Talk:West Side Story/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Vandalism not noticed

I just reverted this little bit of vandalism. It went unnoticed for several weeks! -- Samuel Wantman 09:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

This article is categorized as a "Broadway opera." I believe that it falls squarely and completely within the musical genre. If nobody is opposed to me moving it into the Broadway musical category within two weeks, I'm going to move it. Please leave your comments here.--Cassmus 05:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, by some strict definitions of opera, it is considered such--the plot is advanced by the music--and it requires highly-trained singers with excellent technique for such numbers as the trio and double chorus for "Tonight." It is not through-sung (every verbal exchange is sung--that is, there is non-musical dialogue) but it comes close ("Oh no, Anita, no/You should know better/You were in love/Or so you said.") And the concert is sometimes performed by opera companies. That said, I would consider it an operatic/balletic (again, the dance advances the plot) musical. Like "The Most Happy Fella," WSS has always been difficult to categorize. 64.132.218.4 17:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that the show classifies as an opera. You do need highly trained singers for a production--but only two or three (for the parts of Tony, Maria, and possibly Anita). The music for all of the other parts, though, never comes close to being operatic. The production does not come close to being "through-sung." About 65% of the show is sung, which is not more than most other Broadway musicals and not to the level of opera. Also, music and dance do not advance the plot in any more than shows that are distinctly "musicals" (such as Oklahoma!). Is there a blurring between genres? Of course. However, West Side Story does not fall into that limbo area the way that The Phantom of the Opera, Candide, or Show Boat do.--Cassmus 20:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I've nominated Category:Broadway operas for deletion. -- Samuel Wantman 07:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I would not categorize WSS as a Broadway opera. If that was the case, then you could say that 70% of musicals are Broadway operas. The Woman in White has duets and trios...but that dosen't make it an opera. La Cage aux Folles has duets, and requires very trained singers..And as for I Have A Love/No, Anita No!....well, Evita and Rent are almost entirely sung-through, but they aren't operas. And just because there's lots of dialogue in WSS does not mean it can't be an opera........there's dialogue in Mozart's Magic Flute but it's still an opera. WSS is probably only performed as an opera because Leonard Bernstein is a celebrated classical musician. However, I wouldn't delete the whole category....there is a wide range of operatic musicals, like Sweeney Todd, Candide.....-Pamina

The Shook-Up Generation

It should be noted that much of the research for West Side Story came out of the book, The Shook-Up Generation. This book, by Harrison Salisbury, is an inside exposé on juvenile delinquency in the 1950's. Many of the subjects (gang organization, war councils, etc.) from the musical show up in the book. It was required reading for the casts of the original Broadway run, and, as an actor, I find it highly valuable in terms of character development. --Theaterfreak64

P.S. In fact, this book came out more than a year after West Side Story opened on Broadway and even describes the play as a romanticized view of gang life. Difficult to see how the cast could have referenced this work, since it didn't yet exist. The movie cast may have but the cast of the play? Impossible.

Brian Dalen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.255.199.248 (talk) 08:10, 1 Jan, 2006 (UTC).

You are correct. I was somewhat surprised when I read that in the book, heh. My director described it as I did, anyway, way back when I in 'West Side Story'. The only possibility is that there is more than one edition of the book. Also, there was more than one Broadway cast, as the show ran for quite a long time. -Theaterfreak64 03:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC) according to 'the shook-up generation' selection of used books on ebay, the first printing was 1952, followed by 1958 amd 1959, then many more editions throught the 1960s from 60,61 through 1968. kub

There are three recordings of West Side Story:

I suspect this is untrue. world-wide ther must be many. I certainly have heard a fe in my life time that are not on this list. Please amend the list to reflect what it really means? Notable US recordings in English? Or put in another section. Candy 21:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What does Schrank mean when he asks A-Rab how his 'Old man's DT's' are?

