[link-larkin]

Hey all

I'm currently writing a research project to complete my degree titled 'What makes Andrew Lloyd Webber's Musicals a Success?'

It would be fantastic if you guys could post a response to this question, as I'd love to know what other people's feelings are on this subject.

However I know ALW isn't everyone's cup of tea but please keep your comments to constructive ones!

Thanks in advance

[Orchestrator]

Hey all

I'm currently writing a research project to complete my degree titled 'What makes Andrew Lloyd Webber's Musicals a Success?'

It would be fantastic if you guys could post a response to this question, as I'd love to know what other people's feelings are on this subject.

However I know ALW isn't everyone's cup of tea but please keep your comments to constructive ones!

Thanks in advance

This is a Discussion Board not a research facility. We are free to make any comments we choose, whether constructive, destructive, or instructive.

Will WOS get a mention in your Bibliography? Will you post a link to your completed project so we can see the fruits of our labours? What subject is your degree in? Let us know what grade you get!

If there was a complete answer to "what makes a show a success?" there would be no flops. It is obvious that ALW's shows vary between major successes and near-flops. We can guess that some things are important if tricky to define; certainly Cats and Phantom have had extremely effective logos and high-profile marketing campaigns. It seems to be generally accepted that ALW writes good, memorable tunes. Some shows had hit singles before they opened in the West End. Wide range of subjects. Good gimmicks eg rollerskates, cat-makeup, loincloth. Generally classy orchestrations and use of (at the time) cutting-edge music and sound technology. Good directors and choreographers. I suppose it might be easier to say what's wrong with the shows that didn't do so well eg The Beautiful Game (unpopular subject matter (Irish politics rather than football!), duff lyrics, not enough variety in the score), The Woman In White (unpopular subject matter), score that's too self-consciously pseudo-classical, new technology projections (?bad gimmick).

[Matthew Winn]

I think ALW's early shows succeeded largely because they were innovative and unusual for their time, they didn't take themselves too seriously, either musically or in their lyrics (for which Tim Rice must be credited, of course), and they were marketed well, with concept albums and single releases serving to make the public aware of shows before they opened.

Also, ALW didn't play it safe, and it usually paid off. People looking back over the two decade run of Cats tend to forget that it looked for all the world like a preposterous project when it was in the production stage. It was a Well Known Fact that only American performers could do dance shows so trying to launch a new one this side of the Atlantic was a guarantee of failure, especially as the show was essentially plotless and Lloyd Webber was abandoning the lyricist who had accompanied all his successes so far. In his early career, ALW gave the public show after show that confounded expectations in that way.

His later career has been somewhat different...

I suppose it might be easier to say what's wrong with the shows that didn't do so well eg The Beautiful Game (unpopular subject matter (Irish politics rather than football!), duff lyrics, not enough variety in the score), The Woman In White (unpopular subject matter), score that's too self-consciously pseudo-classical, new technology projections (?bad gimmick).

I think the rot started to set in around the time that Phantom of the Opera opened. I remember the hype about the show. Having just had runaway successes with shows about the religion of cats and the sex life of trains, Lloyd Webber had established a reputation as The Man Who Could Do No Wrong and people were raving how wonderful the new show was before it had even opened. He could have written anything at all and the audience would have flocked to it because it was by Andrew Lloyd Webber.

From there Lloyd Webber seemed to stop trying. The shows that followed Phantom are ponderous, turgid, humourless shows, as if he thought that he needed to set aside the frivolity of his early work and write Serious Theatre. At the same time he worked with a number of inept lyricists who just couldn't capture the playful language that characterised his early work. I think that these days he's largely surviving on the continuing popularity of his work up to the 1980s, with people going to see his shows because of the reputation he built up in the past. Just as with Phantom, his fame sells tickets, perhaps because the long runs of Cats, Starlight Express and Phantom help people overlook the sludge he's turned out recently.

[Orchestrator]

I think ALW's early shows succeeded largely because they were innovative and unusual for their time, they didn't take themselves too seriously, either musically or in their lyrics (for which Tim Rice must be credited, of course), and they were marketed well, with concept albums and single releases serving to make the public aware of shows before they opened.

What about the original Jeeves? And wasn't there a show called Cricket?

[Matthew Winn]

What about the original Jeeves? And wasn't there a show called Cricket?

You can't win 'em all. I didn't mean he had nothing but hits in the early days, but on the whole he was considerably more successful prior to the mid 1980s than he has been since.

[Annasette]

Sunset Boulevard was an exception that deserved greater commercial success. But ALW did rather lose his way somewhere. For all he is condemned for all s orts of reasons now, though, it does indeed get forgotten that the early works were really innovative and ground breaking. And he does have an extraordinary knack with a tune that makes some really quite compulsive. And that isn't something that dates, and in the long run that is what will probably have much of his work survive where others won't. And when to some extent you have to sort out the issue of what actually constitutes success (and the difference between critical and commercial), that should also be taken into account.

