# Are Composers Of Musicals Less Respected



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

I once read where composers of musicals are less respected. It never said why and I've always wondered if it is true.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Due to their mass appeal, musicals are considered to be an inferior art form by certain composers, musicians and discriminating listeners.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

If your name is Lloyd Webber, then yes. If it's Rodgers, then no. Of course ALW is the one who laughs all the way to the bank.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

haydnguy said:


> I once read where composers of musicals are less respected. It never said why and I've always wondered if it is true.


Did you missed this thread??? 

Phantom of the Opera is the Greatest Opera of the 20th Century


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

Rogerx said:


> Did you missed this thread???
> 
> Phantom of the Opera is the Greatest Opera of the 20th Century


Well, in all honesty I didn't read every single post but I thought it was not specifically about what I asked. It mostly talked about the Phantom of the Opera and Andrew Loyd Webber but never mentioned Jesus Christ Superstar which was a huge commercial success. My question was more general as to what people thought of musical composers in general


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

haydnguy said:


> Well, in all honesty I didn't read every single post but I thought it was not specifically about what I asked. It mostly talked about the Phantom of the Opera and Andrew Loyd Webber but never mentioned Jesus Christ Superstar which was a huge commercial success. My question was more general as to what people thought of musical composers in general


JC super star is awesome, Ted Neely is doing it for the last time later this year in the lowlands.
Not going though.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

haydnguy said:


> Well, in all honesty I didn't read every single post but I thought it was not specifically about what I asked. It mostly talked about the Phantom of the Opera and Andrew Loyd Webber but never mentioned Jesus Christ Superstar which was a huge commercial success. My question was more general as to what people thought of musical composers in general


But you can taste the tone though


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

They aren’t less respected by those who like musicals, including the unusually successful ones by Andrew Lloyd Webber. But by some of the snobs in the world? Of course they are because they didn’t write classical music symphonies or piano concertos or something else with much less popular appeal. The audience for musicals is far greater than the minor 3% of the population (or less) who enjoy classical music and consider everything else inferior and beneath them. Better a great musical over a lousy or cacophonous symphony.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I am not really a fan of musicals but when I try to understand what Handel was doing with his operas (and, when operas became unacceptable, dramatic oratorios) I find myself thinking that they were the musicals of his day. But, of course, Handel's operas are a delight and he wrote stunningly well for voice .. and the singers were real superstars.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

I am not a fan of musicals but Stephen Sondheim’s work is exceptional. He studied with Milton Babbitt, among others.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Becca said:


> If your name is Lloyd Webber, then yes. If it's Rodgers, then no. Of course ALW is the one who laughs all the way to the bank.


I mean, McDonald's makes bank. Still doesn't make it good food.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> Strange Magic: "Having owned a recording of the original cast of Kismet since it opened in 1953, and loved it ever since, I look at the album cover and see in big type "with Music from Alexander Borodin, Musical Adaptation & Lyrics by Robert Wright & George Forrest". [Wright and Forrest] in an interview I read decades ago affirmed that Borodin's musical gifts far exceeded their own feeble skills...and they were delighted to be content merely to reshape bits of it to fit the requirements of the different setting of the musical stage and theater."


Quote above from another thread. It would be interesting to read a critique of the musical quality of _Kismet_, had the credits indicated that Wright and Forrest had composed its music. What would we think of them and their craft?


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

AeolianStrains said:


> I mean, McDonald's makes bank. Still doesn't make it good food.


The McDonalds corporation should be forced out of business and tried for crimes against humanity. Even their coffee is *****.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Yes, Sondheim and Bernstein, I respect them greatly. Into the Woods and West Side Story are two of their best works in my opinion - leitmotifs, musical and emotional depth, great melodies.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Depends on less respected than who. Big league operatic composers -- sure. Second tier operatic/operetta composers, probably not. Lowe, Rodgers, Wilson, Bernstein, Sondheim, Loesser, Porter, even Bachrach -- all wrote better songs than most popular songwriters since. And I'd rather hear almost any of their musicals rhan "The Land of Smiles" or "The Chocolate Soldier" or even "Die Fledermaus."


----------



## MarioDelMonacoViva (Apr 1, 2019)

I think one of the many reasons why people look down on musical composers, in particular Lloyd Webber, is because they like to nick bits from other people's work. Phantom is the prime example - the Overture is obviously taken from Pink Floyd, and the Music of the Night is taken from La fanciulla del West. In fact, Lloyd Webber had to make a settlement with Puccini's descedents.

Personally, I like the older musicals (e.g. Carousel, West Side Story, Kismet, Chicago, South Pacific, Sweet Charity and My Fair Lady to name but a few) almost, but not quite, as much as opera. Generally the more modern the musical, the less I like it, but there are those rare exceptions (Hairspray, The Lion King).


----------



## JB Henson (Mar 29, 2019)

I dunno. Ask Bernstein.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

Without showtunes one would probably have a devil of a time standing around a piano trying to belt out "Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen"...


----------



## Harrowby Hall (Aug 8, 2017)

Why do we have to have a hierarchy of respectability? I think this smacks of snobbery.

Oscar Hammerstein and Richard Rodgers created a virtually new art form with their book musicals. At its heart, each musical play Hammerstein wrote had a serious subject (_Carousel_ - spousal abuse, _South Pacific_ - racial intolerance - etc). The music that Rodgers provided was melodic, memorable, appropriate.

Each musical number developed plot or character. There are many operas that fail to do this as effectively. Some of the R&H songs have entered the repertoire of established singers and occasionally make their appearance in concerts or as encores. _You'll Never Walk Alone_ now appears as a regular item during _The Last Night of the Proms._ In a tv programme about the bass voice, Antonio Pappano spoke approvingly of _Some Enchanted Evening._

I would not be surprised if - in fifty years time - musicals by R&H, Lerner & Lowe, Sondheim and Bernstein appear as items in repertoire of major opera houses ... after all, Mozart's operas were the popular music of their day.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Harrowby Hall said:


> Why do we have to have a hierarchy of respectability? I think this smacks of snobbery.
> 
> Oscar Hammerstein and Richard Rodgers created a virtually new art form with their book musicals. At its heart, each musical play Hammerstein wrote had a serious subject (_Carousel_ - spousal abuse, _South Pacific_ - racial intolerance - etc). The music that Rodgers provided was melodic, memorable, appropriate.
> 
> ...


