diva!
|
not a fan of ALWhes a clever little man, but im not a fan.
APART FROM obviously the masterpiece which is the phantom of the opera.
i think ALW musicals have an element of immaturity and simplicity to them which i dont enjoy...songs are predictable and lack of harmonies makes them dull i feel!
sorry to be negative. ill end on bigging him up
phantom of the opera rules? lol best i can do
|
rockyrocks666
|
he does right some good shows, but the simplism is somewhat boring. it annoys me how he has hold of most big theatres when there are alot better shows just waiting to come in! its ridiculous! lots of his shows have the same tunes within them and its just tedious. but hes not happy with all his 'hits' hes still tryin to do more. like 'the woman in white' ... what a febal attempt at a smash hit. there isnt one note in that show that wasnt taken from one of his others... he's got the hit, he should leave it at that.
but yes, phantom is amazing, as is JCS and several others... but its over now, he should leave it at that.
|
Pounce
|
Who are you people? This is a CATS forum. This thread belongs in the ALW forum.
|
Flitterbug
|
"These people" do have something of a point, though.
|
rockyrocks666
|
thanks...
|
diva!
|
pounce you are really really really rude.
i guess we should have expected a "catty" response in the CATS forum
thanks flitterbug 
|
griddlebone_girl
|
i agree with Pounce. Fine you have your opinion, i have no problem with that. But why have you come into a Cats forum full of Cats fans and told us you think Cats is "immature" "simple" "predictable" "lacking in harmony" and "dull"?
Like i said you're entitled to your own opinion but this isn't the place for this kind of post. It sounds to me like you're trying to get an arguement.
|
diva!
|
oh no nothing like that at all and ill be happy to explain
im new. lol and forgot i was in a sub forum of cats for the ALW forum- i intended on posting it in the main bit.
obviously made a mistake- do apologise.
i just cant stand it when people are just blatantly rude u no? its not fair that one new person makes a mistake and they get shouted at for it by people like pounce.
just the sort of behaviour you'd expect from an Andrew LLoys Webber fan!  (joking)
|
Drumdraper
|
Hey Ms. Jellicle, Rumblepurr, and other moderators I sense a flame war ahead with this.
|
griddlebone_girl
|
I think (not positive) that Pounce said that because (at least to me) it appeared that you and rockyrocks appeared out of no where to have a dig at Cats. You're new so you've not been around this forum and i'd never seen rockyrocks around before, so it kinda looked like you were here to troll. Maybe thats just how my sleepy state see's it.
I don't think Pounce sounded too rude, if the message had been along the lines of "OMFG!! WTF are you doing? This belongs somewhere else you idiot" that would have been rude, Pounce was simply stateing.
And we all make mistakes
|
Pounce
|
| Flitterbug wrote: | | "These people" do have something of a point, though. |
Having a point doesn't justify a thread in the wrong forum. They are doing a general discussion of ALW musicals in a CATS forum. If they want to discuss the music of CATS alone or how it compares to the other ALW shows or even other musicals...ok.
But in general, it is very unwise to say negative things about CATS here! 
|
diva!
|
nope not here to try and start an argument simply a mistake.
i wasnt taking a dig at cats on its own promise, although it does come under the ALW musicals i meant.
it was the "who are you people?" that disheartened me
im over it now guys- thank god- thought i wouldnt be able to get through this rough patch
|
Idiosylph
|
Re: not a fan of ALWI'm going back to the beginning!
If you don't mind hanging out on the CATS forum for a bit, I think you might have opened an interesting topic of discussion.
| diva! wrote: | hes a clever little man, but im not a fan.
APART FROM obviously the masterpiece which is the phantom of the opera.
i think ALW musicals have an element of immaturity and simplicity to them which i dont enjoy...songs are predictable and lack of harmonies makes them dull i feel!
sorry to be negative. ill end on bigging him up
phantom of the opera rules? lol best i can do |
These elements of immaturity of which you speak, can you give examples? I will agree about the simplicity of certain shows. CATS has only the barest plot to start with. But, as many fans would tell you, that's one of the fun things about it. It leaves so much to the imagination that it allows each of us to have our own interpretation of the show and the characters. It also makes the show very accessable to younger audiances while entertaining older audiances at the same time. I know that I wouldn't take a small child to see Phantom. It would be too intense for them in some spots and could quite possibly bore them. With CATS, there is interaction with the performers and the audiance, and there are plenty of bouncy numbers that can keep childrens' attention.
Another thing to remember is that certain shows, like Joseph were made for children and schools to be able to perform. I believe that Joseph in particular was made for ALW's younger brother's school. He wrote Starlight Express with his children in mind. So in that, the fast races and shiney costumes are made to appeal to children. CATS is based off of a book of children's poems.
So, yeah, in short I think you really do have to keep in mind the intended audiance for the show when you start saying things like "it's simple" or "immature." Little kids don't read "Les Mis" for a reason, after all.
|
Soloque
|
| diva! wrote: | pounce you are really really really rude.
i guess we should have expected a "catty" response in the CATS forum
thanks flitterbug |
ew. go away. No one likes you.
