Whats better Film soundtrack or Original cast recording of POTO??

[MrsOwenJones]

What do you like the best The movie sountrack of the 2004 ALW film version or the Original Cast recording for Phantom of the Opera with Sarah Brightman, Michael Crawford and Steve Barton. Personally the OCR for me is the best. Only because i felt like in the film soundrtrack it sounded slightly strange hearing the voices but not seeing them visually in front of you. Gerry Butler put so much emotion into his voice in which in some way did cloud his untrained singing voice which made it good movie material. He mad the phantom his own by adding something new to it but his rough rock sounding voice didn't have the same effect on me in the sound track as it did when i watched the film. His performance was something to watch not to hear where as Michael Crawford (the best Erik to me :mask: ) is experienced and trained which made his voice pleasing to the ears and bursting with emotion which i think Gerry did portray but more in the facial expressions than his voice which did sob and sound passionate but not very experienced and professional. Thats just my opinion i would like to hear yours very much :D Cheers :D

[Christine Daaé]

OCR, hands-down. I HATED the film version, save for Patrick Wilson. Emmy Rossum just didn't have the training required to make a good Christine -- hell, she was sixteen years old! The female voice doesn't fully mature, and therefore is not able to handle a role like Christine, until a girl hits her early twenties. You may as well have been asking a ten-year-old girl to sing Violetta in La Traviata -- an EXTREMELY difficult operatic role.

Gerard Butler, while a fine actor, is not the best singer for the Phantom. Too rock and roll. I realize that's what Schumacher intended, though, so I don't blame Gerry too much.

There was also a bunch of really superfluous orchestrations in there, and I just didn't like that at all.

OCR all the way, basically.

~ Zelda

[Night feather]

Well I prefer the movie recording in fact, as I don't really like the voices of either Sarah Brightman or Michael Crawford. Sarah Brightman has too, I don't really know to describe it, sharp a voice, and it's too airy on the high notes, I've never really been able to understand the big deal about her, the only time I've really enjoyed her singing was in ALW's Pie Jesu... And Michael Crawfords voice is far too nasal to my taste, there isn't really any of the velvety sensuality in it that I think that the Phantom should have...

As for the movie recording. Patrick Wilson has an absolutely lovely voice, the fact that I didn't like his portrayal of Raoul is an entirely different manner. Gerard Butler dealt with the singing very well considering that he had never had any voice lessons previously, a lot of emotion in it, but not very classical. Emmy Rossum, yes as Zel has already said, she was not old enough to tackle a role like that. While her voice is lovely, there isn't really a strong foundation in it, and not passionate enough. It helps alot though when she's acting at the same time, it reveals more emotions than her voice.

An ideal recording for me would be the one of the London cast in the summer of 2006. Absolutely awesome.

[More than Music]

Tough choice!

Michael Crawford has the voice that is closest to the voice that I hear in my head when I read the book. But Sarah Brightman doesn't have the voice I've imagined for Christine. Zelda made a good point that Emmy was too young for the role, but I think that her voice is more of the character of Christine than Sarah Brightman is all.

When it comes to Raoul though, Patrick Wilson is DEFINITELY my favorite Raoul so far. And terribly close to the Raoul I hear when reading the book.


It's a mix really. I like to base it more on what I think is best for the character than actual talent though. I would like mostly the OCR cast, with the '04 Raoul and Christine(Christine being older though).

[masquerading rose]

I like the movie versipon better. Michael didn't have the passion and didn't sound angry like Gerry. Michael's voice is good though.

Sarah's voice is good, but not right for Christine.

[Christine Daaé]

I have to disagree with you about Sarah Brightman, Christina. SB created the role of Christine, and though I do agree that sometimes I think her tone is too metallic, she was still "right" for Christine. The role was created for her. By no means is she what I consider the "best" Christine, but she's still very Christine-like.

Really, what is a "wrong" voice to one person is a "right" voice to another, and vice versa. Therefore, no one can truly say what kind is "right" -- unless we're talking about training. Then, the only "right" voice for Christine is a trained one. *coughunlikeEmmyRossum'svoicecough*

~ Zelda

[masquerading rose]

I really liked Emmy's voice. And sure, Sarah Brightman "created" the role, but look most of the other Christines like Tabitha Webb and Jeniffer Hope Wills. They have the more delicate tone of voice, I know its good to have a richer voice (like Sarah), but still, Christine is supposed to be really fragile and delicate (Like most women in that time). Am I making sense?

