Originals vs. Revivals- Page 2

Posted: 7/4/06 at 1:07pm

Heart and Music said:

"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."

After hearing the orchestration and the dance music on a recording, I decided not to see the London revival when it played NYC. I've seen Oklahoma! six times live and, based on the recording, I liked the six others better. I did buy the DVD and it did prove to be unexciting. I aldo had to laugh at the Laurey who, dressed in her always brand-new jean, looked like she never did a lick of work on the place One of the most interesting Oklahoma!s I've seen was a national tour with the relatively unknown at the time Florence Henderson as Laurey and Barbara Cook as Ado Annie.

[evilNpunk]

Posted: 7/4/06 at 3:17pm

Updated On: 12/2/14 at 03:17 PM

[thevolleyballer]

Posted: 7/4/06 at 3:35pm

There are some revivals that are just completely better than the original, such as YOU'RE A GOOD MAN, CHARLIE BROWN, but then there are always the originals that just completley beat out any sort of revival, like INTO THE WOODS. Then again, everyone's already said this before. :)

[bohemianxsunshine]

Posted: 7/4/06 at 3:44pm

hey im new too! <-okay that was random

im only 13 so our opinions might vary..a lot, but i really enjoyed You're a Good Man Charlie Brown revival..probably because 2 of my favorite actors are in it (anthony rapp and kristin chenoweth) but i really enjoyed the songs. i think My New Philosophy was a cute song as well.

[HeartandMusic]

Posted: 7/4/06 at 3:48pm

Tom14850:
"After hearing the orchestration and the dance music on a recording, I decided not to see the London revival when it played NYC. I've seen Oklahoma! six times live and, based on the recording, I liked the six others better. I did buy the DVD and it did prove to be unexciting. I aldo had to laugh at the Laurey who, dressed in her always brand-new jean, looked like she never did a lick of work on the place One of the most interesting Oklahoma!s I've seen was a national tour with the relatively unknown at the time Florence Henderson as Laurey and Barbara Cook as Ado Annie."

To each their own. : )
Even if you don't much care for the Laurey in the London revival, you've got to admit that Hugh Jackman's performance is pretty powerful.
Although, I'm pretty sure I would've died from happiness if I had seen Barbara Cook as Ado Annie, I LOVE her work. I saw her live in concert about three or four years ago and she just took my breath away.

[Practically Perfect]

Posted: 7/4/06 at 4:58pm

The recording to the 2003 London revival of 'Anything Goes' is far better than any previous recording. I also prefer the 1997 London revival of 'Chicago' to the original with Gwen and Chita.

Bernadette's 'Gypsy' is great, and it's a much better record of the musical.

Hugh Jackman's 'Oklahoma!' is another recording that I think is better than the original, and Philip Quast/Lauren Kennedy in 'South Pacific' are great.

Sweet Charity - I'd much rather hear Christina Applegate sing those songs than have to listen to the grating of Verdon's voice - there is nothing 'sweet' about it. No offence to people that like her.

Into the Woods - I only listen to Laura Benanti's numbers from the 2002 revival recording; other than that, it has to be the original.

So really, I tend to favour revivals.

Mary P x

[rosekwbp]

Posted: 7/4/06 at 5:06pm

It depends. I loved the Gypsy revival and will also listen to that over the original but I won't listen to the ITW revival. I also saw the Fiddler and Charity revivals and really enjoyed those.

[Charlayne Vivika]

Posted: 7/4/06 at 5:06pm

Revivals don't usually have the original casts, do they? So I guess I'll have to say Originals.

[jo]

Posted: 7/4/06 at 9:20pm

Revivals give us a chance to see a classic, but sometimes they disappoint. I had seen WEST SIDE STORY only on film and was excited to see the revival at the West End in London a few years back. But what a disappointment - it looked dated and it did not have the re-invigoration one associates with revivals.

On the other hand, I went to see the RNT/Jackman revival of OKLAHOMA! in London, because I was a Rodgers and Hammerstein fan and had only seen the musical on film. That revival was excellent and gave me a deeper appreciation of this landmark musical.

I also had the privilege of seeing Richard Kiley in the original, much pared-down version of MAN OF LA MANCHA ( one of my favourite all-time musicals). I was initially excited to see the revival and also to hear Brian Stokes Mitchell sing live for the first time. But it was such a disappointment as far as the acting and staging was concerned.

I had seen the original production at the West End and om Broadway of my favourite ALWebber musical, ASPECTS OF LOVE, and enjoyed it tremendously, especially the musical score and the singing. Recently, I had seen a local ( here in Manila) production of the pared-down version originated in the UK - and it worked for me as well!

