Sondheim vs Webber

212,713pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Add New Page Discuss this page0



It is difficult to deny that Stephen Sondheim is one of Broadway's most outstanding composers. Elysa Gardner comments, "Sondheim's material also reveals a writer whose creative process relies as much on emotional intuition as it does on intellectual sophistication." In the same article, Brian Stokes Mitchell says, "His thoughts are in his work, and his songs can work on many different levels. Also there are intervals in music that can elicit certain emotional responses and he seems to have a real understanding of that"1. According to published Tony Awards statistics, Sondheim is the composer with the largest number of awards for Best Original Musical Score. His honors include best musical for A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum (1963), best lyrics and score for Company (1971), best score for Follies (1972), best score for A Little Night Music (1973), best score for Sweeney Todd (1979), Best Score for Into the Woods (1988) and Best Original Music Score for Passion (1994).


Despite such honors, it is not too far from the truth it is generally agreed that a Sondheim musical does not have as much commercial power as an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical. In Forbidden Broadway's Buddy's Blues, Gurwin aptly sings, "I just got a problem I want to explain/You see I'm under produced of late, very ignored/Theatrical budgets are lean/I get my respect/I get my award/I've got those everybody loves me but nobody will produce me blues/That isn't he a genius but don't give him any money feeling/that isn't he a work of art but not fun enough/He's ok for elitists but not popular stuff/Those I won a lot of Tonys but my shows don't show a profit blues"3. This paper will attempt to highlight the contradictions that exist between artistry and commercial success. I will be using Sondheim and Webber as two diametrically opposite representations. Through this paper, I hope to show that commercialism and art must coexist symbiotically; that preferably a balance must be found in order for a musical to truly become universal.


Before launching into an extended analysis of why Sondheim's musicals have problems in achieving huge blockbuster success, I will define the parameters of my definitions. I will use the Tony Awards as the arbitrator for artistic success. In addition, positive reviews in the various newspapers will be also used as a gauge for artistic success. For commercial success, I will use the same yardstick as used by Rosenberg and Harburg, a success means that "a Broadway show returns complete investment funds during its run on Broadway"4. In addition to this definition of a commercial success, the length of the run will also be a factor in determining the success of the musical. For example, A Chorus Line was not only a successful musical; it ran for 6170 performances before closing, firmly establishing itself as a block buster musical. I will exclude national tours and revivals. I will include a survey which I conducted online in the appendix and use my data collated as evidence for certain analysis which I will be making.


In 1971, Sondheim won best lyrics and score for Company, the first nonlinear "concept" musical which explores the lives of five couples and Robert, a 35-year-old bachelor. In addition, Company also won four other Tony Awards, bringing the total to six and making it a critical success. If that was not enough, Company had also won the most Tony Awards for any musical in the awards history up to that point. It was a success in terms of breaking even. Yet according to John Olson, "Company remains one of Sondheim's less frequently performed works"5. The contradiction is extremely apparent here. We have a Sondheim musical here that is of obvious artistic importance since it occupies a large place in Broadway history. Olson verifies that its "songs have been among Sondheim's most performed works in compilation recordings and tribute performances"6. According to my simple random survey of 100 people, 53% of people are more inclined to watch a musical that has critical success. Thus, we should be able to predict that it should have had a longer shelf life on Broadway then the mere 690 shows it ran for and should be able to have successful revivals. Instead, Company was only revived once in London. So what then was the problem with this work of art which Hugh Martin commented, "When I saw Anyone Can Whistle during its pre-Broadway tryout period, I seemed to hear History whispering to my ear, 'I'm getting ready to send in a new era of the American Musical Theatre'. When I saw Company, I whispered back, 'Don't bother, it's here'."7? It is difficult to conceive that it was because of production value or the score because of the critical acclaim garnered at the Tony Awards. Since this was such a pivotal work, why has it not been restaged as successfully as Guys and Dolls or Oklahoma!?