No, they were not.

Again and again I see the music of Mozart (or Beethoven or some other art music composer) named as the popular music of his time. It wasn't. The popular music of Mozart's or Beethoven's or Monteverdi's or Ockeghem's time was folk music.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Mollie John said:


> Without showtunes one would probably have a devil of a time standing around a piano trying to belt out "Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen"...


I'd still prefer folk tunes over show tunes.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

haydnguy said:


> I once read where composers of musicals are less respected. It never said why and I've always wondered if it is true.


I think there are definitely listeners who scoff at musicals. Its not only classical listeners, I think that there is a widespread view that musicals form their own genre and that they are a bit of an acquired taste. Nevertheless, I know listeners in my immediate circle of friends who enjoy musicals.

If we take musicals to be a separate genre, then we can unpack it to look at the different types which exist. Some I can think of are:

- The early musicals which where similar to operetta, often by composers trained in Europe and resettling to the USA - eg. Sigmund Romberg, Frederick Loewe, Kurt Weill

- Musicals that bring in elements from other genres, eg. West Side Story (jazz), Jesus Christ Superstar (rock), Phantom of the Opera (classical)

- Musicals which are compilations of songs, eg. The Buddy Holly Story, Mamma Mia!, a few done on Edith Piaf

I don't know exactly where to put The Threepenny Opera by Kurt Weill and Bertolt Brecht, and what about John Gay's Beggar's Opera which inspired it? Gay's work was related to a pastiche genre called masques, popular in England (Purcell composed some), which was a combination of song and dance with long stretches of dialogue, often with satirical element related to events of the day. Maybe Mozart's Magic Flute is like a more highbrow version?

We can also look at the composers of musicals, particularly their training and knowledge of formal skills like the rules of harmony. The likes of Irving Berlin, Noel Coward and Lional Bart didn't know any of this, and by the looks of things didn't need to. Others like Gershwin and Lloyd Webber had a fair grounding in music. There's still others whose careers where focussed on another genre - like Bernstein or Elton John - but musicals formed a small part of their output.

The other thing is what type of vocal range is required to perform a musical. Lloyd Webber's first musical was Joseph and the Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat. It was composed for schools, and can be credibly performed by amateurs. On the other hand there's ones like West Side Story or Phantom which do require considerable vocal range to be given full justice.

So there's a lot of factors there. I think at least some of the dismissal of the entire genre is based on snobbery.

I read a biography of Andrew Lloyd Webber and no doubt he's an accomplished musician. I wasn't too surprised to read that Shostakovich enjoyed Jesus Christ Superstar so much that he saw it twice while on a visit to London during the 1970's. He said that he would have liked to compose something like it. His own earlier attempt at what amounts to rock opera (or rock operetta) called Moscow Cheryomushki pales in comparison.

Indeed, Jesus Christ Superstar is unique on many levels. It has organic treatment of themes, incorporation of numerous avant-garde cliches (like the hazy bits in Ligeti's Atmospheres) and a compelling plot which attempted to relate an age old story to issues faced by the boomers generation. So what if "I don't know how to love him" is a rip off from Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto? Critics and audiences alike received this piece with open arms, its only later when Lloyd Webber's style morphed from rock into pseudo-classical - starting with Evita but culminating in Phantom - and he began to make serious money that the critics turned on him.

This all merely serves to highlight the tensions presented in musicals as a genre. Which tradition or genre can lay claim to them? Classical? Rock? Jazz? I don't know but maybe that flexibility is one reason why musicals came to dominate the scene so much from the mid to late 20th century.



Harrowby Hall said:


> I would not be surprised if - in fifty years time - musicals by R&H, Lerner & Lowe, Sondheim and Bernstein appear as items in repertoire of major opera houses ... after all, Mozart's operas were the popular music of their day.


Opera Australia has turned to musicals to boost their flagging revenue. They have performed West Side Story for years and recently produced My Fair Lady. I'm thinking are these any worse than The Merry Widow or The Pirates of Penzance which have been performed by opera companies for ages?


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

I wonder if fans of musicals have this much angst and these many hangups over Classical music. I know plenty of theater-goers who shrug off opera and symphonies without giving it a further thought. I've never heard them struggle with that. It's because Classical music is dying that fans of it are worried about relevance in the world, comparisons with other genres.

It's all rather silly, though.


----------



## Harrowby Hall (Aug 8, 2017)

Haydn70 said:


> No, they were not.
> 
> Again and again I see the music of Mozart (or Beethoven or some other art music composer) named as the popular music of his time. It wasn't. The popular music of Mozart's or Beethoven's or Monteverdi's or Ockeghem's time was folk music.


OK, they were the commercial music of the day.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Haydn70 said:


> No, they were not.
> 
> Again and again I see the music of Mozart (or Beethoven or some other art music composer) named as the popular music of his time. It wasn't. The popular music of Mozart's or Beethoven's or Monteverdi's or Ockeghem's time was folk music.


I'm not the best source on music history! But was there "popular music", distinct from classical (or art) music, back in Mozart's time? There was folk music but is it right to equate this with the category we call popular music today? Some tunes and scenes from Mozart and Haydn were widely known "on the street". The Magic Flute, for example, was not launched at an elite event but quickly achieved huge popularity among a socially ordinary audience. And as I have already posted, Handel's operas (and, later, the dramatic oratorios) were the height of fashion in London. Was this popularity somehow similar to popular music (and musicals) today? Yes, I think so.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

Deleted post - Note to self: Try occasionally looking up to see what thread you're actually in...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I'm baffled by this sort of logic in people, even here in this forum where they wrote hundreds of pages discussing how the big names in music don't deserve the attention they're getting today and that they're 'overrated', as if they're the biggest obstacles of music advancement today. The 'root of all evil' in music. 
"You're so angry about Beethoven getting more attention and recognition than many lesser-known, obscure composers - yet you never complain about under-talented musicians like Justin Bieber enjoying far more popularity than Beethoven today?"
They say:

