Talk:Andrew Lloyd Webber
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
Contents |
[edit] Shows
The section "Shows" is full of fair use pictures. I think all of them should be removed, and the section should contain only a list of his shows. Tomer T 17:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that the pictures add a lot to the article and make for an easyily recognisable reference of his widely known body of work. If they are all fair use and not infringing then I believe they add more than they detract and should remain. --Brideshead 21:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I personally think someone who knows about it should actually update the "Shows" section86.153.229.247 (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Popular
"He was the most popular theatre composer of the late 20th century..." - Do we have any proof?
I think so, yes. To the best of my knowledge, no other theatre composer has equaled his success in terms of the number of record runs on Broadway and in the West End, or the worldwide success of his shows. The Phantom of the Opera is the highest grossing entertainment of all. However, the recent revision by the user with IP 66.61.115.28 makes a lot of sense to me, as it makes the opening seem tighter. It's probably also generally better to avoid making big statements such as "he was the most... this and that" even if they are true. I much prefer this opening, even though I had some input into the older version. 29/06/2007
[edit] Evita film
Should the Madonna Evita film not be referenced on this page? It is particularly significant because the new 'You must love me' was the first Lylod Webber / Rice team up in years (at least I think that's right).
That statement teeters on Fandom - I would consider revising it.
[edit] Personal History
Regarding this soon
addition:dflkhSDT:khawetkhwetlkjwaelktj
"As a child, he could not bear noises made by others. At the age of three, when brought to his first day of pre-school at a school where his mother worked, he covered his ears when other children produced sounds with musical instruments."
Thanks for this contribution. However, it doesn't seem to me to be a very significant biographical detail. Is it really worthy of inclusion here? 14/06/07
[edit] Broadway/West End
Not that it really matters, but I was just curious as to the reason for the switch. Lloyd Webber's shows are released in the West End before transferring to Broadway.
[edit] Title
I just changed a 'Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber' to 'Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber' but now I'm wondering if that is his correct title - should it be 'Lord Lloyd Webber' or 'Lord Webber'? I believe it tends to be down to personal preference on the part of the Lord himself so does anybody know what his correct title ought be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.14.130 (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, the article calls Lloyd Webber "Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber" "Baron Lloyd-Webber" and "Andrew Lloyd Webber" at various stages throughout.Should there not be some consistancey, and he be called "Lord Lloyd-Webber" throughout, save the first time his name is mentioned in the first paragraph, where it could be left as it is? Jamescourtenay (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Plagiarism
I think this article needs to mention the several accusations from different artists of him plagiarising their work. Such as Roger Waters, the Puccini estate, and others i dont remember. 24.166.154.108 06:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that is a problem, provided you can provide solid Reliable Sources to back them up. Without sources for verification, such information is utterly inappropriate in a biographical article.
- EdJogg 11:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I copied and pasted the plagiarism section from the phantom of the opera page and added a 1 sentence intro. It could do with some stuff from elsewhere if there is any. I don't know enough about the subject to do any more. 80.176.230.126 (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
This whole section should be deleted on plaigarim because the site that is linked as a reference seems rather questionable. Aside from that it seems very libelous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.99.234 (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is from http://www.musicals101.com/who6b.htm: "With lyrics by the otherwise unknown Charles Hart, Phantom went on to gross over $2 billion worldwide by the century's end. (Claims of plagiarism by the Puccini estate were settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.)" It's of course quite obvious that the ostinato rhythm in "Everything's All Right" from Jesus Christ, Superstar derives directly from Paul Desmond's "Take Five", and that Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat quotes "Tom Dooley" (which is presumably public domain) brazenly and without acknowledgement. TheScotch (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
^ So you're just going to accept something you read online unquestioningly? Since when was Musicals101 an objective source?? I presume all the pieces LLoyd Webber is accused of plagiarising are themselves 100% original - if such a thing is possible (or desirable for that matter). All great artists are influenced by other artists. Having said that, I would think it highly unlikely that Lloyd Webber would look to Desmond and Dooley for inspiration. I can well accept that he might be influenced by Puccini - a genuine composer - although I actually think the style of these two is fundamentally different. I agree with the previous poster - the whole section should be removed as it is just an invitation for people who don't like the composer to attack him in the article (Pink Floyd fans and the like!). 15 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.57.14 (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Re: "So you're just going to accept something you read online unquestioningly? Since when was Musicals101 an objective source??":
- I didn't put it in the article, I merely noted it here. I'm curious to know what precise claims of plagiarism Puccini's estate made.
