Does Andrew Lloyd Webber really steal from Puccini.
pash4life1973
im a pop/rock musician completely new to opera. I quite like musicals
especially Andrew Lloyd Webber tunes. But i have read alot that he
steals from Puccini. So I reckon Id like Puccini!!
Can anyone suggest any good CDs to get introduced to Puccinis music
(maybe even containing pieces that ALW was supposed to have ripped
off). I did some research and found out that he wrote Tosca and La
Boheme...so would these be a good start?
Mark D Lew
pash4life1973 <pash4l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> im a pop/rock musician completely new to opera. I quite like musicals
> especially Andrew Lloyd Webber tunes. But i have read alot that he
> steals from Puccini. So I reckon Id like Puccini!!
I think the "steals" idea is frequently overstated. There is a
melodic fragment in the "Music of the Night" from Phantom of the Opera
which bears a strong resemblance to a prominent melody in Puccini's
Fanciulla del West, but even that doesn't seem like a direct copy to
me.
Aside from that, one might say that ALW writes in a Puccinian style and
uses a lot of the same musical techniques to manipulate the audience's
emotions. That's quite true, but I don't think of that as stealing
either.
> Can anyone suggest any good CDs to get introduced to Puccinis music
> (maybe even containing pieces that ALW was supposed to have ripped
> off). I did some research and found out that he wrote Tosca and La
> Boheme...so would these be a good start?
Yes, either of those would be a good start. If you like the soprano
voice, another equally good option would be Madama Butterfly.
Those are the standard Puccini works. Although most of us Puccini fans
have favorites among the others, those three are the most popular and
with good reason. I recommend starting with them; then if you like
them try branching out to anything else by Puccini, including
Fanciulla.
mdl
who like Tabarro
Stephen Jay-Taylor
Why ? He's been taken to court on plagiarism charges twice, once by the
Puccini Estate, once by Rachmaninov's. He lost one of them too, though I
can't remember which, and had to pay a royalty percentage, damages and
costs.
SJT, who sat through "Woman in White" sunk in gloom ( though he quite liked,
Sshhh, don't tell anyone, "Sunset Boulevard".)
REG
which probably means Ricordi as copyright holder, pursued a case against ALW
and received a settlement.
"Mark D Lew" <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:241020051949032765%mark...@earthlink.net...
J S
Not a shameful secret at all - "With One Look" is one of musical
theatre's great songs - a *perfect* union of words and music.
~ Roger
Mark D Lew
<Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It is my understanding, which may be incorrect, that the Puccini heirs,
> which probably means Ricordi as copyright holder, pursued a case against ALW
> and received a settlement.
SJT said the same. I was not aware of this case. Does anyone know
what the charge was based on? The only one I know is the
Phantom-Fanciulla bit. I'm familiar with the music in both pieces and
my opinion of that is already stated: There's definitely a resemblance
but it's not something I'd characterize as "stealing". If the court
disagrees, I'd be curious to know why.
mdl
premie...@aol.com
my opinion of that is already stated: There's definitely a resemblance
but it's not something I'd characterize as "stealing". If the court
disagrees, I'd be curious to know why.
mdl
IMO, it's an exact copy. The gorgeous theme that Johnson sings in the
love duet from Act 1 is lifted exactly by Webber for part of the big
song, "Music of the night." Not the entire theme, but at least 16
straight, slow notes, used in about the same tempo that Puccini uses
them. It is a theme that is also played quite a few times by the
orchestra later in Fanciulla.
The Pucccini estate, a long time ago, took action against Al Jolson for
the song "Avalon" which they claimed was lifted from E lucevan le
stelle, and it was. The opening line of the song are the exact notes of
"O dolci bacio, languide carezze," but to a different tempo. The court
ruled in favor of Puccini, who may still have been alive, as I am not
sure of the exact year.
Though not Webber, try comparing the big song from Les Mis, "Bring him
home" with the Humming Chorus" from Butterfly!! Again, a direct
steal!!! Povero Puccini. So many gorgeous melodies there for the
taking!
Ed
premie...@aol.com
think the "steals" idea is frequently overstated. There is a
melodic fragment in the "Music of the Night" from Phantom of the Opera
which bears a strong resemblance to a prominent melody in Puccini's
Fanciulla del West, but even that doesn't seem like a direct copy to
me.
It doesn't bear a strong resemblance. It is the exact melody, note by
note. It is a "direct copy" IMO.
Ed
REG
would have. I suspect that Ricordi contacted the Webber people, and it was
all done without a suit being started. Clearly, for ALW, a suit would be a
serious problem. If infringement were found by a court (and if the law were
the same in Britain as in the US, and I don't know if it is) anyone in the
path of the infringement could be sued and be forced to pay damages (even if
the infringement were unintentional) and so in that case ALW might have had
to indemnify the theatre, the cd company, and so on. From the Puccini point
of view, getting the money is probably what counted. There's always a chance
of losing a court case, and if one were lost with a resemblance this close,
then the Estate would have little clout in the future.
At least that's my untutored opinion.
"Mark D Lew" <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:251020051841227620%mark...@earthlink.net...
grndp...@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.music.opera
From: premiereop...@aol.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 25 Oct 2005 18:55:47 -0700
Local: Tues, Oct 25 2005 8:55 pm
Subject: Re: Does Andrew Lloyd Webber really steal from Puccini.
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
mdl wrote:
Ed
~~~~~~~~~~~
Ed,
Are you referring to the waltz in Act I (where the miners mark the beat
by stomping on the floor)?
The charge of plagiarism is too often made without substantial grounds.
Some have accused ALW of "adapting" Ravel's Bolero for use as the basis
of "Memory" in Cats.
Recall that Von Bulow called Brahms First Symphony, "Beethoven's
Tenth". Ridiculous !
It sounds more like Schubert.
:>)) G/P Dave
premie...@aol.com
Are you referring to the waltz in Act I (where the miners mark the beat
by stomping on the floor)?