I had also seen the original ODD COUPLE on Broadway - and had seen an early performance of the recent revival. I didn't enjoy it as much - it was too dated and I thought the performances were not topnotch.

Other recent revivals I had seen on Broadway were SWEENEY TODD, PAJAMA GAME, SWEET CHARITY, NINE, and LA CAGE AUX FOLLES. Surprisingly, it was LA CAGE AUX FOLLES which brought a heartfelt emotion to me. Re recent revivals among plays, I thought THE GLASS MENAGERIE was done quite well while the modern-day staging of JULIUS CAESAR ( when was the original done - hundred of years ago -LOL) was disappointing.

I guess I don't react in the same way all the time.

But - hey, this is a good topic to think about.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 7/4/06 at 9:56pm

I definitely prefer the revival of Nine to the original. The singers are awful on the original and perfect on the revival.

[OzarkElphaba]

Posted: 7/4/06 at 10:13pm

I go back and forth (as most seem to). MY favorite Gypsy is Merman's, by far, but for Into the Woods, I prefer the OLC (or the copy i have with Phylicia Rashad...she was good).
I also tend to favor film casts, Chicago, Grease, Wizard of Oz, all win for those...but for Rocky Horror I am split on the Revival and Film.
I dunno, I go on a show to show basis, and can typically find something enjoyable in each of the revivals, or London casts in some cases.

[BDrischBDemented]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 3:33am

For me it tends to be revivals. Mainly this is because revivals more often nclude all the music (or at least more than originals did due to limitations etc.) and I really am annoying to a fault about having all the music on a CD. This often takes a front seat to performances (I will suffer through Ann Reinking to have a full version of "Chicago" and hear Bebe Neuwirth, though I do prefer the OBC cast-wise). "Cabaret", "Sweeney Todd", and "Little Shop of Horrors" are three others in particular I enjoy.

I have to agree with many others on the "Into the Woods". Despite the added song in the revivals, I really dislike both of them. Mainly because "Our Little World" is not one of my favorites as it made Rapunzel sing, and also because it was done so well the first time.

[ljay889]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 10:48am

Sweet Charity - I'd much rather hear Christina Applegate sing those songs than have to listen to the grating of Verdon's voice - there is nothing 'sweet' about it. No offence to people that like her.


Since when does Charity's voice have to be 'sweet' just because the show is called 'Sweet Charity?' Charity's have never had sweet voices. Gwen, Shirley, Debbie Allen, Ann Reinking, Bebe Neuwirth all did NOT have sweet voices. The role never called for someone who sounded like a 3 year old. Charity is a woman struggling with love, and all of Fosse's Charitys came across that way. They were never overly bubbly and whiney like Applegate. But I did enjoy Applegate. It's just that the 05 revival pretty much went against what Fosse wanted for the show.

It just makes me sad because todays teen fans of Broadway have no idea of the effect Verdon had on Broadway. After all she is considered the greatest female dancer on Broadway of all time.
And she was a much better singer than Applegate. Just listen to her solo album.

OH, and Verdon, Rivera, and Orbach will NEVER be matched. Never.
That *IS* Chicago. There will never be 3 actors that were more perfect for those 3 roles. The whole show was created for Verdon, and it was Verdon's idea. Those were 3 performances will remain unmatched Okay, I'm done.
Updated On: 7/5/06 at 10:48 AM

[philcrosby]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 10:58am

Very few revival cast recordings hold the same appeal for me as the original cast recordings. That said, there are a few revival recordings I prefer:

OKLAHOMA! - The 1979 Broadway revival with Laurence Guittard and Christine Andreas. Almost complete (except for the ballet) and beautifully sung.

THE KING AND I - The Yul Brynner revival. Though Constance Towers is a trial to listen to (Barbara Cook is my favorite Mrs. Anna), this recording makes you understand why Brynner was such a monument in his role.

HELLO DOLLY! - I love the Bailey and Martin recordings almost equally as much as I do Channing's original, mostly because I love all those ladies so much.

BRIGADOON - Not a revival, but John McGlinn's studio recording with Brent Barrett, Rebecca Luker and Judy Kaye is a revelation.

[Wildcard]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 12:59pm

Original productions lay the groundwork for a specific show. For the most part, I enjoy the originals bec. the of the direct involvement of the people who created the show. I think revivals should improve upon the original and present the show in a creatively different way. Ofcourse, some revivals use the exact same stagings as the originals for a new audience. In these cases, then I'd rather listen to the originals.

