. Meanwhile, she's draining the country's bank accounts. (see 'Rainbow High') 'I'd be surprisingly good for you' shows us two players playing each other. Evita isn't the only calculating one here. Peron is showing his colors, too. I think each is so busy feeding the other a line, that neither notices what the other is doing. In 'Good Night and Thank You', we see the usual ending for her relationships (from Che's point of view), in '...Good for you', we see her (and Peron's) methods directly. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dots Parasole |
I'm sorry but I disagree with all of that. Especially with Don't Cry For Me Argentina. That lyric is horrible. I take comfort in the fact that these sorts of debates are almost non-existent when it comes to Sondheim's work. Nothing about any of his shows seem "thrown together". I will never understand how some people think Phantom is a well conceived musical. I'm beginning to get the feeling it has a lot more to do with Hal Prince's very careful direction than the music itself. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dvarg |
Good point. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| LaGataNegra |
Sondheim tells you what to think? Leaving no room for interpretation? I've always thought that was part of his appeal. That you can view his work from several angles and get several different interpretations out of it.
I never said "...Argentina" was a great lyric, I was trying to explain it to you. I actually prefer the song sans words. ('course, I usually prefer instrumentals) I've read a bit of the Sondheim threads here. Currently, one features an in-depth look at 'A Little Priest': two pages of people figuring out what a greengrocer is, what grosser means, and how totally clever the line is! It's a pun for crying out loud! The whole song is one pun after the other! Get a grip! I like the song, it's a great one, very funny, but give me a break! Two pages bickering about 'you can tell that it's grocer, it's green!'?? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Sweeney Hyde |
I think it's a crucial aspect of the show very stupidly left out by Lord Webber. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dots Parasole |
Maybe you should read those threads again. The convo about "Little Priest" is not and in depth analysis of what the song is about. It DOES have some questions about what some of the things mentioned in the song are (Fop, Grocer). The fact that they are singing about different kinds of pies they can make with people is fairly obvious. I also think you miss the whole genius of that song. Saying things like "They are all puns for Christ's sake" is just a bit naive don't you think? How about the fact that all of those puns were perfectly rhymed in tune to a waltz? Or the fact that the song lasts over 7 minutes? A 7 minute waltz about two "maniacs" who plan on cutting peoples throats in order to cook them into pies and sell to the masses, and yet the audience winds up behind them 100%. That is not easy stuff and should certainly not be just thrown away using the comments you used. NOTHING Webber has ever been associated can come close to "A Little Priest". In fact, there is more wit, work, art, musical knowledge and lyrical prose in that one song than there is in all of Webbers shows put together. This is just my opinion of course but it is one I am confidant enough to stand by. As far as Sondheim telling us what to think. Well of course he does. He also leaves room for some interpretations. Although most of his work is strictly for the character. Nothing is ever interpreted in a way that can take away from the story. One can look at a song like "The Millers Son" and get a sense of the time and the thinking of women in that time without it ever having to be mentioned in the song. The difference is he does this on purpose. He does not rely on a clever director to lead the way. For example: "I Know Things Now" from "Into the Woods" works perfectly with the story and the character. It moves the show along but it has been interpreted on it's own to have a lot to do with sexual abuse or a girls sexual awakening. That is just a sidegame for Sondheim fanatics. Regardless the song works for the show. EVERY one of his songs is written for the character first. ALW writes, and steals, some very pretty music. One cannot deny the melodies of "Memory" or "First Man You Remember" or Sunset's overture. He does write some sweeping stuff. However, he is a much better orchestrator than composer. Sondheim's music is leagues better and more polished. Sondheim can write music to a persons mood better than anyone (Not Getting Married Today). |
||||||||||||||||||||
| LaGataNegra |
Red Ridinghood's song has a double meaning? I had no idea! What a shock!