Yes, that is the first time this melody is heard, but it is greatly
expanded upon with Johnson's first long solo in the act ending love
duet, and Puccini brings it back to stunning effect in Act 2, and to
subtle effect in Act 3, just as Johnson is released from the hanging
noose. Listen to the orchestra during Sonora's beautiful lines.
The best Sonora I ever heard is John Rawnsley on the video from Covent
Garden with Neblett, Domingo, and Carroli. What a gorgeous voice. He
started singing major roles, but disappeared rather quickly.
Does anyone know what happened to him?
Best,
Ed
La Donna Mobile
premie...@aol.com wrote:
He was booked to appear in productions by Savoy Opera a couple of years
ago, but Savoy Opera, an idea of impresario Raymond Gubbay, which
collapsed soon after it had got off the ground. I have not found any
mention of him since.
--
http://www.madmusingsof.me.uk/weblog/
http://www.geraldine-curtis.me.uk/photoblog/
alanwa...@aol.com
> The best Sonora I ever heard is John Rawnsley on the video from Covent
> Garden with Neblett, Domingo, and Carroli. What a gorgeous voice. He
> started singing major roles, but disappeared rather quickly.
>
> Does anyone know what happened to him?
>
> Best,
> Ed
Re John Rawnsley: from his web site.......
John will sing the title role in Verdi's 'Falstaff' in June for Stanley
Hall Opera at Stanley Hall, Halstead.The production will be directed by
Michael McCaffery using Amanda Holden's English translation and
Jonathan Dove's imaginative reworking of the score for chamber
orchestra conducted by Orlando Jopling.
Performances will take place on the 23rd, 25th and 26th of June at 6pm
each day.
"...... Rawnsley is an ideal Fat Jack: charming, entirely free of
malice, his boastful ardour undercut by a sort of wistful
self-knowledge ..... bags of stagecraft ...."
Robert Thickness - The Times.
During the latter half of October 2005 John will visit Vietnam to sing
the role of 'Tonio' in two performances of Leoncavallo's 'Pagliacci' on
the 27th and 28th October at the Opera House, Hanoi.
Concert engagements during 2005 will include Carl Orff's 'Carmina
Burana' at the Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford. 'A Sea Symphony' by Vaughan
Williams with Bedford Choral Society, 'Carmina Burana' with the Royal
Philharmonic Orchestra and Nicholas Cleobury at Reading on October 7th,
Puccini's 'Messa di Gloria' at the Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford on
December 3rd.
On December 10th John will sing the role of 'Elijiah' in a performance
of Mendelssohn's 'Elijiah' in Salisbury Cathedral.
2006
In March 2006 John will sing two concert performances of Handel's
'Messiah' with the Brighton Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Barry
Wordsworth.
The performances will be at the Dome Concert Hall, Brighton on the 18th
of March and then at the Congress Theatre, Eastbourne on the 19th of
March.
On Tuesday March 21st, John will sing 'The Priest' and the 'Angel Of
The Agony' in a performance of Elgar's 'The Dream of Gerontius' at
Westminster Abbey with soprano Rosalind Plowright, tenor Dominic Natoli
and the Chorus of Westminster School conducted by Guy Hopkins.
On the 2nd of April John will again sing 'The Priest' and the 'Angel Of
The Agony' in a performance of Elgar's 'The Dream of Gerontius' with
the Plymouth Philharmonic Choir at Plymouth Guildhall, Plymouth.
In June John will sing the role of 'Il Sagrestano' in a new production
by Jonathan Kent of Puccini's 'Tosca' for the Royal Opera House,
conducted by Antonio Pappano.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
premie...@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.music.opera
From: "alanwatkin...@aol.com" <alanwatkin...@aol.com> - Find messages
by this author
Date: 26 Oct 2005 11:22:29 -0700
Local: Wed, Oct 26 2005 2:22 pm
Subject: Re: Does Andrew Lloyd Webber really steal from Puccini.
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
> The best Sonora I ever heard is John Rawnsley on the video from Covent
> Best,
> Ed
2006
Thank you, Alan. Did John have vocal problems, as I had heard? Singing
the Sacristan is a far cry from singing Rigoletto. He had a most
beautiful baritone voice, and I hope he is still singing well. Many of
the venues you mention seem to be not major venures. He did have a
large international career, albeit for a relatively short time.
Best wishes,
Ed
MARK MCLEOD
one could say he improved on the original if only for a few bars..Of course
Lerner and Lowe also contributed to music of the night with "come to me bend
to me' from Brigadoon.Which ALW, IMO has also improved upon.
Doesn't mean I aprove though.
Mc
<grndp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1130334051.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
alanwa...@aol.com
>
> Thank you, Alan. Did John have vocal problems, as I had heard? Singing
> the Sacristan is a far cry from singing Rigoletto. He had a most
> beautiful baritone voice, and I hope he is still singing well. Many of
> the venues you mention seem to be not major venures. He did have a
> large international career, albeit for a relatively short time.
>
> Best wishes,
> Ed
I cannot say because I have never heard the artist. It is true that
they are not major venues but there again if you consider the concert
performances of Messiah at Brighton what do you have?
You have the "Brighton Philharmonic" which is, in fact, London
freelances from all the major London orchestras including the Royal
Opera House and often has more "stars" than any one London orchestra.
Conducted Barry Wordsworth. Now there is a thing. Hardly an
international superstar but one of the greatest conductors Britain has
produced in the last 30 years and one of the greatest ballet conductors
in the WORLD. His Mozart and Haydn is pretty good as well and
distinctive.
In accordance with the British tradition when they produce a conductor
who is lauded by musicians across the world who have played for him/her
they do not offer him a major opportunity. See also Birmingham lad
Andrew Mongrelia and Sian Edwards (who she? Certainly capable of
excellent Mozart, Tchaikovsky and ballet but no matter).
J S
lost, there is no question that he was innocent.>>
Nonsense.
The Lonnie Mack song, as recorded by the Chiffons, "He's So Fine", bears
a much greater similarity to Harrison's "My Sweet Lord", than some "tiny
hook." You only have to listen to the two songs.
I do believe, however, that this, as well as ALW, is not so much a case
of deliberate stealing as a merely subconscious creativity. There are a
*lot* of melodies out there, and sooner or later someone is going to
come up with a previously existing phrase or two.