I was just wondering because I tried looking it up and I couldn't find anything. Apparently his dad is an alcoholic. Does that have something to do with it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.98.22 (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

• Delirium tremens, suffered by alcholics during withdrawal from alchohol. Ray Milland won an Academy Award for portraying a victim of DT's in The Lost Weekend. Wahkeenah 03:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Symphonic Dances

I can't find in the article any mention of a Symphonic Dances Suite derived from West Side Story as is suggested by this NY Phil page about it. Also: Program notes from Oklahoma

--Atavi 23:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I just added a line in the recordings section. He recorded it for Columbia (now Sony) and DG. Both are still in print and can be found on amazon. The SONY is SMK 63025. I have the DG as part of a "Bernstein conducts Bernstein" boxed set, 469 829-2. I'm not sure what it's original single CD release is on. If someone wants to correctly apply these citations, that would be nice. I'm not sure what the current standard is for a CD reference like that.

--Acroyear 23:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation for Keith Emerson

How should one cite it? The ELP "proof" is on the CD, Emerson, Lake and Palmer Live at the Royal Albert Hall, and the 3 was broadcast by their performance (representing ELP but without Greg Lake) at the Atlantic Records 40th Anniversary Concert. I know this 'cause I still have it on tape 20 years later.

--Acroyear 23:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Triple Threat?

I found a huge mistake in the opening paragraph:

"Another revolutionary aspect of the original production of West Side is that it was the first Broadway production that required the performers to be triple threats, which is to say that the performers were all expected to be able to act, sing, and dance."

Obviously the author hasn't heard of Anything Goes or Oklahoma.

66.159.224.80 20:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Pamina

I'm one of the "semi-literate thumb suckers" who has attempted to contribute to this article, and I'm the person who added the bit about the "triple threat." The paragraph I inserted is almost a word-for-word quote from Gerald Freedman, the assistant director of the original stage production of West Side Story. I guess the assertation is a little below Wikipedia's standards of documentation, but it was intended to be a useful addition and not the usual "LOLZ Tonys a fag!" thing. I'm not going to revert the edit but I didn't want anyone to think that it was a completely random statement. That said, Freedman is also involved with the NCSA production of West Side that's caused such consternation on this page (and yes, I agree that adding the revival info that early was a little on the advertising side) so you can take my words with however much salt you happen to be toting today.

75.177.82.157 16:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Anybodys

In the Japanese version of West Side Story it is said that Anybodys represents Balthazar in 'Romeo and Juliet'. Can you please help to vetify this? Candybag 13:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Characters

What are your sources for the changes suggested on July 1, 2007? -- Ssilvers 15:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Tonight parody

This isn't about the South Park one, but I was listening to a broadway station and a parody of "Tonight" came on, although it was listed as by Leonard Bernstein, Tonight (Tony and Maria), I think it was a parody and I'm trying to find it because I thought it was hilarious. I haven't actually seen West Side Story, but I'm not sure if the words 'Don't Cry for Me, Barbra Streisand' are in the musical version :) . If anyone could help me find it, I would greatly appreciate it. Beyond 'Don't Cry for Me, Barbra Streisand', there were parts where the singer was complaining about Barbra Streisand being chosen for some movie parts and stuff, sorry I don't remember much more... Bardiak 04:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Bardiak, I believe you heard a selection from Forbidden Broadway, whose many productions over the years contain parodies of other broadway musicals.Thomprod 17:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed, except "Don't Cry For Me, Barbra Streisand" is a parody of "Don't Cry For Me, Argentina" from Evita. In the original FB staging, the actress is clearly made up to look like Patti LuPone in the role of Eva Peron. Bardiak, if you were listening to XM28 On Broadway on the XM Satellite Radio network, well, they're notorious for mislabelling songs... -DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 17:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism.