'Course, the use of a wolf as a metaphor for 'sexual predator' has been around for ages. I wonder what Red's red cloak stands for. Hmmm, let me think. She's not wearing it in the second act, I wonder what that means. (if memory serves, it even gets torn  )
You don't have to hit me over the head with that metaphor any harder. Is this the great depth that Sondheim has that you don't see in Lloyd Webber? Is this what you call extraordinary to the point of bashing other composers? I see now! (or I Know Things Now!)All this time, I've thought it was something I couldn't grasp; that I needed to see a Sondheim show live to really 'get it'. (still think I need to see Into the Woods to really get it, but anyway...) The average 'malicious Sondheimist' is just really so myopic that he can't see the brilliance in others' work! I’m afraid Sondheim could stage a show with no words, not a lick of music, no actors, just a blank curtain, and you’d all say: ‘What a delight! What a sound! Did you hear that? How profound!’ Thankfully, the man has better things to do. That you can't find meaning in Lloyd Webber's work doesn't mean it's not there.(see my previous posts for a little of it) It's hard to write a 7 1/2 minute waltz? I think Strauss did it a few times. Does that make him better than Sondheim? Or is it all that rhyming? The rhythm is hard to rhyme with? Harder than with other rhythms? Now I've never studied music theory, but I'd say clever lyrics are tough, regardless of the rhythm. I, as an audience member, don't root for the mass murderer, or his accomplice. What goes around comes around. Murdering a dozen or so people because someone has wronged you is not justifiable. Even if you've been in prison for fifteen years. Now, if difficult= higher quality, then the Phantom's makeup must be the bestest ever. When making up Michael Crawford, it took over three hours to apply the prosthetics/hair/contacts/colorants. It's a very difficult, painstaking job. Removing it was nearly as tough. Doesn't that make it the greatest makeup job in the history of theatre? Of course not. note: generally, when I use italics, I'm being sarcastic. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dvarg |
Huh? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| LaGataNegra |
In reply to DP's assertion that the audience is 'behind them 100%' when Todd and Lovett are singing about how many people they intend to kill and eat. I'm not behind either character. I think they're both totally bonkers. I feel no sympathy for either when their deaths occur. They are fascinating characters, yes, and the show is a great one, but who in their right minds would be 'behind them 100%'? | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Dvarg |
Someone who thinks artificial evil is fun? I do. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dots Parasole |
You do realize that children perform this show right? I'm sure you also realize that most of them have no idea about the double meaning of the song. A lot of children have also seen the original show thanks to DVD. They also most likely have no idea about the double meaning. They think they are watching a re-enactment of the children's fable. The fact that you "get" the double meaning is really beside the point.
Nah. Mostly the fact that Sondheim can write both music and lyrics.
I am not bashing other composers. I am bashing ALW who, at this point, I barely even consider a composer.
I can't speak for others but I have seen all of Sondheim's major works since "Sunday in the Park With George" here in NYC and many of his shows around the world. I am not basing my opinions on cast recordings or YouTube clips. I have seen the work and the audience reactions. There is a reason that Sondheim is the most respected living composer. There is a reason his shows receive praise from all over the globe and most every actor wants to be in his shows.
So you never laugh at that song? You sit with your mouth agape in horror? I find that hard to believe. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| LaGataNegra |
You handed me 'I Know Things Now's double meaning as evidence of Sondheim's brilliance; it's what you gave me to work with. When I give a rebuttal, you get trite. Which is a cute tactic, but indicates a desire to deflect attention from the argument at hand.
Your next evidence for Sondheim's superiority is that he writes both music and lyrics. Most composers do not write lyrics. A composer is a writer of music. A lyricist writes words to go with the music. That Sondheim can do both very well is wonderful, but it does not make him a better artist than a person who only does one or the other brilliantly. If you limit yourself to musicals that feature a single person as composer and lyricist, you're eliminating a large amount of extraordinary work. How remarkably close-minded! One could make the argument that a collaborative effort is more difficult than a single person performing both functions. As much as I envy your ability to see any work on Broadway, I'm deeply thankful that I don't see musicals through your eyes. I revel in more great music than you'll ever bother listening to. Here in Podunk, I am limited to videos and cast recordings. The lousy sound quality on YouTube annoys me to the point that I rarely watch it. While seeing a show live is always preferable, I find the vast majority of shows work quite nicely in my mind while I'm listening to a recording. 'A Little Priest' is a very funny song. Macabre, but funny! Upon further reflection, however, I feel guilty that I laugh along with it. The cavalier attitude towards life, even pretend life, is disturbing. After seeing the movie, I felt as though I'd just watched torture porn. Beautifully filmed, gorgeously scored, well-acted, torture porn. I'm sure you'll tell me that that's my problem, and you'd be right. We all have our own cross to bear. If that’s my worst, I’m darn lucky. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dots Parasole |
Your anger is beginning to show. I love this part! I did not get trite. I told you the truth. A truth you forgot to comment on. Your "rebuttal" was too personal. You are not the only one to ever hear "I Know Things Now".