*"Because they're different. Justin Bieber is popular music, Beethoven is classical. We must not put them in the same category. *

But other times, (in threads like this) they say:

*"Beethoven also wrote music that was considered 'popular music' of his time, totally equivalent to today's popular music. If Beethoven lived in our time, he would have been a superstar like Justin Bieber. What's the difference?"*



hammeredklavier said:


> The popularity of pop music today came with the modern development of the media, TV, internet, radio etc. There was no such thing as "popular music" (of the scale we have today) in the time of Vivadi, Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn etc. The masters whose music we consider as mainstream classical today weren't even so popular as to call themselves 'stars'. For example, Vicente Martin y Soler was beating Mozart's Marriage of Figaro in popularity with his operas (such as 'Una Cosa Rara') big time. Even Beethoven complained "Rossini's stuff is what everybody wants" back then.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haydn_Quartets_(Mozart)
> "An anonymous early reviewer, writing in Cramer's Magazin der Musik in 1789, gave a judgment characteristic of reaction to Mozart's music at the time...:
> Mozart's works do not in general please quite so much [as those of Kozeluch] ..."


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm baffled by this sort of logic in people, even here in this forum where they wrote hundreds of pages discussing how the big names in music don't deserve the attention they're getting today and that they're 'overrated', as if they're the biggest obstacles of music advancement today. The 'root of all evil' in music.
> "You're so angry about Beethoven getting more attention and recognition than many lesser-known, obscure composers - yet you never complain about under-talented musicians like Justin Bieber enjoying far more popularity than Beethoven today?"
> They say:
> 
> ...


You're looking for logic in the wrong place.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> he popularity of pop music today came with the modern development of the media, TV, internet, radio etc. There was no such thing as "popular music" (of the scale we have today) in the time of Vivadi, Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn etc.


I think your point here needs to be reiterated. So many people think life X number of years ago was just like today's, but of a different variety. We'll never truly know what it's like to live in a oral culture, and our pop music has no real analogue in yesterday's world.

Technological advancements have been _seismic_.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Its interesting to compare the past to today, of course there are limitations in doing this. So much has changed, even if we take the ease of travel and recordings alone. There's also the establishment of nation states, parliamentary democracy, the industrial revolution (and the digital revolution which has taken over from that), and so on.

That being said, composers like Handel and Rossini where the nearest to today's popular musicians. Handel had 20,000 pounds in the bank when he died, and Rossini had accumulated enough wealth to be able to retire from opera at the age of 35. Liszt is comparable to these two, the equivalent of a rock star, albeit he was more of a touring virtuoso since he played little of his own music (apart from transcriptions). He retired from giving public concerts at around forty.

Money isn't everything, there's also the factor of a composers popularity travelling to distant countries and them being invited those countries. Haydn, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky at the latter stages of their careers fit this bill very well. There's also the situation where composers are commissioned to write pieces to be premiered elsewhere. A good example is Verdi who wrote operas for Russia and Egypt.

Regarding the debate about Mozart, like Handel he was still part of an age when most financial backing was coming from the nobility. These two being freelance musicians had that proviso attached, Handel's biggest backer was the king. At the same time he was a working entertainer who at the end of the day had to consider the needs of his audience. He had to think like a businessman, successes still had to outweigh the flops. With the decline of Italian opera and the rising popularity of masques like The Beggar's Opera, Handel turned his efforts towards composing operas in English and oratorios. He also put on concerts during the Lenten season, a lucrative practise done by others including Mozart (which is where his late piano concertos where premiered, and by all accounts these where sell out events).

I think that today's equivalent to the classical music of the past is film music, by which I mean original film scores. Perhaps some musicals qualify. In any case we are living in an age where orchestras are performing complete film scores live and operas are staging musicals. Any kind of debate about boxes and categorising is sort of redundant when we look at what's happening on the ground.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I imagine this thread really questions why people think Lord Lloyd Webber lol is a tedious, artless bore. The answer is: because he is a tedious, artless bore. Being a box office success can go hand-in-hand with this.

Honestly...Jesus Christ Superstar? The school dragged us off to see this abomination. After this: _Joseph and his Technicolor Dreamcoat_ (I ask you!). Then later on tried to force us to see _Cats. _By then I was of an age where I could say 'no sir, no more of this.'

The songs in that 'Joseph' musical are ridiculous. The sort of thing vaguely religious, middle-class people love listening to and telling you how 'super' it is. Our general music teacher at school was a great fan of these and fancied himself as a little ALW clone. Trying to get us involved in musicals with 'rock orchestras'. All of it sold as the key to 'involving the younger generation in music and theatre'.

By heavens, I thought Wagner was terrible then, but I would rather have been forced to sit through several live versions of the entire Ring Cycle - played by second-rate musicians, than see or hear another of those limp, poncy ALW musicals.

I don't dislike musicals at all. I love many of the R&H musicals - particularly _Annie Get Your Gun_ (with music by Irving Berlin, someone who actually could write good songs). Also the RKO musicals with Astaire/Rogers. Some other artistic musicals: _Fiddler on the Roof_ (with John Williams actually credited as having adapted the music); _Oliver! _by Lionel Bart.

In general I'm not very attracted to musical theatre, but it can be impressive live. West Side Story is impressive live.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Most of the great American musical composers have been mentioned in this thread, at least those from the 20s - 60s "golden age of Broadway" era, but not, unless I missed it, George Gershwin. I'd put Porgy and Bess along with West Side Story at the top of my list, although for overall body of work Richard Rodgers might top my list. And the great Stephen Sondheim isn't the only one with a serious musical background. Frank Loesser is another, in fact, I've read that his family was scandalized when he opted for a career in - shudder - popular music. 