Removed this line: Tony likes men from the "Shakespearean parallels" section. Nothingbutmeat 12:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this... but you don't need to make a talkpage note everytime you revert a vandalism. Just note it in the edit summary. Thanks! -DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sondheim reference

By late 1955, Robbins and Laurents teamed up with 27-year old lyricist Stephen Sondheim, who wrote the songs and lyrics to his first Broadway show, now titled West Side Story.

There's a problem here, and I can't figure out how to rewrite it.

1. Where's Bernstein? He's not mentioned in the previous paragraph, and in fact, the history section never mentions when he joined the team.
2. Writing the "songs" usually, in the business, implies writing the music. Steve did not write the "songs" for WSS, only the lyrics. (This is an easy change, but fixing it immediately begs the previous question, which is why I'm reluctant to fix it, because I don't know the answer to the first question.) --DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 17:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bernstein was in from the beginning (1949), but his own accounts do not talk about whether he actually began composing until later (after the 1955 meetings). So, I made a few changes that finesse the issue a little. See what you think. -- Ssilvers 18:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bernstein vs The Nice

While there is a popular story about Bernstein being annoyed at or banning The Nice from performing America, it's very out of character for him. He was interviewed at the time and this was put to him, responding he'd never heard of the band (included in The Sounds of the Sixties documentary series). Unless there's a better cite we should regard the story with suspicion. MartinSFSA 07:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Useful info from Mark Steyn?

Mark Steyn has an article about the creation of WSS on his website. Among other things, it includes interviews with Hal Prince, Sid Ramin and Arthur Laurents. Contributors who know about WSS (ie., not me) may find it useful. Cheers, CWC 08:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

NCSA - hello? How is this not just advertising?

Would the folks at North Carolina School of the Arts please tell us why their future production of West Side Story is so notable? That is, why is your insertion not just advertising?

Arches16 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 5 March 2007 here only

66.73.194.21 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) 12 March 2007 here, theatre

Eaglecorpse (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 14 March 2007 NCSA, theatre, and here

204.85.6.176 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) 14 March 2007 here, theatre

Shenme 15:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The "west side" of North Carolina consists of mountains, so maybe they're rewriting it as a musical version of the Hatfields and the McCoys. Wahkeenah 23:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No response yet, here or at the individual editors talk pages outlined above. My objection is echoed by the external site's own phrasing of an article "Though this production is a fiftieth anniversary celebration of the original, ...". Note the 'a'. It is not 'the' 'only' single and acclaimed by all anniversary production. I'm sure other schools and local organizations will take this opportunity to celebrate the anniversary, and would also love to advertise that. While NCSA's associations with the original production are interesting, this text still ends up reading like an advertisement for a future production. I would like to see one or more of those editors to comment on how this is not a correct reading. Shenme 04:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC) --19:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Eaglecorpse

