In praise of THE FANTASTICKS OC recording

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 8/25/16 at 4:49pm

This morning I dusted off my old LP of the original recording of THE FANTASTICKS - I haven't listed to the score in years - and had forgotten what a treat  - and what a definitive Golden Era of musicals cast recording it really is.  I had forgotten in particular how lush the vocals are. Has there ever been anyone to rival the voices of Rita Gardner, Kenneth Nelson and Jerry Orbach in these roles?  I was even more impressed when I read in an interview with Rita Gardner that the entire recording was put down in a three hour session, with most songs being done in only one or two takes.   

I subsequently took a quick listen of the other recordings of the score --and they all fall into the trap of sugary treacle. But not that original MGM record which captures the delicious wry tone of the show perfectly.  I imagine this recording must have been a big part of the original production's huge longevity.

Any other fans?

Updated On: 8/25/16 at 04:49 PM

[After Eight]

Posted: 8/25/16 at 5:15pm

"Any other fans?"

 

You can count me among them.

[metropolis10111]

Posted: 8/25/16 at 7:58pm

I adore The Fantasticks, and the OC is just a treat. There is something almost Shakespearian about the way the words are spoken on there that hasn't really made it onto other recordings of the show. It a show that I fined that as I grow older the layers of meaning continue to unfold for me. 

[MichelleCraig]

Posted: 8/25/16 at 9:30pm

You're making me dig out the original RIGHT NOW!!

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 8/25/16 at 10:11pm

Absolutely. Jerry Orbach is  perfection. Nobody has sung this role better.

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 8/25/16 at 10:17pm

One of my ALL-TIME favorites. I definitely agree that nothing tops it for this score. The voices of the original cast are so marvellous.

The mixing on the Decca remaster is also gorgeous. Pity that more MGM titles haven't been accorded such treatment, they were surprisingly forward thinking regarding double LP sets, and most of their catalogue is either unseen on CD/digital or haven't been remastered at all (SHE LOVES ME is one in particular that sounds muddy as all hell).

 

[gypsy101]

Posted: 8/25/16 at 10:20pm

I like some of the stuff in the score but that song about the rape is absolutely absurd.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 8/25/16 at 11:20pm

I love "It Depends on What You Pay"-- in the context of the show its absurdity is justified and I suppose I will be flogged for saying it, but I think its provocativeness is one of the things that keeps the show from becoming too coy. Is it true that most productions in the states cut it now? Have we become that PC?

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 8/26/16 at 2:15am

The censorship is absurd, especially since the word has a different context at the time. The re-write of the song is lackluster at best, especially since a lot of amusing alliteration relies on the word "rape".  Are we going to censor Into the Woods? Do we think the word "rape" can't be used in musicals when it doesn't explicitly deal with forced sexual situations?

But the recording is, in a word, perfect in a way only a few recordings are. "Hello, Dolly!", "Company", and "Sunday In the Park With George" are the only others that come immediately to mind.

[gypsy101]

Posted: 8/26/16 at 3:03am

I was in a local production in 2013 and it used the censored version. You guys have to admit that in this day and age singing a song deliberating the preferred way of abduction by using the word "rape" is a little surprising (when I first heard the song in 2010 I was pretty shocked). Yes obviously the definition is different but most audiences aren't educated enough to know that "rape" meant "abductuon" (and I'm sure most don't know what a Sabine woman is).

Updated On: 8/26/16 at 03:03 AM

[metropolis10111]

Posted: 8/26/16 at 8:31am

I was looking to send a copy to a friend and was surprised to find the physical CD is no longer in print. Sad that really.  As for the rape song. I stand by it as being perfect in the show. To me that song adds to the timelessness of the piece. The word was used in many classical works and ties into the mythic tone of the piece. 

[aj88]

Posted: 8/26/16 at 8:33am

It's so coincidental that this was posted because I just pulled out THE FANTASTICKS last weekend and I always fall under its spell. It was actually my favorite musical most of my teenage years.

The original recording is easily the best thing out there. It is so lush and so rich vocally and musically  (despite the small orchestra) that it is truly a joy to listen to every time.

To comment on "It Depends on What You Pay", I do really love the song (it was one of my staples in college and I still want to play that role). I immensely despise the censored version or the new song that was written as an alternative. Like QueenAlice and others have said, it had a different meaning but it does give the show a very salty boost. When productions replace it, I usually end up a little disappointed (perhaps a little selfishly but whatever).

[After Eight]

Posted: 8/26/16 at 9:17am

Of course, the word has another meaning, but it is little known, much less used, today. And even in 1960, it jarred hearing it sung in a musical. Like it or not, it hit a sour note and took one out if the moment. So there's no reason not to realize that and address the problem. Language evolves, as do people's perceptions of it, so I can understand why they made the change.

Remember too the lyric in The Very Next Man in Fiorello. That too made me cringe when I heard it over 50+ years ago.  Now they've changed it, wisely.  It's just a matter of common sense.

