Best "My Fair Lady" recording- Page 2

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 10/11/06 at 3:20pm

But I only listen to the movie soundtrack.

Well, as I list the film version of MY FAIR LADY in my top 10 worst films ever made, I don't own it or its soundtrack. But, why do you only listen to that version? You think it's the best? That's fine; but nothing in this universe could convince me of that, when all I have to do is listen to the OLC and hear Julie Andrews' incredible voice begin to sing "All I want is a room somewhere...", to know differently. But do you actually think the performances on the soundtrack are better than either the OBC or the OLC? I'm pretty sure I've never heard anyone say that.
Updated On: 10/11/06 at 03:20 PM

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 10/12/06 at 2:34am

The Original Broadway Cast (recorded in 1956 in Mono - White cover) is the final word in MFL recordings.

Yes, the Original London Cast (recorded in 1959 in stereo, Gold cover) has the advantage of stereo sound but stereo was new and the recording techniques were primitive. There is distortion and fuzziness throughout. Also in almost 3 years of performing the cast has started adding little swoops and embellishments that dilute Moss Hart's original crisp direction.

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 10/12/06 at 4:47am

I agree that there is distortion—sometimes a lot—on the OLCR and that the sound on the mono OBCR is therefore better.

I know that many people prefer the OBCR for the reasons you state, frontrowcentre2. I grew up on the OLCR and I always preferred it. Then a couple of years ago, I switched my preference to the OBCR.

But after listening to the two of them again this evening, I think my preference returned to the OBCR.

There's no question that the performances on the OLCR show the effects of the leads having played the show for a long time. Harrison and Andrews have added all sorts of embellishments. Harrison is far more overtly emotional (exactly what Hart didn't want) and is downright extravagant.

And yet . . .

I've grown accustomed to the trace
Of something in the air
Accustomed to her face.

When Harrison does these lines on the London recording, he sounds so defeated, so hopeless, and it's so moving to me. I would agree with those who feel that Harrison goes a bit overboard and is sometimes a bit (or more than a bit) mannered on the London recording. OTOH, I think I find him a bit too external at points on the Broadway, a bit correct.

In the end, there are places where I prefer him on the Broadway recording and other places where I prefer him on the London.

With Andrews, for me it's clearer. I know that a lot of people prefer her on the Broadway recording. They think she's in better voice. I don't, even though I know she had a cold. I like her greater tendency to talk-sing on the London. I feel she's made the role her own. I hear that all kinds of vocal things that some people don't like have crept into her performance—a tendency to scoop into notes, a tendency to start under pitch even when she's not scooping, a greater use of portamento—but I'm not bothered by them. In fact, I like how in the final time she sings "I Could Have Danced All Night" she simplifies it from the first two times.

Overall, I really prefer her in London. She does have more highs and lows, as Higgins might say, and I like that. She sounds more vibrant, more layered, more spontaneous to me.

And even with Harrison's excesses on the London, on balance I feel that both Harrison and Andrews are giving richer, deeper performances. And Higgins and Eliza so dominate the score that even if I prefer some other things about the Broadway, my vote now goes with the London.

Anyway, both recordings are great and make fascinating comparison listening, not just for Harrison and Andrews but for the others as well.

Btw, JohnBoy2, the orchestrations are the same on both recordings. Perhaps it's the sound quality or the conducting that make them sound different to you.
Updated On: 10/12/06 at 04:47 AM