Andrew Lloyd Webber has more money than sense

[GavestonPS]

No, you're on the right track, Phyl. Speaking in VERY broad terms, "class" in England is based on lineage and discussed openly; "class" in the U.S. is based on income and we vehemently deny it exists.

You can be dead broke and still "upper class" in England if you are the Earl of La Di Da.

So Rupert Murdock is upper class in the U.S. (Sssssh!) but will still be middle class in England even if he's the richest man in the country.

Again, I'm speaking in very broad terms: English titles can be bought, attained by marriage, etc. But on the whole the difference is that we pretend class is not inherited in the U.S., even though almost everyone tends to end up the same class as his or her parents.

And, alas, I'm not sure how this applies to Lloyd Webber, who had been dubbed a Lord the last I heard. I don't know how the English regard such titles, but I can't think they carry the same weight as a title that has been in the family for centuries.

[Scripps2]

I think the modern class systems we're talking about are probably better described as social demographics and I think they tend to be similar through much of Western Europe as well as the UK and US.

But Gaveston is right to point out that there is still the strain of the traditional class system running through the UK.

As for ALW I'd say he was definitely born into an upper-middle class family with the apartment (but not a house) in Kensington and being privately educated. Although he is now a Lord that is not a hereditary peerage (which are no longer created) and so I would not see him as being part of traditional aristocracy - it is rather more like him having a second job. And in his case, it's a very good argument for constitutional reform.

[GavestonPS]

Scripps, I'm interested. Does Lord Andrew have duties he must perform in return for his title?

And if I run into Maggie Smith on the street, am I really to address her as "Dame Maggie"? (Yes, I'm watching DOWNTOWN ABBEY and that form of address seems uncomfortably familiar to me in the U.S. I wouldn't normally address a celebrity I didn't know by her first name and especially not by a nickname.)

(BTW, you're right, of course, that it would be clearer if Americans didn't use the word "classes" to refer to different economic strata, but I doubt the usage will change here.)

[darquegk]

Would he be Lord Lloyd Webber, or Lord Sydmonton? Is that titling convention archaic? I know it is still upheld in the Downton Abbey time.

[GavestonPS]

On HOW DO YOU SOLVE A PROBLEM LIKE MARIA?, host Graham Norton and the panel of judges all called Lloyd Webber "Lord Andrew".

I don't think a lord's title necessarily goes with his last name. In DOWNTOWN ABBEY, the current peer is called "Lord Grantham", but his last name (and that of his daughters and cousin) is "Crawley". (His unmarried daughters are often called "Lady Crawley", to distinguish them from their mother, "Lady Grantham".)

But I don't even pretend to know the difference between titles. I believe Lord Grantham is an earl and his wife a countess.

(Anyone. please feel free to correct my spelling. I've invented spelling based on the way the names sound to me on TV.)

[Scripps2]

"Scripps, I'm interested. Does Lord Andrew have duties he must perform in return for his title?"

"But I don't even pretend to know the difference between titles."

As a rough guide there are hereditary peers (as in Downton Abbey) with different types of titles and different rules for each title. Hereditary peerages are hundreds of years old and the rules were written for a different society. The hereditary peers used to have a birth-right to sit in the House of Lords and vote on whether legislation from the democratically elected government in the House of Commons was passed. This is no longer the case.

Instead the House of Lords is populated by non-hereditary peers (such as ALW) who are appointed by the democratically elected government in the House of Commons to represent their interests in the House of Lords. Often these appointments are made on merit and achievement but sometimes they are made for political expedience. These peerages will die with the peer - ALW cannot pass his title on to his children.

Most hereditary peers I've known tend to be extremely shy about their titles. In both cases, I only found out accidentally that Bill and Crispin were a Viscount and a Knight respectively.

"And if I run into Maggie Smith on the street, am I really to address her as Dame Maggie?"

Call her what you wish - it's a free country.

[frontrowcentre2]

Say what you want about him, but the man is talented. And I think he's done a lot of great things for the theater. Wish he'd build a really nice Broadway theater.

I respectfully disagree on both points.