Yes it was and it is magnificent that he does both!
I know. Which is why ALW should not even be compared with Sondheim.
ALW is brilliant now? Oh Jeez.
Who said I only listen to Sondheim? I never said that.
No
As am I. Otherwise I'd go around singing "Another Suitcase in Another Hall" all day.
How do you know this? You assume way too much.
Ummmm that sounds nice but Sondheim's shows are much better seen. He writes for character and God knows he's had some fantastic actors perform his work. Tons of Tony's were handed out to actors in Sondheim shows. Not only is his ability to write both music and lyrics a plus but he also aligns himself with some pretty great creative talents (Hal Prince, James Lapine, Hugh Wheeler). ALW shows are easily pictured in ones mind without actually viewing them. There is a reason for this. There simply isn't much there.
I'm not going to say it's your problem. I am going to say that if Sweeney Todd makes you uneasy for whatever reason (religious, moral) than you have come to it's viewing already biased. Although I dont know why you would have a problem with Sweeney and not with the psycho Phantom and the Nazi loving Eva. Or even Che. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dvarg |
If anything, I'd say that it is a composer that writes music to go with the words. Except, of course, that it's better wheb music and lyrics go together. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| LaGataNegra |
Now you mention awards...
Both men have trophy rooms full of awards, as do the creative teams they've worked with. The shows they've written have made dozens of people famous. Both men are star-makers. You were inadvertantly right in an earlier post. I must be naive. I was hoping you actually wanted to have a discussion. I know better now. You just like being obtuse and ticking people off. Probably don't even believe half the stuff you've written. You've just picked up the standard catchphrases others on this site have been tossing out for ages. I'm not angry, I'm disappointed. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dots Parasole |
In other words "I give up". |
||||||||||||||||||||
| LaGataNegra |
Yes, I give up.
I give up trying to have a reasonable discussion with a brick wall. I get more intelligent, more well-reasoned arguments out of my four year old nephew. He's more articulate, as well. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Salome |
exactly. the music compliments the lyrics not vice versa. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dots Parasole |
Now if only we could get ALW to do the same. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Salome |
schwartz first please. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Mara |
Please don't insult Dvarg. He is an intelligent, well-informed poster who never seeks to offend or tick people off. The fact that you can't recognise this says a lot more about you than him. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| moongoddess82 |
Why does it have to be either, or? If Sondheim is great, then ALW must be crap or if ALW is brilliant then Sondheim is crap... the two are good at what they do, plain and simple- for different reasons and in different ways, but that does not change the fact that they are both SUCCESSFUL...ALW has written many of the longest running shows on broadway and while I don't want to even hint at suggesting that commerical appeal means that the show is artistically well done, you cannot deny that ALW at least was doing something right. He understood his audiences and people enjoy his shows( I haven't seen his new works, so I can't comment on whether he's still "got it" ornot)...Do people like his shows for the same reason that people enjoy Sondheim's? No, probably not.
Now I am the first to admit that ALW reuses melodys for no reason and yes, sometimes his shows do seem disjointed and maybe I'm a little musically challenged- I'd like to think I'm not but I'm willing to concede that maybe I'm missing something...but don't 70% of Sondeim's songs sound like recits for the ENTIRE song????? I mean, the lyrics are beautiful and the stories are well done... but he almost ignores the use of melody and chords between the singer and orchestra in many parts of his songs, while ALW uses the orchestrations to enhance the melody of the lyrics. And speaking of lyrics, I find it interesting that one of the big problems everyone seems to have with ALW is that the lyrics aren't very good and that he doesn't write for a character- but you admit he didn't write the lyrics... so why are you using that as a reason to justify that he isn't good at what he does? If any character can sing a song in a ALW show, it isn't because of the orchestrations- it's because of the lyrics. I think they both are good at different parts of the writing process and that they both have a place in the theatrical world. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| mastachen |
Can you keep it civil please? No one is attacking you, so why are you attacking other people? Attack the opinions, not the person. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Snow_White |
I agree with Chen...can't we all be friends?