Yes, although it is 'a' 50th anniversary production (not 'the'), it is the only full-scale broadway-style production being put on. It is also one the only full-scale professional production put on where the roles are being played by those closer to the age that the roles were originally intended to be. Also, as mentioned, Arthur Laurents and Gerald Freedman are involved, as well as the Bernstein Children, Mauceri (Bernstein's protege), many of the surviving members of the original cast, etc, etc. --Eaglecorpse 19:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You can see a list of people involved in the production at http://www.ncarts.edu/pressreleases/Releases2007/March07/friendsupport.htm Eaglecorpse 02:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As much as I like the NCSA as an institution, it still amounts to promotional advertising. Wahkeenah 07:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Wahkeenah. For musicals the threshold for warranting a production's inclusion in Wikipedia seems to be either 1) a world premiere, 2) a cast recording, 3) a production in a noteworthy venue like Broadway or the West End, 4) a famous star in a production, or 5) a revolutionary production that alters the way people worldwide see, imagine, and stage the show in the future. I doubt that the NCSA production fits ANY of these categories.--Cassmus 07:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. First of all, this is a student production, not a professional production. Second, it has not happened yet. Third, it is a very limited run of less than two weeks. Fourth, there are numerous 50th anniversary events and productions planned. The fact that people connected with the production had a connection with the Broadway production and/or Bernstein is interesting, but not really notable. Here's an idea: Wait until a month after the production has actually happened and see if there has been a Washington Post or NY Times review that discusses why this production is notable. If there are some, you will be able to quote it and write something. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 06:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This production will almost certainly revolutionize the way this production will be put on in the future. The school is already receiving extensive media coverage, plus the production values are pushing the envelope. According to a Gazette article, "Rather than creating a set and staging consisting of horizontal and vertical sets and props, the entire show is created on a diagonal plane. The entire concept has been overhauled in order to lend this production a new aspect, a new facet to give new life to an older work. Along with this, the advance of technology since the original staging of West Side Story has provided new means for innovation in set design. The sets and props are moved not by hand, but rather by machines run by computers. Further, the actual sets are only half physical, the rest is visual. Projectors are to be used to create the sets atop a common slate. This allows for easier set changes, more smooth transitions, and freer artistic expression." Also, at Mauceri's installation the other day, he said, in front of reporters and TV cameras, that this production will be the "best production of West Side Story, ever." It will also quite possibly be the last time the original score is performed- most productions nowadays use a smaller version of the orchestra, due to the difficulty of the music and the amount of money it costs to hire a 30+ piece orchestra- Mauceri is actually having to use his own personal parts for this production, because the original orchestration is that scarce. The NCSA production is also listed on the front pages of the official Leonard Bernstein and WSS sites. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglecorpse (talk • contribs)

While that's all well and good, I don't think it's going to "revolutionize" the way the production is staged - you yourself said it's likely to be the LAST time it's produced with the full orchestration (though that might actually make it notable...). Small scale productions with bizzare or unusual stagings are not uncommon for any show, especially school productions where some avant-garde student director gets a wild idea in his head... (not that I'm saying Mauceri is a crazy student, but unusual directorial decisions do not necessarily make for notability). --DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 17:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

75.177.82.157 03:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC) "not that I'm saying Mauceri is a crazy student,"

I should hope not. -- John_Mauceri

More recent critiques

The article "West Side Story: A Puerto Rican reading of 'America'" by Alberto Sandoval Sanchez in Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media, no. 39, June 1994, pp. 59-66, represents an interesting recent alternative critical view of the musical that is a counterpoint to the contemporary critiques in that it analyzes the symbolism of the choice of Puerto Ricans in a musical written by White, non-Latino authors. It is also cited in third-party sources, which suggests notability for this review (see The Latino Studies Reader: Culture, Politics and Society edited by Antonia Darder, Rodolfo [chapter: Mapping the Discourse on Puerto Ricans and "Race"; this published annotated bibliography; and Latinas in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia by Vicki Ruíz & Virginia Sánchez). As much as I love WSS and as valid as I feel the contemporary critiques also are, it's worthwhile to include some mention of more recent analyses of this authorial decision. Another article on the topic, which I haven't read, is this one: Negron-Muntaner, Frances. Feeling Pretty: West Side Story and Puerto Rican Identity Discourses Social Text - 63 (Volume 18, Number 2), Summer 2000, pp. 83-106 Duke University Press

Just FWIW in the interest of making the article even more well-documented and comprehensive. Lawikitejana (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Shakespearean Similarities (Story Parallels)

This section reads like an essay (Original Research); I believe that it should be referenced per WP:NOR or deleted. The guideline in a nutshell: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." JeanColumbia (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

dissent

The material presented in this section is perfectly accurate, utterly obvious and does not remotely constitute research, original or otherwise. Other than the fact that the contributor did not indicate the page numbers on which the events occur in the libretto to West Side Story and in the First or Second Folio, this entry is exemplarary (nor do I think line numbers should be necessary for something so simple.) — Robert Greer (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations?

How does one submit a citation for proof of a statement? I can confirm the Garfield Cadet reference re winning their 2nd Drum Corps Intl. Championship with WSS in 1984...I was in the Blue Devils that year....the corps Garfield beat by 1/10th of a point.