"Talented" is a highly subjective word. He can certainly write (or creatively recycle) a pretty tune when he needs to. Yet he fails to learn one of the crucial lessons about when and how to use music in a show. In a TV interview, ALW says he always admired the placement of "Some Enchanted Evening" after "Twin Soliloquies" - great... so WHY hasn't he stopped to consider what it is that makes that moment so thrilling?

I just got back from seeing the Toronto premiere of WIZARD OF OZ - it opened here last week to a slew of negative reviews (one the the best and most accurate is linked below.) Webber and director Jeremy Sams have "adapted" (copied word for word) the screenplay - even copying the film's underscoring. Yes the production is lavish and loaded with special effects, but it is also maddening in its frequent lapses. The new songs add nothing to the story or character development, and while the final song is is a lovely anthem, it merely restates what has already been covered in the dialogue.

The adapted script also omits some key dialogue exchanges: In the film Dorothy warns the Scarecrow about accompanying her to Oz because she has run afoul of the Wicked Witch. These lines are not in the stage adaptation so how is it the Scarecrow can subsequently warn the Tin Man and Lion about the Witch? It's little things like that that make me question your statement that ALW has "done a lot of great things for the theater." What great things has he done? Are you talking about audience response? I suppose you could credit shows like CATS and PHANTOM OF THE OPERA with attracting new fans to Broadway shows, bot those fans prove to be fickle. They seem to only want to go back and see the same shows over and over rather than venturing out to try new shows. So in the end it hasn't really built an audience for future shows.

These shows have generated multimillion dollar profits and yet that money just feeds into RUG's bottom line where they have been offset by monumental losses sustained by subsequent shows that flopped including SUNSET BLVD, ASPECTS OF LOVE, WHISTLE DOWN THE WIND, THE BEAUTIFUL GAME, BOMBAY DREAMS, and LOVE NEVER DIES. I really doubt OZ will break that trend. Audiences are thrilled to see the beloved film re-created on stage and the show will do spectacular business on the road but seems an unlikely prospect for success on Broadway where another WICKED witch is ensconced.



The level of spectacle sets teh bar higher with each new show and it is teaching audiences that spectacle trumps content. The high costs or maintaining these shows have contributed to the escalating ticket prices.


Review of Toronto OZ

[EricMontreal22]

Aspects of Love and Whistle Down the Wind, at any rate, made a profit in London--so calling them flops isn't really correct (Bombay Dreams recouped in London too, I believe).

I do think ALW deserves some credit for having some sense of theatricality, personally. I find it harder to give him credit for how talented he is or isn't--but despite liking to dominate his shows when working with better collaborators often would be to their benefit, etc--I do honestly think he has some real inate sense of what often just, somehow, "works" theatrically.

[algy]

Gaveston said "On HOW DO YOU SOLVE A PROBLEM LIKE MARIA?, host Graham Norton and the panel of judges all called Lloyd Webber "Lord Andrew".

I don't think a lord's title necessarily goes with his last name. In DOWNTOWN ABBEY, the current peer is called "Lord Grantham", but his last name (and that of his daughters and cousin) is "Crawley". (His unmarried daughters are often called "Lady Crawley", to distinguish them from their mother, "Lady Grantham".)

But I don't even pretend to know the difference between titles. I believe Lord Grantham is an earl and his wife a countess.

(Anyone. please feel free to correct my spelling. I've invented spelling based on the way the names sound to me on TV.)"

Ok, so let me see what I can dredge up from my course on the aristocracy at Uni.

The order of precedence/importance goes:

Dukes (not royal dukes - they're above)
Marquis
Earls
Viscounts

People who are a Marquis, an Earl or a Viscount are referred to as Lords usually of their title (hence Lord Grantham). Eldest sons often get a courtesy title - one of their father's lesser titles usually and the rest of the kids use the family surname rather than the place.

An example:
(I'm using the last duke because it's easier)
Andrew Cavendish, The Duke of Devonshire
His heir (actually not his oldest son because his eldest son died) Peregrine Cavendish, Marquis of Hartington
Next in line (son of Peregrine) William Cavendish, Earl of Burlington