EDIT--- Diva!, You are new here so I really wouldn't suggest making trouble in this forum (or any forum) I suggest you read up on some forum etiquette before you continue to post, so people (like me) who have been here for years don't want to drop kick you.
|
Moongewl
|
Solo, marry me.
Diva, chill. Both diva and rockyrocks666, please use capitalization, or else I shall point and laugh when you post. (Not really, I'm just cranky.)
Cats isn't some terribly intricate piece of work. So? It doesn't pretend to be. It's a visual feast, and that's what I like about it.
|
QuaxoCoricopat
|
Personally, I like to compare CATS to Samuel Beckett's "Waiting for Godot". While I'd say that Godot was the superior piece, they've got the same literary concept of shows about "nothing" that force the audience to come to conclusions versus telling them what to think. There are no "right" answers when it comes to CATS...
That, or CATS is Seinfeld... but relating it to Beckett makes some of my snobbier fellow theatre majors' heads explode. Its fun to watch.
"ALW? He just writes three songs and uses them over and over again, right? He's so consummerist. Rogers and Hammerstein were so unappreciated. But let's get back to talking about how we hate that theatre historians disdained all forms of "popular" theatre and how very wrong they were..." -- paraphrased from my theatre professor... *cough*
|
Rumblepurr
|
Interesting...Just to let people know, I do cruise through periodically. If it looks like the thread is going out of debate mode, you will find me...
Also, members are allowed to report things - See the "BLUE" button? If you think a thread is wrong, you click on the button and it shows up for the moderators.
So far, we have borderline in spots... Debate this if you like, but it did land in the wrong Forum. No problems so far...
Rumblepurr
CATS Moderator
|
MsJellicle
|
Yup, I've been keeping an eye on this thread as well and agree with Rumblpurr on the debates here. Since there have been some discussions going on, I haven't moved the thread. But, just to let people know, we mods can move threads to another forum...and we can leave a 'shadow' thread here. People will be able to read it here, but posting continues in the ALW forum. Did people want me to do that with this thread?
~MsJ
|
rockyrocks666
|
yes, im just debating. anyone, im not knocking just cats, but most things by ALW. someone join me...
p.s. i didnt start this in the wrong place, i believe it was diva! ... i just happen to agree
|
Soloque
|
| MsJellicle wrote: | Yup, I've been keeping an eye on this thread as well and agree with Rumblpurr on the debates here. Since there have been some discussions going on, I haven't moved the thread. But, just to let people know, we mods can move threads to another forum...and we can leave a 'shadow' thread here. People will be able to read it here, but posting continues in the ALW forum. Did people want me to do that with this thread?
~MsJ |
I am all for moving it. It's in the entirely wrong forum and its just someone being immature and annoying. If it stays here its only going to be a thread full of open arguments. Which, I am fan of but, it doesn't really do anyone any good in the long run.
|
Mungostoffelees
|
| Pounce wrote: |
But in general, it is very unwise to say negative things about CATS here! |
Why? The odd disagreement is what makes discussing cats interesting too you know to hear different sides of the argument? Obviously obody wants all out war but this forum doesnt have to be exclusive to just people who adore the show.
|
rockyrocks666
|
i havent set out for war, so sorry if its going that was. i just wanted to debate, thats all
|
Mungostoffelees
|
Yeah exactly and thats perfectly fine, I personally find it refreshing to read something like this a little different, somtimes!
|
Pounce
|
| Mungostoffelees wrote: | | Pounce wrote: |
But in general, it is very unwise to say negative things about CATS here! |
Why? The odd disagreement is what makes discussing cats interesting too you know to hear different sides of the argument? Obviously obody wants all out war but this forum doesnt have to be exclusive to just people who adore the show. |
Sure, but I think CATS fans tend to be fanatical about the show. I mean, other than the MDN Social Club forum, no other forum comes even close to CATS in the total number of posts. So if anyone wants to denigrate CATS the general response here will be
RRRRRROWLLLLLL!
PHHHHHHHHHHHT!
When I first started posting here years ago, I suggested that CATS might be performed in a slightly different way. Weeeell, the backs were arched, the fur was raised, and the claws came out!  So my advice to anyone, if you want to express a negative opinion here about the show, even if it is only slightly less than glowing, tred carefully. 
|
Moongewl
|
| Pounce wrote: | | When I first started posting here years ago, I suggested that CATS might be performed in a slightly different way. Weeeell, the backs were arched, the fur was raised, and the claws came out! So my advice to anyone, if you want to express a negative opinion here about the show, even if it is only slightly less than glowing, tred carefully. |
IIRC, you were suggesting that Disney do CATS(I'm thinking that was you, it might not have been you or you may be thinking of another topic, in which case disregard this paragraph entirely). It wasn't the suggestion of change--because after all we've seen CATS get butchered a dozen completely different ways, and changed for the better in countless small(or occasionally big) ways. It was the suggestion that it be Disney, which people feel strongly about, because A) it's, well, Disney, and B) Eliot himself was dead-set against it.