Additionally, some portion of WSS HAS, in fact, been performed by drum corps worldwide since the movie came out...both single charts and complete productions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.210.173 (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Characters

This article used to state that Diesel is second in command of the Jets. While this is true in the movie version to match Diesel's (Ice) expanded part, in the play he is primarily just the best fighter. Action is the second in commandin the play. This can be seen after "Jet Song" when he assumes he will be Rif's lieutenant at the war council. He also clearly assumes leadership of the gang after Rif's death. When Anybody's informes them of Chino's gun, he dispatches the Jets to search, and even Diesel follows his orders. There are also several other examples of his leadership in other scenes. For these reasons I have edited the article to read as it now does, . F-451 03:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Even though i agree that action took over after riffs death, in the description of the characters in the play version it clearly states that diesel is the lieutenant of the jets. Thats why im going to keep the statement that reads action is second in command im going to state that diesel is the lieutenant of the jets.

At present (2009-01-22), the list of characters includes Ice, who is not in the stage musical. The character "Ice" was created for the film. He belongs in the article on the film, but not this article about the stage musical. Diesel is not listed, although the listing for Big Deal refers to Diesel. But simply, Diesel (but not Ice) was in the stage musical, and Ice (not Diesel) was in the film. The order of the songs was shuffled for the film. "Cool" was moved to a later part of the plot; after Riff's death. Riff sang "Cool" on stage, but since he was dead at that time in the film, the Diesel stage character was re-written somewhat, and re-named Ice, and given the lead in the song "Cool". Diesel belongs in the character list of the stage play. Ice has no place in this article, he's not in the stage musical. 139.68.134.1 (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I revised the character list to reflect the 2009 Broadway revival. Other productions have had other character names (which are seen @ IBDB). The IBDB is not complete for the '09 revival; I used the Playbill from the National Theatre performance of December 27, 2008, where the musical had its pre-Broadway run, will revise the list as needed after the Broadway opening. (Thanks to 139.68.134.1 for bringing this up.) JeanColumbia (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Genesis of the Concept

This section says that Laurents' original draft was called East Side Story about a Jewish girl and an Italian boy that was scrapped after he found out that the themes like that had been done in previous plays like Abie's Irish Rose. Abie's was about an Irish girl and a Jewish boy. Good thing Laurents didn't use the pairing from Abie's- I don't think WSS would have done very well with leads named Siobhan and Sheldon.Dcrasno (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

South Park - Tonight Parody?

in the animated motion picture "southpark - bigger, longer, uncut" there is a parody of "tonight". perhaps this should be mentioned? - musschrott

Go for it! Ellsworth 21:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd definitely agree that there's a similarity, and I'm sure the writers were thinking of the song from West Side Story, but it should be noted that the form of *both* songs - Several characters singing different songs, spilling their hopes to the audience - is a popular way to close the first act of many musical theater or operatic shows. If I were more knowledgable in opera, I could give you better examples, but you can find similar songs in Les Miserables and in The Producers, and I think you could even make a case for Making Christmas, from The Nightmare Before Christmas, approaching these in tone. -MBlume 21:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The characters in WSS's "Tonight"- Sharks, Jets, Anita, Maria and Tony are not singing different songs. It is a quintet- 5 separate parts (or characters) all singing the same song; and they're not spilling their hopes to the audience- they're all anticipating the outcome and the aftermath of the same event- The Rumble. And in WSS "Tonight" does not end the first act- far from it. "Tonight" is sung proceeding the last plot point of the story- again, "The Rumble". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcrasno (talk • contribs) 04:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I watch over 50 pages through my Wikipedia user account, and this one is the most vandalized. Can we get it semi-protected to prevent what another user gently called "semi-literate thumb suckers" from continuing to vandalize one of the best musical theatre sites in Wikipedia?--Cassmus 20:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

did this ever happen? i do believe that the intro paragraph is incorrect. 12.27.8.175 (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

London West End cast

David Holliday played Tony and Roberta D'Esti played Maria during the time I worked at Her Majesty's in the original London run - but other actors are mentioned in the article for these roles. Is the article simply wrong, or did the cast change - I'd like to know, ideally before editing!Tony in Devon (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

David Holliday must have taken over the part because the London programme says he was engaged to play Gladhand 'when it opened' in London. More info on my queries welcome.Tony in Devon (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Earlier prog obtained - above queries answered - but must have been many more cast changes.Tony in Devon (talk)

Somewhere

According to the plot, Conseula sings it but in the songs part, it says Tony and Maria sing it. Which one is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.215.99 (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"There's a place for us, somewhere a place for us..." - i.e. Tony and Maria - with a later solo reprise as I recall. Tony in Devon (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

West Side Story in Los Angeles

Come see West Side Story right here in LA at the Norris Center for the Performing Arts! Coy Middlebrook (director of Pippen, Ahmanson Theatre) directs this excellent student cast production of the classic story of two star-crossed lovers striving to be together in the midst of gang rivalries and cultural conflicts. The show runs August 7 @ 7:30pm, August 8 and 9 @ 2:00pm and 7:30pm; and the following weekend: August 13 and 14 @ 7:30pm, August 15 @ 2:00pm and 7:30pm, and August 16 @ 2:00pm. For further information please contact the Norris Center at 310-544-0403 or visit our website at www.norriscenter.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norriscenter1 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis edit

I wanted to explain my edit of the synopsis. The Jets think the Sharks are un-American. The text referred to the Jets as the Anglo gang, but they are mixed with Irish & Italian members. Their families have been in America longer, so they think the more recent immigrants should leave. Romanfall (talk) 08:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Anglo" gang?

It doesn't seem accurate to call the Jets an Anglo gang. If nothing else, the names Tony and Bernardo are distinctly Italian, not Anglo Saxon.

Also, there would be a stylistic (wording) inconsistency to call the Jets "Anglo" in one paragraph and "American" in another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gattateo (talk • contribs) 07:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

see section titled Synopsis edit. Romanfall (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Potato, potahto, potata?

While the 'official' WSS site mentions 'Consuelo' (as do many others) even more places mention 'Consuela', which 'sounds' right. But I find 'Consuelo' mentioned places as a valid girl's name, so my ear is betraying me.

(All this brought up by someone recently changing a couple 'Consuela's back to 'Consuelo', which I thought was wrong, but which was right?)

Anybody got a good reference for something as simple as a name? Or if the WSS site and IMDB agree, is that good enough? Thought not...  :-/ Shenme (talk) 04:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Smart allecky?

"Sondheim auditioned by playing the score for Saturday Night, his musical that was scheduled to open in the fall. Laurents liked the lyrics but wasn't impressed with the music. Sondheim didn't care for Laurents' opinion."

That sounds a bit smart allecky....maybe we can reword it? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I Feel Pretty

Article currently says:

"I Feel Pretty" has also been used in a comedic way from time to time, due to the line "I feel pretty and witty and gay". At the time the song was written, the term "gay" as a synonym of "homosexual" was not so widely known:

I think this might be a bit misleading. I understand the original lyrics were: "I feel pretty and witty and bright", rhyming with "tonight" in the next line. In the film version the lyrics were changed to be consistent with the time of day "gay/today". So at the time the song was written, the word "gay" wasn't even in it!

