On one of the 3, but not the other two you mentioned.

I'm no fan of musicals, but to compare ALW to geniuses such as Gilbert & Sullivan is simply laughable.
I find almost everything I've heard by ALW shallow, somewhat twee, and generally annoying. Not as annoying as ALW himself, but that's a seperate argument.

G&S (although I suppose they're more 'comic opera' than 'musical') are in an entirely different class. Their works propel the plot, not just fill a gap with an excuse for some music. You find yourself concentrating on the song to help follow the plot, more than just enjoying the music.

For my tuppence.

I'd not agree that any of the R&H stuff is intrinsically more worthwhile than ALW though. Of a type, certainly, but not any more important musically.

And here we have the crux of the matter - it's about personal taste. I don't like much Gilbert and Sullivan stuff at all, and would say that some of the criticisms you levelled at ALW stuff was at least equally true of their work.

Arguable. But the argument isn't helped by citing people who are virtually unknown. And, of course, while I take your general point that sheer popularity isn't the best criterion of artistic merit, your argument here falls down since for this particular purpose ( official recognition) it is surely extremely relevant that he has struck a chord with the public across the globe; and has composed for shows which have been phenomenally successful across the globe, and continue to be. Whereas those you mention are virtual unknowns.


We of course emphatically agree on that, but you seem to be confused; it is precisely because few people are so introduced that the likes of Mozart are not in the consciousness of, certainly, the vast majority of young people. You surely can't be arguing that they are?



You'd like to think so, and of course there is huge appreciation of such classical works, but nevertheless you'd have to agree that it's very much a minority interest, and that most young people are simply never introduced to classical music to any significant degree at all, and couldn't tell you one work by Mozart if you paid them. So I don't know what you mean when you say his music has not passed from consciousness, For people who appreciate it, it never will, but for the vast majority it never crossed their consciousness save perhaps as snippets used in advertising.


I don't understand how "the way in which he is hailed" is "not credible". He either is or is not hailed that way (as it happens, he is). You may find that incredible, in the vernacular, but not literally since you have to believe it, even if you don't agree with it. You seem to be confusing credibility with incredulity!

The problem with Lloyd Webber despite the latter part of his name is that he is not German.
If he was, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Fair comment, can't really argue with that.

Not often, I'd say.

Les Miserables is hardly a 'big' production, is it? There are hardly any props, and apart from the barricades there's hardly any scenery. All the visuals are achieved by damn good acting and clever use of a revolving stage.

It had a sense of massiveness when I saw it – the use of such a vast space (which itself demands a pretty large cast (big opera house level), and the story itself is epic (to say the least!).

I would just note that my problems with it are not the complaint that was prevalent when it opened – that classic literature shouldn't be made into musicals: I don't have an issue with that. My problems with it are different. I didn't review it (it opened before I was reviewing theatre in London), but bought a ticket to see it myself later, on the basis that I wanted to see such a big, important show. So I went with positive hopes. But for most of it, I was, frankly, bored – or at least than engaged.

But back to epic staging: think of Miss Saigon with the helicopter (echoed more recently by having a flying car on stage in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang)

And the entire trend for thru-sung shows – started by a combination of Schönberg & Boublil, and LW – with epic storylines and big sets was repeated as though it guaranteed success. It was almost as though the musical had to become like the opera. The likes of Stephen Schwarz, whose small-scale show, The Baker's Wife, is a pleasure if not the greatest work of the musical theatre, next produced the utterly ridiculous Children of Eden, of which the least said the better.

Moby Dick was ... well, let's not go there. There was one about Robin Hood (can't remember the name) that I walked out of at half-time and wrote probably my most negative review ever – there is a place for amateur drama: the West End is not it.

I even remember going to the Tricycle in Kilburn – a very small theatre – and seeing something (based on Kipling, if memory serves) with scaffolding sets and all the other things that had become hallmarks. It was utter ridiculousness.

And then, if you add to that the rise of the tribute musical – shows constructed around the songs of a group, group of artists or artist – then it can look very much like originality has fled. That's not to say some of those shows are not enjoyable – Buddy was fun, as was Five Guys Named Moe – but how many of them?!

Well not if you're a relativist.

Which, you'd like to think, would be the sort of thing that edumacashun might do (as with visual art and literature). But unfortunately, that has become utterly utilitarian and we are well on our way to returning to a world where many children and young people are never exposed to things that might possibly offer them cultural mobility.