In praise of THE FANTASTICKS OC recording

This morning I dusted off my old LP of the original recording of THE FANTASTICKS - I haven't listed to the score in years - and had forgotten what a treat - and what a definitive Golden Era of musicals cast recording it really is. I had forgotten in particular how lush the vocals are. Has there ever been anyone to rival the voices of Rita Gardner, Kenneth Nelson and Jerry Orbach in these roles? I was even more impressed when I read in an interview with Rita Gardner that the entire recording was put down in a three hour session, with most songs being done in only one or two takes.

I subsequently took a quick listen of the other recordings of the score --and they all fall into the trap of sugary treacle. But not that original MGM record which captures the delicious wry tone of the show perfectly. I imagine this recording must have been a big part of the original production's huge longevity.

Any other fans?

Updated On: 8/25/16 at 04:49 PM

I adore The Fantasticks, and the OC is just a treat. There is something almost Shakespearian about the way the words are spoken on there that hasn't really made it onto other recordings of the show. It a show that I fined that as I grow older the layers of meaning continue to unfold for me.

Absolutely. Jerry Orbach is perfection. Nobody has sung this role better.

I like some of the stuff in the score but that song about the rape is absolutely absurd.

The censorship is absurd, especially since the word has a different context at the time. The re-write of the song is lackluster at best, especially since a lot of amusing alliteration relies on the word "rape". Are we going to censor Into the Woods? Do we think the word "rape" can't be used in musicals when it doesn't explicitly deal with forced sexual situations?

But the recording is, in a word, perfect in a way only a few recordings are. "Hello, Dolly!", "Company", and "Sunday In the Park With George" are the only others that come immediately to mind.

I was looking to send a copy to a friend and was surprised to find the physical CD is no longer in print. Sad that really. As for the rape song. I stand by it as being perfect in the show. To me that song adds to the timelessness of the piece. The word was used in many classical works and ties into the mythic tone of the piece.

Of course, the word has another meaning, but it is little known, much less used, today. And even in 1960, it jarred hearing it sung in a musical. Like it or not, it hit a sour note and took one out if the moment. So there's no reason not to realize that and address the problem. Language evolves, as do people's perceptions of it, so I can understand why they made the change.

Remember too the lyric in The Very Next Man in Fiorello. That too made me cringe when I heard it over 50+ years ago. Now they've changed it, wisely. It's just a matter of common sense.

The fact that the song is jarring and uncomfortable is a plus in my book; I think that moment should be uncomfortable given the manipulation the fathers are initiating.

I think producers today pander too much to audiences - and not even the complaint of audiences - what they view as anything audiences "might" object too. Maybe theaters get caught in the trap of having to sell THE FANTASTICKS as a 'family musical' -- but I'm more along the lines of the poster who mentioned the mythology at the heart of the story. El Gallo certainly represents a darker side of human intrigue - almost sadistic (later shown in "Round and Round" which is, to may way more suggestive in its hints of violence linked to orgasmic excitement) -- and without that danger, the show has no real 'there-there.'

Looking at clips on YouTube, it looks like some productions use the original lyrics but most use the (awful) revised lyrics - which I imagine are what are officially licensing now.

I would think most audiences are really smarter than they are given credit for and would get the song with the original lyrics. Its clearly set up in the dialogue preceding it that it is a "literary" definition, but what do I know.

Pasadena Playhouse, a pretty major regional theatre in L.A. is getting ready to open the show next week. I wonder what version of the song they are using...

Updated On: 8/26/16 at 11:41 AM

I'm also a fan of the show, although the best recording I've heard, IMO, is the Off-Broadway Revival recording from 2006.

I remember being a bit taken aback upon reading there was a "Rape Ballet" on the album, but when I actually listened through it (especially "It Depends on What You Pay" it was clear what they meant and I had no reason to be offended. But I did admire the underlying sinister tone it gave the plot point.

This is one of my favourite shows. Nevertheless, I tend to lean towards censoring/updating 'It Depends on What You Pay' in some way. Jarring the audience and taking them out of the moment can be a good thing if they're jarred for the right reasons, but does that happen for modern audiences with this song? Will the audience be thinking "Wow, I thought this was going to be a gentle pro-Romantic musical but it's actually exploring the dark side of Romantic fantasy, how fascinating" (or whatever), or "Wow, I thought this show was timeless but it's actually hugely dated and tone-deaf"? Productions also have to be predicated on the assumption that at least some audience members will be seeing and hearing the number for the first and last time that night, so they're not going to review the song a few times and revise their knee-jerk perception of it (and nor should they have to, theatre by its nature is supposed to work if experienced just once. If multiple viewings are needed to understand a show, productions should provide multiple free tickets to each audience member). The changing of that song was initiated by the show's creators themselves anyway (eg listen to http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5697901, or read the 'Abductions (And So Forth)' postscript in the published libretto).

All that said, I "lean towards" changing the song but maybe staging it intelligently would still work. Has anyone seen a production, including perhaps the original, where the specific choices made caused the song to work very well? Hypothetically I can see it might work if, for example, a production manages to establish El Gallo as extremely dashing and attractive in his brief stage time before the song, so that the song's intention to attack the romantic rogue archetype is really obvious. Or, if the dialogue preceding the song was amended even more (with permission) to emphasise that the show 'knows' how stunningly callous the whole plan is towards Louisa, and by extension women in general, with some better-written variant of "Well, you want her to be properly terrified, don't you? If you didn't want the full nightmare-come-to-life package, why did you hire me?"

Back to the OC recording... I like it. I actually read The Fantasticks before hearing any of the songs, and many of the lyrics work so well as spoken verse (in my head) that I was initially weirdly disappointed to hear how they sounded as songs. (I still want somebody to do an entirely spoken-verse production of this show, actually!) I've grown accustomed to the songs as songs now. However I'm most fond of Catherine Porter's version of Luisa on that obscure TER/Jay 'Musicals Collection' highlights recording, which I'm not sure even exists in an expanded non-highlights form.

"but I'm pretty sure that when the show opened in 1960, the last thing a downtown Village musical was going for was a 'family audience.' "

Little Mary Sunshine, Leave It to Jane revival, ...

"So while his heart is in the right place, I still say, the change was a kind of pandering."

It's called facing the facts, addressing a problem, and fixing it. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill!

Thanks for this thread, QueenAlice!

I have both the original and the 2006 recordings. I like the 2006 version because it contains additional dialogue, and the harp is more prominent in the accompaniment.

I prefer the characterizations on the original cast recording, however - the original Matt and Luisa especially. On the 2006 recording, Matt and Luisa sound too emotionally mature, right from the beginning of the show. The originals display a perfect dose of adolescent egocentrism at the start, and grow into more mature characters via their trails, tribulations and life lessons.

As for It Depends on What You Pay, I think that if the currently modified lyrics were the ones I had been weaned on all these years, I'd find absolutely no fault.

After all, the song is not about rape. Right from its introduction in the show, it's very clear that there is never going to be a rape. The song is about salesmanship and getting top dollar for an extremely absurd product that no one would/should ever pay for. El Gallo is preying on the fathers' needs.

I prefer the use of the word "rape" in the lyrics for those two reasons, and I like the extreme absurdity. If I had never been exposed to the extreme choice, and had only known the updated lyrics (the ones from the 2006 recording), I don't think I would be missing anything, though. The song is still about preying on "consumers" and salesmanship of an absurd product.