Apart from the uberfangirls/boys, most of us are able to reasonably discuss differing opinions about this musical, and aspects of it. Which is more than you can say about a lot of us(myself included of course)and politics.
...Potato.[/randomness]
|
Pounce
|
| Moongewl wrote: | | Pounce wrote: | | When I first started posting here years ago, I suggested that CATS might be performed in a slightly different way. Weeeell, the backs were arched, the fur was raised, and the claws came out! So my advice to anyone, if you want to express a negative opinion here about the show, even if it is only slightly less than glowing, tred carefully. |
IIRC, you were suggesting that Disney do CATS(I'm thinking that was you, it might not have been you or you may be thinking of another topic, in which case disregard this paragraph entirely). It wasn't the suggestion of change--because after all we've seen CATS get butchered a dozen completely different ways, and changed for the better in countless small(or occasionally big) ways. It was the suggestion that it be Disney, which people feel strongly about, because A) it's, well, Disney, and B) Eliot himself was dead-set against it.
Apart from the uberfangirls/boys, most of us are able to reasonably discuss differing opinions about this musical, and aspects of it. Which is more than you can say about a lot of us(myself included of course)and politics.
|
Actually yes, you have a good memory or it made a really deep impression.
In that episode about 3 years ago, sure some people were willing to discuss in reasonable debate but others seemed to take it somewhat personally or make wild assumptions of the result such as introducing Mickey and Goofy into the cast. Something which Disney hasn't done in its three shows and I haven't heard of in its new show Tarzan.
But I mentioned other ideas outside of Disney and met with similar vehement rejection but I have no hard feelings because I love the show and often defend it outside of this forum against any detractors. 
|
Mungostoffelees
|
Yes but that still could have just come from a select couple of forum members who did feel strongly about it?
I don't get why some people get so defensive about it anyway...sure its a good show and you can love it loads (I for one adore it), and will obviously want to point out its best bits for those naive people who often call it rubbish when they haven't seen it (and if they have, fine, not everyone can like the same things.)
I can't imagine why this thread or any other like it should produce any gigantic argument amongst forum members at present.
|
Cassandra
|
Pounce, I think you might be generalizing a bit too much. You might feel a bit cautious because of your Disney suggestion and what happened a few years ago, but for the most part we're all able to discuss our love of the show in a calm and sensible manner. I agree that there will be, as Moongewl stated so perfectly, "uberfangirls/boys" who will scream and jump down the throat of anyone who claims to dislike Cats, but most of us enjoy discussing our different opinions about the show.
Not to mention, there have been a few times when someone who doesn't like or doesn't understand the appeal of the show will come and ask, "Hey, I just don't get it. I saw the show and I wasn't impressed for these reasons.... (yadda, yadda, yadda). Can you explain why you all love it so much?" While they did express their dislike for the show, they did it in a calm and approachable manner and stated why they didn't like the show, which leaves the door open for better discussion. This manner of posting is much more appreciated than, "OMG!!11 CATS SUX! This is like the worst show ever!!111," and not give any reasons for disliking it.
Point is.... Most of the people on this forum should not (and most likely will not) attack anyone who dislikes the show as long as the person posts in a calm manner, giving reasons to back up their opinions, and is willing to participate in a mature debate.
|
diva!
|
Ok...
So i apologise for writing this in the wrong place, by all means move it- I was, like all of you are, expressing an opinion. I personally don't think that the issue is that i posted it in the wrong forum, and that is just a reason for you all to pounce on me (pardon the punn)
I agree that it is good that ALW writes musicals for children and that they are, simple in the way that children enjoy them (do bear in mind i said he was very clever) i just particularly dont enjoy them. I prefer it when a musical i watch has a tad more substance.
If i have offended anyone then i apologise...but also- u will never get any new ideas or any new opinions put forward if people like Soloque want to keep this an "old members only forum" (which appears to be the impression i got when they happened to 'mention' theyve been here for years). Yes im new, but i have the right to be here just like you do.
I havent been rude to any of u and although maybe i posted something in the wrong place, I dont deserve any of this backlash.
