Originals vs. Revivals

How does everyone feel about shows that have been revived?

Like, when it comes to listening to cast recordings, what do you usually reach for?


Which shows would you like to see revived, and which revivals, if any, do you think have been unnecessary?


As for me, when it comes to cast recordings, I know that I tend to enjoy certain revival casts more than originals, such as the Kiss Me, Kate! cast recording. In the revival cast, the music and singing just seems so more energetic and fun, even though I do love to harken back to the old Broadway days.


What does everyone think?


(and I'm a new member, so forgive me if this thread has been done before.)

---

Hello achancetofly. I'm a new member too! Um....I completely agree with colleen when it comes to Into the Woods, noone can outdo Bernadette Peters as the Witch. Ever. In my opinion, anyway. : )
I also prefer the 1998 revival of Cabaret (which I am listening to right now, as it so happens) to the original. Oh! And I love the 2003 Gypsy revival cast more so than I do the original. Can you tell that Bernadette Peters is my favorite actress? Anyway,

Other than the revivals I mentioned above, If I'm unfamiliar with a show I will usually listen to the original cast album first, before looking at anything done by a revival cast.

I'm also prone to go for the revival, unless the original cast has somebody I love in it or else the revival cast just sucks, ala Into the Woods. I love the Assassins OOBC, but the revival gets more play just because it sounds slicker and fuller.

And also, you're welcome for not being a moron, I guess? Hah.

I tend to avoid message boards simply because of that reason. I tend to frequent LiveJournal as my blog/message board type thing of choice. So message boards are kind of a new thing for me, and in my experience with them, I never usually post because of the strangeness and immaturity of many members on them, hah.


*sings to Tick, Tick..BOOM*

Sorry, just can't stop listening to it...I just saw it in LA at the Coronet Theatre and I'm addicted.

---

No, I haven't seen it yet...just little clips here and there from press junket stuff. I've actually been trying to be a little more open-minded about it, as so many friends say that they like it, so I am getting a little curious.

It's just that I cling so dearly to my Sondheim...I'm so scared for my Sweeney. I get so scared when I see the lovely Sweeney flippy-hair thrown away for Michael Cerveris' shiny dome...*sniff*

If I lived in NYC, I'd probably go see it out of curiousity, but I live on the west coast, so...nope.

---

ITW is strictly original for me
The only real Cabaret to me is the revival
with sweeney if I want the whole story I'll listen to the orginal if I want some flare (which is an oxymoron with this, sice it's stripped down) I'll listen to the revival.
A lot of revivals are better, they usually include more music and a fuller orchestra.
But seriously whats up with the Sweeney revival CD!?!? The first act bleeds over into the second disc and they cut Wigmaker, The Letter and City on Fire!?

One predicament I have is with Assassins.
The deaths on the original sound more realistic
The music on the revival is much much more full (plus it has Broke)
The original has the complete LHO scene
The revival has more dialogue
I like the revival Zangara and NPH, Cantone is funny too.
Cerveris and Garber are 50/50
and in the original Squeaky sucks, but in the revival Moore sucks. The revival Moore sounds like she pays more attention to her accent than the vocals, and the original Squeaky thought her name meant she should sound ear offending.

---

The only real Cabaret to me is the revival

- This makes me sad. The original Hal Prince production was pure brillance. Something the Broadway Musical never saw before.

It also makes me sad when people don't want to hear the amazing stars who created some great roles from the Golden Age, just because they don't like the quality of the old recordings.

Updated On: 7/4/06 at 12:02 AM

You do realize that a revival is a remounting of a show with the same book, music, and lyrics, but (usually) with a different director, choreographer, and design team, right?

---

*hands colleen an icepack*

---

Okay wow. Umm.


I think I'll borrow that icepack, when you're done with it, Colleen.


Didn't we get enough of this guy on that other thread?

---

The only show I have seen both the original and revival of "in person" is INTO THE WOODS. They both had sooooo many good things about them... but the OBC, original is/was/will remain the best. Although the sets and the way they decorated the Broadhurst during the revival were awesome.

SWEENEY TODDs current revival is spectacular in the redesign and innovation. I am glad it's a hit. One must rememeber when comparing it to the Hal Prince version is that they are two totally different shows in many ways.

CHICAGO revival *IS* CHICAGO- although I adore thre late, great Jerry Orbach.

---

Oh! Tom just reminded me of another revival that I love. I forget the year, but it was the revival of Oklahoma done in London directed by Trevor Nunn and starred in by Hugh Jackman. Don't hate me, but that is the only version of Oklahoma I have ever seen and actually enjoyed.

i love the revival of Sunday in the park

and also enjoyed Sweet Charity revival