[Russ015]

I think he captured the mood of the 1980s: his shows were spectacles, had identifiable characteristics ("oh, is that the one where everyone's dressed as Cats/where the chandelier falls/where they're on skates?" etc.) and dealt, by and large, with that staple of fiction, the boy/girl epic romance. His music is accessible which means it stands a greater chance of wide appeal, and he's a master of the catchy chorus. Sure, his more recent shows have tanked, but they're mounted on the back of the cumulative success of the back catalogue.

It's very easy to get sniffy about what he does - and okay, I'm no great fan... in fact, I genuinely doubt whether the Phantom sequel will ever make it to the stage - but the man knows his market: people for whom "theatre" means one big-scale West End show every year.

But good luck to him! Just because Andrew Lloyd Webber exists, doesn't mean the other musicals in my iTunes collection self-destruct or refuse to play!

[icowden]

Hi,

This is a really interesting and quite broad topic. As Orchestrator mentioned, not all of his shows have been successes but those that have have been very significant successes.

One of the key factors in ALW's music is memorability. ALWs scores often repeat themes, sometimes (as in Aspects) to the point of tedium. Whereas Sondheim for example always links lyrics to music, ALW's music often has no bearing on the lyric at all, which gives rise to some of the criticisms about Aspects and ALWs music in general (characters singing pointless or mundane lyrics).

However, the fact that the themes are repeated is very appealing, in the same way that people like catchy pop songs, it is good to have catchy musical songs. ALWs next clever trick was always to release a single or concept album for his shows. Love changes Everything brought in huge crowds for Aspects of Love, Oh What A circus did the same for Evita, and ALW tried to recreate this with "Pefect Year" for Sunset Boulevard. he had previously released concept albums or single tracks for JCS, Starlight Express etc.

His music is very easy to listen to and very accessible. i wonder how many of the ALW critics on here for example, were first introduced to musical theatre thanks to his productions? ALW courts future theatregoers by making his shows accessible with singable tunes and great spectacle whether it's acrobatic cats, rollerskating trains or the opulent sets of Sunset Boulevard.

Take the reality shows at the moment. ALW did Joseph, ITV did Grease. The first thing the Grease Producers did was to pull all amateur rights for the show up and down the country. ALW did the reverse. Joseph remained available to anyone to perform. The result - a significant percentage of schools up and down the country not only did the show, but took school groups to see the show. This gives a further benefit of educating a new generation in musical theatre, teaching them about ALW and generating both ticket sales and royalty fees.

Although people argue that he lost his way with Sunset, the only thing preventing it from being counted a hit and continuing on was the sheer cost of set up and keeping it going. It relied on having lead that could fill the theatre to capacity continuously. Add to that the cost of the law suit over the Broadway production and the decision to rebrand the show after the first 6 months, and you reliase why it had to close. Musically the score is one of the best, but like Aspects, it suffered from poor lyric writing and being compulsively through sung.

Another factor in his success was in writing shows which had mass appeal to the older generation. Phantom of the Opera is filled constantly with coach tourists from up and down the country. People love the music and want to see the spectacle (even if it is a little tired now).

ALW is a shrewd businessman and his current TV exposure has completely revamped his own show and the shows that he has produced. he owns the theatres, so cost in set up is minimal, but the publicity generated is huge and almost free. Not only that but all of the final contestants are "winners" in that they are all good enough to pull in audience for productions. Lee Mead is in Joseph West End, Craig leads the tour and will take over from him. Ben is in Hairspray and Daniel in Avenue Q. You can bet that ALW has received a percentage.

Lots of stuff in there for you to explore!

Iain

[Annasette]

I know ALW gets criticised for being repetitious, but I have to say that I have always thought that to be misunderstood. As in a painting where particular colours are reflected around, so ALW has actively chosen to reflect themes. And I think the concept of that is entirely appropriate, even if it might have been slightly overdone in the likes of Aspects.

And I don't think that "accessibility", as such, is actually what makes his music/songs stand out from the crowd. "That it has a level of "immediacy" is closer, that sit back in your seat "wow" effect from a first hearing. That is not to say that it doesn't grow on you after as well, but that emotional recognition opens the door to allowing the compulsive quality to take hold. Sometimes it makes you hate them because they drill into your head, but that doesn't take away the reality that they are capable of reaching parts (emotions) that proverbial others don't reach.

But off topic, icowden, you said " Lee Mead is in Joseph West End, Craig leads the tour and will take over from him". Are you kidding? Is that really true? I would think they have flipped if it is. I did hear the Craig person sing the Joseph songs on the radio, from the album, and it wasn't even really adequate.