Towards the end of his life, Leonard Bernstein became bitter about a number of things, one of which was that he wasn't taken more seriously as a composer. His work in Broadway musicals no doubt was a factor, but to him, there really wasn't the strict distinction some here are trying to make between Broadway musicals, film scores (his score for On the Waterfront nearly won, and should have won, an Oscar), ballet music and symphonies or other traditional classical forms. In fact, he turned music from both West Side Story and On the Waterfront into works for symphony orchestra that, along with his overture to Candide, are probably his most performed and popular classical works. He was a fundamentally theatrical person who viewed music in a theatrical way.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

The vitriol reserved for Andrew Lloyd Webber on this forum is only matched by that dished out to a very few others. John Cage and Eric Whitacre come to mind. In terms of Andrew Lloyd Webber, it basically boils down to the fact that he's had a string of hits. If he'd stopped at say Jesus Christ Superstar, at which stage he was universally admired, then he wouldn't be different from all the other one-hit-wonder type composers of the genre, eg. Oliver!, Godspell, Les Mis and so on.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Sid James said:


> The vitriol reserved for Andrew Lloyd Webber on this forum is only matched by that dished out to a very few others. John Cage and Eric Whitacre come to mind. *In terms of Andrew Lloyd Webber, it basically boils down to the fact that he's had a string of hits.* If he'd stopped at say Jesus Christ Superstar, at which stage he was universally admired, then he wouldn't be different from all the other one-hit-wonder type composers of the genre, eg. Oliver!, Godspell, Les Mis and so on.


No, it's not that. It's because his musicals are twee and boring and basically the same gambit with different names, faces and words. This populist tripe cannot be favourably compared to anything on the classical musical spectrum. I'm near-certain that I can go to IMSLP and dig up some forgotten (maybe never staged) operetta by an obscure composer and it will be better than Lord Lloyd Webber's party pieces.

John Cage is fine in my book. Like him or loath him, he was an artist. Eric Whitacre is the same, but his output dosn't interest me particularly. Lord Lloyd Webber, on the other hand, is a hack and a box-office huckster.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Sid James said:


> *The vitriol reserved for Andrew Lloyd Webber on this forum is only matched by that dished out to a very few others. John Cage and Eric Whitacre come to mind.* In terms of Andrew Lloyd Webber, it basically boils down to the fact that he's had a string of hits. If he'd stopped at say Jesus Christ Superstar, at which stage he was universally admired, then he wouldn't be different from all the other one-hit-wonder type composers of the genre, eg. Oliver!, Godspell, Les Mis and so on.


How soon we forget Lang Lang...


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

fluteman said:


> Most of the great American musical composers have been mentioned in this thread, at least those from the 20s - 60s "golden age of Broadway" era, but not, unless I missed it, George Gershwin. I'd put Porgy and Bess along with West Side Story at the top of my list...


Porgy and Bess comes very close to being a jazz/blues infused opera. If not a legitimate example of early 'American' opera. No doubt it will forever straddle the divide between musical-opera for some people. Its music actually lends itself to operatic styles. As far as my ear can tell, but I am no opera expert by any means.

ALW is pop music.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

KenOC said:


> How soon we forget Lang Lang...


Never heard of him.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

eugeneonagain said:


> No, it's not that. It's because his musicals are twee and boring and basically the same gambit with different names, faces and words. This populist tripe cannot be favourably compared to anything on the classical musical spectrum. I'm near-certain that I can go to IMSLP and dig up some forgotten (maybe never staged) operetta by an obscure composer and it will be better than Lord Lloyd Webber's party pieces.
> 
> John Cage is fine in my book. Like him or loath him, he was an artist. Eric Whitacre is the same, but his output dosn't interest me particularly. Lord Lloyd Webber, on the other hand, is a hack and a box-office huckster.


What? Jesus Christ Superstar isn't the same as Cats (which started life as a song-cycle based on poems by T.S. Eliot), or Evita (based on a historical figure), or Phantom (based on a 19th century horror novel). Then there's Sunset Boulevard (originally a Hollywood movie). That's just limiting things to the sources from which they where taken.

"Populist tripe?" Well that's a matter of opinion, so ultimately a valid assessment as any other. I mean Richard Strauss had a similar opinion about Merry Widow. He said it was worthless rubbish. It could well be rubbish, yet it has endured.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Sid James said:


> What? Jesus Christ Superstar isn't the same as Cats (which started life as a song-cycle based on poems by T.S. Eliot), or Evita (based on a historical figure), or Phantom (based on a 19th century horror novel). Then there's Sunset Boulevard (originally a Hollywood movie). That's just limiting things to the sources from which they where taken.
> 
> "Populist tripe?" Well that's a matter of opinion, so ultimately a valid assessment as any other. I mean Richard Strauss had a similar opinion about Merry Widow. He said it was worthless rubbish. It could well be rubbish, yet it has endured.


I have no doubt that ALW's trinkets will endure for some time. They are already hits and are guaranteed to sell tickets.

When I say they are the same I mean the same rubbish, done in the same way, for every story he uses and spoils forever.

I'm only giving my opinion, not telling you to share it.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

eugeneonagain said:


> ...
> 
> When I say they are the same I mean the same rubbish, done in the same way, for every story he uses and spoils forever.


He's never done things by formula. Long term success doesn't work that way. Cats, for example, started life as a series of songs. As with all his projects, Lloyd Webber premiered these to a private gathering of friends and colleagues. They said it wouldn't work as a musical, but he risked all the money he had at the time and of course it succeeded.

At least some part of Lloyd Webber's continued success through the 1970's and '80's was the flexibility of his approach. Every project was approached in a unique way. He's also done musicals that weren't as successful but the earlier ones continue to be performed all over the world.



> I'm only giving my opinion, not telling you to share it.


No worries.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

eugeneonagain said:


> No, it's not that. It's because his musicals are twee and boring and basically the same gambit with different names, faces and words. This populist tripe cannot be favourably compared to anything on the classical musical spectrum. I'm near-certain that I can go to IMSLP and dig up some forgotten (maybe never staged) operetta by an obscure composer and it will be better than Lord Lloyd Webber's party pieces.
> 
> John Cage is fine in my book. Like him or loath him, he was an artist. Eric Whitacre is the same, but his output dosn't interest me particularly. Lord Lloyd Webber, on the other hand, is a hack and a box-office huckster.