(By the way soloque, for somebody who has been here for years - well done on that by the way - i would have thought you would express your views in a more eloquent manner rather than "ew. no-one likes you"
Sorry if i did something wrong though guys i'll try to have a tad more etiquette in future if you feel i am lacking (which i dont believe to be the case)
|
Soloque
|
| diva! wrote: |
(By the way soloque, for somebody who has been here for years - well done on that by the way - i would have thought you would express your views in a more eloquent manner rather than "ew. no-one likes you"
Sorry if i did something wrong though guys i'll try to have a tad more etiquette in future if you feel i am lacking (which i dont believe to be the case) |
Darling.....I dont need to be elequent all the time. I found your post immature and irrelevent. Pardon me for not sugar coating things...its really not my style. We are all forum members this place is open up for everyone but, you come in with a cockamammy post that has no relevence. I am all for diversity and I love when new people come and post their thoughts. In no way do I think this is a 'members only' I apologize if it came off that way I was simply stating I have been here for many years and I dont like it when new people come in and start bashing things right off the bat. Also, you had no right for calling Pounce! 'really really really rude' (Thats what made me upset) Pounce did NOTHING rude except post that the post was in the completely wrong forum and that we dont really like 'newbies' coming in and wreaking havoc right off the bat. Im not saying these things to be mean, but if you plan to have a healthy fun forum experience I wouldnt try to tussle any feather. I am an EXTREMELY nice person, I just dont like seeing new people come in and having nothing nice to say. So you dont like cats, thats fine thats totally something that can be discussed in a healthy problem free fashion, I got pissed that you called Pounce rude, when Pounce happens to be a very nice level headed person.
Hopefully we can put this behind us and everyone can have a good experience here...thats what this place is here for. So, I aologize for coming off in a nasty fashion.
For the record...the 'ew go away' was NOT because you're new, not at all, its because what you said to Pounce. I get edgy when people are out wardly rude without a reason to be. Im kinda protective over my people.
~Soloque
|
MsJellicle
|
Per the originator's request, I moved this topic into the ALW forum, but left a shadow topic in the CATS forum if people want to keep an eye on it or continue posting in it.
~MsJ
|
jcstar
|
1. ALW' Masterpiece is JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR and everything else he did with Tim Rice.
2. He understands the neccesity of musical theatre being "popular." In his own words:
"When I met Tim Rice ... musical theatre was a gone form, and we were supposed to be the Beatles and Elvis Presley. Tim understood that we wanted to bring theatre back to the mainstream."
3. CATS is a delightful little show. I mean, listen to the music, and watch a real cat walk around and do things.
4. Phantom has its flaws. I really wish he could have worked on it a bit more.
5. Name me any other composer in theatre who has tackled controversial topics and has never apologised for pissing the general public off in doing so?
6. Name me another composer who had three shows running on Broadway and the West End at the same time.
7. Have you ever been in a show where ALW's name is on it? The stuff is bloody hard to sing! Sometimes he asks the basses to try to be tenors! Plus, there's harmony all over his shows. Try being in the chrus and see what you have to sing. Sometimes, it's not pretty, but it's there for a reason.
8. ALW is a showman. In JOSEPH, he has music writte like this
9/8 for one bar, 68 for another bar (this pattern repeats ten times). Suddenly, he'll throw in a few 4/4 bars, then jumpo to 7/8. Why? Because he can, and he wants to torutre the musicians.
9. We all love him. Even if he does look like a goapher!
Andy.
|
Moongewl
|
| Soloque wrote: | | I am an EXTREMELY nice person |
*gigglesnort*
No, really, you're a nice person. *attempts to maintain straight face* Nicer than I am, usually.
|
Soloque
|
| Moongewl wrote: | | Soloque wrote: | | I am an EXTREMELY nice person |
*gigglesnort*
No, really, you're a nice person. *attempts to maintain straight face* Nicer than I am, usually. |
Ok....so I am not EXTREMELY nice, but Im not thaaaaat bad. Not until you konw me
I lived with Smudge for a year...some of her evilness is bound to rub off on me
I <3 you Smudge Bug.
|
Dvarg
|
| jcstar wrote: |
5. Name me any other composer in theatre who has tackled controversial topics and has never apologised for pissing the general public off in doing so?
|
You are kidding, aren't you
Somewhat related to the topic: What do you think of the idea of doing Cats Sweeney Todd Revival-style? All cats doubling (tripling?) as musicians/actors/dancers?
|
rockyrocks666
|
hmmm ALW doesnt tackle controvertial subjects i wouldnt say. although the idea of singing cats is pretty risque. lol
ive been in lots of ALW shows and i've never thought they were very hard to sing, not in comparison to other writters anyway.
the reason he has so many shows runnin is coz hes an upper class toff and owns most of the theatres. he got a lucky break on a couple of shows and made it big but now he just puts on shows because he can.
|
diva!
|
yeah lets put it behind us guys its water under the bridge-
i do agree with rockyrocks though, ALW hardly deals with controversial topics really? two bible stories...a train musical...a musical about cats. no doubt they're fun, but hardly hard hitting topics lol!
its all good- as i said i think he's really clever and i admire what he has accomplished..just not a fan
|
Dvarg
|
| diva! wrote: |
i do agree with rockyrocks though, ALW hardly deals with controversial topics really? two bible stories...a train musical...a musical about cats. no doubt they're fun, but hardly hard hitting topics lol!
|
JCS, Evita and TBG (though that one is void of other merits) are handling contoversial topics, I'll give him that. I don't think it's a coincidence JCS and Evita are his best shows.
|
jcstar
|
| diva! wrote: | | i do agree with rockyrocks though, ALW hardly deals with controversial topics really? two bible stories...a train musical...a musical about cats. no doubt they're fun, but hardly hard hitting topics lol! |
Jesus Christ singing rock music was... and still is... considered blasphemey by most Bible-thumping Christians. You obviously don't know the history of the show.