This argument has been going on too long. We all have our opinions, and one person is not likely to change that opinion- no matter how much we insult eachother. Also, it is totally inappropriate to insult someone personally for their opinions...freedom of thought and speech, is that not in the constitution somewhere? I could be wrong but I think that this comment..
Is totally uncalled for and childish. Let's play nice now. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dvarg |
Thanks - that means a lot to me! 
But I don't think that post was to me... |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dvarg |
Firstly: Caracter isn't expressed through lyrics alone, it's also expressed through music. Phyllis Stone couldn't have sung any song to the tune of Send In The Clowns, although she and Desireé Armfeldt may be sort of comparable characters. ALW's Norma desmond could easily have sung a song to the tune of Memory (as she was intended to do prior to Cats). Secondly: ALW did choose those collaborators, and he has occationally chosen really bad ones. Ben Elton, however funny he may be, obviously can't recognise a rhyme if it hit him over the head, for example. Plus ALW songs is commonly used as an abbrivation of songs composed by ALW with any lyricist. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dvarg |
This is very wrong if you've read any of our areguments. Most Sondheimists enjoy things like JCS, Evita and AOL. Personally I think Song And Dance is very enjoyable.
I don't understand what this means. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| LaGataNegra |
You're right. That last remark (not aimed at Dvarg-I appreciate his posts) was uncalled for. I should not have risen to the bait. DP was yanking my chain with her every post, as evidenced by her 'I love this part' when she decided my 'anger is showing'. She admitted to 'bashing Andrew Lloyd Webber', with glee that I haven't read in ages. When she said 'in other words you give up', it set me off. I saw this as an attack, and reacted badly.
I'm sorry I blew up, and will refrain from doing so in the future. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dots Parasole |
I am not a girl I was not bashing ALW. I don't like him and don't think his music or talent are anything to brag about. I don't care if other people like him. I am just tired of him even being compared to Sondheim. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| LaGataNegra |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dvarg |
What does this mean? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Salome |
moongoddess..wow! you are so wrong about everything you said.
Sondheim only uses reciicitive for effect. there is barely any of it in company,follies,merrily we roll along,anyone can whistle,forum,bounce,a little night music and assassins. and where it is used in SITPWG,ITW and Sweeney its for a reason. as for webber..Webber never cared about lyrics. and lyrics are the most important part of a song. he constantly keeps total control over the creative aspects of his shows. ever since he and Rice disolved their partnership..a composer should NEVER have that over a lyricist. and all the lyricists for webber showews except Hampton and on occassion Rice have been poor. you also mad an inane coment above. lyrics do not have a melody. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dvarg |
I totally agree. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| moongoddess82 |
Salome, I guess explains why I think that- those are proably the 3 main shows I was thinking of when I wrote that... I understand that recits can be used as a dramatic effect- but I think he does it too much and that it gets a little.. redundant, I guess...not to say that I think he's a bad composer/lyricist because of this, but I just don't see the dramatic purpose of some of his recits.
I completely agree that for the story/characters the lyrics are the most important part of a show, but I still don't think you can fault the composer for the creative ideas of the lyricist if they are two separate people...if ALW does keep strict control over his shows, then yeah he is certainly partly at fault... but I don't think that makes him a "bad composer" ... He has enough faults of his own doing without adding that indirect one on there 
oh, and about my "inane comment" as you put it, here you go, from the dictionary: Melody 1 : a sweet or agreeable succession or arrangement of sounds : tunefulness 2 : a rhythmic succession of single tones organized as an aesthetic whole Maybe I didn't make it clear when I wrote it, but lyrics are put to a melody and for Sondheim, sometimes the melody put to his lyrics does not work well with the orchestrations accompanying them |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dvarg |
Can you show some examples? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| moongoddess82 |
Dvarg I'd be happy to give examples.