~ Roger
alanwa...@aol.com
One might, for example, mention the slow movement of a Beethoven piano
concerto and Bernstein: "There's a place for us".
J S
<< I wouldn't be caught dead listening to Andrew Lloyd Webber.>>
Then you really have been missing some lovely music, which you are no
position to condemn.
I suppose that that's of less importance to some people than to be a
snob.
~ Roger
REG
"predictive", shall we say, of the Candide aria about letting your garden
grow.
<alanwa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1130370188....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
J S
music]>>
If I am to believe your previous remarks, you're not familiar with it.
Such an attitude strikes me as ridiculous.
<<You think that a snob is anyone who hates the schlock you love.>>
No, I think a snob is someone who "wouldn't be caught dead" listening to
music that is extremely popular, because it is extremely popular.
Although ALW's music isn't always first class, it's unthinking and
unfair to dismiss it all, which includes some splendid numbers.
It's the same old story with you: you're right and all those other
"little" people are wrong.
~ Roger
J S
difference is, if I dislike something like Lulu, I'm a hopeless
Philistine, while your dislike of ALW is, to you, and your snooty
detached circle, a mark of superiority.
If you can't hear the beauty in many of ALW's songs, it's your problem,
not mine and the millions of other people who are able to appreciate
them.
Acually, you sort of have my sympathy: it must be annoying to think
about all that money Webber is raking in from all those satisfied
audiences, while nobody pays for your oh so complex, elitist music.
Thank goodness Verdi had different ideas about music and fans than you
(and Debussy.)
~ Roger
Mark D Lew
<premie...@aol.com> wrote:
> IMO, it's an exact copy. The gorgeous theme that Johnson sings in the
> love duet from Act 1 is lifted exactly by Webber for part of the big
> song, "Music of the night." Not the entire theme, but at least 16
> straight, slow notes, used in about the same tempo that Puccini uses
> them. It is a theme that is also played quite a few times by the
> orchestra later in Fanciulla.
Thanks, Ed. I appreciate your opinion. Unfortunately, it doesn't help
me in my quest to find the passage of Fanciulla which ALW allegedly has
directly lifted.
From this post and your other, I gather that you're talking about the
wonderful passage near the end of Act I where Johnson sings, "Quello
che tacete me l'ha detto il cor," and so forth. I've got the score to
Fanciulla right here in front of me, and I have the sheet music to
"Music of the Night" as well, so I can easily check them against one
another without needing to rely on my memory.
Johnson's arietta is about 18 bars long in its entirety. The first
three four-bar phrases bear no resemblance to "Music of the Night"
whatsoever. The key phrase is the fourth one, where he sings, "e
provai una gioia strana". This part does indeed bear a strong
resemblance to the fourth phrase of the A section in "Music of the
Night". In the latter, the phrase recurs four times, at "Silently the
senses abandon their defenses"; "Turn your face away from the garish
light of day"; "Open up your mind, let your fantasies unwind"; and "Let
the dream begin, let your darker side give in."
It is not a long passage. It's four bars in Puccini and two bars in ALW
(ten notes in Puccini, 14 notes in ALW). The melody does match, but
not exactly. The phrase is actually one subphrase repeated two times,
but the stretching-out feeling created by the repetition is a
characteristic quality of the phrase and how it fits into the whole.
It has this effect in both ALW and Puccini, but with Puccini it really
is an interpolated repetition that adds bars to what otherwise would
have been a standard 16-bar tune (as it is when the miners sing it
earlier in the act). In ALW the repetition simply fills the the
third-line slot in the melody so that the basic structure is
uninterrupted (though it does have a tag at the end to make it more
than 16 bars).
If by tempo you mean the speed of the beat, you're right that it's
about the same in each song. The meter, however, is quite different.
Puccini rights it in a moving 6/4 where a dotted half is the beat,
while ALW writes it in 4/4 with a half note beat. Notice that this
means Puccini's beat is divided in three while ALW's is divided in
four. This has a direct effect on the melody, because Puccini's long
notes hold over the beat so that two falling notes are 2 and 3 of the
final beat with 1 being tied over from before. In ALW, by contrast,
the two falling notes are simply 1 and 2 on the final beat. Also, note
that ALW writes four eighth notes on the first beat of each phrase
whereas Puccini has a long note filling the whole beat.
Harmonically, the two fragments are indeed the same. In both cases the
harmony has moved to the subdominant and the melody goes 3-5-6 within
that subdominant. The keys are not the same, but they're related
(tonic = Db for ALW, Gb for Puccini). Also each tune sits in roughly
the same part of the singer's voice, the Phantom being a
musical-theater baritone and Johnson being an operatic tenor.
All this analysis threatens to obscure the main point: What we are
discussing is one phrase that, in each case, makes up one-fourth of a
complete melody, which in turn is only one part of the larger
song/scene. Yes, it's one of the most characteristic phrases in the
show, and it is used in a very similar way with respect to the arc of
the music and the emotional arc of the entire work. Still I just don't
see how you can characterize it as an "exact copy".
The copying is far less blatant that numerous other examples in opera,
including Puccini's much more thorough copying of two Carlos Troyer
tunes for Jake Wallace's aria.
mdl
Mark D Lew
<"david...@aol.com"> wrote:
> It's possible that the bit that resembles Fanciulla was not at issue
> and a genuine act of plagiarism was. As for courts and music
> plagiarism, they often don't know beans. In the case of the plagiarism
> lawsuit that Beatle George Harrison lost, there is no question that he
> was innocent. There was a little "hook" at the beginning of the
> Harrison song that faintly resembled a little "hook" in the song from
> which he had supposedly stolen it, but it was a kind of figure you
> could find in countless places. (Bear in mind that countless pieces
> begin with arpeggiations of the tonic triad for example. That doesn't
> mean that anybody who writes a song beginning with the arpeggiation of
> a tonic triad is a plagiarist.) Harrison refused to settle out of
> court because he was so indignant at being accused. He was innocent
> and he lost.