Evita is the closest thing to God in Argentina. So, to have (again) Eva Peron singing rock songs and showing how she manipulated people was controversial. I mean, consider that even in '96 Parker had to beg and plead with the Argentine Government to get the balcony of the Casa Rosada for the film version. The musical, to my knowledge, is still banned in Argentina.
Please learn the history behind his shows. Then, when informed, make comments.
Andy.
|
Dvarg
|
| jcstar wrote: |
Jesus Christ singing rock music was... and still is... considered blasphemey by most Bible-thumping Christians. You obviously don't know the history of the show.
|
Not to mention NOT having Jesus rise from the dead - which somehow is considered controversial even in Norway.[/i]
|
rockyrocks666
|
we know the history, we aint retarded, its just not THAT big a deal.
|
diva!
|
ok jesus christ superstar and evita..
im not big on knowing the history...that is because, as i said- am not a fan! lol
I think there are more hard hitting musicals though...Rent deals with much bigger issues, as does blood brothers, and as does elegies and maybe even wicked to an extent..
but that would be side tracking...
|
MusicFan
|
In defence of ALWIt's always very easy to label something "predictable" when someone else has already done it. Also, "controversial" doesnt mean "good" as is being implied, it simply means "controversial". I actually can't stand things that are done self-consciously to appear "clever", to tug at your sleeves and say "look at what I did there, isn't that great?". ALW never does that, he doesn't need to. He manages to be clever without ever seeking to show off, merely to develop the story through music and engage the audience. However, ALW has always been prepared to use unusual themes in his musicals and take massive risks whether the themes are controversial or not. Cats was a huge risk - it had so much going against it from a commercial standpoint and no one wanted to invest in it because of that risk. The Woman in White was never likely to be a hit and it wasn't. Tell me that there isn't much harmony in a musical like The Woman in White, or for that matter, Evita, Whistle Down the Wind or Phantom of the Opera and I would have question your musical sensibilities. So, Andrew Lloyd Webber produces a thrilling musical in the form of the Woman in White and meanwhile, the hideously overrated Elton John does "Billy Eliot" since, of course, hit film = hit musical. With regards to the so-called "simplicity", all I can say is have a go at writing a "simple" song that is equal to "Don't Cry for me Argentina", "Memory" or "Whistle Down the Wind" and you will soon give up trying. Lloyd Webber's music is both simple and complex but consistently brilliant.
|
jcstar
|
| diva! wrote: | | I think there are more hard hitting musicals though...Rent deals with much bigger issues, as does blood brothers, and as does elegies and maybe even wicked to an extent.. |
BUT those musicals didn't have people picketing the streets outside the theatre... whether they bothered to see the show or not.
What other musical made it to the cover of TIME magazine? JCS.
For EVITA, Argentina tried to ban Madonna from ever coming near their country.
Other musicals don't get that kind of press. And it helped in both cases.
I love RENT. It's no JCS, but I love it all the same.
I only know "Sunday Afternoon/My Best Friend" from Blood Brothers (sung by David Cassidy), so I can't comment on that show.
Andy.
|
Dvarg
|
Re: In defence of ALW | MusicFan wrote: |
Also, "controversial" doesnt mean "good" as is being implied, it simply means "controversial".
|
It can also mean you have the courage and the social conscience to handle important topics, regardless of whether it will sell or not. Which is good in many people's opinion.
| MusicFan wrote: |
I actually can't stand things that are done self-consciously to appear "clever", to tug at your sleeves and say "look at what I did there, isn't that great?". ALW never does that.
|
It depends on the eye that see, I suppose...
|
MusicFan
|
Re: In defence of ALW | Dvarg wrote: | | It can also mean you have the courage and the social conscience to handle important topics, regardless of whether it will sell or not. Which is good in many people's opinion. |
It can mean that in some cases, yes.
| Dvarg wrote: | | MusicFan wrote: |
I actually can't stand things that are done self-consciously to appear "clever", to tug at your sleeves and say "look at what I did there, isn't that great?". ALW never does that.
|
It depends on the eye that see, I suppose... |
I feel that this comment is based on a misinterpretation of the quote.
|
Dvarg
|
Re: In defence of ALW | MusicFan wrote: |
| Dvarg wrote: |
It depends on the eye that see, I suppose...
|
I feel that this comment is based on a misinterpretation of the quote. |
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you. What did you mean?
|
Pounce
|
Re: In defence of ALW | Dvarg wrote: | | MusicFan wrote: |
Also, "controversial" doesnt mean "good" as is being implied, it simply means "controversial".
|
It can also mean you have the courage and the social conscience to handle important topics, regardless of whether it will sell or not. Which is good in many people's opinion. |
Not to the show's backers! Unless the show's writer/composer is independently wealthy, s/he has to sell the show's idea to the investors and unless the investors are very altruistic, they hope to make money off the show. Investors do know that shows are high risk but they do try and minimize the risk by assessing a show's marketability.
|
Dvarg
|
Re: In defence of ALW | Pounce wrote: |
Unless the show's writer/composer is independently wealthy, s/he has to sell the show's idea to the investors and unless the investors are very altruistic, they hope to make money off the show.
|
That is undeniably an eternal dilemma.