Criticisms leveled at Company include suggestions that the material is too dated for contemporary audiences, thus hence the lack of interest in producing a revival. The original script for Company describes the scene as "New York City, Now"8 which at that point of time was the 1970s. Does it mean that Company is no longer relevant? I propose that it is as relevant as before and even more so now. Thematically, Company examines committed relationships and marriage from the perspective that adults have the choice to enter or not to enter such relationships. Susan and Peter announce their divorce in Act 1. In the 1970s, according to the U.S. Bureau of Statistics, divorce rate was 3.5 divorces per 1000. Currently, the figure stands at 4.8 divorces per 1000 which points to us that the musical is as relevant today as it was in the 1970s. In addition to the content, Company has few period references in either the dialogue or music that would influence us to imagine that it was in the 70's. The script is timeless in that there are no references to pop culture, political figures or current affairs of the 70's. We do not see musicals like Showboat having revival issues although it was written in the 1920s. Thus, we have to look elsewhere and explore other reasons for the lack of interest in reproducing Sondheim's work.


In 1979, Sondheim's Sweeney Todd opened on Broadway and six months later, so did Andrew Lloyd Webber's Evita. Both musicals had enjoyed large critical acclaim with Sweeney Todd sweeping seven Tony Awards in 1979 season, and Evita seven Tony Awards in 1980. One would think that these musicals would be equally successful since they were both such critical successes. Yet statistics indicate that Sweeney Todd had only 557 runs before closing as compared to Evita which had 1567 runs, nearly three times more than Sweeney Todd. I have chosen to open my discussion with these two musicals because both were directed by Harold Prince which allows directorial vision to be a constant. Lardner comments, "When Evita reaches Broadway in the fall, it will join Sweeney Todd to form a small revolution in the shape of the American Musical. For all the physical and musical splendor of both shows, neither is very clear of purpose. But that should not diminish their value as pace setters. Revolutions, even the best of them take time to show their true worth."9 Since both these musicals were mentioned in the same breath and have been described as revolutionary, what was the main difference this two musicals which caused such a large disparity in terms of economic success?


Perhaps a good place to start would be the music of both musicals. It is only fair to compare the musical style of both composers if we want to find an even ground to begin comparison. According to my survey, 82% of respondents indicated that the songs and music of a musical is what attracts them to a musical and is the basis of value for money. As audience members, our ears are constantly conditioned by mass media and thus we are trained to be comfortable with certain sound quality. The discussion with regards to head voice in response to Irene Dunne's portrayal of Magnolia in Show Boat indicate that tune, sound and pitch all play an important role in the total experience of a musical. So what is the main difference between the two composers? According to Snelson, "the musical influences on Andrew Lloyd Webber substantially from outside the musical theater canon have undoubtedly enhanced the appeal of his works"10. In a sense, Evita was a consolidation of experimentation for Webber which began with Jesus Christ Superstar and Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat. Evita was the culmination of the rock style which Webber developed and it brought together the elements more successfully. It was something of a pop parade but with greater stylistic integrity. Against the backdrop of pop music which was shifting and churning out fragmenting styles, Webber needed to maintain a musical integrity that is progressing rather than fossilizing. In addition, he needed to retain widespread popular appeal. Evita accomplished all these goals which accounted for the 1567 performances. Derek Jewell from The Sunday Times wrote, "Evita is a quite marvelous modern opera, exceeding in stature even Jesus Christ Superstar. Lloyd Webber's score, so full of glorious melodies apart from the well known 'Don't Cry For Me Argentina', is an unparalleled fusion of twentieth century musical experience"11. Central to this comment is the fact that Evita is a fusion of twentieth century musical experience, suggesting that the music of Evita is tailored for the modern audience. The music makes no pretense to being authentically Spanish or South American merely to be modern which fully suited audiences, thus contributing to its huge success on Broadway.