Some shows I like that have had creatively different stagings that I like are the Hal Prince "Showboat", the NT/LC "Carousel", the Christopher Renshaw "King & I", and the NT "Oklahoma". With regards to recordings, I like listening to some revivals (or secondary recordings) just bec. they are more complete even though I may prefer the original casts, such as "Kiss of the Spiderwoman", "Miss Saigon" and "Les Mis" Symphonic recordings, "Passion" and the "Dreamgirls Concert". Shows were I completely prefer the originals include "Into the Woods" and "Sweeney Todd". I can't stand Patti's Mrs. Lovett in this production (although I liked her in the concert version) and ofcourse, the lack of grandness in the orchestrations.

[LeaGirl]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 1:04pm

It totally depends for me.

I like the original Pajama Game recording better than the new one. Clearly I'm not old enough to have seen the first one, but still.

Into the Woods - no brainer, that revival is scary on CD - original all the way.

I LOVE the Kiss Me, Kate revival though - I own both recordings and seem to always turn to the revival one. It makes me happy.

Nine (ok, shut up, I realize I always bring Nine up) - I prefer the revival. I grew up on the original cast recording but the revival just knocked my socks off. And no, I didn't see the original (I was like... 3?) but my mother did and even SHE prefers the revival.

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 1:07pm

Personally, it depends on the show. Many times I find that I have both the original and revival cast recordings. I always buy the cast recording to any show that I see, like it or not.

I buy the originals to hear those lush overtures and belting stars, notably Mame with Lansbury. Yet I buy The Man of La Mancha revival to hear Brian Stokes Mitchell in top form.

It changes with every show, but I love revivals.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 5:15pm

Your preference often depends on how you were introduced to the show. If you like the score, it is good to go back and hear how the original creators (coached by the authors) interpreted the roles.

Those who only know CABARET from the (admittedly brilliant) revival will naturally prefer the 1998 cast. Still, you should not write off the 1966 original, since it documents the original performing style. The score also seems less bloated: No "Mein Herr", No "I Don't Care Much", and No "Maybe This Time." (All great songs, but none of them really belong in the stage version of CABARET.) You do gain Jack Gilford's Schultz (and the charming "Meeskite") and the full version of "The Telephone Song" (even if it is done a double the tempo for the recording.)
The SONY reissue CD also includes some fascinating bonus tracks by Kander and Ebb of some cut songs. Not great for listening but good documentation.

For GYPSY, you can never have too many recordings of this score but at least one should be the Ethel Merman original. Though Angela Lansbury and Bernadette Peters weave in some beautiful nuances to their performances, no one brings such ferocious anger to the role, as does Merman. Even if you don't like her voice, it does seem well suited to the role.

There are a few cases where the original recordings are not satisfactory:

SHOW BOAT - There is no 1927 OCR, but the altered 1946 revival was recorded. This revised version was also given a superb studio cast album in the 1960s with John Raitt and Barbara Cook and it has better sound. The 1993 Toronto cast is perhaps the best single CD of the SHOW BOAT score though again the revival made a number of changes.

CAROUSEL - Decca's cast album is heavily truncated, so the 1965 Lincoln Centre cast with John Raitt is a better choice: more theatrical and with better sound (but the supporting cast isn't as good.) The most complete CAROUSEL on Cd is the 1993 London revival cast.

ST. LOUIS WOMAN - Mercury's CD of the Encores concert cast is much more complete and far more theatrical

ANNIE GET YOUR GUN - where Merman's 1966 revival is far more vividly theatrical than her 1946 original version. (I know a lot of people here prefer the Bernadette Peters version but that does not represent the show as originally conceived and written. True, the 1966 version does eliminate the Tommy/Winnie songs, and adds "Old Fashioned Wedding" but al least these changes were done by the original authors.)

FINIAN'S RAINBOW - RCA's 1960 revival cast has better sound (in stereo!) and is more complete. The Malcolm Gets off-Broadway revival is great but the twin-piano accompaniment pales compared to the full orchestration.

BRIGADOON - the Jack Cassidy/Shirley Jones or Brent Barrett/Rebecca Luker studio versions both give a much better sense of the show

THE KING AND I - Decca's cast album is woefully abridged, and the flat sound is unflattering to Gertrude Lawrence's voice. The 1977 revival with Brynner is much more complete and generally better performed.

ON YOUR TOES - there was no OCR of the original 1936 production, but the 1954 revival got recorded. The 1983 revival, however, is a better recording because it uses the original 1936 orchestrations, is note-complete, and beautifully recorded in digital stereo.

FOLLIES - Tough call here because the original cast was unbeatable but both the RCA concert cast and the Paper Mill cast albums are more complete and give you a better sense of the show.

DREAMGILS - Geffen's original cast disc is pretty useless as a document of the show. The concert cast fills the void even if the cast isn't as good.

[jv92]

Posted: 7/5/06 at 5:22pm

Oh, the original production of Chicago is superior to the revival even though the revival is still electrfying.