One has to chose between filling one's account with digits and filling one's life with substance, and find a balance somewhere inbetween.
Thankfully, there are numerous examples of shows that became commercially successful without sacrificing artistic integrity.
|
B3TA07
|
WAKE UP!
The only musicals of his with decent material are Aspects of Love and Sunset Boulevard.
|
MusicFan
|
| B3TA07 wrote: | WAKE UP!
The only musicals of his with decent material are Aspects of Love and Sunset Boulevard. |
Oh I see. Thanks for letting us know.
|
rockyrocks666
|
he has shows with good material? lol
|
MusicFan
|
| rockyrocks666 wrote: | | he has shows with good material? lol |
Yeah, right... he definitely has shows with good material! lol
(I think I may have fooled some of them with that post I made earlier! lol)
|
rockyrocks666
|
lol, soooooooo fooled
|
diva!
|
so we have established andrew lloyd webber's musical have caused RIOTS in argentina..GREAT lol- thats not what a musicals for.
lol no guys seriously they are relatively enjoyable but i just honestly wouldnt say hes one of the best- which he is constantly made out to be. maybe tim rice is the driving force behind him cause the music to chess seems MUCH better than CATS (which was done without tim rice)
i agree i have made a mistake though. we are doing oh what a circus with our youth group and the harmonies were very hard so i feel a tad silly on that one. i am yet to see EVITA but this thread will urge me to see it when it comes to the west end in june.
do you not find though, that all his musicals have a sort of "Webberosity" to them, that is to say there isnt any substance to them. They look pretty but lack anything u can really get your teeth into. And really at the end of the day- even if you DO think they have substance, you have history, gaston leroux and the bible to thank for most of the storylines. NOT ALW.
sorry if thats all confusing, my wording was rubbish!
|
rockyrocks666
|
i understand. lol... the word of reason
|
Pounce
|
| diva! wrote: | so we have established andrew lloyd webber's musical have caused RIOTS in argentina..GREAT lol- thats not what a musicals for.
lol no guys seriously they are relatively enjoyable but i just honestly wouldnt say hes one of the best- which he is constantly made out to be. maybe tim rice is the driving force behind him cause the music to chess seems MUCH better than CATS (which was done without tim rice) |
I guess that means you prefer ABBA over Lloyd Webber. I don't know much about CHESS other than 'One Night In Bangkok" that was a big pop hit by itself.
| Quote: | | i agree i have made a mistake though. we are doing oh what a circus with our youth group and the harmonies were very hard so i feel a tad silly on that one. i am yet to see EVITA but this thread will urge me to see it when it comes to the west end in june. |
A number of ALW haters seem to soften their position when it comes to EVITA. It does seem to still be a work in progress. That new version is supposed to sound more "Latin" and is adding "You Must Love Me" from the movie. "The Lady's Got Potential" was taken out but put back in the movie with new (and much better) lyrics. Haven't heard if it is in this new production.
| Quote: | do you not find though, that all his musicals have a sort of "Webberosity" to them, that is to say there isnt any substance to them. They look pretty but lack anything u can really get your teeth into. And really at the end of the day- even if you DO think they have substance, you have history, gaston leroux and the bible to thank for most of the storylines. NOT ALW.
sorry if thats all confusing, my wording was rubbish! |
In some ways, maybe we put too much credit or blame on the composer. I mean ALW primarily writes the music. Really good sounding tunes are all I ask of him. The lyricist can infuse it with meaning. But all I really want is entertainment. A show can be weighty if it likes but if it is not very entertaining, then it pretty much fails with me. I find many of ALW's shows to have very good tunes which makes up for any thin material. But poke fun at him all you want because the man is laughing all the way to the bank. His shows have been immensely popular which indicates that he must be doing something right. And if you are a fan of musical theater, that financial success keeps Broadway and the West End relevant in our culture.
So what shows do you think offer up material that one can sink his/her teeth into?
|
MusicFan
|
| diva! wrote: | | no guys seriously they are relatively enjoyable but i just honestly wouldnt say hes one of the best- which he is constantly made out to be. ! |
Is he constantly made out to be one of the best? I don't know of another artist who has been the subject of as much derision as ALW.
| diva! wrote: | | maybe tim rice is the driving force behind him cause the music to chess seems MUCH better than CATS (which was done without tim rice) ! |
I disagree with this, but I respect your opinion. I don't think ALW has had a lyricist of the calibre of Tim Rice since their partnership ended but, personally, I love the musicals he's done since (with the exception of Starlight Express and The Beautiful Game).