Like Webber, Sondheim draws his musical inspiration from contemporary composers. Unlike Webber, Sondheim combines his musical inspiration into his own style which is defined. Critics do not accuse Sondheim of plagiarizing from disparate sources. If anything, critics often bemoan his complex internal rhymes with harmonies that are a shade too sophisticated, with wit too introspective and metaphors that are too clever by half. Sondheim describes himself as a "very tonal composer"12. As a composer, he "creates a discrete musical language and vocabulary for every one of his musicals, investing enormous intellect and effort into each melody, harmony, and rhythm. As his own lyricist and dramatist who collaborate with librettists and directors, he writes music that is true to his characters and their situation"13. Such is the reputation of Sondheim that the mass audiences are wary when entering into a Sondheim musical. From an objective point of view as an audience, if I were paying $100USD - the going rate of a musical on Broadway - I would want to watch a musical that does not mock my intelligence yet allows me to derive maximum utility from it. Norman Lebrecht writes, "Those who go to a musical in expectation of a boy-girl plot and a hummable showstopper feel cheated by Sondheim"14. People want to relax and as we often discuss, audiences want to enjoy themselves. Perhaps this is one of the main reasons for Sweeney Todd's dismal 557 performances. Sondheim, in composing Sweeney Todd, turned to Bernard Herrmann for inspiration and he commented, "I thought, 'Bernard Herrmann,' and out came that kind of music filled with unresolved dissonances that leaves audiences in a state of suspense"15. The words' unresolved dissonances and state of suspense would not be what is a sure fire commercial success. Audiences want to enter into a fantasy world that is resolved. It can have dark tinges but it should have comforting premises where audiences can hold onto. Sweeney Todd's premise is anything but comforting with music that has intrudes into our awareness with incongruous notes. We do not have the safety of tunes like Oh what a Circus nor do we have radio friendly songs like Don't Cry for Me Argentina. Instead our perception is distorted by songs like Pretty Women where Todd is singing a luscious duet with the Judge. Even a song like Johanna which is the closest to a love song in the musical is a ballad that does not follow typical musical convention. As described by Gordon, "Johanna has a blue note in it which makes the music a source of anxiety"16. As an audience, our senses are continually assailed by periodic shrieks and thunderous bass lines which as a mix is a potent brew to keep us off balance. It is not a wonder then that audiences are not very receptive to Sondheim's music. In the 1979 review by Kerr, he ends off his review by stating, "We are not lured into sharing it"17. The fact that we are not lured into sharing the musical is probably a large factor in deciding how well a musical does on Broadway in terms of commercial viability.


As an additional comparison, I want to consider general perception of the genre of the two musicals. According to Walsh, "Evita from the first was intended to be an opera" and he goes on to say "Evita had a polished finished gloss. It was no ad-hoc affair, evolving as it went along as Superstar had been, but a fully formed dramatic entity: an opera, as surely as Strauss's Salome or Elektra - or Sullivan's Ivanhoe - was an opera, but one conceived directly for disc"18. Yet critics like Bernard Levin were infuriated by Webber for believing that Evita could actually be placed into the genre of classified as an opera, "There is a still greater corruption at the heart of this odious artifact, symbolized by the fact that it calls itself and opera and has been accepted as such by people who have never set foot in an opera house, merely because the cliches between the songs are sung instead of spoken"19. The fact that Evita started being conceptualized as an opera and ended up as a pop and rock "opera" helped boost its popularity. It is not far fetched to comment that opera as an art form has a sense of snobbery associated with it. If Evita was totally marketed as an opera, I posit that it would have not done as well as it did. The fact that it was billed finally as a rock opera meant that it could appeal to the wider market, thus ensuring it became a commercial success. In contrast, the problem with a Sondheim musical is his reputation. Drawing from Forbidden Broadway's Sondheim Blues, we note that his reputation is such that it only captures a small sector of the market. An article from the Sondheim Society writes, "Sondheim's popular appeal is demonstrably narrower than that of the great Broadway songwriters of the past"20. In the same article, there is a debate over if Sondheim's works should belong to the opera house. Kerr writes, "Mr. Sondheim does not write pretty tunes. And when he is carrying the narrative here - with so much near recitative - he edges close enough to an opera to make you wish he had gone all the way"21. With so many revivals of Sweeney Todd in opera houses all over the world, it is small wonder Sondheim has developed a reputation for being inaccessible. Yet Sondheim himself makes no secret of thinking otherwise. According to the article, "He even affects not to like opera, and has never written a work intended for opera-house production"22. Yet we cannot discount the fact that perception of genre is a very important part of marketing strategies. If the general public is fed with the perception that his tunes are difficult and the musicals verge on the edge of being an opera, chances are that they would be repelled from making a commitment in watching the musical.