 

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 8/26/16 at 10:29am

Does anyone know the licensing rules for the alternate songs?

I've heard "Abductions" set to the melody of the "Rape Ballet." It was used in the pale 1995 film. Abductions, abductions. Theatrical abductions.

I've heard Illinois productions use the original song and an alternate set to the same melody as "It Depends on what you Pay." Why invite regret when you can order an abduction that you'll never forget.

Does MTI let you choose between the three when you license it?

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 8/26/16 at 11:41am

The fact that the song is jarring and uncomfortable is a plus in my book; I think that moment should be uncomfortable given the manipulation the fathers are initiating.

 I think producers today pander too much to audiences - and not even the complaint of audiences - what they view as anything audiences "might" object too.  Maybe theaters get caught in the trap of having to sell THE FANTASTICKS as a 'family musical' -- but I'm more along the lines of the poster who mentioned the mythology at the heart of the story. El Gallo certainly represents a darker side of human intrigue - almost sadistic (later shown in "Round and Round" which is, to may way more suggestive in its hints of violence linked to orgasmic excitement) -- and without that danger, the show has no real 'there-there.'

Looking at clips on YouTube, it looks like some productions use the original lyrics but most use the (awful) revised lyrics - which I imagine are what are officially licensing now.

I would think most audiences are really smarter than they are given credit for and would get the song with the original lyrics. Its clearly set up in the dialogue preceding it that it is a "literary" definition, but what do I know.

Pasadena Playhouse, a pretty major regional theatre in L.A. is getting ready to open the show next week. I wonder what version of the song they are using...

 

Updated On: 8/26/16 at 11:41 AM

[broadwaybabywannabe2]

Posted: 8/26/16 at 12:14pm

seeing a production of THE FANTASTICKS when i was still in Community College has stuck with me my whole life...in fact the song MUCH MORE became my personal anthem..."Please, God, please, don't let me be normal!" was my rallying cry...i knew that album backwards and forwards!!

[DigificWriter]

Posted: 8/26/16 at 2:52pm

I'm also a fan of the show, although the best recording I've heard, IMO, is the Off-Broadway Revival recording from 2006.

[Ranger Tom]

Posted: 8/26/16 at 3:07pm

Love it.  It's from my "formative years" in theater so it was important.  Blessed to have been able to play Bellomy recently.  

 

I did some searching to see if Pasadena Playhouse answered the question on whether they will use the original "It Depends On What You Pay" or one of the gods-awful alternates.  On the PPH website, they play the original version in the Listen tab.  In an casting press release they had the following:  Tom Jones, lyricist and book writer of THE FANTASTICKS, says, "I have been a fan of The Pasadena Playhouse for a long time. I have been a fan of Seema Sueko for a much shorter time, as we met online just a few months ago when she wrote me describing her ideas for a new way to approach THE FANTASTICKS. I was so impressed by what she wrote that we began a series of emails, tossing ideas and possibilities back and forth like two jugglers in a vaudeville show. When she was finally able to come visit me at my home we began to pin down our ideas to specifics, and I began, after nearly sixty years, to rewrite a few sections of THE FANTASTICKS.”  Not sure if one of the sections will be "It Depends..."  

 

I'm with the group that votes for the original version.  I remember cringing a bit over the years listening to it.  At the start of rehearsals I was a little uncomfortable, but it became very fun to do.  Prior to the show and in the program, the director addressed the issue.  Tired of all the PC in the arts.  If it offends, don't go see it.

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 8/26/16 at 3:29pm

I remember being a bit taken aback upon reading there was a "Rape Ballet" on the album, but when I actually listened through it (especially "It Depends on What You Pay" it was clear what they meant and I had no reason to be offended. But I did admire the underlying sinister tone it gave the plot point.

[Demitri2]

Posted: 8/26/16 at 6:15pm

My memories of the show.....the first time I saw "The Fantasticks" I was a kid but I still remember the show like it was yesterday. It played for a week at the Mineola Playhouse and El Gallo was played by a dashing Elliott Gould shortly before he went into rehearsals for "Drat! The Cat!." And as the girl, Louisa, was an amazing seventeen year old Liza Minnelli. They were both perfectly cast. Many years later I caught the show at the Sullivan Street Playhouse. When the actress playing Louisa came out and delivered the line stating her age there was a gasp in the audience followed by laughter. The woman had bright dyed red hair and over plucked eyebrows and didn't look a day under thirty five. I asked the usher afterwards why the strange casting. He smiled and said, "Oh, there's no regular understudy for the role right now and the actress you've seen has been a last minute standby for yeeeeeears."  Yet I've seen the show since and still feel it's a gem of a musical.  

