I hear people use this phrase when referring to certain ALW shows.

I don't understand it. What does it mean?

It's most commonly used in reference to EVITA and PHANTOM.

Granted, both are interesting. Both have great musical and visual special effects, but the phrase gets lost on me.

Andy.

Good question. I don't know.

Probably something along the lines of "most coherent", "most inventive" or "of best dramaturgy". That's what I mean when I claim Evita is his most satisfying score, at any rate...

C'mon, we all know that his best score is most definatel CATS!!!!!!!

Even tho I'm a MASSIVE cats fan, I'd have to say phantom.

lol...if that's what the phrase actually means...

I'm certainly now a big ALW fan, but I have to say Evita. It's the one show I really like of his.

Isn't the point of this thread to discuss what "most satisfying score" means? Not mentioning which ALW score is our favourite.

At a guess, I'd say that people generally mean that when people push that label onto Evita, they mean that is inventive, relatively coherent in its eclecticism and dramatically compelling. When people use it to describe The Phantom of the Opera are probably referring to the lush melodic quality of the score. But without a specific reference to gain context for the description, it's hard to say.


Do you really think the score of Evita makes it the best in terms of its dramaturgy? If so, then why do some people miss the point and think Evita was merely fabulous instead seeing her as the "fabulous bitch" Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber set out to create? Is this a flaw in the score or are these people being passive audiences and not engaging with the material? Although I haven't read his book again recently, I also seem to remember agreeing with Joseph Swain's argument in The Broadway Musical: A Critical and Musical Survey that when one looks at the score analytically, one finds that the arbitrary use of particular melodies (as opposed to using melody as a motif) allows the score to compromise the dramaturgy of the piece as a whole. So can Evita really be considered his most satisfying score?

I think it's a combination. It's definately a weakness in the writing that it's too easy to misinterpret it. But it also doesn't take much research to find out what it at list should be supposed to be.



Everything taken into consideration (coherence as well as inventiveness for example), I'd say yes, despite the structural flaws. Have you an alternative opinion? I'd like to hear it.

I think Sunset Boulevard is the most satisfying cause at no point does it really divert from the feeling of the movie, which is what non-musical theatre people seeing the show will appreciate most, in addition to us.

I disagree, because it is terribly boring, and adds little to what is already there. The diva arias mainly gnaw on ideas that are satisfyingly explored in the movie, and the comedy songs aren't very comical or entertaining. The score as such is nice, but the tunes are dull.

When I talk of "most satisfying score", I think primarily of how much pleasure the music gives me as a listener... that's the main thing, but I also think of how inventive or original the musical structure is, and the appropriateness of the musical style in relation to the storyline and character development.

However, I do think that "dramaturgy" is primarily the dominion of the lyricists and librettists in the way that they convey the story and characters.

It does irritate me, that when talking about ALW's musicals, people tend to lump the work of the lyricists and librettists under the umbrella of ALW's name.... too often I feel that his lyricists aren't given enough credit/blame for the success/failure of what's labelled as "an Andrew Lloyd-Webber musical".

Read a review of "an ALW musical", and a lot of the time the lyricist is only mentioned in passing, if at all.... too often critics and fans alike refer to the show in question as:
"Andrew Lloyd-Webber's [Insert Title Of Show Here]"
instead of
"Andrew Lloyd-Webber & [Insert Name Of Lyricist Here] [Insert Title Of Show Here]"

Admittedly, ALW has done a lot to encourage this himself. Tim Rice, Jim Steinman and Ben Elton are the only ones ever to receive equal billing with ALW.... it seems that ever since he split from Tim Rice, ALW has been too egocentric to share top billing with his collaborators, except in the case of Steinman and Elton, where it seems to have been done more to exploit their putative celebrity.

One other reason to hate "Love Never Dies" is the self-aggrandizing cover... Andrew Lloyd-Webber is the only name that appears above the title.







I would disagree on the matter of "Sunset Boulevard" - I find that the comedy songs are both genuinely comical and entertaining. I do not find the tunes "dull" at all, quite the contrary, I find them infectiously catchy and at times deeply moving. It's all subjective.

As for the songs not conveying many original ideas that weren't already conveyed by the dialogue of the movie - again, surely this is as much the fault of the lyricists/librettists and not just down to ALW as a composer?

I guess this is the other thing, I don't feel that the musical has to convey a different theme to the original film in order to be considered worthy. I like the original film, so I feel those themes are worthy enough in and of themselves to be the subject of song.

As for "Evita"...

I do think it is one of ALW's better musicals. The tunes are catchy and don't seem too out of place in the context of the story... even the bombast and repetition don't grate as much in "Evita" as some of his other musicals... much of the satire cuts to the bone and for the time it was genuinely inventive and groundbreaking...

But I do have a problem with the dramaturgy of "Evita". I feel that the title character never really emerges as a three dimensional figure. Simply put, I feel that the musical skims the surface of her life and that she just isn't portrayed with enough depth or complexity.... and again, this isn't simply down to ALW, but also because of Tim Rice.