Enhancing the accessibility of Evita was the workshop process of developing it into a musical. Before the advent of records and radio broadcasts, public access music was via Tin Pan Alley where scores were sold to consumers. Consumers would bring these precious scores back home where they would play them on the piano. Broadway tunes were thus disseminated by this method. In recent decades, however, popular musicals are having original cast recordings sold as memorabilia or as a form of publicity. Drawing upon this history, Evita began as an album rather than a book musical. Music producer Freddie Gershon describes, "We had recorded the score for Evita and the album soared. As a musical play, it had no form or substance. It was just this record album"23. In October 1976, Don't Cry for Me Argentina was released by MCA and the single started strong, steadily climbing to number one. The double album followed and was a smash hit quickly going gold. This success meant that songs from Evita were getting heavy air play and audiences were familiarizing themselves with the songs. When the musical was finally released in London and subsequently Broadway, audiences were already familiar with the songs and could therefore very quickly relate to the musical. The album itself was a great publicity mechanism. In contrast, the production mechanics of Sweeney Todd was completely different. It went through the usual route of book writing, score writing and lyric writing. While in rehearsals, Sondheim was often tweaking music and lyrics to ensure that it flowed seamlessly with the production. In a sense, this meant that when the show previewed, audiences were not familiar with the tunes. Adding to the unfamiliarity of the songs was the problem of complicated lyrics and music. Audiences were just not prepared to deal with difficult scores. If audiences do not enjoy the music, it did not matter how artistic or cutting edge; they will not buy the cast album. Cast albums do not only provide extra sources of revenue but they provide publicity for the musical which is usually not valued. Consumers who buy cast recordings are likely to listen to it for a period of time influencing family members and friends in the process. This process is a wonderful form of publicity and potentially leads to continuous ticket sales.


It seems hardly fair to complete a discussion of Sondheim and Webber without discussing 1988; a year where The Phantom of the Opera and Into the Woods went head to head in the Tony Awards. Although Phantom swept seven awards, Best Score went to Sondheim for Into the Woods including Best Book. Into the Woods is arguably most well known musical with its premise set in the world of the Grimm Brothers fairytales. Enid Nemy of the New York Times reports that, "One of the happiest news to hit Broadway - not to mention to the producers involved - for a while is an advance ticket sale said to be more than $2 million for the new Stephen Sondheim-James Lapine musical Into the Woods"24. For a show whose production cost was projected at under $4 million, hypothetically, having an advance sale of $2 million, the run should be a success. In addition, the premise of the musical is familiar material; the stories of Jack and the Beanstalk, Cinderella, Little Red Riding Hood and Rapunzel are etched in the childhood of many. It also had Bernadette Peters starring as the witch. Bruno Bettelheim comments that audiences enjoy fairy tales because of the "pleasure derived from happy memories of childhood experiences that can now be enjoyed in an adult manner"25. Therefore, we would imagine that with an award winning score and book coupled with familiar premise would ensure that Into the Woods would be Sondheim's Cats. Yet we are confronted with the reality of the situation. According to Rosenburg and Harburg, Into the Woods was a flop on Broadway. It seems so improbable that a show that had so much going for it would end up a commercial flop.


Again, it is enough to comment on the complexities in music which makes Into the Woods another very difficult musical for audiences to absorb. In terms of musical accessibility, Sondheim combines different techniques. In an interview with Horowitz:

MH: How do you compose a song where the harmony itself is so uncertain - if you can't be sure if you are in the dominant or the tonic...?

SS: I just think it's up to the audience - let them worry about it.26


This short excerpt is a sample of how Sondheim views his music. From the interviews compiled by Horowitz, I am able to derive a sense of the technical genius of Sondheim who is focused very much on musical techniques. An exchange between Richard Rodgers and Sondheim was mentioned. Sondheim had gone up to Rodgers to pay tribute to the inversion technique of "People will Say we are in Love". Rodgers looked at Sondheim as if he were crazy. He had no idea what inversion was - to Rodgers, inversion was instinctive concept while to Sondheim it was a technique. I would suggest that the problem with Sondheim's music is that they are not as instinctive as they are technical. This craftsman pays too much attention to the intricacies of individual pieces and loses sight of the bigger thematic sweep of a piece of music. Kissell who writes for the Daily Times comments, "How much effort does Hairspray require?" he asks. "Sondheim does require effort, and over the years the audiences, as well as the critics, are less and less willing to do that.27. Sondheim's genius is a double-edged sword; his music is of seminal importance in musical composition yet his music is also what prevents a wide popular appeal.


Thematically, Into the Woods was conceptualized by Sondheim and Lapine. It being a flop can also be attributed to the themes presented. According to Sondheim, "All fairytales are parables about steps to maturity. The final step is when you become responsible for people around you, when you feel connected to the rest of the world"28. Yet this is exactly what audiences do not want to do when they enter into a musical. They are seeking a fantasy world which allows them to feel irresponsible. If they had wanted reality and feeling interconnected, they would have stayed at home to tune into the news. Bettelheim informs us, "There is a sweetness and innocence to these themes [fairytales], which are particularly attractive to an audience in need of respite from the ever present, anxiety provoking problems of our day"29. Sondheim has failed in providing his audience a much needed escape into the fantasy. I personally enjoyed Into the Woods, but the destruction of the happily after myth may strike a lot of people as sacrilegious as it shatters their perception of childhood fairytales, providing an extremely uncomfortable experience leading to questions over their memories of their childhood. Combined with complicated word rhymes, lyrics and tunes, we can explain why Into the Woods was not the commercial success vehicle which it was meant to be.