Steve Lowther 02:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Then it should read "at the time the film was made". Wahkeenah 03:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To add to this: the page I Feel Pretty is a redirect page that redirects back to West Side Story. I feel that's redundant, and should be changed. 136.223.9.22 (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Listing of productions

I removed the reference to a youth theater production in the infobox and in the article. While I support any and all theater, this article should only mention the "highest-level" notable productions, i.e. Broadway, West End, and their tours. Otherwise any and all companies could list their production, and the article would become endless. I've seen this on other show pages as well. I considered removing or modifying the regional productions, as it mentions opera companies performing the work, but then references "Civic Light Operas" (which are really musical theater companies and not opera companies). Also, the companies referenced all mention productions in 1983 or 1984; I find it hard to believe no regional house did the show between 1959 and 1983, and there are countless examples of regional houses (on the level of those listed) that have produced the show since. There's no citations to back this up, but my guess is the section is un-encyclopedic at best and inaccurate at worst. Dtcomposer (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I added the other six years Pittsburgh Civic Light Opera has produced the show to the single production year listed before. But I agree that there have been many other regional theater productions. So it might be better to replace this whole section with info on first productions of West Side Story by actual opera companies. Pittsburgh Civic Light Opera and San Diego Civic Light Opera are both musical-theater companies, not opera companies, while Banff Musical Theatre seems to refer to a program at the Banff Centre, a theatre school, seemingly not a traditional opera company either. So it's possible none of the mentioned companies are really the first opera company to produce the show. On the other hand, the very first regional theater production might also be noteworthy, if some source can be found that establishes which one was first. StevenDoerfler (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis Inaccurate

I read the sypnosis, particularly ACT II. THe character of Ice do not exist in the play, but the movie. The songs Cool was performed in Act I, not Act II, instead it was Gee, Officer Krupke. In the movie the two songs were switched.Madonnarama (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I haven't seen the original stage production, but own its soundtrack. Cool is after America in Act I. Gee, Officer Krupke! in the 2nd act.Romanfall (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In the synopsis, it says that "Officer Krupke" is performed after Riff is killed, which is not true in the movie. This occurs before the "War Council" after the dance at the gym. "Cool" is the song performed by the Jets after Riff's death, and Ice is made the leader of the Jets, not Action. REGGIE204.184.39.253 (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The synopsis is correct as of this date. Remember that this article details the original Broadway musical from 1957, and not the film adaptation from 1961. There are several differences, which are spelled out in the film article. I also took the liberty of correcting the spelling of "synopsis" in the section title. --Thomprod (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Officer Krupke lyric

The "official website" http://www.westsidestory.com/site/level2/lyrics/lyrics.html has this couplet in 3rd stanza, under Movie Lyrics (as indeed sung in the movie):

My grandpa is a Commie,
My grandma pushes tea

The corresponding verses under Stage Lyrics are:

My grandpa's always plastered,
My grandma pushes tea

Anybody know the reason for this variation? In 1957, McCarthyism reverberated more loudly on Broadway than in Hollywood? (Seems doubtful.)

The reason can't be Hollywood reluctance to mention alcohol/alcoholism, since both versions contain the lines, "Our fathers are all drunks" and "The trouble is we drink." 70.182.53.66 (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

According to Stephen Sondheim, the problem was the previous two lines. In the original, it read:

My father is a bastard,
My ma's an S.O.B.
My grandpa's always plastered
My grandma pushes tea

United Artists "flinched", so it was changed in the movie to:

My daddy beats my mommy,
My mommy clobbers me
My grandpa is a Commie,
My grandma pushes tea

So it wasn't McCarthyism, it wasn't alcohol, it was "bastard". (He also wanted to have the song say "Fuck you", but had to settle for "Krup you", which he admits is funnier.) (This is all from the wonderful Finishing the Hat by Stephen Sondheim.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Selective removal of particular statistics

Please explain how come the number of tickets sold for a Broadway show is in any way more trivial than the number of performances or previews. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

To start, most shows sell that many tickets; if WSS sold, say, more tickets than any other show, that would be worth mentioning. It would help if we had an exact number, not just "more than a million." If a good amount of editors think it should be in the article, then by all means add it.--108.67.204.170 (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not an argument; a consensus is usually not needed when adding valid, non-controversial content to an article. As for the amount, it is stated in the source, the description "over a million" comes close, as it is within just a couple of percents away. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