| diva! wrote: | | do you not find though, that all his musicals have a sort of "Webberosity" to them, that is to say there isnt any substance to them. They look pretty but lack anything u can really get your teeth into. And really at the end of the day- even if you DO think they have substance, you have history, gaston leroux and the bible to thank for most of the storylines. NOT ALW |
If you analyse the scores closely enough, you will find that there is a lot happening beneath the surface, but it's too subtle to jump out at the audience straight away. He is a melodist of the first order but he is also a musical dramatist and as such, every story he uses is told in his own unique way through music. It's all ALW. His musicals can be appreciated both as entertainment and on a much deeper level as well which is part of their greatness.
| diva! wrote: | | sorry if thats all confusing, my wording was rubbish! |
Not true.
|
rockyrocks666
|
wow, this is getting hard to follow...
|
Dvarg
|
| Pounce wrote: |
His shows have been immensely popular which indicates that he must be doing something right.
|
He's often appealing to the least common denominator.
(I'm not sure that is the correct idiom, btw, so don't flame me if it isn't.)
| Pounce wrote: |
And if you are a fan of musical theater, that financial success keeps Broadway and the West End relevant in our culture.
|
I'm not saying they're mutually exclusive, but how can financial success in any possible way mean the same as cultural relevance?
| diva! wrote: |
And really at the end of the day- even if you DO think they have substance, you have history, gaston leroux and the bible to thank for most of the storylines. NOT ALW.
|
To be fair, it's the adaptions of those stories that are important, adaptions that ALW was partly responsible for. The same way Sondheim and his collaborators are responsible for the adaption of Sweeney Todd, A sunday On The Island Of La Grande Jatte, Smiles Of A Summer Night etc, if you want to make a comparishion.
|
diva!
|
i know what u mean guys
im not disputing that he's doing something right, HE CLEARLY is, and as i said in a discussion abotu les mis vs. miss saigon, it is important to try and get all types of people into the theatre- and he does seem to do that- but at the same time- i just dont think i enjoy them as much.
i think now its gotten to the point where we are just gonna have to agree to disagree hehe- because although your points are totally valid- i still dont enjoy most of them.
this does NOT however, mean i refuse to see his shows. i will see them, i just think there are loads better about..
|
Pounce
|
| Dvarg wrote: | | Pounce wrote: |
His shows have been immensely popular which indicates that he must be doing something right.
|
He's often appealing to the least common denominator. |
No, I don't think it is the least common denominator, but he does appeal to a wider audience than say Sondheim. Wouldn't you agree that ALW's works are somewhat more sophisticated than a lot of material produced by pop stars?
| Quote: | | Pounce wrote: |
And if you are a fan of musical theater, that financial success keeps Broadway and the West End relevant in our culture.
|
I'm not saying they're mutually exclusive, but how can financial success in any possible way mean the same as cultural relevance? |
To be culturally relevant, the culture has to give a damn about it. Like it or not, money is the fuel that keeps musical theater alive and should shows fail across the board by spending more money than they take in, short of government subsidies, musical theater will die as genre. And as I think you pointed out earlier, muscial theater is being marginalized by other forms of entertainment as people spend their time and money on other forms of entertainment. By the likes of ALW grabbing a large audience, musical theater and what is happening on Broadway is worthy of reporting on entertainment news. Public interest in the goings-on on Broadway isn't what it was in the 1950s but thanks to big hits liked Wicked, Broadway still matters.
|
Dvarg
|
| Pounce wrote: | Wouldn't you agree that ALW's works are somewhat more sophisticated than a lot of material produced by pop stars?
|
I don’t know, as I rarely pay attention to material produced by pop stars.
| Pounce wrote: |
To be culturally relevant, the culture has to give a damn about it. Like it or not, money is the fuel that keeps musical theater alive and should shows fail across the board by spending more money than they take in, short of government subsidies, musical theater will die as genre. And as I think you pointed out earlier, muscial theater is being marginalized by other forms of entertainment as people spend their time and money on other forms of entertainment. By the likes of ALW grabbing a large audience, musical theater and what is happening on Broadway is worthy of reporting on entertainment news. Public interest in the goings-on on Broadway isn't what it was in the 1950s but thanks to big hits liked Wicked, Broadway still matters.
|
Quite contrary. To be culturally relevant, the show must mean something and say something important about people’s life and reality. Why else should they “give a damn” about musical theatre? I too like several fluff musicals, but they aren’t culturally or socially relevant. Big hits like Wicked are exactly the kind of shows that keep musical theatre a marginalized genre. Shows like Wicked do not make Broadway matter. Shows like Evita, Falsettos and Cabaret do.
People goes to the theatre, expects fluff and fluff is what they get. It makes them happy, yet what they see is completely irrelevant in their lives. If they expect fluff when they attend Assassins, they are disappointed, no matter how culturally relevant the topic is. The problem is that people expect musicals to be fluff, and shows like Wicked confirms this belief. The result is that musical theatre becomes and stays a marginalized genre. If musicals manage to turn that trend, there is no more reason for musical theatre to die out than it is for “straight” theatre. If creators of musical theatre could convince the audience that musicals could contribute something important to their life, the audience would pay to see that. Then musicals wouldn’t continue being a marginalized genre which matters nothing to people except as escapism.