In contrast, Webber's Phantom of the Opera which opened a few months after Into the Woods is currently still running and is currently the longest running musical in Broadway history. Assuming sold out houses for every show; over 11 million people have watched the Phantom on Broadway as compared to Into the Woods where less than one million people watched the original production. Referring back to my original proxy for artistic success, Sondheim's win for Best Score should have made Into the Woods as big a commercial success as Webber if not bigger. As Phantom breaks commercial records, criticism on Webber's artistic style has intensified with the most common complaint being that he plagiarizes from the work of other composers. Trevor Nunn was surprised that the new Phantom tunes were recycled from Aspects of Love. Yet the commercial success of Phantom cannot be swept under the carpet with suggestions that he appeals to the lowest common denominator or that the musical is tailored for plebeians who have no appreciation for artistic works.


Stylistically, The Phantom of the Opera follows Webber's successful formula of easily identifiable music which was also radio friendly. Four of its songs landed high on the charts in Britain including "The Phantom of the Opera", "The Music of the Night", "All I ask of you" and "Wishing you were Somewhere Here Again". As posited above, I suggest that these airplays were crucial publicity and allowed listeners to already be accustomed to the melodies of The Phantom. In his biography of Webber, Michael Coveney sees The Phantom as, "the balancing of operatic pastiche with his own idiosyncratic rock romanticism a distinctive feature of Lloyd Webber's score"30. The Webber score is at the center of ongoing debates. In a New York Times article published after the opening of The Phantom on Broadway, Bernard Holland asks bluntly "Score of The Phantom: how good is it?" Although there were mixed responses, Mr. Bolcom provides a conciliatory look at Webber's score. He claims, "There is a certain canniness in the details - the whole tone scale for the new opera, the fugal entries, the way scenes are structured musically. It's not the work of a primitive. It's a transitory style - a melding of different kind of music"31. Perhaps this is the common ground where art and commerce can meet. The blending of musical styles to engage the most number of audiences and bring otherwise disinterested audiences into the theater.


With reference to Sondheim's interview above, I postulate that what makes Webber's musical a commercial success is his method of writing what is closest to him. In an interview with Walsh, Webber comments, "I wanted to write with my heart than with my head". The Phantom is not a deep self reflective piece of theater which analyses the impact of a decaying French society nor is it a show of monumental social deconstruction. Instead it is a piece which is deliberately self indulgent. It is indulgent of the audience in its sensual appeal in sound and look. It allows audiences to be wrapped up in a world of Romanticism without making them work too hard at trying to understand the words. Characters are filled with emotional subtexts which are expressed through readily identifiable songs. These factors blend into a commercially successful musical.


Having examined both these diametrically opposite composers, I would like to suggest that a symbiotic relationship must be found between these two dividing camps. Adler sums it up very nicely, "when popular entertainment and artistry marry, Broadway audiences are graced with exceptional production. Broadway can survive economically on a diet of mostly populist fare, whereas its chances for financial solvency are minimal if it were to present only artistically challenging but inaccessible shows"32. The lifeblood of Broadway is its audience and if shows cannot attract audiences, then something is potentially wrong with it. Although Sondheim is usually placed on a pedestal and gets away with various artistic experimentation, we should not forget that any form of theater is a three-way process. The writer produces works which are interpreted by directors. The directors showcase an interpretation of an idea on stage. The audience is on the receiving end and they are the ones who judge, with their money on whether the idea and presentation is well received. On the flip side, we should not be blinded by slogans such as "11 million people can't be wrong" so much so that we forget that stasis in any art form ultimately lead to its demise. Formulaic shows can only be successful once or twice at most. Artistic integrity is still the driving motor behind any sort of commercial success. Adler informs us, "Producers try to work on pieces that excite them, to which they can commit over the long and arduous process, but commercial viability is a sizable determinant as well"33. For artistic passion to be sustained, small victories must come along in the form of economic success. The romanticized idea of the "Starving Artist" may be appealing in some quarters but reality usually sinks in as soon as the landlord announces, "Rent, my amigos, is due"34. Finally, I would like to posit that for every block buster smash like Mama Mia! or The Lion King, it gives otherwise unemployed actors or composers a chance to earn enough to pursue whatever they want which will fulfill them artistically.


The interdependence of art and commerce is an unalienable concept for present day Broadway. The Great White Way will always be backed by the color of green. In my opinion, Webber and Sondheim represents a generation whose reputation cannot be changed by any further productions. Sondheim is an institution whose works are celebrated but more so what he represents. Critics have hailed him as some kind of General Custer of the stage musical, defender of a doomed art against moronic hordes of Lloyd Webber derivatives. As Grant comments, "He has become an institution, a brand name, a talisman that enables Broadway to say, we can tolerate the dumbing down of the musical theater as long as we continue bearing offerings to the cult of Sondheim"35. In contrast, Webber will be remembered as the composer who tops the list of the longest running musical on Broadway (Cats for now and The Phantom of the Opera by the end of the year). In less than twenty years, he has gone in critical estimation from being the exciting, and penniless, young firebrand who was bringing a fresh new voice to a tired genre to the millionaire hack whose overwrought works are emblematic of what ails Broadway36. Our hopes lie in the current breed of new musical writers embodied by Urinetown's Mark Hollmann or Avenue Q's Robert Lopez and Jeff Marx. They provide a resolution where art and commerce can meet and be mutually beneficial. Art is never easy. Success never comes cheap.


1. Elysa Gardner, USA TODAY. McLean, Va.: Feb 18, 2002. pg. B.09


3. Buddy's Blues [Sondheim's Blues] - Danny Gurwin, Forbidden Broadway, Vol. 7: 2001, A Spoof Odyssey [CAST RECORDING]

4. Bernard Rosenberg and Ernest Harburg , The Broadway musical : collaboration in commerce and art, New York : New York University Press, c1993

5. Gordon Joanne, Stephen Sondheim: A Casebook, Garland Publishing, Inc. NY 1997

6. ibid

7. The following comments were solicited by the Library from the living composers and lyricists.

8. Furth and Sondheim 644

9. James Lardner. The Washington Post (1974-Current file). Washington, D.C.: Jul 1, 1979. p. K3 (1 page)

10. Snelson, John, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Yale University, 2004, pg 74

11. Derek Jewell’s review was taken from The Sunday Times and was quoted in Andrew Lloyd Webber: His life and his works.

12. Horowitz, Mark Eden, Sondheim on Music: Minor Details and Major Decisions, Scarecrow Press Inc. 2003 page ix

13. Ibid page x


15. Gottfried, Martin. Sondheim New York: Harry N. Abram, 1993 (pg 125)

16. Gordon Joanne, Stephen Sondheim: A Casebook, Garland Publishing, Inc. NY 1997 pg 127

17. Walter Kerr. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Mar 11, 1979. p. D1 (2 pages)

18. Walsh, Andrew Lloyd Webber: His life and his work, Time Mirror Company, 1989.

19. ibid


21. Walter Kerr. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Mar 11, 1979. p. D1 (2 pages)


23. Grant, Mark. The Rise and Fall of the Broadway Musical. Northeastern University Press, 2004.

24. Enid Nemy. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Jul 10, 1987. p. C2 (1 page)

25. Bruno Bettelheim. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Jul 12, 1987. p. H1

26. Horowitz, Mark. Sondheim on Music: Minor details and Major Decisions, The Scarecrow Press Inc, 2003 P89


28. By Stephen Holden. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 1, 1987. p. H1 (2 pages)

29. Bruno Bettelheim. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Jul 12, 1987. p. H1

30. Coveney, Michael. Cats on a Chandelier: The Andrew Lloyd Webber Story. London: Hutchinson, 1999

31. Bernard Holland. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Jan 28, 1988. p. C24 (1 page)

32. Adler, Steven. On Broadway: Art and Commerce on the Great White Way. Southern Illinois University Press, 2004

33. ibid

34. Rent - The musical.

35. Grant, Mark. The Rise and Fall of the Broadway Musical. Northeastern University Press, 2004.

36. Walsh, Andrew Lloyd Webber: His life and his work, Time Mirror Company, 1989.

[Written by Andy Tan, and reproduced with permission]

Also on Fandom

Random wikia