Most of the first act of SitPwG has perfect examples of what I'm describing. It's mostly speak-singing with very unsupportive accompaniment behind it. Again, I know that recits (speak-singing style passages) can be used for effect, but this show uses it too much without any artistic need for it- you might as well make one or two more melodic songs (which I know he could've done for this show, as the score already has one- "Sunday") with short recits at certain points, then just turned the rest of it into dialogue. When you've got that much recit in a show, it's no longer effective in my opinion and it just becomes grating. Another example of the same thing is On the Steps of the Palace from ITW. I actually like this song, but it uses recit the entire time and the accompaniment is very unsupportive while Cinderella jumps intervals all over the place (pretty intervals, making a very pretty melody). I undestand the need for SOME recit in this song, as it is supposed to be Cinderella talking to herself and its supposed to be in a stream of consciousness style(saying things as she's thinking them)- I just think the beautiful melody could've been better supported by a more flowing, melodic accompaniment through more of the song. Hope that explains things well |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Pannic |
I just got the Revival Cast of Company. I'm floored.
And I just made what seems to be a complete non-sequiter. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dvarg |
I don't understand why you mean those examples demonstrate that Sondheim's melodies don't go well with the accompagnement. Can you name a specific passage of SITPWG? Those are perfectly swell melodies to my ears... 
I don't think the Palace song is recitative, really? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Pounce |
That might run counter to Sondheim's philosophy. I think you yourself Dvarg told me that Sondheim writes the music and lyrics together. I'd find a song with nice lyrics but poor music very disappointing to the point that I'd suggest dropping the song all together and replace it with dialog. Music with poor lyrics might work if the music conveys more of a character's feelings. Classic example would be the character "being in love". General cliche phrases are sung about love with some nice music. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Anno_Domini |
...I adore both composers. Both have talent the likes of which none of us have.
I do prefer Sondheim, simply because much of his music is complex, yet still retains its splendour and melodiousness. But I must say that, for auditions, I've sung a hell of a lot more Lloyd Webber than I have Sondheim |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dvarg |
I don't agree with Sondheim on everything.
That the lyrics are the most important part of a song doesn't mean that it's ok if the music is crappy.
Imo, that sounds a classic example of a songs that doesn't work. If the lyrics are weak, they undercut the character's feelings no matter how good the music may be. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| shakalakababy |
I agree, i never thought that at all for SITPWG. I wouldn't really call on the steps of the palace a recitative either. I just performed it in a recital and while it is a rather difficult song to sing it definitely has a clear melody to it, or theme at least. It can be difficult to time it right with the accompaniment at times but i think that's just because it's a challenging song. If done right, it sounds great. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dots Parasole |
This was done totally on purpose. In, fact it is the whole purpose of the show. The music goes in time with the actual painting. Many "hit" notes to define the dotted style of George. Most of the music does not match the melodies coming out of the actors mouths. "Sunday" is so melodic because it is the painting when it is finished. He has spoken about this many times. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Pannic |
As for the fact that the orchestra does not match the singing, that also is with the pointilism theme. You put them together and they become more than the sum of their parts, as "the ear arranges." | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Pounce |
But I would think that is an essential to what is Sondheim. You seem to appreciate him more than any other.
Then what is the purpose of song in a musical? The classic reason is that the character reaches the height of emotion such that dialog is insufficient to convey his or her feelings. Music can convey a lot of a character's feelings without a word uttered. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dvarg |
I don't think Sondheim always has the best perspective on his own work. Besides, I do think it's best when music and lyrics work perfectly together (which I think represents Sondheim's philosophy).
Firstly, I think the classic reason doesn't represent the full truth anymore, not after the musical has developed a few decades. Now there are other reasons in addition. Here's a subject where I do agree with Sondheim. Secondly, yes, music can convey a lot of a character's feelings without a word being uttered. But if the words that are uttered undercuts the feeling represented by the music, I think it's a flawed song. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Dots Parasole |
how can someone with a heart watch something like this and not feel something? Not be overwhelmed with emotion?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AzeJVQMoNmo or this!! http://youtube.com/watch?v=HbwsFVF75bo Sondheim asks, and most of the time demands, that you invest in his work. His work can be distant at time but, my God, when he aims for your heart and soul it is a magnificent experience. Every time I watch the finale from "George" I cry. When the subjects bow to him it is almost unbearable. George: Dot, I cannot read this word? Dot: Harmony George: So much love in his words. Forever in his colors. How George looks. He can look forever. What does he see? His eyes so dark so shiny so careful. MADE OF FLECKS OF LIGHT AND DARK AND PARASOL'S Gorgeous!! |
||||||||||||||||||||
| moongoddess82 |
|