Talk:Andrew Lloyd Webber

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.

Quite so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.18.129 (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

A neutral verifiable fact (complete with exact reference including page number from a respected expert publication (published by the San Francisco Opera)) regarding the "strong resemblance" of music from Puccini's "Girl of the Golden West" in Lloyd Webber's "Phantom of the Opera" was removed by 193.82.164.132 on 2010.0703. To my understanding this text (which I added on 2010.0703) meets the criteria for Biographies of Living Persons), so if it was removed by an official editor, why was it removed? Since the removal came from an unidentified user (just an IP address was recorded), I restored the deleted text. The reason that I originally added this text was that I personally saw a performance of "Girl of the Golden West" at the San Francisco Opera and was shocked (as were many of the audience) by hearing music that I thought was written by Lloyd Webber but actually was written by Puccini over 70 years earlier in 1910. Looking through the official program guide confirmed this. I then checked on Wikipedia and found that the article on "Girl of the Golden West" did mention this, but with a different reference; however, there was no reference to this on the Andrew Lloyd Webber page, so I added it. If this was not as per Wikipedia policy, then please explain why it is not. Thank you. Jphineas (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is just something you read online.

Why on earth is it 'highly unlikely' to consider the possibility that he would look to Desmond and Dooley for inspiration? That's an absurd statement. He is neither god nor the fount of all human creativity. And Desmond certainly is a genuine composer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.18.129 (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Plagiarism discussion continued

Regarding reversion by Johnuniq of my edit on 25 September 2011 due to lack of reliable sources: If you go to YouTube and listen to "Love Never Dies" and the beginning of "Free Willy: Main Theme", the relationship is obvious. Additionally, you can listen to "Theme from The Apartment (1960)" for a possible common source. I have neither the time nor the inclination for an edit war and there is no need to respond to me directly. Still, I think all editors could benefit if an "expert" could explain how to cite public-domain musical snippets, in the absence of some comprehensive publication from a musicologist on the matter. I agree with Johnuniq that "Accusations of Plagiarism" may not be the best heading for some of thes similarities and would further suggest "Musical Influences" as an alternative with the Plagarism portion regarding the Puccini suit as a subheading. Thank you. 65.27.249.141 (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There have been many occasions when similarities between the works of different composers have been noted, including a sensational BBC radio program regarding classical music (sorry, can't provide any links). Perhaps it's plagiarism, and perhaps it isn't (see convergent evolution for one field in which it is entirely possible to have thing A look like or behave like thing B, without either being a copy of the other). The only thing that is certain about the situation is that an article cannot assert "the works of A and B are sufficiently similar to suggest plagiarism"—what would be required is an attributed statement by a relevant scholarly authority. See WP:SYNTH and WP:REDFLAG. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be necessary, or a RS'd admission from ALW, for a bare heading of "Plagiarism"; but a RS of, for instance, Roger Waters's accusation is sufficient for the heading "Accusations of plagiarism". Straw Cat (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have brought this to the attention of BLP Noticeboard. This section is bordering on BLP violation as only reliably sourced accounts of composers and musicians who have directly accused Lloyd Webber of plagiarism should be included within this section. As it stands, mere mentions of personal suggestion of "similarities" or even "musical influences" do not equal "accused plagiarism". They must be removed, since most are either OR or without any reliable sources. Even if the section is renamed "Musical Influences", it opens up far too many "musicologist wanna-be's" who think they hear similarities that either aren't there, or can't be backed up by reliable sources; and further more, project a conscious claim that Lloyd Webber had the influence in mind before composing said melodies. It's a dangerous slope either way. Influence implies "prior to" composing; "accused plagiarism" implies deliberate stealing of someone else's work, which without proper sourcing is definitely a BLP violation. The following must be removed immediately under this section: 1) The main theme from Jesus Christ Superstar is "Rosemary" 2) The opening of "Love Changes Everything" 3) Bach's "Prelude in C Major" supplies the main structure 4) The chorus of "Don't Cry for me, Argentina" from Evita also bears a striking resemblance 5) The main theme to the title track "Sunset Boulevard" is extremely similar 6) The main theme from Love Never Dies is the theme from the film The Apartment. 7) "Memory" from Cats is similar to Ravel's Boléro (even this one needs to go since the composer himself worried prior to composing that it sounded similar to other works and sought other composer's advice and counsel). None of these have references, and simply placing a "citation tag" does not excuse the BLP violation for accusation of plagiarism. Maineartists (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The contentious material not relating to accused plagiarism and unsourced content has now been removed, thanks to Neiltonks. Good job! What remains is correct to the section. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz I noticed you removed the entire line regarding the Puccini Estate suit. It is perhaps the most recognized and acknowledged plagiarism suit next to Jerry Herman and "Hello Dolly" for a Broadway composer. It might be best to keep it within the section with a "citation needed" tag next to it for other editors to find more reliable sources. It is far from being a rumor. Thoughts? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This is from the WP article: [1]. Maineartists (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

In this case 'plagiarism' seems to be not the copying of other peoples ideas, but downgrading original music by its application in a minor form of entertainment, thus sucking the art out of music for moneys sake.46.223.163.77 (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox overhauled

See this thread for the whys and wherefores; the anchor point is mid-thread where the details are, but the whole "Allegedly controversial composers" sub-section leads up to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

"Andrew Webber" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Andrew Webber and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 28#Andrew Webber until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. AFreshStart (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Graffiti?

“Lieutenant-Commander Antony Hugill“ links to The Kings 1944 Birthday Honours, and “Fanny née Gore Browne” links to the High Sheriff of Rutland. Seems to be no correlation? Mac Edmunds (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)