Skip to main content

The prototype Andrew Lloyd Webber

With Andrew Lloyd Webber's TV show looking for a newcomer to play Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, Over the Rainbow, now finished it's time to reflect on the great man himself. (Congratulations to Danielle, by the way - the best Dorothy won.)

Lloyd Webber tends to be attacked by critics a lot, and I think unfairly. While I do tend to agree that his best work was his early stuff - there were just so many more great tunes in something like Joseph or Cats - he can write excellent stuff, and certainly knows how to put on a spectacle. Frankly, it's hard not to see sour grapes in the criticism.

I certainly think he is hard done by when compared with his eighteenth century counterpart, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Now at this point I can hear some sharp intakes of breath, but I genuinely believe the comparison holds. Both could write a good tune. Both wrote some musicals (I really don't see the point distinguishing between a Mozart opera and a musical) with ridiculous plots. Both wrote some okay but rather overrated church music.

If the musical mafia weren't so hung up on Mozart's genius, I think they might accept that he was a similar crowd pleaser whose music rarely challenges, but often delivers. Of course I'm biassed. I don't like much Mozart myself. With the exception of the A major piano sonata, which is one of my favourite piano pieces, I don't think I'd give any of it room on my iPod (and I don't). But then I don't have any Lloyd Webber either.

So hail Andrew Lloyd Webber, our present day Mozart. He may not be treated as such... but then Mozart wasn't in his day either.

Image from Wikipedia

Comments

  1. As well as the plagiarism gibes in Victor Lewis Smith's fantastic TV Offal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us-IKblmZGY the piece by Mozart that ALW ripped off was from the third movement of Sonata 11 in A minor (K331) used as the tune for "Pharaoh's Dream Explained" from Joseph.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If I had an iPod [hinting furiously at my family to buy me one for my birthday], Phantom and Cats would be my top choices.

    He has a TV show? See what we miss on this side of the pond?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lynn - Phantom is my favourite as a spectacle, Cats as music, so I'm with your there.

    He has had a series of very successful shows on the BBC which are basically auditions to provide the lead in a West End musical, the most recent to find a Dorothy for Wizard of Oz. Rather strange mix of reality show and job interview - I suppose a musical equivalent of The Apprentice.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope