First listen HELLO, DOLLY! — Page 3

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

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

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.

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).

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

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

Kate Baldwin is good but she is no Florence Lacey

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

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.

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!

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...

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.