Haven't we discussed this before? I've actually studied this case, and
I know that it was an Internet discussion that brought it to my
attention. Maybe it was in another forum?
The case, Bright Tunes vs Harrisongs, is an illustrative one in
copyright law because it shows that the copying need not be conscious
or intentional for it to be an infringement. As Roger already pointed
out, the two songs ("He's so fine" and "My sweet Lord") bear much more
than a slight similarity. If you don't see that, I can only conclude
you're unfamiliar with at least one of the songs. Harrison did not
dispute the similarity; he only said that it was coincidental and not a
conscious copying. The plaintiff, in turn, did not dispute Harrison's
claim, but merely insisted that it was copyright infringement whether
the copying was intentional or not. The case turned on the
determination of whether the similarity was due to complete coincidence
or unconscious copying. After examining the facts, the court
determined that it was the latter, and thus copyright was infringed.
You illustrate the point in the way you mischaracterize the case. You
call it a "plagiarism lawsuit" and insist that Harrison is innocent.
If by plagiarism you mean intentional stealing, then Harrison *is*
innocent. But that's not the charge. The charge (a civil one, not a
criminal one) was copyright infringement. Essentially, Harrison was
charged with accidentally picking up property which did not belong to
him and subsequently using it to earn money. The main dispute in the
case was determining what portion of the profits from "My Sweet Lord"
were attributable to the copying from "He's so fine" and thus owed to
the plaintiff as damages.
Your mention of the "hook" suggests that you've heard something about
this case indirectly, but you've got it exactly backward. The "hook"
is the part of the song that was NOT the same. Harrisong's lawyers
took the position that the commercial success was due primarily to the
hook, as a way of arguing for smaller damages.
By the way, the judge in this case (Richard Owen) is probably the judge
least worthy of the "don't know beans" characterization. In addition
to being a judge, Mr Owen is a distinguished musician. He is a
conductor and a composer -- he even wrote an opera. His wife is an
opera singer who has performed at the Met.
There are numerous discussions of the case on the Web. Perhaps the
best of them is
<http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/law/library/cases/case_brightharris
ongs.html>. You can find sound files there, and excerpts from the
court decisions.
mdl
J S
<< But you are a hopeless philistine, Roger. You dismiss in advance what
you haven't come to terms with, and bristle defensively when one person
dares to dissent from the opinion of the "people.">>
No, I just know what I like and don't like. That I happen basically to
enjoy musical works that the majority of music lovers also do, is
something that I have no need to apologize for.
The crux of this matter is that your violent refusal to credit ALW with
having written anything worthwhile betrays either a simple lack of
musical appreciation, or a determination to appear snobbishly above the
common "people", as you refer to us. Webber has never pretended to be a
composer of complex, serious, operatic music. He has always had a
genuine love for popular musical theater, and writes for that idiom.
Much of what he writes is banal - but the same is true of much of all
broadway musicals. Sometimes, however, he comes up with exceptionally
lovely tunes, which are widely recognized as such; and I think he should
be given some respect for that.
One can only wonder, judging from your attitude, whether you are even
capable of enjoying any simple, non-pretentious melody.
~ Roger
alanwa...@aol.com
david...@aol.com wrote:
> There is out and out plagiarism in Andrew Lloyd Webber's work. I have
> no doubt that the resemblance to Fanciulla is no token of theft if you
> don't think it is, but one of his operas or whatever he calls them
> plagiarizes a substantial chunk of Mussorgsky for, I think, its
> prelude. I think it was Jesus Christ Superstar but can no longer
> remember for certain. I wouldn't be caught dead listening to ALW and
> can't be more specific, but many years ago a friend of my parents who
> taught piano at the Manhattan School of Music was incensed at ALW's
> theft from Mussorgsky and showed me the example. It was plagiarism.
>
> -david gable
I am not that familiar with ALW but I have performed Joseph and Cats
and I can't recall thinking *they* were particularly derivative, except
in general "romantic" style as it were but no worse than some film
scores I have encountered over the years.
Joseph, in particular, is not written in opera notation for at least
some of the orchestra: it's written in theatre or musical/show mode,
which is very different. I thought Cats had some good moments although
I don't know if ALW does his own orchestrations or has someone do them
for him.
David Melnick
> Joseph, in particular, is not written in opera notation for at least
> some of the orchestra: it's written in theatre or musical/show mode,
> which is very different.
Can you spell that out for us, Alan? I do remember that in
high school orchestra, we played a swing number in which
what looked like even eighth-notes on the page were to be
played with the first note of any two-note pair sustained
longer than the second, in a rhythm of somewhere between two
and three to one that we didn't have to analyze because it
was familiar to all of us at the time from being heard on
the radio all the time. Is that how show scores are written
generally? And is that the difference you meant?
dav
alanwa...@aol.com
I am sorry for being obtuse:):) In operatic scores every note is
written out for everyone. In Joseph what we found was that in the
percussion part (and I believe for the winds as well in the Pharoah bit
which I cannot remember the proper name of) you have bars of notes
which then disappear to one of two instructions: "fill" to end of
number, "adlib" to end of number both usually liberally interpreted in
show scores (where such instructions are a regular feature) as make it
up. In either case, specific notes there are none after a while but
you are expected to extemporise on what you started with.
And in a way you are right with your jazz reminiscence. Some of Joseph
is "swing" stuff and when you fill or adlib you can, if you wish, take
that into account but it is left to the player (s) and many bars of ALW
Joseph are not actually written out.
Dan Tritter
>>That I happen basically to enjoy musical works that the majority of music lovers also do, is something that I have no need to apologize for.
>
>
> any other kind. The majority does NOT love Puccini. You're right that
> you have no reason to apologize for what you like. Nevertheless, you
> defensively strike out whenever I dismiss something you happen to like.
> Furthermore, you always attribute to me motivations that are
> completely absurd, such as taking pleasure in dissenting from the
> mythical majority to which you supposedly belong. In other words, you
> don't have to apologize for what you like, but I have to apologize for
> what I don't like.