Sigh. I wish I could say you've gone too far here, you should be more open-minded, his success means something, etc. But I actually have to agree with you. He creates superficial spectacles, the best of which was Jesus Christ Superstar, or maybe even the early and silly but fun Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, and it was rapidly downhill after that. In his case, I don't think the problem is lack of talent, it's that, either cynically or sincerely, he aims low.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

That’s right, he aims low at people like me who have very poor taste in music.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

fluteman said:


> Most of the great American musical composers have been mentioned in this thread, at least those from the 20s - 60s "golden age of Broadway" era, but not, unless I missed it, George Gershwin. I'd put Porgy and Bess along with West Side Story at the top of my list, although for overall body of work Richard Rodgers might top my list. And the great Stephen Sondheim isn't the only one with a serious musical background. Frank Loesser is another, in fact, I've read that his family was scandalized when he opted for a career in - shudder - popular music.
> 
> Towards the end of his life, Leonard Bernstein became bitter about a number of things, one of which was that he wasn't taken more seriously as a composer. His work in Broadway musicals no doubt was a factor, but to him, there really wasn't the strict distinction some here are trying to make between Broadway musicals, film scores (his score for On the Waterfront nearly won, and should have won, an Oscar), ballet music and symphonies or other traditional classical forms. In fact, he turned music from both West Side Story and On the Waterfront into works for symphony orchestra that, along with his overture to Candide, are probably his most performed and popular classical works. He was a fundamentally theatrical person who viewed music in a theatrical way.


Loesser's "The Most Happy Fella" is a mash-up of Italian-American opera and Broadway. Baritone Robert Weede was the original star.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Later, Bernstein recorded West Side Story with a cast of opera singers, including Jose Carreras, perhaps to somehow elevate its stature as being more than a musical. The strange irony is that this musical never set out to be an opera in the first place because of Stephen Sondheim's intentions and then later Bernstein sets out to change the rules of the game and I don't think it exactly works... and using opera singers as stars wasn't going to turn it in into Porgy and Bess. It's just a different type of work than an opera unless one can somehow imagine that the Sharks and Jets have gone to Julliard for operatic training. Still, I love this work and I believe it's a great one. I played the original Broadway recording until I almost wore it out. I think he regretted that he didn't compose more like Mahler did but of course as Leonard Bernstein. But he seemed to pour more time into his conducting in Europe.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Larkenfield said:


> Later, Bernstein recorded West Side Story with a cast of opera singers, including Jose Carreras, perhaps to somehow elevate its stature as being more than musical. The stranger irony is that this musical never set out to be an opera in the first place because of Stephen Sondheim's intent and then later Bernstein sets out to change the rules of the game and I don't think it exactly works... and using opera singers as stars wasn't going to turn it in into Porgy and Bess. It's just a different type of work than an opera unless one can somehow imagine that the Sharks and Jets had gone to Julliard for operatic training. Still, I love this work and I believe it's a great one. I played the original Broadway recording until I almost wore it out. I think he regretted that he didn't compose more like Mahler did but of course as Leonard Bernstein. But he seemed to pour more time into his conducting in Europe.


I'm not sure what Sondheim's intent had to do with this. This was Robbins' project, and he brought in Bernstein and Laurents long before Sondheim became involved. Sondheim had no Broadway credits before WSS. He certainly was not controlling the direction of the project. In "Finishing the Hat," Sondheim writes about complying with Bernstein in his lyric writing. My copy is halfway around the globe, so I can't quote details.

And Contreras as a Polish American facing off against Puerto Rican's?

(My iPad insists on the apostrophe.)


----------



## KitMurkit (Apr 3, 2019)

I think one who likes musicals more, likes musical composers then. I know none of them.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Of course, Musicals are certainly not the equal of the great works of art by major composers. That doesn't mean they are not good, but generally their composers aren't on a level with the great classical composers. but then, could you imagine Bach or Beethoven writing 'The Sound of Music'? Horses for courses.


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2019)

Less respected...for what, and by whom?

Are the writers of musicals respected? Yes, for their musicals, by those who value musicals.

Should they be getting respect for something else? For being "composers", perhaps? No.


----------



## Jim35 (Feb 3, 2018)

haydnguy said:


> I once read where composers of musicals are less respected. It never said why and I've always wondered if it is true.


You've only got to look at any of the many "favourite" composer polls carried out on this Site to see that composers of musicals are not popular among the type of people who generally visit forums like this one. This would suggest that there is not a large overlap between audiences for musicals and classical music.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Sid James said:


> That's right, he aims low at people like me who have very poor taste in music.


Hey, take it easy. I'm no snob and I'm not above some light entertainment. But sitting for hours in front of some elaborately staged production that I paid hundreds of dollars to see, I want more substance. I paid to see The Lion King twice, once on Broadway and once for the touring production. That's a Disney show, and it still leaves Lord Webber in the dust.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

^ Tim Rice was involved though. He must have jumped at the chance of working with a composer.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

fluteman said:


> Hey, take it easy. I'm no snob and I'm not above some light entertainment. But sitting for hours in front of some elaborately staged production that I paid hundreds of dollars to see, I want more substance. I paid to see The Lion King twice, once on Broadway and once for the touring production. That's a Disney show, and it still leaves Lord Webber in the dust.


I was merely pointing out the implication of your attitude towards certain listeners. Let's put a face to them: people like me. So don't tell me to take it easy. In any case we're not on the same page about much of this issue. That's fine, so are your opinions, but I couldn't but help counter that attitudes. Yes, I call it snobbish. Either that or I'm a listener of poor taste and you're something better.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Maybe it is a matter of more taste. Or let's say 'broader tastes' on your side. I have broad tastes too, I've been known to watch back-to-back episodes of _Randall and Hopkirk (deceased) _on my days off.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Of course, Musicals are certainly not the equal of the great works of art by major composers. That doesn't mean they are not good, but generally their composers aren't on a level with the great classical composers. but then, could you imagine Bach or Beethoven writing 'The Sound of Music'? Horses for courses.


Well... I could for one... It isn't so much would they write for the musical theater as it is _would they be able to stop_?

Haydn wrote 429 arrangements for Scottish and Welsh folk songs and did so because doing so was quite lucrative.

Beethoven wrote 179 arrangements for Scottish, Welsh, and Irish folk songs and did so because doing so was quite lucrative.