[Christine Daaé]

Well, see, there are indeed lighter, more delicately-toned voices for Christine, and that's actually what I generally prefer. I do see what you're saying, to an extent. Christine is really fragile and delicate . . .

Or so it first appears.

What the movie doesn't show, which I really think it should have to make Christine more three-dimensional -- another problem I had with Emmy; her portrayal was FAR too innocent -- is the scene in which Christine actually stands up to Carlotta. "How dare you! You evil woman, how dare you! This isn't my fault -- I don't want any part in this plot . . . I cannot sing it, duty or not."

Of course, I'm sure you're aware of that scene, so perhaps you can see why I wish they had kept it in; it really adds to Christine's character. To be honest, even in the book Christine isn't all sweetness and light. She is a woman earning her own living without resorting to having a patron who would give her money in exchange for sexual favors -- which was very common back then for theatre types, and was essentially prostitution. She lost both her parents at a young age, and therefore had to live with widowed Mama Valerius, who was very middle-class and couldn't make money without her professor husband; Christine was supporting the both of them. She stood up to Raoul when he was trying to pry for information, asserting her right to a private life -- even though, admittedly, it was controlled by Erik at the time. Even so, she defied Erik to be with Raoul, knowing she could have been caught and somehow punished by him. Other Victorian heroines would not have done all she was able to do. Christine doesn't kick butt and take names, sure, but she is still very strong, even if it's just subtler than the women we admire today.

So, really, in either Leroux or ALW's versions, Christine is not at all meant to be delicate, though she must certainly seem that way at first. In Leroux, she's as strong as heroines of that era are allowed to be, taking matters into her own hands when necessary; in ALW, she is often played as more spitfire than shrinking violet.

Therefore, it is my belief that Christine can have any kind of voice, as long as it's trained to handle the role. Sure, some timbres I do not like, but it's different for everybody.

It's okay to like Emmy -- it's just something I myself can't understand, as there were so many technical problems with her voice that I just couldn't enjoy her portrayal at all. I do agree that the "innocent" portrayal works with the material that was kept in the movie, even though I would have liked it to be different. Emmy certainly has a pretty voice . . . but only when it's in the range of what she can sing, and only when she's pronouncing her vowels correctly -- which I don't recall ever happening in the film.

Really, my bottom line is, she didn't have the training needed to hit the high notes without cracking or needing digital help. She also could not pronounce her vowels correctly to save her life, and I personally thought her tone was more nasal than it could have been. Had she been older and had more training, I'd probably be raving about how great she is . . . but that isn't the case.

I can't presume to know what kind of musical training you have, Christina, so I can't simply say, "Oh, you don't know what you're talking about because your ears probably aren't well-trained." I don't know whether or not that's true -- and besides, my voice teacher, who has been singing for about three decades and trained classically herself, was somewhat of a fan of Emmy, and she has a very trained ear. Still, my trained ears were so hung up on technical things going wrong -- and there were a ton of them -- that I couldn't appreciate Emmy's portrayal. I know an untrained voice when I hear one, at least ninety-nine percent of the time; and Emmy's lack of training was blatant.

Oh, and by the way -- that stuff you hear about Emmy's "training" at the Metropolitan Opera? Singing along with the greats like Pavarotti and Fleming? Yeah, she did -- in the children's chorus. Children's choruses, even at the Met, don't receive the kind of training opera singers do; and besides, it was all before she hit puberty, which is when the voice changes the most. I was able to hit Christine's high E's, too, when I was twelve. My voice changed, and I've had trouble with it since -- and my voice is still changing marginally, and will continue to do so until my early twenties at the earliest. So no, Emmy never received real operatic training at the Met, and was certainly no opera star -- all that stuff you hear about that is exaggerated to the enth degree.

I'm not at all trying to bash your opinion, Christina. It's perfectly okay to like Emmy. I'm just explaining -- at length -- why I do not.

~ Zelda

[Victorian Era Drama]

To start off, I perfer the OCR, mainly because there's so much more musicality there, mostly because they have the training. You can hear the emotions in their voices, where as on the Movie Soundtrack it's much harder to grasp if you've never heard Phantom before.