>
>
>>One can only wonder, judging from your attitude, whether you are even capable of enjoying any simple, non-pretentious melody.
>
>
> you're right that I need stronger musical "drugs" than you do. I'm not
> the least bit interested in musicals or pop music, but I'm tremendously
> interested in all kinds of music from the Western art music traditions
> of the last millenium from the isorhythmic motets of Guillaume Dufay to
> Elliott Carter's string quartets, so I don't experience a particularly
> acute sense of loss. I do in fact love complex and demanding music,
> and I prefer Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven to Puccini, although I'm
> extremely interested in a lot of Puccini. (Then again, his talent and
> amibition were many magnitudes larger than ALW's.) When I fail to
> grasp some complex new style that I'm not familiar with, I don't
> dismiss it out of hand before I've even assimilated it, blaming the
> style for my ignorance. I've spent my life learning how to hear music
> that I couldn't grasp at first. I tend to avoid music that strikes me
> as facile and derivative.
>
> What you should be defending is my right to listen to music that only a
> tiny minority is even aware of rather than insisting that it's my moral
> duty to go along with the majority that supposedly likes "simple
> non-pretentious melody."
>
> -david gable
>
not too many years ago, harper's magazine published a letter written by
the distinguished swiss musical pedagogue ernst toch to a composition
applicant who wished to study with him and had sent with his application
a sample of his work.
toch advised the applicant that his submission showed no promise and
that perhaps a good first step would be to learn the rules of
compositional harmony.
the name of the applicant was andrew lloyd weber.
Mrs Terfel
alanwa...@aol.com wrote:
> David Melnick wrote:
> > alanwa...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > Joseph, in particular, is not written in opera notation for at least
> > > some of the orchestra: it's written in theatre or musical/show mode,
> > > which is very different.
I feel another terrible confession coming on. When she was 13, Mrs
Terfel once waited at the stage door of the London Paladium for a
certain blonde Australian actor who was "singing" the role of Joseph
there and on whom she had a bit of a schoolgirl crush at the time.
Thankfully her taste in men and singers drastically improved as she got
older.
ALW is good harmless fun to sing in - we did Joseph at school (mind
you, who didn't???)
Mrs T xx
La Donna Mobile
La Donna Mobile
Mrs Terfel
La Donna Mobile wrote:
> >> >
> Ha! I was a member of the fan club of that certain blonde Australian
> actor. I do recall leaving the Palladium and my friend coming out with
> the unforgettable line "And to think some women never have an orgasm!"
> You know, if said Aussie actor had learnt to dance, he would have been
> bloody brilliant in Joseph. (We saw it twice...!) And I was somewhat
> older than 13. In fact, at the time, I was four months older than said
> Aussie actor. I was very upset when I found out he used lemon juice on
> his hair...
>
Ha ha ha! I was a hormonally confused adolescent at the time so am
going to claim diminished responsibility as my defence.
What was *your* excuse????
Mrs T xx
P.S: Sorry to hear about George Best. It's very sad that he couldn't
give up the alcohol and that he's now paying such a terrible price for
it.
alanwa...@aol.com
Well, I didn't, for he was long before my time.I did do "Listen with
Mother" with Daphne Oxenford (BBC) a couple of times: Hickory Dickory
Dock, the Mouse ran up the clock"
But I loved playing Cats, beautiful score. And sold out for the run in
1 day. Stupid potential audiences, I guess. Who knows?
Come on, what would an audience know, derivative or not???
Personally I like adlib to end of number. Same instruction (s) in
Calamity Jane, as it happens. Make it up as you go along.
I did do.
alanwa...@aol.com
Yes, a very great player who makes today's plonkers look exactly what
they are: plonkers.
Only Rooney, for all the poor temperament, is a modern challenge in my
opinion but he does not have the body swerves of course.
alanwa...@aol.com
PS: And when Mr Best does go, watch the TV clips of someone cutting
through a defence like that because you will not see it today. Today
they spend all their time passing to one another before anything
happens.
Mr Best did not pass to anyone.
Silverfin
Mrs Terfel wrote:
> La Donna Mobile wrote:
> > >> >
> > Ha! I was a member of the fan club of that certain blonde Australian
> > actor. I do recall leaving the Palladium and my friend coming out with
> > the unforgettable line "And to think some women never have an orgasm!"
> > You know, if said Aussie actor had learnt to dance, he would have been
> > bloody brilliant in Joseph. (We saw it twice...!) And I was somewhat
> > older than 13. In fact, at the time, I was four months older than said
> > Aussie actor. I was very upset when I found out he used lemon juice on
> > his hair...
> >
>
> Ha ha ha! I was a hormonally confused adolescent at the time so am
> going to claim diminished responsibility as my defence.
>
> What was *your* excuse????
>
Would this be a moment for everyone to confess their earliest celebrity
crushes? (OT or otherwise)
Silverfin
Mrs Terfel
Silverfin wrote:
>> >
>
> Would this be a moment for everyone to confess their earliest celebrity
> crushes? (OT or otherwise)
>
No !!!
And if you *dare* mention the American "actor" with the very nice black
car then I'll never speak to you ever again, Mrs Saks.
Mrs T xx
Silverfin
That's Mrs Lennon-Kennedy to you, Mrs Hasselhoff
x
Mrs Terfel
Silverfin wrote:
> >
> That's Mrs Lennon-Kennedy to you, Mrs Hasselhoff
>
> x
Actually, I can't quite remember who I had a crush on first - Michael
Knight or Face from "The A Team". I was only about 7 at the time.
Followed by a bit of a Harrison Ford / Kevin Costner thing as I got to
about 9.
The first singer I ever had a crush on was Simon Le Bon from Duran
Duran.
The first operatic love of my life was Roberto Alagna, and he'll always
have a very special place in my heart.
Think maybe you ought to clarify that it was Nigel Kennedy you were
talking abut rather than John F Kennedy.....
Mrs T xx
P.S: How the hell did we digress from Andrew Lloyd-Webber onto
embarrassing childhood crushes?
