The Resource For Musicals



Simply Sondheim Forum


Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Follies disappointing 
Author Message
Broadway Legend / MdN Veteran
Broadway Legend / MdN Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 11:07 pm
Posts: 11297
Main Role: Performer
Post 
no wonder! although the london vbersion has a strong cast..it massacres the show musically..taking out some really impoortant osngs and adding some newer ones. get the Papermill Playhouse recording for the most complete version of the show. and for the finest cast gewt the OBC although there are some musical moments missing the cast is exceptional.

oir... may you can pm ciaron for something special.

_________________
Image[/quote]


Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:27 am
Profile WWW
Broadway Legend
Broadway Legend
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 4:55 am
Posts: 1957
Location: Norway
Post 
louison wrote:
I have the Original London Cast recording.


The same happened to me. I didn't "get" the show at all when I had only the OLCR. Then I bought the complete Papermill recording, and fell in love with it. Now I even enjoy the OLCR, despite it's flaws.

_________________
Image

Formerly known as Dvarg

\"Hans usually knows his shitt when it comes to theatre.\" - Salome

\"You all are f***ing crazy, except Hans, who is actually quite smart\" - Jennyanydots


Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:10 am
Profile
Tony Winner
Tony Winner
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:50 pm
Posts: 353
Post 
Dvarg wrote:
louison wrote:
I have the Original London Cast recording.


The same happened to me. I didn't "get" the show at all when I had only the OLCR. Then I bought the complete Papermill recording, and fell in love with it. Now I even enjoy the OLCR, despite it's flaws.


Papermill sucks!!! It's complete but there is very little magic in any of the performances (besides maybe Ann Miller). Donna McKechnie is a very flat Sally. She was even worse on stage.

The OBC cannot be topped.


Wed Jun 06, 2007 6:48 am
Profile
Broadway Legend
Broadway Legend
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 4:55 am
Posts: 1957
Location: Norway
Post 
The REAL Ciaron wrote:
It's complete but there is very little magic in any of the performances.


Who said it was the best recording?

_________________
Image

Formerly known as Dvarg

\"Hans usually knows his shitt when it comes to theatre.\" - Salome

\"You all are f***ing crazy, except Hans, who is actually quite smart\" - Jennyanydots


Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:26 am
Profile
Tony Winner
Tony Winner
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:50 pm
Posts: 353
Post 
Dvarg wrote:
The REAL Ciaron wrote:
It's complete but there is very little magic in any of the performances.


Who said it was the best recording?


I wasn't saying you said it was the best. I was simply stating that it sucks!

Sort of like you =)


Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:53 am
Profile
Supporting Player
Supporting Player

Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 1:52 pm
Posts: 127
Post 
The Papermill is a must have because it's the complete score. I think Donna McKechnie sounds amazing.

The OBC is unmatched. But the recording is a TRAVESTY. Missing songs - and nearly every song is butchered.


Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:13 pm
Profile
Broadway Legend
Broadway Legend
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 4:55 am
Posts: 1957
Location: Norway
Post 
The REAL Ciaron wrote:
I was simply stating that it sucks!

Sort of like you =)


What?

_________________
Image

Formerly known as Dvarg

\"Hans usually knows his shitt when it comes to theatre.\" - Salome

\"You all are f***ing crazy, except Hans, who is actually quite smart\" - Jennyanydots


Sat Jun 30, 2007 12:31 am
Profile
Tony Winner
Tony Winner
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:50 pm
Posts: 353
Post 
Dvarg wrote:
The REAL Ciaron wrote:
I was simply stating that it sucks!

Sort of like you =)


What?


The REAL Ciaron wrote:
I was simply stating that it sucks!

Sort of like you =)


Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:30 pm
Profile
Fresh Face
Fresh Face
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:29 pm
Posts: 10
Location: Deepest Darkest Norfolk
Post 
The REAL Ciaron wrote:

Papermill sucks!!! It's complete but there is very little magic in any of the performances (besides maybe Ann Miller). Donna McKechnie is a very flat Sally. She was even worse on stage.



Thank God you said that - I thought I was the only one who thought this of McKechnie (at least from reading the Amazon reviews). Part of the problem is that she drops nearly all of her "t"s, so her diction sounds really sloppy.

That said, Dee Hoty is a great Phyllis - certainly the best sung of any of the recordings. I don't agree about Ann Miller - she sounds far too old to play Carlotta, who's supposed to be the youngest of the "older" ladies, and she takes too many liberties with the music. The real star of the recording is IMO Phyllis Newman as Stella, who knocks the socks off "Who's That Woman".

It's a valuable recording to have - I love the opening and some of the cut songs - but it's nowhere near "complete". Why not include a few more of the London songs? They performed "Ah, But Underneath" on stage, so there's no excuse (apart from space limitations on the CDs). I have a particular fondness for "Country House", and the London "Loveland" is an improvement, although I'd be happy to see "Make the Most of Your Music" buried for all time in a lead-lined box!

_________________
Currently suffering from ASS - After-Show Syndrome...


Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:04 pm
Profile
Broadway Legend / MdN Veteran
Broadway Legend / MdN Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:46 pm
Posts: 2868
Location: Brigadoon
Post 
The REAL Ciaron wrote:
Dvarg wrote:
The REAL Ciaron wrote:
I was simply stating that it sucks!

Sort of like you =)


What?


The REAL Ciaron wrote:
I was simply stating that it sucks!

Sort of like you =)
I miss this man.