The poet Robert Burns was largely responsible for having collected these tunes - some of which were written by him but most weren't - some were complete tunes and others were mere fragments which needed completing. Burns was also responsible for anglicizing the tunes from the original Scots dialect in which they were written to make them more accessible for their intended audience.

These folk songs were extraordinarily popular in Scotland and England - the "hit songs" of their day and if "Top of the Pops" charts had existed at the time they would have occupied all of the available slots - and consequently the highly remunerative commissions offered by George Thomson were warmly welcomed by both Haydn and Beethoven (along with Pleyel and von Weber as further examples).

If they were willing and eager to write arrangements for folk songs it's not much of a leap to think that if offered the opportunity to write for a conceptual "Broadway" of their time and place that they would have chosen not to do so and so it's not inconceivable that a "jukebox musical" with words by Robert Burns and music by Beethoven would not have been produced and staged.

Broadway musicals are wildly lucrative when successful - veritable cash-printing mints - and one must then wonder if this (relatively) "easy money" - would have been far too much of a temptation to resist and if whether the pursuit of it would have interfered with the writing of their serious compositions as money changes everything...

Gershwin, Bernstein, and Weill all wrote showtunes and we are all the more fortunate for their having done so.






If you like that tune (or if you're open-minded and tolerant of that which may be unfamiliar) and would like access to the other 168 folk songs that Beethoven wrote arrangements for here's the link -


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Mollie John said:


> Gershwin, Bernstein, and Weill all wrote showtunes and we are all the more fortunate for their having done so.


But...they were good! They don't sound like 'Christian pop' or something from the Rod Hull & Emu stage school in the Pink Windmill (that might be UK-centric).


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Sid James said:


> Regarding the debate about Mozart, like Handel he was still part of an age when most financial backing was coming from the nobility. These two being freelance musicians had that proviso attached, Handel's biggest backer was the king. At the same time he was a working entertainer who at the end of the day had to consider the needs of his audience. He had to think like a businessman, successes still had to outweigh the flops. With the decline of Italian opera and the rising popularity of masques like The Beggar's Opera, Handel turned his efforts towards composing operas in English and oratorios. He also put on concerts during the Lenten season, a lucrative practise done by others including Mozart (which is where his late piano concertos where premiered, and by all accounts these where sell out events).
> 
> I think that today's equivalent to the classical music of the past is film music, by which I mean original film scores. Perhaps some musicals qualify. In any case we are living in an age where orchestras are performing complete film scores live and operas are staging musicals. Any kind of debate about boxes and categorising is sort of redundant when we look at what's happening on the ground.


Again, the idea of 'pop' music was different back then because there were no TV, radio, internet, media etc, no real form of 'music industry' in the scale we have today. Their 'popular music' was meant for a much smaller range of audience. - they were more like 'classical music fans' of today, rather than 'pop music fans'.

I like to judge music and its artistic merit based not necessarily on its popularity with the public, but its intrinsic value, (how much inspiration and impact it made to the world of music), how much musical skill (with regards to knowledge of melody/harmony/counterpoint/orchestration/structure/vocal writing) went into writing them. Some people say there's no difference between classical music of the past and today's popular music (and musical, film music), but we got to remember something like contemporary music is also sell-out content. People nowadays pay to attend concerts of music by Schoenberg and Boulez. You could even say classical masters of the past were the Schoenbergs of their time, who at the same time, wrote music with mastery and craftsmanship that made impact on the history of music for centuries.

What percentage of general population liked to listen to Haydn and Beethoven string quartets (with a notable example being 'Grosse Fuge') back in those days? Has it changed today? Much of their art music was neglected by the general public cause they were writing music that was considered weird, bizarre. And no, Mozart concerts were attended by 'music connoisseurs' who had certain knowledge for appreciation of 'art music', like Baron van Swieten, who were a minority of their time.

_"During the last decade of Mozart's life, the Baron, to a certain extent, helped Mozart financially, including commissioning the Händel arrangements, and when Mozart became disillusioned with the musical tastes at Court, Mozart wrote that van Swieten was among the group of Vienna's music lovers who asked him to stay. In 1789, Mozart wrote that after two weeks of circulation, the only name on a subscription list to support Mozart's concerts, was that of the Baron."

"On 8 May, Mozart briefly returned to Leipzig, where on 12 May he gave a concert at the Gewandhaus. The concert program consisted entirely of Mozart's music: the piano concerti K. 456 and K. 503, two scenas for soprano (K. 505, K. 528) performed by Josepha Duschek, the fantasy for piano solo K. 475, and two unidentified symphonies. 
Mozart writes back home, that "from the point of view of applause and glory this concert was absolutely magnificent but the profits were wretchedly meager" (letter, 16 May 1789)."

"Early reception of the "Haydn" Quartets was both enthusiastic and disgruntled. An anonymous early reviewer, writing in Cramer's Magazin der Musik in 1789, gave a judgment characteristic of reaction to Mozart's music at the time, namely that the works were inspired, but too complex and difficult to enjoy:
"Mozart's works do not in general please quite so much [as those of Kozeluch] ... [Mozart's] six quartets for violins, viola, and bass dedicated to Haydn confirm ... that he has a decided leaning towards the difficult and the unusual. But then, what great and elevated ideas he has too, testifying to a bold spirit!"
Giuseppe Sarti later published an attack against the "Dissonance" quartet, describing sections as "barbarous", "execrable", and "miserable" in its use of whole-tone clusters and chromatic extremes. Around this same time, Fétis printed a revision of the opening of the "Dissonance" quartet, implying that Mozart had made errors. When the publishers, Artaria, sent the quartets to Italy for publication, they were returned with the report "the engraving is full of mistakes". However, Heinrich Christoph Koch noted that these works were praiseworthy for "their mixture of strict and free styles and the treatment of harmony". Favorable reports of the quartets came soon after their publication from newspapers in Salzburg and Berlin. In the early 19th century, Jérôme-Joseph de Momigny wrote an extended analysis of No. 15 in D minor, K. 421."_

Also, not all 'songs' or 'operas' were written with the same level of inspiration and skills. 
If we were to make it into a spectrum measuring how much talent, skills were required to write them, 
modern pop songs would be at the very bottom, while something like Mary Poppins would be in somewhere in the middle.






