#1
Posted: 7/5/09 at 6:58am
Is there a recording of the most recent London La Cage?
London La Cage Recording?
#3
Posted: 7/5/09 at 8:38am
I remember reading an announcement that they were indeed recording it... =/
"Hey, you! You're the worst thing to happen to musical theatre since Andrew Lloyd Webber!"
-Family Guy
#4
Posted: 7/5/09 at 10:11am
I believe they were talking about doing a recording around New Year, when the show was still selling well. Sales have been pretty awful since then, apparently, so I guess they decided against it. Pity, as the voices and orchestrations are very different in this production to the original. (And also because the sound quality on the OBCR is absolutely atrocious.)
#5
Posted: 7/5/09 at 10:26am
What's wrong with the sound on the OBCR of LA CAGE? When it came out it was the first all digital Broadway cast album and considered state of the art. The CD could use a remastering to raise the levels - as with a lot of the early CD releases the levels are quite low, but there is nothing wrong with the recording overall.
Cast albums are NOT "soundtracks."
Live theatre does not use a "soundtrack." If it did, it wouldn't be live theatre!
I host a weekly one-hour radio program featuring cast album selections as well as songs by cabaret, jazz and theatre artists. The program, FRONT ROW CENTRE is heard Sundays 9 to 10 am and also Saturdays from 8 to 9 am (eastern times) on www.proudfm.com
#6
Posted: 7/5/09 at 11:04am
I've no idea what the correct terminology is, but it just doesn't sound good to my ears (the quality of the sound, that is, not the performances - though there are a few of the supporting cast I'm not keen on, that's just personal taste). As I said I don't know what the correct word is, it just sounds fuzzy and indistinct? I don't know whether this is a problem with the original recording itself, or just the mixing/mastering/whatever on the CD (i.e. something that could be fixed) - I'll take your word for it that it's the latter. Either that or my ears!
But either way, my main point, regardless of the quality of the OBCR, was that the London company is talented enough and this production is different enough to warrant a new recording - it's just that it's not selling well enough! They're obviously hoping for a rise in sales after the cast change in September, otherwise I suspect it would have closed already.
But either way, my main point, regardless of the quality of the OBCR, was that the London company is talented enough and this production is different enough to warrant a new recording - it's just that it's not selling well enough! They're obviously hoping for a rise in sales after the cast change in September, otherwise I suspect it would have closed already.
Updated On: 7/5/09 at 11:04 AM
#7
Posted: 7/5/09 at 3:49pm
According to (the delightful) Douglas Hodge back in January right before he left, there never were plans to record the show.
#8
Posted: 7/5/09 at 3:56pm
OK - to be fair it wasn't a very "high-ranking" person I asked! Must have been wishful thinking on their part. Still a pity, though. Maybe they'll record the Broadway transfer, so we could at least still get Doug Hodge's performance recorded.
Off-topic a bit, but curious to know what Brantley thinks of this production - he was at the evening performance on Saturday, though not sure if he is reviewing it.
Off-topic a bit, but curious to know what Brantley thinks of this production - he was at the evening performance on Saturday, though not sure if he is reviewing it.
Updated On: 7/5/09 at 03:56 PM
#9
Posted: 7/5/09 at 5:05pm
I agree with the sound issues on the OBC. I listen to the horribly synthesized and miscast studio cast recording when I want my La Cage fix just because I can't stand the audio on the OBC which is a shame because I enjoy the cast. I can't really explain it. It's not an age issue because there are some other cast recordings from the decade before like A Chorus Line and Evita and even further back like Camelot which sound wonderful and La Cage sounds like sh*t. I can't put my finger on it, but what ever it is it's enough to never want to listen to it.
#10
Posted: 7/5/09 at 5:08pm
"Sales have been pretty awful since then"
No offense. But do the producers think sales will be any stronger on Broadway, when we just had a failure of a revival 4 years ago?
No offense. But do the producers think sales will be any stronger on Broadway, when we just had a failure of a revival 4 years ago?
#11
Posted: 7/5/09 at 5:12pm
Have sales been "pretty awful"? It has extended far past it's sale dates.
#12
Posted: 7/5/09 at 5:15pm
Last year's annual revival of Gypsy didn't do so bad. Maybe a new Broadway La Cage has a better shot.
#13
Posted: 7/5/09 at 5:18pm
Anything that comes from London does well, generally speaking.
#14
Posted: 7/5/09 at 5:37pm
Anything that comes from London does well, generally speaking.
Tell that to the producers of Coram Boy, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Rock 'n Roll, Jumpers, Equus, or Mary Stuart.
Tell that to the producers of Coram Boy, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Rock 'n Roll, Jumpers, Equus, or Mary Stuart.
#15
Posted: 7/5/09 at 5:43pm
That's why I said "generally speaking."
In terms of artistic success, the latter 4 you mention were.
In terms of artistic success, the latter 4 you mention were.
#16
Posted: 7/5/09 at 5:49pm
In terms of artistic success, the latter 4 you mention were.
Artistic success is entirely subjective and really means nothing. I was bored to tears during Rock 'n Roll and was entertained by Chitty. Remember how much Coram Boy divided audiences when it was here?
Artistic success is entirely subjective and really means nothing. I was bored to tears during Rock 'n Roll and was entertained by Chitty. Remember how much Coram Boy divided audiences when it was here?
#17
Posted: 7/5/09 at 5:54pm
The only reason I think La Cage is still open in London is because John Barrowman will turn the show into a money-maker for 3 solid months.
The last revival on Broadway from what I have read was a flawed mess of a production. The London one is very much scaled down and so could do very well on Broadway.