However, I really do not like Sarah Brightman's voice. It is so sharp and (in my very humble opinion) has too much vibrato, which makes her hard to understand. Also, it feels like she never carries the notes through, fading at the last second, making it seem flimsy. To be fair, I also do not like Emmy's voice either. I agree with Zelda... she was untrained and did not have enough experiance for the role. She does have a remarkable voice, but she was not ready for a role such as Christine.

As for Raoul, I perfer Steve Barton. That was the way I thought Raoul should sound, strong but also calming. I found Patrick Wilson's voice much to high for the role.

The Phantom. Oh geez... This one is always tough for me. Really who I like depends on what song their singing. Micheal Crawford's voice is much more sutiable for the first act, especially Music of the Night. But when he gets to Point of No Return, it's seems as if he forces this song. This is the only song I believe Gerald Butler was actually good in. The fact that he was untrained gives it the rough sound that I think goes good with the song.

But, if I was to give an ideal cast, it would be the Cast on Broadway this year, with Howard McGillin, Micheal Shawn Lewis, and Juile Hanson (understudy for Christine). I like their characterizations and felt their voices were much more suitable than anything I've heard/seen before. Perhaps because I saw it live it was better, but interpret it how you wish. :D

[masquerading rose]

another problem I had with Emmy; her portrayal was FAR too innocent -- is the scene in which Christine actually stands up to Carlotta. "How dare you! You evil woman, how dare you! This isn't my fault -- I don't want any part in this plot . . . I cannot sing it, duty or not."

Zelda, they had to cut out that scene. The movie is already almost three hours long. To me, Notes II was pointless. I don't know why but it just seemed to carry on and on. I don't like how it makes Christine have a "backbone". If she did, she would be so much of a "Mary-Sue" than she already is. It would be unbearable!!

[Night feather]

Christine a Mary-Sue?

She most certainly is not. Not at all, at least not in my opinion. She has a backbone, which exactly makes her a far more interesting creature than a sniveling little girl who can't do anything by herself. And obviously, as she is manipulated by Erik, she cannot be a Mary Sue as I believe Mary Sue are flawless creatures no? She is also disgusted by Erik's face, which any normal living being would, at least the Leroux or Kay deformity. Christine is essentially a very normal woman with very selfish tendencies and a fear of the unknown things and insecurity...

But anyhow... The aspects of Christine's character are not really the subject here, but the recording....

So to get back on track, Earl Carpenter, London last year, is the ideal phantom for me. He was a little weak on the high notes, but there was such sensuality and such heart wrenching intensity in it..

[masquerading rose]

Christine is a Mary-Sue! She has blonde hair, blue eyes, is a talented soprano and dancer, has the two lead guys fawning over her. One of the lead guys is rich and handsome, the other one deformed, rich, and very talented. She also has a tradgic past. Hmmm... sound familiar? Much like a Mary-Sue to me. There are many more reasons, like in the original, she has a "backbone", and is shy. Yep, Mary-Sue Syndrome.

[IamErik771]

I also prefer the OCR for several reasons. As I've mentioned in other threads, I worship Michael Crawford. I'm probably more than a little biased, since the OCR was my first exposure to POTO, but when I first read the Leroux novel, I always imagined Erik's voice as sounding like Michael's.

Sarah Brightman . . . I adore her voice, and her range is certainly impressive, but I'm not a big fan of her Christine. She's excellent on the OCR, but I find her to be quite lacking in the acting department in live clips from the show. Of course, it's all relative; very few Christines of the stage or screen really seem like great actresses to me.

And then there's the late, great Steve Barton . . . Simply put, the man is a marvel. His portrayal of Raoul, imo, is the best by far, and he also made an excellent Phantom -- I wish they had made an official recording of him as Erik. The funny thing is that I usually prefer tenor Raouls. Steve is among the notable exceptions, however.

All in all, however, I loved the film for what it was, despite its flaws. It definitely exceeded my expectations -- it helps to keep a healthy amount of skepticism when concerning an adaptation of something you love. Although Gerard Butler's voice wasn't great (especially compared to most stage Phantoms), I applaud the effort he made, and his acting was good despite Schumacher's influence. I really don't mind the "rockishness" of his voice; Peter Karrie and Earl Carpenter both sound fairly "rockish" Phantoms, but they're among my favourites.

