WHat are shows where you would much rather recommend a revival or studio recording over the original cast album--and which recording? Obviously a lot of these examples would be shows from before the mid 50s or so, when aural quality wasn't so great and much of the music would be missing (although I admit I still more often than not play the old Rodgers and Hammerstein original cast albums over revival ones, partly out of habit and for the performances).
Chorus Member Joined: 6/26/11
I much prefer the 10th anniversary cast of Les Miserables to the original. I prefered Ruthie's Fantine to Patti's Fantine. I also love Salonga's Fantine but the rest of that cast is hit or miss and in general not up to the standard of the 10th anniversary dream cast.
Chorus Member Joined: 6/26/11
I much prefer the 10th anniversary cast of Les Miserables to the original. I prefered Ruthie's Fantine to Patti's Fantine. I also love Salonga's Fantine but the rest of that cast is hit or miss and in general not up to the standard of the 10th anniversary dream cast.
The South Pacific 2008 Broadway Revival Cast Recording is one I listen to more often than the Original Broadway Cast Recording.
The Australian cast recording of Nine.
I'd probably have to say Oliver! too. Though the "best" recording would have to be a mixture of the 1994 London Palladium and 2008 Drury Lane cast recordings.
I do not understand all the love for the Australian recording of NINE.
Also not a fan of the EVITA concept album.
The 1996 FUNNY ... FORUM is a damn better listen than the original.
Forum is much better recorded and has much more music in the revival but I admit I kinda like the clunky charm of the original--and the more unique original orchestrations (which I believe had no violins)--as well as prefer Miles in his original vocal key.
Follies is obviously one that will probably come back--I probably play the Papermill (and no doubt the new one) as much or more than the original cast album, but it's hard to fairly say since I just love that original cast so much.
WHile I kinda miss the cut songs, I'm sure many listen to the soundtrack of Sound of Music over the 1959 recording.
(I also have never understood the love for the Australian Nine).
I much prefer the 1973 movie soundtrack to Jesus Christ Superstar to the original concept/cast album.
Cats.
The OBC is far better than the OLC, but the Aussie Cats is complete. The Hamburg one is my fave, also complete, but obviously in german.
When Phantom 25th comes out I think I personally will prefer it over the OLC, again, just because it is complete (I hope, havent heard it yet)
And though this may not count, I prefer the Evita movie soundtrack above all others, yes the singing could be better but the orchestrations are so lush.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/15/03
I wish someone would do a studio recording of COCO because the original cast album has such pathetic sound quality it's impossible to listen to.
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/9/04
I agree, Dollypop. And I really do enjoy that score.
As for me: I love the Judi Dench 'A Little Night Music' best. I also prefer the Roundabout NINE revival to the original.
Swing Joined: 11/10/11
I am a much bigger fan of the revival of Man of La Mancha than the original. But that might just be because I love Brian Stokes Mitchell.
I would have to say that I prefer the symphonic recording of Miss Saigon over the London cast recording.
I may be slaughtered for saying this, but I enjoy the 1967 cast of Dolly, led by "Miss Purlie Mae" outshines the 1964 cast led by Dolly Levi... I mean Carol Channing... I always get those two mixed up. lol.
I also agree with the 2008 Revival of Sout Pacific.
I've always liked the London Concert recording of "Nine" with Jonathan Pryce the best - huge orchestra and male/female chorus. I know that's not the intention of the original production, but man does the score sound good.
i agree Mermansman, and it's no disrespect to Carol. It's just that Bailey, besides being, like Channing, a hell of a performer, was one of the greatest singers who ever lived.
I prefer the Original London Cast recording of A Little Night Music to the OBC. To me, it has more personality and charm.
I'm just going to say it. The London revival recording of She Loves Me trumps the original Broadway. Why? Ruthie. But, the orchestrations are beautiful
Lansbury's "Gypsy".
The only flaw is the british accent of the newsboys.
Chorus Member Joined: 7/1/09
HAIR, A Chorus Line
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/15/03
I agree that Pearl Bailey was a terrific singer. It's a crime that Martha Raye's Dolly was never recorded. Vocally, she was out of this world.
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/17/06
HAIR (like the 2005 and 2009 versions much better)
SOUTH PACIFIC (the 2008 revival outshines the others)
HELLO, DOLLY (I like the Mary Martin and Pearl Bailey versions)
MISS SAIGON (1995 symphonic version is the best, although that Kim and Chris are not my faves)
OLIVER (1994 and 2009 versions are much more listenable)
Most of them, to be honest. I usually prefer revival recordings because they're often more complete. Plus, a lot of the classic musicals have revival recordings with stellar leads like the Carousel recording with Audra McDonald and Oklahoma with Hugh Jackman.
LITTLE ME: The Martin Short recording has overall peppier tempos, better singing from most of the lads, and I happen to enjoy the comedy better on that recording. Maybe Sid Caesar was much funnier in the book scenes, as some have said, but the verve he brought the roles he played does not translate on the syrupy cast recording.
Videos