First listen HELLO, DOLLY!- Page 3

[Jarethan]

Posted: 5/8/17 at 11:59pm

BroadwayConcierge said: "Responding to Jarethan's point about Creel... he's 41 in real life. And nailing the boyish role of Cornelius. Isn't that amazing?!

 

I thought he was great...he made so much more of the role than Charles Nelson Reilly, who didn't have much of a voice and didn't convey a lot of emotion to me.  For the first timer EVER, I really enjoyed It Only Takes a Moment, and just loved his voice in Sunday Clothes and his charm in Dancing, etc.

 

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 12:14am

I've only listened to the title track, and I have to say I really miss a lot of the personality Channing and Bailey brought onto the recording, and I always thought Channing's "Lose some weight Stanley" sounded a bit wooden on the recording. Bette seems a little restrained here, and although she's a better singer than Channing, Channing's rendition just had that extra something that made the song larger-than-life. Bette seems to just be singing it as directed. I'm a bit underwhelmed by it. I'm sure when Bette performs it live, she's really selling it with personality.

Updated On: 5/9/17 at 12:14 AM

[Dollypop]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 12:14am

Reading through this thread, I'm getting a teal education about recordings!

[Theater_Nerd]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 12:37am

From what I've heard this recording is so lackluster. 

[Robbie2]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 1:06am

Theater_Nerd said: "From what I've heard this recording is so lackluster. 

 

"

Have you listened to it Nerd?

[icecreambenjamin]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 1:15am

Theater_Nerd said: "From what I've heard this recording is so lackluster."

Lackluster is not a word that I would use to describe this album.  I don't really have a problem with how it sounds.  Actually, it's nice to have such a clear recording of the score where I can really hear the lyrics and those orchestrations.  It does lose a point for not including the brilliant finale.  It's a beautiful recording however.

[mamaleh]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 1:45am

Having seen DOLLY several days ago, I'm startled by the difference in how the recording sounds as opposed to the live performance.  There's a certain blandness wafting through this new cast recording, but as a tradeoff, Bette Midler's singing sounds much smoother than at last Wednesday's evening performance.  While she commanded the stage beautifully and is a delightful Dolly, both my husband and I noticed lots of wavering in her voice, some raspiness as well as notes abruptly cut off instead of being elongated. Imperfections or not, however, I will always prefer my memories of a live performance.   

[brian1973]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 2:50am

I think the point is you can't capture what Bette does in the theatre and the energy because it's spontaneous at each performance. 

I like the recording but the title song is a bit ponderous (pace). 

[Stage Door Sally]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 7:52am

Thank you for the education bk, you did a great job with the '95 recording! Listening to both versions of Sunday Clothes, the vocals are in the forefront of the '95 version so they have immediancy and tension. The Bette version sounds more like a studio mastered muzak piece with vocals in the background.

It lacks the snap, crackle and pop. 

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 8:30am

bk, thank you!  Very interesting indeed.

I've seen Hello, Dolly! twice already, and although I'm happy they made a recording, it lacks the vibrancy that I heard on stage.  I wish they had waited to record it after opening.  I also agree, a live recording would have been wonderful.

Updated On: 5/9/17 at 08:30 AM

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 9:11am

I listened to a few random songs yesterday. I reached first for Gavin's songs because I saw the show the night his understudy was on and I love Gavin. Unfortunately, I was a bit taken back and was sadly disappointed. Something was missing. So I moved on to a few other songs and my feelings were not matching my expectations. This morning I listened to the entire new recording from start to finish and I was still not receiving the WOW I hoped to especially since I know what I felt when I saw it live! WTF!? Hoping there is going to be a much more polished release in a few days and that this was only a teaser. My feelings mirror everyone else's mentioned here.

[HenryTDobson]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 9:42am

Kate Baldwin and Gavin Creel have some of the most beautiful and smoothest voices on Broadway. Please keep giving them more shows!

[denali.fire]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 12:14pm

Dollypop said: "...and a brisker tempo, although I do love the way the banjo plays against the strings and gives the orchestration a nice turn of the century feel.

 I thought there was too much banjo.

Sounded more like Mame  than Dolly. 

 

"

 

Updated On: 5/9/17 at 12:14 PM

[imeldasturn]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 12:45pm

Kate Baldwin is good but she is no Florence Lacey

[morosco]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 12:46pm

I've listened to this recording a few times now.  Not thrilled with it like I thought I would be.  Lackluster.  I was expecting it to have a lot more energy.  No thanks.  Pre-order cancelled.

[TNick926]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 1:16pm

While I agree with many here that nothing on Earth can compare to what we experienced live in the Shubert Theater with Bette and company, I think this is a beautiful record of a truly sublime show! Yes, a live recording would be amazing, just as I think it would be for Hamilton and pretty much any other show, it's obviously unlikely we will ever get that.