Every now and then people complain how composers of certain genres are 'less respected'. No. They're getting just the amount of respect they deserve. - They don't need to revered like classical masters of the past cause most of them are one-trick ponies who are only good at doing one thing whereas classical masters of the past weren't.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I'm ok with some musicals, even if they are just mainly fluffy poppish songs targeted for a certain sort of easy listening audience. The Sound of Music is a great feel-good movie with catchy songs. Really dislike the usual corny showmanship though.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

eugeneonagain said:


> But...they were good! They don't sound like 'Christian pop' or something from the Rod Hull & Emu stage school in the Pink Windmill (that might be UK-centric).


I don't think that we're disagreeing about anything - at least I hope we're not. I just wanted to make the point that I do think that Beethoven would have been willing to write the tunes for "The Sound of Music" - as he quite liked the high fees that he was receiving from Thomson and would have continued indefinitely writing arrangements for Scottish folk tunes if it weren't for a breach in their relationship - Beethoven became increasingly frustrated with Thomson's unwillingness to provide more than just partial fragments of lyrics. LVB greatly appreciated the steady income that sales of the sheet music brought in and I just don't see him being willing to take a pass on writing musical theater.

And in order to make Rod Hull & Emu's Pink Windmill Kids less UK-centric let's unleash them upon an unsuspecting forum, shall we? -


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

eugeneonagain said:


> Maybe it is a matter of more taste. Or let's say 'broader tastes' on your side. I have broad tastes too, I've been known to watch back-to-back episodes of _Randall and Hopkirk (deceased) _on my days off.


Broader would be a more positive way to put it. If you want to categorise listeners to begin with.

I have a few friends and acquaintances who are quite well versed in classical music and like musicals, including Lloyd Webber. A couple of these people could match or outdo the most knowledgeable members of this forum, and in their younger years they had formal training in music but pursued other careers. We're not all morons, far from it.

I don't know the television show you're referring to but will let it rest there. I think I've contributed more than enough on this thread.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mollie John said:


> I just wanted to make the point that I do think that Beethoven would have been willing to write the tunes for "The Sound of Music" - as he quite liked the high fees that he was receiving from Thomson and would have continued indefinitely writing arrangements for Scottish folk tunes if it weren't for a breach in their relationship - Beethoven became increasingly frustrated with Thomson's unwillingness to provide more than just partial fragments of lyrics. LVB greatly appreciated the steady income that sales of the sheet music brought in and *I just don't see him being willing to take a pass on writing musical theater.*


Beethoven did write musical theater. It's called _Fidelio._

I'm not being facetious. Opera was a popular art form - or rather, an art form that transcended class. Wagner tells us that Weber's _Der Freischutz_ was such a popular success that he couldn't go out without hearing its tunes in the streets. Verdi had to close rehearsals of _Rigoletto_ to the public so that the same thing wouldn't happen before the premiere.

These works are now "classical" classics. But there was not then the antagonism between "popular" and "classical" music that vexes us. The term "classical music" didn't even exist. We need to be careful about drawing parallels between Beethoven's times - and Beethoven's public - and our own. Chances are they had pianos in the parlour, played them, and purchased transcriptions of Mozart's and Beethoven's greatest hits to enjoy at home.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Sid James said:


> I was merely pointing out the implication of your attitude towards certain listeners. Let's put a face to them: people like me. So don't tell me to take it easy. In any case we're not on the same page about much of this issue. That's fine, so are your opinions, but I couldn't but help counter that attitudes. Yes, I call it snobbish. Either that or I'm a listener of poor taste and you're something better.


Sorry, but no. Having negative opinions about certain music isn't a put down of those who feel differently, and doesn't carry the implication that I am better. As it happens, I take my Broadway musicals very seriously, and I have high standards when I pay Broadway prices to see one. For me (and others here, apparently), Andrew Lloyd Webber churns out musicals that have consistently achieved popularity and commercial success, and that have made him one of the world's wealthiest musicians, but are not remotely in the same league as the great classics.

Do you make the same accusations of snobbery against those who travel the world to find the best performances of Wagner's Ring cycle, or post comments here comparing one Bayreuth cycle with another, if they are not enthusiastic about the operas of Wagner's contemporary Meyerbeer, which were very popular in their day and made a lot of money for their composer but are largely forgotten today?

What you are really saying is that the Broadway musical is a lowbrow, easy listening musical genre not deserving of the respect given by many here to Wagner's Ring cycle, for example, and anyone who dares treat it as a serious art form should be put down as a snob. Why not simply disagree with my assessment of Webber's work, and explain why you disagree, without getting sarcastic and calling me names?


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_I once read where composers of musicals are less respected. It never said why and I've always wondered if it is true. _

No, they are not less respected. Rogers and Hammerstein, authors of Oklahoma, South Pacific and The Sound of Music, will be listened to and have their songs recreated forever. This is the ultimate form of respect in music -- people listen to it, recreate it, and generations that follow do the same.

Meanwhile, I just visited a section of this forum discussing why a recently-deceased modern composer was great. Only about 2 in every 1,000 classical music fans listen to that composer now and, in another 20 years, that will be halved -- or he will be completely forgotten.

Meanwhile, everyone knows Rogers and Hammerstein and everyone that listens to music for the next eon will know them and their masterpieces.

The irony should not be lost on anyone that, while classical music hasn't turned out a hit in about 30 years, music theater keeps cranking out classics that people flock to see, play and watch in their homes, and recreate in local theater. That art form is alive and vibrant.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

larold said:


> _I once read where composers of musicals are less respected. It never said why and I've always wondered if it is true. _
> 
> No, they are not less respected. Rogers and Hammerstein, authors of Oklahoma, South Pacific and The Sound of Music, will be listened to and have their songs recreated forever. This is the ultimate form of respect in music.
> 
> ...


So in actual fact you just mean they are more popular? Not necessarily more 'respected'.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Respect in music is people hearing it, yearning to hear it again, learning it, playing it, continually listening to it, and continuing to adore it. The most-respected music fits this criteria for generations, even centuries.

