The Secret Garden - Broadway vs. London

The Broadway. I don't dislike the London, but I knew the Broadway version long before I heard the london one, so I think I'm just accustomed to it.

---

It was rewritten because the writers weren't content with the show.

I don't think either version works especially well, although there's a lot of strong music in the score. It's still a very inconsistent work.

Neither version. The musical is still dry and boring. I have never found anything I can like about this show at all.

---

I really can't enjoy either of those because the 1st time I heard the musical, it was the Australian 8-song sampler with Anthony Warlow and Philip Quast. The Lily's Eyes on that sampler should be a national treasure among the nation of Showtune Fans.

---

I like both recordings, but prefer the Broadway version overall. I didn't like The Girl I Mean to Be on the OLC. The OBC had a stronger melody.

---

Ok, I did a little research. The reason for the changes is the book which the musical is based on is, I guess, nearly a national treasure in England, and the creators felt the liberties they took with the story, in the U.S., wouldn't fly in the U.K. Interesting!

I love both. And, I think "The Girl I Mean To Be" is so touching and beautiful on the OLCR.

---

Really, the lyrics to 'House Upon the Hill' are irrelevant. It's just wallpaper surrounding a ton of exposition.

Nice song but easy to cut.

I happen to like the OBC for John Cameron Mitchell and Alison Fraser. But I bow down to the majesty of Philip Quast and Anthony Warlow.

---

I first saw the show when I was playing Louis in 'The King and I.' It was the other show in a summer stock rep season in Jekyll Island, Georgia. While I had a role in the Kind and I it was not until I saw 'The Secret Garden' that I truly developed a strong interest in Musical theatre. And now, six years later as a high school junior the show has still stuck with me. The music is gorgeous, the story classic and the overall production is just fantastic.

On the original broadway, the cast is indeed superb. Mandy Patinkin touches every part he takes on with sensitivity and his beautiful expressive voice is perfect. Westenberg is AMAZING, as usual. In london, Philip Quast does a wonderful job, but it just doesn't seem right. When one hears the Australian recording, we see why. He was made to play Neville. He was absolutely perfect. And I've had the pleasure of hearing (bootleg...not mine!) Warlow do the entire show and he is so dramatic and so haunting as Archibald, you just can't compare. He truly is a vocal god. He's just amazing. And his interpretation is so intense it's wonderful.

So If you are simply discussing London vs. Broadway, Broadway takes the cake. However, the australian recording is the best of the three.

---

I've heard the full Australian recording as well and can think of no more perfect cast than that. Oh, if there are any narcs here, I was listening to it for medicinal reasons. It's for my glaucoma.

---

welcome to the boards, meructio!


I adoe the Scetret Garden. each recording has it's strong points and it's faults

Of course, if we DON'T listen to the bootlegs, we let the terrorists win.

---