I've listened to this new recording several times now, and it brings me fresh joy each time. I am particularly growing fond of Larry Hochman's new orchestrations! And the choral harmonies are lush and thrilling! This takes its place beside my all time fav recording of this show - the Pearl Bailey version (I'm especially partial to that one, as Pearl playing Dolly was the first professional show I ever saw - as a bright-eyed youngster!)

Updated On: 5/9/17 at 01:16 PM

[newintown]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 1:34pm

Being accustomed to Lang's larger orchestrations, the reduced forces of Hochman's charts sound less thrilling, more generic and thin (to me). It's too bad that everyone buys the producers' spiel that full orchestras are no longer financially feasible.

[Jtoth8922]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 2:22pm

I was thrilled to see these posted early...then disappointed.  All the best words have been used already, flat and low energy. I don't see the show til August, and I expect what I see in the theater to be amazing, but this isn't. The modern Broadway album can be tricky and this one needed some tricks from the Golden Years. I'll continue to relish Pearl Baileys title track recording.

[thirtythirtyninety]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 3:15pm

It sounds...ok.

 

It's fine.  Not a recording for the ages, though.

[Robbie2]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 3:38pm

imeldasturn said: "Kate Baldwin is good but she is no Florence Lacey

 

"Far from being good, Baldwin is much better than Lacey and she's been nominated for a TONY...Lacey was not!

 

 

[binau]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 4:29pm

It's sad to see so many people disappointed with the new recording. Hopefully when the high quality recording is released and the initial shock wears off that it's not quite the same experience watching it live people can start to warm up to it. Personally I think it still captures pretty well what is heard on the Shubert stage. 

[MichelleCraig]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 4:46pm

newintown wrote: "Being accustomed to Lang's larger orchestrations, the reduced forces of Hochman's charts sound less thrilling, more generic and thin (to me). It's too bad that everyone buys the producers' spiel that full orchestras are no longer financially feasible."

I completely agree here. If you adjust finances for inflation, etc., you would probably find that what they're charging for tickets could certainly warrant fuller orchestras! Top ticket price for HELLO, DOLLY! in 1964 was $9.60. Adjusted for inflation, this would come to approximately $75.00 today!! The cheapest seat offered on Telecharge for a Saturday night performance is $89.00. The most expensive...well, you see what I mean.

Don't buy into the spiel. Not to say that this DOLLY is a scaled down production, but in some respects, it is (45 actors in 1964 vs. 33 in 2017, and while I cannot find the number of musicians used in the original production, I would believe it was larger than the orchestra playing at the Shubert today)...and tickets are selling for quadruple or more of what they were selling for (adjusted for inflation) in 1964. 

Can't wait to see it... 

 

[Dollypop]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 4:47pm

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

 

I was chatting with someone in the business about this recording and mentioned that when Bette ad lib's in the title number, it seems like she is alone and talking into the air. He responded that she was, indeed, alone. The chorus recorded their parts at different times. There's lots of negative talk about this recording within the industry. 

[binau]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 4:53pm

MichelleCraig said: "newintown wrote: "Being accustomed to Lang's larger orchestrations, the reduced forces of Hochman's charts sound less thrilling, more generic and thin (to me). It's too bad that everyone buys the producers' spiel that full orchestras are no longer financially feasible."

I completely agree here. If you adjust finances for inflation, etc., you would probably find that what they're charging for tickets could certainly warrant fuller orchestras! Top ticket price for HELLO, DOLLY! in 1964 was $9.60. Adjusted for inflation, this would come to approximately $75.00 today!! The cheapest seat offered on Telecharge for a Saturday night performance is $89.00. The most expensive...well, you see what I mean.

Don't buy into the spiel. Not to say that this DOLLY is a scaled down production, but in some respects, it is (45 actors in 1964 vs. 33 in 2017, and while I cannot find the number of musicians used in the original production, I would believe it was larger than the orchestra playing at the Shubert today)...and tickets are selling for quadruple or more of what they were selling for (adjusted for inflation) in 1964. 

Can't wait to see it... 

 

 

"

Yes but expenses have also increased considerably too. I think this production could probably have afforded a larger cast or orchestra but in general when we look at how expensive shows are to run and how infrequently they make a profit it seems reasonable to claim that it is not financially wise to spend large amounts of money on a large orchestra. 

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 5/9/17 at 4:59pm

There is no way that a show with a $40 million advance, plus premium ticket prices that approach $1,000 could not afford a full orchestra. I'm sure Bette is taking home a hefty paycheck, but this show is printing money. No reason other than cheapness they couldn't go for it.