When people don't play your music, don't listen to it, and it is forgotten, how can anyone respect it?

In the latter case the artist has failed and the product has no value.

Music isn't like paintings; it doesn't just sit there and get looked at. It is a language of art. People hear it, learn it, practice it, play it repeatedly over time, and accept it as part of their culture and life.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

larold said:


> Respect in music is people hearing it, yearning to hear it again, learning it, playing it, continually listening to it, and continuing to adore it. The most-respected music fits this criteria for generations, even centuries.


No, that's popularity and being aesthetically pleased. It's perfectly possibly to respect something whilst not liking it.



larold said:


> When people don't play your music, don't listen to it, and it is forgotten, how can anyone respect it?


Exactly, how does it ever get respect from that sort of 'listener'?



larold said:


> In the latter case the artist has failed and the product has no value.


Rubbish. That such an artist doesn't push your particular buttons, or the most popular tastes, is no argument against their artistic achievement. There are hundreds of films per year with critical acclaim, but which bomb at the box office. 50 years later they are 'reappraised'.
Eduard Tubin had been composing all his life before he gained any recognition. So what happened during all that time? Was his music no good and then suddenly good?



larold said:


> Music isn't like paintings; it doesn't just sit there and get looked at. It is a language of art. People hear it, learn it, practice it, play it repeatedly over time, and accept it as part of their culture and life.


That's not even vaguely true. Paintings are also studied, deconstructed and reconstructed to understand them. Looking at paintings isn't some aimless passive activity. For some it might be, but then why bother?


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_No, that's popularity and being aesthetically pleased. It's perfectly possibly to respect something whilst not liking it._

According to your argument the music of J.S. Bach, Beethoven and Mozart is merely popular.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

larold said:


> _No, that's popularity and being aesthetically pleased. It's perfectly possibly to respect something whilst not liking it._
> 
> According to your argument the music of J.S. Bach, Beethoven and Mozart is merely popular.


That's not even the argument I made. You can respect things and not like them or respect things and like them. Or even like things and not particularly respect them.

I'm sure plenty people respect Schoenberg's ideas about music, whilst not particularly liking his output.

The usual suspects you suggest - Bach, Mozart, Beethoven - are popular AND respected (and maybe vice-versa for some).


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

eugeneonagain said:


> That's not even the argument I made. You can respect things and not like them or respect things and like them. Or even like things and not particularly respect them.
> 
> I'm sure plenty people respect Schoenberg's ideas about music, whilst not particularly liking his output.
> 
> The usual suspects you suggest - Bach, Mozart, Beethoven - are popular AND respected (and maybe vice-versa for some).


You make a valid point here, but rather than use the terms "like" and "respect", I prefer to say that popular entertainment is primarily intended to capitalize on the zeitgeist of a particular time and place, and even target demographic, and make an immediate splash, while high art is primarily intended to convey something more universal, profound and permanent, perhaps at the cost of short-term popularity. One might "respect" the more exalted goals of high art without always liking it, but in the end, if those goals are not achieved, one might not like or respect it.

Both popular entertainment and high art can be done not only well, but brilliantly, and with true genius, but of course rarely is in either case.

I must respectfully disagree that Bach, Mozart or Beethoven are "popular" however you define that term. They may be "popular" in a narrow, specialized classical music forum like this one, but that is really the opposite of popularity in any general sense of the term. And in this specialized forum, you will also find numerous posters who are enthusiastic fans of Schoenberg, even though I understand many of them have jumped ship to avoid the "anti-Schoenberg" crowd.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

hammeredklavier said:


> ...
> Every now and then people complain how composers of certain genres are 'less respected'. No. They're getting just the amount of respect they deserve. - They don't need to revered like classical masters of the past cause most of them are one-trick ponies who are only good at doing one thing whereas classical masters of the past weren't.


Apologies I missed your post earlier and am thus responding now.

Ultimately we are making different conclusions. As I said earlier, all this talk about categories is redundant. In Australia, opera companies and orchestras are performing things like musicals and film scores to survive financially. Money talks.

In terms of Lloyd Webber specifically, one of the reasons why elements of the classical establishment came to loathe him so much is that he established his own record company. Only his Requiem was published on a major label, all the money from musicals went into his own pocket. He went against the time honoured system of nobilesse oblige.

All the Broadway musicals of he past where recorded by the major labels, profits from which eclipsed even the highest selling classical records (these where lollipops albums anyway, hardly highbrow). Classical music got a kickback from those royalties, but this didn't happen with ALW. The money from lowbrow music wasn't coming into the coffers to fund highbrow music. So the highbrows turned on him. That said, not all his projects turned in a profit, for example the sequel to Phantom, Love Never Dies. This also contradicts the arguments about his music being assembly line.



fluteman said:


> Sorry, but no. Having negative opinions about certain music isn't a put down of those who feel differently, and doesn't carry the implication that I am better. As it happens, I take my Broadway musicals very seriously, and I have high standards when I pay Broadway prices to see one. For me (and others here, apparently), Andrew Lloyd Webber churns out musicals that have consistently achieved popularity and commercial success, and that have made him one of the world's wealthiest musicians, but are not remotely in the same league as the great classics.
> 
> Do you make the same accusations of snobbery against those who travel the world to find the best performances of Wagner's Ring cycle, or post comments here comparing one Bayreuth cycle with another, if they are not enthusiastic about the operas of Wagner's contemporary Meyerbeer, which were very popular in their day and made a lot of money for their composer but are largely forgotten today?
> 
> What you are really saying is that the Broadway musical is a lowbrow, easy listening musical genre not deserving of the respect given by many here to Wagner's Ring cycle, for example, and anyone who dares treat it as a serious art form should be put down as a snob. Why not simply disagree with my assessment of Webber's work, and explain why you disagree, without getting sarcastic and calling me names?


Please accept my apology for labelling you as a snob. I could have indeed defended Lloyd Webber without feeling a need to respond to your comments. If I had been wiser and not let emotion get the better of me, my earlier posts on this thread would have sufficed.


----------