I don't think Emmy was all that bad. In fact (and you're more than welcome to disagree with me on this), I thought her acting, stiff and wooden as it was, still managed to surpass Sarah Brightman's. Then again, she was given a lot less to do, so that may be one reason. Still, I thought her other films were a clear indication that in the hands of a more capable director, she could have handled all the acting requirements of the role as it was meant to be on stage.

Singing-wise . . . well, that's another matter. I liked her voice, but acknowledge that it could have been a lot better if they had waited a few years before recording the soundtrack, to give her and Gerry more training. (I could swear she's saying "Hey, Joel!" rather than "Angel.") Still, I'm glad they chose her over Katie Holmes. *shudders*

And Patrick Wilson . . . He has a lovely voice, but didn't really get a chance to use it in this film. And thanks to Schumacher's direction, his acting was far from all it could have been; his Raoul didn't seem particularly likable to me. I do think he'd make an excellent stage Raoul, however. Just give him a decent director, and lose the Fabio wig.

As for the orchestrations . . . I liked most of what the film had to offer, but there were some minor things that annoyed me. For example, the handclaps and electric guitar of doom in the title song, and the total lack of percussion in "Point of No Return." The only thing I really disliked, however, was the tempo of the final lair sequence -- Andrew Lloyd Webber needs to understand that a faster tempo doesn't necessarily make the scene sound more "intense."

[masquerading rose]

I don't think Emmy was all that bad. Finally, Someone agrees!

I understand where your coming from, except my vice-versa. I am a tad biased because the movie was my first encounter with PotO. I disagree about Gerry, though. He didn't need a lot of training for the part. I know, he wasn't trained, but his voice isn't bad. I don't think the Phantom ever had voice lessons. You can have pure talent without being trained. Emmy did have training. Her voice just wasn't as matured as the other Christines' were. You must remember, though, Emmy was 16 and still growing, those corsets along with the singingreally did a number on her.

[Night feather]

What does blonde hair and blue eyes have to do with being Mary Sue? She's swedish and that combination is not unusual here in Scandinavia. Yes She's got two guys fawning over her, she's a beautiful girl, and it's not uncommon for beautiful women to attract admirers. She is an orphan, well a lot of people are orphan's and they are not Mary Sue's. As for dancer and singer, in Leroux, as far as I know, she was only opera singer, not a dancer. And you can easily have a backbone eventhough you're shy, just because you're not very open towards people doesn't mean you're not able to stand up for yourself. I think that Christine is absolutely a three-dimentional character in other versions.

As for Gerry as the phantom, I liked him, I'm not saying otherwise, they went for the rock'n'roll sound in the film version, so Gerry's voice was fine there. However, if he were to sing on stage he doubt he would have the technical skill etc to actually be heard proberly. In the books he is able to sing full scale opera, he doesn't sing musical tunes.

I didn't hate Emmy in the film version, not at all. She was alright in the role, but I just don't think that she was all that good for the role, too young, and her voice is not mature enough for the music

[masquerading rose]

Okay, i'm not going to argue any more about Christine being a Mary-Sue. Lets just say we have a different opinion and leave it at that. This is a poll not a debate team. I deffinatly agree with you about Gerry. I love him! I do not agree with you about Emmy. She is talented and beautiful. And she made a wonderful Christine (again, I am somewhat biased on that part since the 2004 movie was my first encounter with PotO.)

And I wasn't saying that orphans were MAry-Sues or that all Swedens are Mary-Sues. I am sorry if you were offended by my comment, for that was ot my intent, Lizzie. I apologize, however I still disagree with you about Christine. And I am ending this arguement. Again, I apologize.

[ErikLove4Eva!]

I like both of them. I really can't choose one over the other, but I have to agree with Chrissy. Sarah's voice doesn't really match Christine's songs.
Though I think this, there is a tie.

[masquerading rose]

Thank you for agreeing, Sabrina!! My buddy got my back! Are we talking about the original NY, London, or Toronto casts?