[Fan123]

Posted: 8/26/16 at 7:25pm

This is one of my favourite shows. Nevertheless, I tend to lean towards censoring/updating 'It Depends on What You Pay' in some way. Jarring the audience and taking them out of the moment can be a good thing if they're jarred for the right reasons, but does that happen for modern audiences with this song? Will the audience be thinking "Wow, I thought this was going to be a gentle pro-Romantic musical but it's actually exploring the dark side of Romantic fantasy, how fascinating" (or whatever), or "Wow, I thought this show was timeless but it's actually hugely dated and tone-deaf"? Productions also have to be predicated on the assumption that at least some audience members will be seeing and hearing the number for the first and last time that night, so they're not going to review the song a few times and revise their knee-jerk perception of it (and nor should they have to, theatre by its nature is supposed to work if experienced just once. If multiple viewings are needed to understand a show, productions should provide multiple free tickets to each audience member). The changing of that song was initiated by the show's creators themselves anyway (eg listen to http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5697901, or read the 'Abductions (And So Forth)' postscript in the published libretto).

All that said, I "lean towards" changing the song but maybe staging it intelligently would still work. Has anyone seen a production, including perhaps the original, where the specific choices made caused the song to work very well? Hypothetically I can see it might work if, for example, a production manages to establish El Gallo as extremely dashing and attractive in his brief stage time before the song, so that the song's intention to attack the romantic rogue archetype is really obvious. Or, if the dialogue preceding the song was amended even more (with permission) to emphasise that the show 'knows' how stunningly callous the whole plan is towards Louisa, and by extension women in general, with some better-written variant of "Well, you want her to be properly terrified, don't you? If you didn't want the full nightmare-come-to-life package, why did you hire me?"

Back to the OC recording... I like it. I actually read The Fantasticks before hearing any of the songs, and many of the lyrics work so well as spoken verse (in my head) that I was initially weirdly disappointed to hear how they sounded as songs. (I still want somebody to do an entirely spoken-verse production of this show, actually!) I've grown accustomed to the songs as songs now. However I'm most fond of Catherine Porter's version of Luisa on that obscure TER/Jay 'Musicals Collection' highlights recording, which I'm not sure even exists in an expanded non-highlights form.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 8/26/16 at 11:05pm

Fan123 - Thanks for posting that NPR interview -- it was interesting to hear Tom Jones speak about the lyric changes; though his reasoning kind of re-affirms the sentiments I posted earlier.  Jones said he felt 'guilty' about the lyrics after about 10 years into the original run when he saw adolescent girls in the audience watching the number.  Now I get that -- but I'm pretty sure that when the show opened in 1960, the last thing a downtown Village musical was going for was a 'family audience.'  So while his heart is in the right place, I still say, the change was a kind of pandering once the musical had established itself as a long running institution and was increasingly commercialized as a 'family musical' to stay open.  I guess that's the  'price you have to pay' to appeal to a  tourist crowd.

At any rate, I do agree with you that perhaps the lead in to the song could be focused even further to clarify the correct tone for the audience and retain the original lyrics.

[After Eight]

Posted: 8/27/16 at 6:46am

"but I'm pretty sure that when the show opened in 1960, the last thing a downtown Village musical was going for was a 'family audience.' "

Little Mary Sunshine, Leave It to Jane revival, ...

"So while his heart is in the right place, I still say, the change was a kind of pandering."

It's called facing the facts, addressing a problem, and fixing it. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill!

[metropolis10111]

Posted: 8/27/16 at 9:21am

broadwaybabywannabe2 said: "seeing a production of THE FANTASTICKS when i was still in Community College has stuck with me my whole life...in fact the song MUCH MORE became my personal anthem..."Please, God, please, don't let me be normal!" was my rallying cry...i knew that album backwards and forwards!!

 

"

I love the irony with which Rita Gardner says this like on the OCR. She get's the joke 

[John Adams]

Posted: 8/27/16 at 9:50am

Thanks for this thread, QueenAlice!

I have both the original and the 2006 recordings. I like the 2006 version because it contains additional dialogue, and the harp is more prominent in the accompaniment.

I prefer the characterizations on the original cast recording, however - the original Matt and Luisa especially. On the 2006 recording, Matt and Luisa sound too emotionally mature, right from the beginning of the show. The originals display a perfect dose of adolescent egocentrism at the start, and grow into more mature characters via their trails, tribulations and life lessons.

As for It Depends on What You Pay, I think that if the currently modified lyrics were the ones I had been weaned on all these years, I'd find absolutely no fault.

After all, the song is not about rape. Right from its introduction in the show, it's very clear that there is never going to be a rape. The song is  about salesmanship and getting top dollar for an extremely absurd product that no one would/should ever pay for. El Gallo is preying on the fathers' needs.

I prefer the use of the word "rape" in the lyrics for those two reasons, and I like the extreme absurdity. If I had never been exposed to the extreme choice, and had only known the updated lyrics (the ones from the 2006 recording), I don't think I would be missing anything, though. The song is still about preying on "consumers" and salesmanship of an absurd product.