Mark D Lew
<"david...@aol.com"> wrote:
> Having read your careful discussion, I will concede that there
> may have been "unconscious plagiarism" but I'd still have to hear the
> two songs back to back to be entirely convinced.
I'm pretty sure there are sound files of both songs on the website I
cited. If not there, they'll be on one of the others. This topic is
widely discussed on the Web.
mdl
David Melnick
>
>
> Would this be a moment for everyone to confess their earliest celebrity
> crushes? (OT or otherwise)
>
Enrico Caruso. I was 12. He'd been dead for almost 30 years,
but I didn't care. :-)
dav
La Donna Mobile
Mrs Terfel wrote:
La Donna Mobile wrote:Ha! I was a member of the fan club of that certain blonde Australian actor. I do recall leaving the Palladium and my friend coming out with the unforgettable line "And to think some women never have an orgasm!" You know, if said Aussie actor had learnt to dance, he would have been bloody brilliant in Joseph. (We saw it twice...!) And I was somewhat older than 13. In fact, at the time, I was four months older than said Aussie actor. I was very upset when I found out he used lemon juice on his hair...Ha ha ha! I was a hormonally confused adolescent at the time so am going to claim diminished responsibility as my defence. What was *your* excuse????
Actually, it was when I was on block release at accountancy college. We'd sit in a class of thirty or so in rooms looking suspiciously like classrooms (As opposed to the enormous lecture theatres and tiny tutorial rooms at university). Some of the lecturers even treated us like school kids, so en masse, we regressed to adolescence; highlight of the fortnight was when Smash Hits was published, we also trawled the newsagents of Croydon for poster mags. I'm sure it was all just a pressure valve. Some of them are now very high-powered, and most of the rest of us are middle-management.
Mrs T xx P.S: Sorry to hear about George Best. It's very sad that he couldn't give up the alcohol and that he's now paying such a terrible price for it.
J S
<<more rap and Christian rock records are sold than any other kind.>>
If you'll re-read my statement, I said I enjoy what the majority of
*music lovers* (i.e., serious fans, opera lovers, symphony goers do.
Not urban ghetto thugs or backwood hillbilly kids.
Stop setting up strawmen.
<<You strike out when I dismiss something you happen to like.>>
Well, if you mean that I publicly disagree with you sometimes, is that
not to be permitted? I don't think I've ever "attacked" you for any of
your personal musical interests.
<<you always attribute to me motivations that are completely absurd,
such as taking pleasure in dissenting from the mythical majority to
which you supposedly belong>>
Mythical majority? Oh, sure, nobody has ever heard of Andrew Lloyd
Webber, while Josquin des Prez is on everyone's lips. And, since you
went out of your way to state here that you "loathe", and "wouldn't be
caught dead" listening to ALW's "anemic, 4th rate, simpleminded
schlock", I can only assume that you enjoy dissenting.
<<In other words, you don't have to apologize for what you like, but I
have to apologize for what I don't like.>>
No apologies were even implied; but don't expect everyone to agree with
your, imo quite frankly, *wrong* assessment of ALW. It's fine with me if
you never listen to him, but when you publicly attack a popular
composer, you'll probably get a reaction. If I said I never listen to
Schoenberg's atonality, it turns my blood cold to think how quickly
you'd point out that that's *my problem*, rather than simply permitting
me to avoid him.
<<I need stronger musical "drugs" than you do.>>
I don't think I need drugs, musical or otherwise. I love music, and have
the ability to find beauty in most types. You seem to imply that people
who can enjoy Lloyd-Webbers songs can't get anything out of Mozart,
Bach, etc., and vice versa. I enjoy those composers, and many more. It's
not an either/or thing with most of us. Apparently it is with you.
<<I've spent my life learning how to hear music that I couldn't grasp at
first>>
Oh, I think that's something we all have to do, if we're to become, say
opera lovers. A fine attitude. That's how we grow in our tastes. As with
everything, however, there are limitations beyond which we cannot go,
and more importantly, need not. And there exists certain types of
musical experimentation that you seem to feel if listened to enough
times, one will acquire a love for. In some cases this is true, but in
others, no.
Sorry, it isn't going to happen. The experiment was a failure. If you
want to waste your time trying to force yourself to take pleasure from
the cat walking on the piano keys, go for it. The rest of us have better
things to do. And don't bother pulling out the old "philistine" crap.
People know what they like and don't like, and they don't really care
for your elitist opinions of them.
<< What you should be defending is my right to listen to music that only
a tiny minority is even aware of>>
I absolutely do that.
What you might consider doing is to stop insulting a lot of people for
enjoying perfectly legitimate music that you arrogantly claim is beneath
you.
I have other things to do than continue this dialogue.
I'll let you get back to the soul-satisfaction of Anton Webern's 'Six
Pieces For Orchestra'.
~ Roger
Dan Tritter
and wrote and wrote, including
> Sorry, it isn't going to happen. The experiment was a failure. If you
> want to waste your time trying to force yourself to take pleasure from
> the cat walking on the piano keys, go for it. The rest of us
what you mean "us," white eyes?
have better> things to do. And don't bother pulling out the old
"philistine" crap.
i don't recall reading those buzz words
> People know what they like and don't like
don't confuse me with facts. my mind's made up.
, and they don't really care\> for your elitist opinions of them.
>
the last refuge of a losing argument:> the other guy's an "elitist."
> << What you should be defending is my right to listen to music that only
> a tiny minority is even aware of>>
>
> I absolutely do that.
> What you might consider doing is to stop insulting a lot of people for
> enjoying perfectly legitimate music that you arrogantly claim is beneath
> you.
more scoundrel's locutions: "arogantly"
>
> I have other things to do than continue this dialogue.
>
good. please do them. but yours was not a dialogue, merely your catalogue.
> I'll let you get back to the soul-satisfaction of Anton Webern's 'Six
> Pieces For Orchestra'.
>
may we assume that you don't care for webern?
candidly, having heard for too many years the pablum that andrew lloyd
talentless passes off as music, in his call-me-giacomo ambitions, i
think that mr. gable underscores what has become tiresomely
self-evident, that weber has gotten rich off the naked truth that p.t.
barnum was right. a while back, he made the queen's honors list, which
lends credence to the fact that her public taste for horses includes
horses' asses.
dft
Ortrud
neeeeeigh!