[Hidden Away]

I love them both. Sarah has the mature voice, Emmy with the innocence. Gerry with the demanding, alluring, and rebelious voice, and Michael with the mysterious and mystifying voice. Patrick was good, but Barton was better. I love them all! Meg in the movie was adorable! And musical wise she was wonderful. Carlotta? Was she not the same singer? I think so, please clear this one out for me. . .but above all I love them all!

[IamErik771]

Aye, they didn't have the same singer as Carlotta -- in the original London cast, she was played by Rosemary Ashe. In the movie, however, the singing was done by Margaret Preece. I may be a bit prejudiced, but I think I'd have liked a stronger-voiced Carlotta in the film. Preece was okay, but I'd have preferred someone like Kim Stengel or Leigh Munro. That's just my 2¢, though.

[lindaleriel]

Well I like both but differently. I prefer the full version of the OCR for leaving so little out (I love both Notes - think they are the funniest parts - and was so dissapointed with their movie treatment) and I prefer the most of the lyrics they changed for the movie in the orriginal (exception: "Long ago...How young and innocent we were" is better than that stupid "Gawkish girl")

Raoul is my favorite character and I honestly love both Steve Barton and Patrick Wilson. I think I slightly prefer Patrick though - he has a slightly warmer timbre that really fits the character.

As for Christine - I'm not really all that fond of Sarah Brightman. She is certainly more trained - but she's almost over trained - I can't really believe that she'd an 18 year old girl singing her first role. Her Vibrato could almost pass for Carlotta. But I don't love Emmy Rosum overly much either. Where Brightman is over trained, Emmy is undertrained. Her high notes and rather thin and she is a little stiff. I wish I could hear Charlotte Church sing Christine (well - before she ruined her voice with cigarettes that is) - she has the prefect mix of training yet youthfulness.

For Erik - again I'm not perfectly happy with either Michael Crawford or Gerard Butler. Crawford is highly trained but rather whiney and pathetic sounding. I don't really believe he's all that dangerous. Gerry has the powerful dangerous thing down but I don't believe he could be a genius voice teacher. We recently saw a touring company in Omaha NE and our Phantom was the understudy... and he was the most spectacular Erik I've ever heard! I wish I could remember his name. He had the most beautiful hauntingly sweet voice when he needed it but he could swing around to that powerful reverberating command voice in an instant. I wish I could have a recording of him.

So my perfect recording would be the OCR with Patrick Wilson as Raoul, Charlotte Church (a few years ago) as Christine, and the understudy in Omaha as Erik.

...I guess I'm hard to please.

[MllePaula]

You probably saw Stephen Tewksbury in Omaha. He's the understudy who has been covering the role while Jason Mills is out sick. I've only seen him as Piangi, but I've heard good things about him.

[Ingenuous Soprano]

Phantom/Erik - Honestly, I'm going to get to the point. GB does not have the pipes for this role. It's very demanding and requires a lot of skill and a strong over all range. MotN needs to be dreamy... like Hugh Panaro, Howard McGillin and Michael Crawford to name a few. Besides that, Emmy sings better than Gerry. How in the world is he supposed to pass for her teacher an angel of music? I'd take Mikey's angelic voice over Gerry's rough rocker one any day.

Christine - Again, down to the point. Emmy is not a strong enough singer for the role either. She has a pleasant pop voice but certainly not for a pop opera like PotO. Sarah (Brightman) was so much stronger and her voice doesn't crack or have a drastic sound change from B4 to D5 (WYWSHA). Emmy could not convince me that she could sing operatically. Christine needs to have a voice that can oh-so easily unseat Carlotta as the Prima Donna. Rebecca Caine is my favourite recorded Christine (Canadian), but out of the OMC and OLC, Sarah's my pic.

Raoul - Patrick is a much stronger singer than either Emmy or Gerry and it shows. My! Does it show! Though he is a better singer, he doesn't seem like Raoul material. He's too weak. Nothing like the chivalrous strong sailor that Raoul de Chagney is. Steve Barton had emotion, a gorgeous voice and was so in character. He was strong and not so foppish. The movie is the only way (that I know of) that people can actually think of dear Raoul as a fop. I'm rooting for the late Steve Barton all the way!