_________________
Image


Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:06 pm
Profile
Broadway Legend / MdN Veteran
Broadway Legend / MdN Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 8:33 am
Posts: 3056
Location: Musical Cyberspace
Current Obsession: Musicals!
Post FOLLIES, FOLLIES and more FOLLIES
louison wrote:
I think I compare Company and Follies because on the first listen the music seems very similar. Like any song from one could appear in the other seamlessly. Forgive me for that sweeping generalisation as I know I have only listened to Follies once.

I'm not sure how the two could be confused. They sound completely different. Company features a very contemporary 1970s sound - the arrangement of the songs is more in a poppy Burt Bacharach vein - and Follies sounds a lot more traditional, even when it's not dealing in pure pastiche. And when Company uses pastiche, as in "You Could Drive a Person Crazy", it's in a different way; you couldn't uproot it and put it somewhere in Follies without feeling that something was out of place. The two scores are completely different, even though the musicals are "sister" shows in a way because of the Sondheim-Prince-Bennett-Aronson collaboration.

Sweeney Hyde wrote:
If your going to judge shows without seeing them, especially Sondheim, buy the script...

louison wrote:
I suppose when I first get a CD from a show I haven't seen yet, I judge it solely on the music.... And really for me a musical lives or dies by its music. If I liked the music better then I wouldn't really care that I didn't get the plot.... its the music I found disappointing.

I find this a very odd statement, not only because Follies represents some of Sondheim's finest work, but also because the score, because of it's use of pastiche, is much more immediately accessible than something like Sunday in the Park With George or Passion. Sure a knowledge of what's going on in the book would help, but even if one had no knowledge of the plot whatsoever, many of the songs in Follies are enjoyable on their own merits - ones like "I'm Still Here", "Broadway Baby", "Losing My Mind" and even "Waiting for the Girls Upstairs", amongst others. But I guess this later revelation explains a lot:

louison wrote:
I have the Original London Cast recording.

Salome wrote:
No wonder! Although the London version has a strong cast, it massacres the show musically, taking out some really important songs and adding some newer ones.

Let's not forget that the reason the score was massacred was to accommodate the changes in the book. You can really see how generous Sondheim is as a collaborator here, but it's one situation where I wish he would just have said no. As for the cast, they just don't cut it for me. Diana Rigg is my least favourite Phyllis; I'm not crazy about like Julia McKenzie's Sally - her take on the role was better on the 1996 BBC Radio Broadcast - though she's the strongest of the four leads here and does better work in the role than Barbara Cook did in the Lincoln Center concert; David Healy barely makes an impression at all as Buddy; and poor Daniel Massey is stuck playing a take on Ben that makes no dramatic sense whatsoever. In a sense, they are all let down by the changes to the material; perhaps they didn't even stand a chance of delivering definitive or even virtuoso performances in the roles because of this.

The REAL Ciaron wrote:
Papermill sucks!!! It's complete but there is very little magic in any of the performances (besides maybe Ann Miller). Donna McKechnie is a very flat Sally. She was even worse on stage.

I don't think Papermill is a complete suckfest, although it certainly doesn't give us performances that are as vibrant as they could and should be. Donna McKechnie is not a great Sally; she's more a Phyllis type anyhow, at least it seems so from the BBC recording. That said, the Papermill recording is still leagues ahead of the abysmal London cast recording and it's really only second to the 1971 OBCR, even though that has problems of its own due to the cuts and sloppy technical work. Still, it does preserve the definitive performances of the original cast.

sallydurant wrote:
Why not include a few more of the London songs? They performed "Ah, But Underneath" on stage, so there's no excuse. I have a particular fondness for "Country House", and the London "Loveland" is an improvement, although I'd be happy to see "Make the Most of Your Music" buried for all time in a lead-lined box!

In regard to the London revisions: the new "Loveland" isn't as good for the show or as good a pastiche number as the old "Loveland"; "Country House" sounds musically sounds more like a number from Into the Woods and, despite its own charms, has no business being in Follies at all; "Make the Most of Your Music" likewise has no business being in the show; and "Ah, But Underneath" is good, but nowhere near the knock-out number that "The Story of Lucy and Jessie" is. They're all on the London cast recording; there's no need for them here. I would rather have had a complete version of "Can That Boy Foxtrot?" on this disc than any of the London numbers.

Follies was pretty much perfect in 1971 and every move away from the original book and score has compromised it in some way or another. In 50 years time, no one's going to bother with the completely bastardized London version of the show and I'm certain that the most recent revision of the book, which tries to combine the old and new versions with extremely disappointing results, will have been chucked out too. And the day that happens will be a glorious day indeed!

Later days
David

_________________
Image
VISIT MUSICAL CYBERSPACE: A TRIBUTE TO THE MUSICALS OF BROADWAY AND BEYOND.


Sun Oct 04, 2009 1:28 am
Profile WWW
Supporting Player
Supporting Player

Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 8:14 pm
Posts: 123
Post 
Quote:
Donna McKechnie is a very flat Sally.




Really? I thought she sounded great! Of course she's no Dorothy Collins but she's still wonderful. I absolutely loved Donna's "In Buddy's Eyes"---so vulnerable.


I don't understand where all the Papermill hate is coming from. I think it's a fantastic recording. Tony Roberts makes for an outstanding Buddy and Dee Hoty is fab. And how can we not love Laurence Guittard, the original Carl-Magnus in Night Music? Lilliane Montevecchi, Ann Miller and Kaye Ballard are good too.


And I wouldn't recommend the London recording to ANYONE, much less as a first impression of the show. Heavens. Julia McKenzie makes me wanna throw up. She was horrid as the Witch in Into the Woods and a bad Sally too.

_________________
This is the most offensive thing Ive ever seen in my 20 years of teaching! And that includes an elementary school production of HAIR!


Mon Oct 05, 2009 7:27 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.