-Ortrud Jones
Dan Tritter wrote:
> includes
> horses' asses.
.
Dan Tritter
no, she just loves wobbles.
Stephen Jay-Taylor
Tenth". Ridiculous ! GPD
Not so ridiculous when you consider that the last movement's first subject -
the allegro after the long slow introduction - is almost note-for-note, and
actually is for note-value, the same as Beethoven's, as heard in EXACTLY the
same location in the latter's Ninth.
SJT, who doesn't hear Schubert anywhere in the piece.
Stephen Jay-Taylor
what happened to him?" Ed
Behold : http://www.johnrawnsley.com/
Why an artist - singer AND actor - of his calibre should be hawking around
Hanoi and Brighton ( and I can't really say which would be worse ) I've no
idea, not least because he was easily the best "Barbiere" Figaro I've ever
encountered, at Glyndebourne in '82 ( and on Arthaus DVD ) and one of the
best Rigolettos to boot in Miller's mafia ENO staging. He was, however,
rather mouthily homophobic down at GB, which wouldn't have done him any good
at all, there or anywhere else.
SJT, who remembers him at GB as a sort of operatic Bernard Manning, a
reference lost, alas, on our transatlantic toilers ( think Archie Bunker,
but in real life....)
Stephen Jay-Taylor
You little pre-pubescent necrophile you ! Still, you don't have arguments
that way, they never have headaches, and he couldn't pinch any more ass in
the monkey-house, not even yours. Ideal.
SJT, who as a seven year-old had a most pressing physical need to watch
"Doctor Kildare" ( no, not for for Raymond Massey ) only to discover nearly
forty years later that the gorgeous bastard was actually AVAILABLE!!!! Of
such cruel, crushing co-incidences does my life consist...
alanwa...@aol.com
Aside from a voice decline (suggested elsewhere) I think I can guess
the rest.
But the Brighton gig isn't crap, although there is a connection:):)
La Donna Mobile
Stephen Jay-Taylor wrote:
If it's any comfort, at about age 6 I had a thing about Gary Glitter. I
mentioned this in conversation just a few years back, and my colleague
exclaimed "If only he'd known..."
alanwa...@aol.com
>
> SJT, who as a seven year-old had a most pressing physical need to watch
> "Doctor Kildare" ( no, not for for Raymond Massey ) only to discover nearly
> forty years later that the gorgeous bastard was actually AVAILABLE!!!! Of
> such cruel, crushing co-incidences does my life consist...
Resorts to old fashioned counting. So you heard Kildare aged seven and
nearly 40 years later.......
It IS possible I have miscounted but I have only done that a couple of
times in my youth and, if I haven't, you are more Measures than the
perpetual 39.
Of course, this could be simply explained by the edition and with
repeats not being taken.
alanwa...@aol.com
> If it's any comfort, at about age 6 I had a thing about Gary Glitter. I
> mentioned this in conversation just a few years back, and my colleague
> exclaimed "If only he'd known..."
>
alanwa...@aol.com
>
> P.S: How the hell did we digress from Andrew Lloyd-Webber onto
> embarrassing childhood crushes?
If they all involve music, it's very easy. There's just the same 12
notes, in various keys and combinations of course.
Which sometimes gets forgotten, probably.
Stephen Jay-Taylor
repeats not being taken."
Of course. You seriously entertain any other possibilty ?
SJT, 39, now and forever.
Stephen Jay-Taylor
You should tell this to Handelman : it would automatically increase his
repertoire by 50%.
SJT
Stephen Jay-Taylor
You should tell this to Handelman : it would automatically increase his
repertoire by 50%.
SJT, quite the musical accountant ( or is that LDM ? )
REG
SJT, 39, then and forever.
REG, helpfully
"Stephen Jay-Taylor" <sjayt...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:djukmq$aq4$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
REG
I did have the gratification, much later, of turning down Mr. Chamberlain,
of course.
"Stephen Jay-Taylor" <sjayt...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:djuehb$q3i$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
Stephen Jay-Taylor
Why ? Were you allergic to his guide-dog ?
SJT, Caring & Sharing ( the former very little and the latter even less.)
J S
wrote:
<<I think that Mr gable underscores what has become tiresomely self
evident, that Webber has gotten rich off the naked truth that p.t.
barnum was right>> blahblah
Envy is a terrible thing, isn't it?
I tell you what: why don't you become Gable's agent? Better yet, team up
with him and take your act on the road. You'd be the classiest thing
since Abbott and Costello, and I wouldn't be surprised if you two
couldn't make almost 1/1000th of 1% of ALW's income.
~ Roger
======================================
"The poor (read shyster lawyers) are with ye always."
- Jesus
J S
across like a bad textbook in the process), why don't you compose a
couple of "bad", but beloved broadway musicals, like, oh, say, Andrew
Lloyd Webber? Then you'd be rich and famous.
Oh, I forgot. That would mean you'd have to create music with actual
melodies that human beings can sing... or
comprehend...or...remember...or love...
~ Roger
Mrs Terfel
REG wrote:
> Yes, I had the same crush on Richard Chamberlain, and then on Michael York.
> I did have the gratification, much later, of turning down Mr. Chamberlain,
> of course.
>
>
I only realised a few years ago that Richard Chamberlain was gay.
"Doctor Kildare" must have been a bit before my time, but I think he
was pretty gorgeous in "The Thorn Birds". The 2nd best looking
Catholic priest on tv - after Father Antonio in "Sunset Beach", of
course.
I remember one of the girls at my school got her copy of the book
confiscated by the nuns because it was "evil and perverted". Naturally
everyone else in the class immediately rushed out and started reading
it....