One problem is that people have little confidence in themselves. Many people don’t have the courage to spend money on something that demands a little reflection. Perhaps they fear they’re not smart enough to understand and appreciate it, and therefore their money could be wasted. I believe most normal people are smarter than they dare believe. I despise the peculiar form of elitism that claims fluff musicals are for “regular people”, while deeper works of drama are for the arrogant elite only.
|
Josefine
|
| diva! wrote: |
lol no guys seriously they are relatively enjoyable but i just honestly wouldnt say hes one of the best- which he is constantly made out to be. maybe tim rice is the driving force behind him cause the music to chess seems MUCH better than CATS (which was done without tim rice)
|
How is the music in Chess relevant? It was Benny Andersson and Björn Ulveaus who wrote the music to Chess. I doubt they are inspired by Tim Rice as they have written great music without him as a lyricist (Kristina från Duvemåla for example).
|
Kaiana
|
I must say Dvarg, that from your last post, I rather agree with your signature. I think fluff musicals are culturally relevant, but I do NOT believe they should be as culturally relevant as they are. Like, OMG!1 wIcked!
I just occured to me that I sort of equate ALW with those romance writers who pump out a novel a year. Sometimes they have really good books but mostly they just follow the same formula and don't really mean all that much to me. It's like they figure, ok, I'll just write some more and eventually I'll get a big hit.
|
Dvarg
|
| Kaiana wrote: | | I think fluff musicals are culturally relevant, but I do NOT believe they should be as culturally relevant as they are. |
Maybe we just have different concepts of cultural relevance
|
Kaiana
|
^Heh. That is entirely possible.
|
Dvarg
|
So, what's everybody's defintion of cultural relevance?
To me it means it concerns things that are important in society, things that shape, expand and challenge our horizons of meaning and understanding, and nuance our emotional repertoir.
|
rava_gurl777
|
| Quote: | hes a clever little man, but im not a fan.
APART FROM obviously the masterpiece which is the phantom of the opera.
|
i agree with this
|
Pounce
|
| Dvarg wrote: | So, what's everybody's defintion of cultural relevance?
To me it means it concerns things that are important in society, things that shape, expand and challenge our horizons of meaning and understanding, and nuance our emotional repertoir. |
To me, for something to be culturally relevant, society has to want to embrace it so that it makes an impact. Something can be all the things you name but if it is ignored or rejected it as no effect on society.
Right now, Hip Hop is having a big effect on American society and I see some evidence of it in other places, in particular, the UK. I don't even think Hip Hop has much of anything important to say to advance culture but people, mainly young people, are adopting it as a lifestyle or a wishful lifestyle.
|
Pounce
|
| rava_gurl777 wrote: | | Quote: | hes a clever little man, but im not a fan.
APART FROM obviously the masterpiece which is the phantom of the opera.
|
i agree with this |
I think ALW has much more to offer than just PotO. But is PotO ALW's masterpiece? Good question. Based on its popularity, it's a proven good show, but a masterpiece?....maybe.
|
Gwen
|
diva! wrote:
do you not find though, that all his musicals have a sort of "Webberosity" to them, that is to say there isnt any substance to them. They look pretty but lack anything u can really get your teeth into. And really at the end of the day- even if you DO think they have substance, you have history, gaston leroux and the bible to thank for most of the storylines. NOT ALW
Well, you might as well also say that Johnathon Larson didn’t come up with the original concept for Rent, and that Les Miserables was a book written by Victor Hugo. Wicked was also a book, and Lion King was a Disney Movie. (Which by the way, was NOT intentionally based off of Hamlet, but I’m getting off track...) West Side Story was based off of Romeo and Juliet, to give yet another example.
So, there are other good musicals based on other things. (Though I don’t really consider Wicked to be a good musical, there are a lot of Wicked fans out there. I put this on the list to make them happy. There are those who might consider it to have depth, though I don’t think the music is that spectacular. )
-night all.
-Gwen
|
Dvarg
|
| Pounce wrote: | | To me, for something to be culturally relevant, society has to want to embrace it so that it makes an impact. Something can be all the things you name but if it is ignored or rejected it as no effect on society. |
Whether or not something is culturally relevant and whether or not the relevance has any significant effect on society is two different things.
|
Eponine93
|
I think ALW has written some really beautiful music at some parts, but I don't think he really lets all of his music come natrually. Listen to Joseph for example.... doesn't some of that sound totally forced? I think he should spend his time and concentrate on writing really good show instead of a bunch of mediocre, one-good-song, long-running shows people are going to see and think highly of because its Andrew Lloyd Webber.
Phantom of the Opera does have an effect on modern society and culture. The rest of his well-known musicals though are more prone to ridicule, I think. Particurally Cats and Joseph.
|