- Re: "I presume all the pieces LLoyd Webber is accused of plagiarising are themselves 100% original - if such a thing is possible (or desirable for that matter). All great artists are influenced by other artists.":
- This is an attempt at obfuscation. There really is such a thing as plagiarism.
- Re: "I would think it highly unlikely that Lloyd Webber would look to Desmond and Dooley for inspiration.":
- I've said nothing about "inspiration". I said Lloyd Webber obviously took the rhythmic ostinato directly from "Take Five" and obviously quoted "Tom Dooley". I stand by that. I noticed his apparent quotation of "Echoes", by the way, long before I'd heard that Rogers Waters noticed it. It's just possible that Lloyd Webber happened on it independently, but there are lots and lots of persons involved in a Broadway show, and you'd think one of them would've pointed out the resemblance and that Lloyd Webber would have felt obliged to change the tune accordingly. TheScotch (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Response to 193.60.57.14:
Re: "Indeed I would argue that the same pitches in another work would not in itself constitute plagiarism. It is the way in which the piece develops that is significant. This is not POV. it's simple fact.":
The point you're missing here is that you should not "argue" within an article at all. It's your arguing itself that clearly makes the passage POV. You are certainly welcome to add a sourced rebuttal if the source is significant (one from Lloyd Webber himself, for example, would be appropriate I should think).
Since this is a discussion page, not an article, however, I might be allowed to remark here that the wikipedia "Phantom of the Opera" article quotes Waters thus: "I couldn't believe it when I heard it. It's the same time signature - it's 12/8 - and it's the same structure and it's the same notes and it's the same everything." In other words, (if that article is accurate) Waters is maintaining there is more involved than pitch sequence. As for "the way in which the piece develops", my personal opinion is that there is very little development at all in either piece (Waters's or Lloyd Webber's). TheScotch (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I will try to address your points:
"This is an attempt at obfuscation. There really is such a thing as plagiarism."
I never said there wasn't such a thing as plagiarism.
"The point you're missing here is that you should not "argue" within an article at all. It's your arguing itself that clearly makes the passage POV. You are certainly welcome to add a sourced rebuttal if the source is significant (one from Lloyd Webber himself, for example, would be appropriate I should think)."
I'm afraid you're missing the point here. I was responding to your comment in the history section. The statement in the article is a statement of fact. It is not an argument.
I don't see why Waters' opinion should be included in the article. Should we include every instance where an accusation is made against a composer? Also, since Repp claimed that Lloyd Webber "stole" the same extract from him, could we say that Waters stole from Repp, since Repp composed his song before Waters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.57.14 (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Re: "I never said there wasn't such a thing as plagiarism.":
- The point is that your remarks questioning the "original[ity]" of any work and attempting to justify appropriation of the works of others are not relevant.
- Re: "I'm afraid you're missing the point here. I was responding to your comment in the history section.":
- You were explaining your edit, an edit which reinstated an unattributed argument. TheScotch (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] phantom of the opera 2
shouldnt something be said that he is currently working on phantom of the opera 2 which is set in america ~source graham norton show —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.51.44 (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article currently says "On his website, Lloyd Webber announced that he was planning to write a sequel to The Phantom of the Opera, based on the novel, The Phantom of Manhattan, by Frederick Forsyth, who will collaborate. The sequel is to be set in New York, although no further details have been given." By all means, expand if you have any more information. -- Dafyd (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)