Mrs T xx
dtritter
ah, net income is the summa of talent.? that appears to be the valuje
judgment of roger the ridiculous. this poor quarterwit continues his
screed, in the vain hope that intelligence will someday surface in his
prolix and public wet dreams about the sceptre'd isle's pandering
ungifted "really useful" (as andy calls himself) scrivener of borrowed
ditties.
i do not know mr. gable. if i agree with him, that does not bond us in
affection. if i disagree with him (as i have previously) that does not
cast us as enemies. if roger posts data akin to the product of the
village idiot (as continuously on this thread) ... well, you know the rest.
Silverfin
Stephen Jay-Taylor wrote:
> "Recall that Von Bulow called Brahms First Symphony, "Beethoven's
> Tenth". Ridiculous ! GPD
>
> Not so ridiculous when you consider that the last movement's first subject -
> the allegro after the long slow introduction - is almost note-for-note, and
> actually is for note-value, the same as Beethoven's, as heard in EXACTLY the
> same location in the latter's Ninth.
>
I will listen to the two and check this out. But in general, I agree
there is a relationship there.
Silverfin
REG
You are throwing pearls before whine.
<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1130605793.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Quoth Roger:
>
> > Oh, I forgot. That would mean you'd have to create music with actual
melodies that human beings can sing... or comprehend...or...remember...or
love...
>
> Of course what you mean is music that you can sing, comprehend,
> remember, and love. Nobody else could ever sing, comprehend, remember,
> or love anything that you can't or don't.
>
> -david gable
>
J S
love anything that you can't or don't.>>
Well, it certainly is true that when it comes to aesthetics, like
everybody else, I'm essentially interested in what pleases *me.* Is
there something wrong with that?
I don't listen to music I don't care for because somebody else does like
it; and neither do you, judging from your stance on Webber's. But
leaving aside the unfairness of your argument,
my point, (which as is usually the case, you contorted into a cheap
accusation of egoism), is that how many people, (even above average
music lovers - not just your average musical theater fan) do you
honestly think would pay to hear many broadway musicals written in say,
the 12 tone or other such method that you are so enamored of? Such works
are not popular even with the majority of opera goers.
As I said before, Webber and others are not writing for the rarefied
audience with which you identify and which could never keep theaters
going. Why can't you just accept that, and let people enjoy what they
can, without implying that they are inferior because they enjoy what you
consider inferior music? Do you honestly think people should stop
enjoying 'Over The Rainbow', or 'White Christmas' simply because they
are simple melodies, like 'All I Ask Of You', or 'With One Look'?
I have always, and will always believe that a true music lover may or
may not find beauty in experimental, coldly intricate works. But he can
always find it it simple, accessible, enduring melodies. The kind that,
apparently to your horror, most people love.
It's true that I don't speak for everyone, but neither do you.
~ Roger
J S
known in this thread. I've gone out of my way, due to the perceived
unfairness of David's position, to elaborate on my feelings, such as
they are. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. You win some, you
lose some, you know. Anyway, I'm not after Brownie points, just letting
my honest and legitimate opinion be known on a discussion board.
But I do find it rather sad that you, who have, I believe, contributed
nothing to the proceedings, feel something worthwhile is created by a
cheaply dismissive (and inaccurate : I'm no more "whining" than Mr
Gable is) play on words.
~ Roger
REG
yet you act like he is, and respond in a resentful way. What I don't get is
the resentment on your part. David IS more sophisticated in his knowledge
of music than virtually anyone on this board, leaving out I think Alan. It's
a great gift to have that available. It's not that you or I have to agree
with his choices, but there's definitely an advantage to knowing more, and
being exposed to more. It doesn't hurt us - it is an opportunity to learn
more. I never would have taken Boulez, for example, seriously, unless David
had come back to him over and over. I still don't (and don't think I will)
ever agree with David about Schoenberg, whom I think uninspired even in his
youth, but that's ok, and maybe at some point I will feel differently.
You take it as a personal accusation, and it's not.
"J S" <somer...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1524-436...@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
alanwa...@aol.com
I know I shouldn't get involved but my advice is that if you like
particular music get on with it and enjoy it and do not take any notice
of what others say.
I wish Verdi had stolen from someone (ANYONE). It might not have been
such boring crap to play if he had.
Or known in the business as La Triviata, not for the voices but
elsewhere.
J S
Actually, I find "Gurrelieder' incredibly beautiful.
Then something went...wrong...horribly ...wrong.;-)
~ Roger
REG
Actually, if I'd thought of Gurrelieder, I might have made the exception.
"J S" <somer...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1521-436...@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
J S
an intensely biased forum. I mean that in a not necessarily negative
way - heck, this is an opera group: we're *all* passionate!
Re Verdi: sorry he's boring to play. Exciting, I think, to hear.
Best,
Roger
Silverfin
I was going to stay out of this one, but what the hell...
I think it's a shame, although probably inevitable, that appreciation
of music can so easily turn into antagonism between different camps. In
response to this tendency, one can either take the attitude that
everybody is different and loves different types of music, and nobody
should be criticised for their personal taste or expected to appreciate
music that's not of their preferred genre. On the other hand, there's a
lot to be said for making the effort to appreciate stuff which may be
initially offputting. I tend to go with the latter, just because from
personal experience there are some pieces of music and composers which
I didn't like at first but grew on me massively with repeated
listenings. (And I probably wouldn't have bothered with the repeated
listenings if it wasn't for knowing how much the music meant to other
people.)
It's also very easily to find oneself shunted into a particular 'camp'.
This happened to me at university because I was one of a very small
group specialising in post-1945 music (of the more experimental sort) -
people would make assumptions about what I would think. But people's
tastes don't fall into neat categories. For example, I like some
Schoenberg but dislike more of it. I also like some Lloyd Webber but
dislike more of it. Having not heard even half of either of these
composers' output, I have no idea whether on hearing a piece for the
first time, I'd think it was brilliant or crap. Even then, I might
change my mind. I'm not going out of my way to listen to any more of
either of their works because there are many composers of higher
priority to me, but I would be happy to do so if someone recommended a
particular piece they rated.
As my final year dissertation was on the American minimalist school,
particularly Reich and Glass, I had to cope with people on one side
telling me that it was unlistenable emotionless music for intellectuals
only, while others were telling me that the same music was sell-out
populist rubbish for the masses.
Silverfin