The last revival on Broadway from what I have read was a flawed mess of a production. The London one is very much scaled down and so could do very well on Broadway.
#18
Posted: 7/5/09 at 6:00pm
"Artistic success is entirely subjective and really means nothing."
LMFAO.
That is the biggest bag of shyte I've ever read on this board.
You have just tried and completely failed to wipe Sondheim's career off the face of theatre history.
LMFAO.
That is the biggest bag of shyte I've ever read on this board.
You have just tried and completely failed to wipe Sondheim's career off the face of theatre history.
#19
Posted: 7/5/09 at 6:05pm
Well, Sondheim is a genius, but I'd never invest in one of his shows if the goal was to make money which is the goal for most producers. Artistic success is a happy accident.
#20
Posted: 7/5/09 at 6:10pm
You have just tried and completely failed to wipe Sondheim's career off the face of theatre history.
Who said anything about Sondheim? I'm not denigrating the artistic merit of certain works by any number of people, but it's entirely subjective. I'm sure you could find plenty of people who dislike various Sondheim shows. Heck, look what happeed in 1984 when the Tonys went with the "fluffy" La Cage over the "serious" Sunday in the Park with George.
Who said anything about Sondheim? I'm not denigrating the artistic merit of certain works by any number of people, but it's entirely subjective. I'm sure you could find plenty of people who dislike various Sondheim shows. Heck, look what happeed in 1984 when the Tonys went with the "fluffy" La Cage over the "serious" Sunday in the Park with George.
#21
Posted: 7/5/09 at 6:14pm
The original Broadway cast recording of La Cage has that sort of distant RCA digital sound similar to most of their mid-'80s cast recordings. I don't think it's the disaster that others are making out here, but it certainly could benefit from a remaster. In particular, I'd like to hear better clarity for Jim Tyler's orchestrations, which are astounding - it's one of the best orchestrated shows of the past three decades.
Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end: then stop.
#22
Posted: 7/5/09 at 6:16pm
Well, isn't this LA CAGE dirt cheap to run? And aren't they looking for a small venue?
The last revival was extravagant, was a tenant of the big-ass Marriot Marquis, and also was terrible. This one is apparently much more minimal and a whole lot better. So maybe a smaller, better, cheaper production will be a financial success as opposed to the last, bigger, and more expensive revival.
The last revival was extravagant, was a tenant of the big-ass Marriot Marquis, and also was terrible. This one is apparently much more minimal and a whole lot better. So maybe a smaller, better, cheaper production will be a financial success as opposed to the last, bigger, and more expensive revival.
#23
I've no idea what the correct terminology is, but it just doesn't sound good to my ears ..... it just sounds fuzzy and indistinct?
I think it's compression. This was the very first OCR release on CD from RCA Victor. At that time the Lp masters were used to generate CD editions. Although LA CAGE was recorded digitally the end result was geared to sound like other analogue releases. If SONY would now go back and remaster this recording from the original session tapes, we would probably hear more dynamic range.
There are a bunch of RCA Red Seal CD's that have never been remastered since they came out 25 years ago including 42ND STREET, PACIFIC OVERTURES, FOLLIES IN CONCERT, and the revival casts of KING AND I and OKLAHOMA. I generally find the sound on these to be quite acceptable, it's just that the levels are so low, and the sound is compressed as it was for the LP editions.
Posted: 7/5/09 at 6:23pm
I've no idea what the correct terminology is, but it just doesn't sound good to my ears ..... it just sounds fuzzy and indistinct?
I think it's compression. This was the very first OCR release on CD from RCA Victor. At that time the Lp masters were used to generate CD editions. Although LA CAGE was recorded digitally the end result was geared to sound like other analogue releases. If SONY would now go back and remaster this recording from the original session tapes, we would probably hear more dynamic range.
There are a bunch of RCA Red Seal CD's that have never been remastered since they came out 25 years ago including 42ND STREET, PACIFIC OVERTURES, FOLLIES IN CONCERT, and the revival casts of KING AND I and OKLAHOMA. I generally find the sound on these to be quite acceptable, it's just that the levels are so low, and the sound is compressed as it was for the LP editions.
Cast albums are NOT "soundtracks."
Live theatre does not use a "soundtrack." If it did, it wouldn't be live theatre!
I host a weekly one-hour radio program featuring cast album selections as well as songs by cabaret, jazz and theatre artists. The program, FRONT ROW CENTRE is heard Sundays 9 to 10 am and also Saturdays from 8 to 9 am (eastern times) on www.proudfm.com
#24
Posted: 7/5/09 at 6:24pm
"Who said anything about Sondheim? I'm not denigrating the artistic merit of certain works..."
Your post was an incredibly ill-considered generalisation that necessarily included Sondheim.
Just because adamgreer dislikes something does not make it an artistic failure, particularly when a society's way of determining artistic success concludes otherwise.
"I'm sure you could find plenty of people who dislike various Sondheim shows"
Ofcourse - but you weren't talking about people, you were talking about "artistic success".
Your post was an incredibly ill-considered generalisation that necessarily included Sondheim.
Just because adamgreer dislikes something does not make it an artistic failure, particularly when a society's way of determining artistic success concludes otherwise.
"I'm sure you could find plenty of people who dislike various Sondheim shows"
Ofcourse - but you weren't talking about people, you were talking about "artistic success".
#25
Posted: 7/5/09 at 6:28pm
Just because adamgreer dislikes something does not make it an artistic failure, particularly when a society's way of determining artistic success concludes otherwise.
When did I ever say or imply that?
When did I ever say or imply that?
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95