> > > So I wonder if that's what we're headed to once we realize that Andrew Lloyd Webber isn't all that hot after all.
> >
> > He's NOT???
> >
> > *aghast*
> >
> > Mi "Always thought Stephen Schwartz was the man, myself--very quirky" ke
>
> You weren't the only one to gasp at that comment!

I can't tell for sure, but I read Mike's gasp as sarcasm.

Andrew Lloyd Webber wrote some bouncy fun songs, but his musicals (with arguably Evita the only exception) are shallow, shallow, and shallow. Never mind that they do not contain ideas; they don't even generally contain cohesive emotions or moods. Generally the songs are totally inappropriate to the (shallow) stories his musicals tell. I think the reason "Cats" is his most popular musical is because it doesn't *try* to tell a story, so there's nothing inconsistent music can screw up.

The most cursory contrast of Lloyd Webber with -- well, heck, anybody from Gilbert and Sullivan to Stephen Sondheim -- is all it takes to expose the superficiality of his work. Even if one is to look strictly at his songs in isolation, rather than the context of a broader work, and they look like safe, unambitious formula.

I'm not arguing that Andrew Lloyd Webber isn't sometimes fun. But he's like candy. Tastes sweet at the time, but it's useless for sustenance, and you might have a tummy ache afterward.