Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!stratton From: stratton@brl-tgr.ARPA (Sue Stratton ) Newsgroups: net.music.classical Subject: Re: Andrew Lloyd Webber's 'Requiem' Message-ID: <9696@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Tue, 2-Apr-85 14:21:06 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.9696 Posted: Tue Apr 2 14:21:06 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 7-Apr-85 10:51:42 EST References: <353@ptsfc.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 91 > Picked up a copy of Andrew Lloyd Webber's 'Requiem' the other > day and have listened to it four times already. This is a > *serious* orchestral/choral work, as opposed to L-W's usual > output (JC Superstar, Evita, Cats, etc). It recently had its > US premiere in New York, which will be broadcast on PBS on > (Good) Friday, April 5. > > On the record, the piece is conducted by Lorin Maazel, with > the English Chamber Orchestra (I think!), the Winchester > Cathedral Choir, and soloists Placido Domingo (that man sure > gets around :-)), Sarah Brightman (soprano) and a boy soprano > whose name escapes me. > > It's a fascinating piece, very dramatic and often quite moving. > Domingo's part is the least interesting of the soloists', but > he sings beautifully, although his Spanish-accented Latin is > rather exotic in comparison with everyone else. Sarah Brightman > is magnificent - her part is fiendishly difficult in places - > and the boy sings like an angel. > > Two choral sections are particularly effective - the 'Dies Irae' > and the 'Offertorium' (in which I noticed several 'quotes' from > Evita). The 'Hosanna' is a JC Superstar-like piece, with a > swinging gospel rhythm and exuberant African drums in the back- > ground. There's a meltingly beautiful duet for the woman and boy > sopranos in the 'Pie Jesu/Agnus Dei' - they sing alone, then > together, and then the hushed choir joins in quietly - mmmmm! > -- > > rod williams > -------------------- > dual!ptsfa!ptsfc!rjw Perhaps I should have waited to post this until after the Friday broadcast, but I couldn't resist offering an "opposing view" now. So............ To begin with, I haven't got a recording of the "Requiem." However, thanks to an acquaintence who does, I had the opportunity to hear sections of it last week. Based on that experience, I'm afraid, I won't be buying my own copy. Why? Well, I guess on one level my reason is as ultimately unassail- able as rod's for liking it--i.e., it's a matter of personal taste, and the work leaves me cold. (brrrrrrrrrrrr!) I guess I could end here, having bored the net with yet another "You liked it/ I didn't" difference of opinion. Instead, I'll bore the net with a question-- but I should warn you that I am going to break C.S. Lewis' cardinal rule of criticism (the one in which he warns the reviewer against couching his criti- cism of a work in terms that imply some special knowledge of the author's cre- ative process. E.g., don't say "his writing is labored"--how do you know it wasn't very easy for him to write those phrases you find so awkward? Etc...) and play psychologist. The question, then: Who else, among those of you who've heard the "Requiem," thought that ALW was trying TOO HARD? That is, I get the impression from both the work and the publicity surrounding it that Lloyd-Webber and fans would like to be able to look to the "Requiem" as some sort of vindication for the composer ("I/he may be popular, but look, I/he can write *serious* music, too!" cf. rod's first paragraph above). Hence the choice of weighty text, famous conductor, and at least one superstar (no pun intended) soloist. Yet the music cannot support the ambitiously chosen text; and the obviously talented performers (I agree with rod about Miss Brightman--Mrs. Lloyd-Webber--who shows herself to be a fine singer) outclass rather than redeem the composition. The irony here is that ALW's work in the Broadway idiom is (at its best) really fine--"serious," if you will; who said he needed to prove himself? Sure, "Superstar" was not "conservatory-style" music, but many agreed that it was significant stuff. I am reminded of the problems that classical musicians have in classifying some of the works of the "borderline" composers--e.g., Gershwin (is "Porgy and Bess" opera or musical comedy?), Bernstein (same question for "West Side Story"), Sondheim (some people have no trouble with this one at all, but I remind you that his "Sweeney Todd" was put on by the NYC Opera this past season), and others. But with each of these works, we have an already written and clearly important piece of music that is simply difficult to classify, whereas with "Requiem" I think we have a pretty shallow piece of music that the composer insists must be called "classical" (=> "serious") simply because it is superficially different from his other, clearly "pop" work. I hope I don't get flamed by people who think I have something against "cross- over" artists. I do think it's possible for a composer/performer to be "bi- lingual," if you will; there's nothing a priori wrong with Andrew Lloyd Webber composing a Requiem mass, Linda Ronstadt singing Puccini, or, for that matter, Placido Domingo singing John Denver. Such ventures are not often successful, but when they work, we are rewarded with a fresh perspective on an old work/ idiom. But what Lloyd-Webber has done is unfair. What do YOU think? I know I'll be tuned in on Friday, in any event. :-) Karen Wilson