[tiannangel]

Even though I liked the movie better than the stage show, I still recon Michael's voice suited more for Erik.
But that doesn't mean I dont like Gerry! :D he is still the best phantom for me :D

[xXphantomaddictedXx]

Original recording for me. I have never heard the soundtrack from the movie (nor do I want to), so that is all I have to go by. Michael Crawford is the only Erik for me. <3

[Bricabrac]

Original recording for me. I have never heard the soundtrack from the movie (nor do I want to), so that is all I have to go by. Michael Crawford is the only Erik for me. <3

I listened to some of the movie soundtrack online, and decided I didn't want it---I listened to several songs, but "Music of the Night" was enough to convince me that I wouldn't be playing that recording. I did see the show in a theater and bought the DVD to get the documentary on Disk 2 so I've heard the whole thing.

I prefer the OLC as you do, but I wish that it had been recorded later...it was recorded either before the show opened or not long after. Later recordings of Michael singing POTO music show a definite improvement, in my opinion. He continued to change and improve all of his performance as he played the role in London, NYC, and LA, (Sarah was in the show only about six months in London and six in NYC if I remember correctly), but what we have---is what we have. One performance of both casts, frozen in time. I prefer the original cast of Michael Crawford, Sarah Brightman, and Steve Barton.

Michael isn't the only Erik for me, but he is, no question about it, my favorite!

[Madame le Courayer]

I absolutely LOVE the additional music that ALW added to the movie score: the journey to the cemetery and the scene depicting the Phantom's childhood and the new song, Learn to be Lonely, is beautiful. But for an overall cast recording I have go with the Canadian version.
CW and RC are the best Phantom and Christine EVER in my opinion. Their voices are more convincing, more operatic and his tortured singing in the final lair scene is the most heartrending I have ever heard! I'd definitely have go with the CCR.

[Ingenuous Soprano]

I listened to some of the movie soundtrack online, and decided I didn't want it---I listened to several songs, but "Music of the Night" was enough to convince me that I wouldn't be playing that recording. I did see the show in a theater and bought the DVD to get the documentary on Disk 2 so I've heard the whole thing.

I prefer the OLC as you do, but I wish that it had been recorded later...it was recorded either before the show opened or not long after. Later recordings of Michael singing POTO music show a definite improvement, in my opinion. He continued to change and improve all of his performance as he played the role in London, NYC, and LA, (Sarah was in the show only about six months in London and six in NYC if I remember correctly), but what we have---is what we have. One performance of both casts, frozen in time. I prefer the original cast of Michael Crawford, Sarah Brightman, and Steve Barton.

Michael isn't the only Erik for me, but he is, no question about it, my favorite!


I also wish that it had been recorded a little later. Mickey got better every time he sang the song.

I absolutely LOVE the additional music that ALW added to the movie score: the journey to the cemetery and the scene depicting the Phantom's childhood and the new song, Learn to be Lonely, is beautiful. But for an overall cast recording I have go with the Canadian version.
CW and RC are the best Phantom and Christine EVER in my opinion. Their voices are more convincing, more operatic and his tortured singing in the final lair scene is the most heartrending I have ever heard! I'd definitely have go with the CCR.

I love Rebecca Caine! Byron grows on you, but it takes a while. I would have loved it if Rebecca Had recorded the London album with Michael and Steve though. *sigh*

[sweet_intoxication]

I think half and half. Some tracks are better on the OCR and others on the 04 movie cast. Especially Wishing on the OCR, that was much more powerful than the 04 version. Though I have to say Point of No Return in the 04 version was a lot more seductive and mysterious!

[The Countess]

I think that overall, I agree with all who have said that OLC/OCR was best but I do like the Overature on the movie recording slightly more because it sounds so much more sudden and powerful. Thank you, Hollywood sound system.

[angelgirl]

Neither is better. I like them both equally. But If I had to pick, I like the movie version a little better.
A.G.

[darcimkire]

Original cast recording for me, even if it wasn't MC's best but i still love his singing.

[Erik'sMusic92]

I think that the OCR is better because MC's voice is so awesome to listen to (in my opinion), and hearing the original cast of POTO singing is really amazing. It's also really great to have the OCR because then you can listen to the beginning of POTO history.

[The Countess]

Well in truth, if you want the actual begining, you should read the book...[purist rant/]

But I agree with you %100