But the whole point of it needing to be discussed makes it controversial. Don't add it back before consensus is reached. Two out of three editors so far think it should NOT be in the article.--108.67.204.170 (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not a matter of how many editors are pro or con. No matter how many editors, invalid arguments do not make a valid consensus. As you said, an exact number will be helpful – it is 1,074,462, can you please self-revert with this in mind? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

More editors think it should not be in the article than do. That's it. Consensus reached. "Live and let die."--108.67.204.170 (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, now you're definitely overstepping your boundaries by using administrator tags, aside from blatantly ignoring my previous comment. See you on the SPI board. I tried. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ignore your comments. You need to understand that a consensus was reached. If you lost the argument, don't go crazy. Just move on. Live and let die. 2/3 editors say NO. Therefore, the info won't be in the article. Jeesh.--108.67.204.170 (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes you did (and still do), as I definitely pointed out that it is more of a vote than a consensus, neither of you has a valid argument while I have brought up several. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Here's what I say. (First, sorry if I was pushy back there, it's been a rough morning and it's pretty early still where I live.) I've reread your comments. If you can tell me why the fact it sold that many tickets was so important, then we'll add it in. (not just "over a million", the actual amount.)--108.67.204.170 (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Saw the debate while patrolling recent changes. Had to add my two cents.

I don't think this is "every possible piece of information" -- if you were saying that the theater in which it showed had 27 rows in Section 108, and Seat 14A was directly in front of Seat 17B, or some such nonsense, that would be overly trivial. As to the number of tickets sold in the revival, I don't see how that's in any way trivial information. And while "over a million" could be clarified further to "just over a million," if you have the number, why not use it?

Also, a few things: keep in mind WP:3RR and Wikipedia is not a vote -- consensus rules, not majority. Jsharpminor (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering that, I say go ahead and add it.--108.67.204.170 (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In this case, the number of tickets sold is redundant information, because we already discuss the length of the run. Every production of a Broadway musical in a big house that runs over two years will sell over a million tickets. 748 performances and 27 previews is 775 performances, divided into a million tickets is 1,290 tickets per performance. Not remarkable at all. Wicked, which has been running for 8 years at a bigger theatre, has sold well over 5 million tickets, and Phantom, which has been running for over 20 years has sold well over twice that. So, this statistic sounds impressive, but it does not actually add any information to the number of performances, which is already given, and just clutters up the article. I agree with deleting this information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

So... you're saying that your personal view of how "impressive" (or not) this information looks, in light of your own personal experience, constitutes a valid encyclopedic criterion? And how can a concise sentence "clutter" an article? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering everything that's been said here and on JeanColumbia's talk page, I'll readd the statistic, with the accurate number this time. Do not remove without proper justification. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Upper West Side?

The articles states that WSS takes place on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. I don't think this is correct. I've always understood it to have been a reference to locations further downtown -- more like Hell's Kitchen, Chelsea or the Village. These areas were all hotbeds of youth gang activity and conflict between goups of teens from different ethnic backgrounds from the 50s until well into the 70s; far more so than the UWS. Also, the "look and feel" of the play is much more like downtown locations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychlist (talk • contribs) 21:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the scene sets in the original show but if you look careful in the movie, you can see the street signs of 55th St and 10th Ave.Dcrasno (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, the movie was filmed in a condemned section of New York that was torn down to build Lincoln Center. 63.192.100.101 (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Mini-homage in Avenue Q

In the song "Purpose," part of the show Avenue Q, the character Princeton sings:

Could it be?
Yes it could.
Something’s coming.
Something good.

Which is, of course, a direct lift from "Something's Coming." I thought this might be appropriate for inclusion in the "References in Popular Culture" section.

Here's a link to a random lyrics site (don't know whether there are "approved" sources for such info): http://www.lyricstime.com/avenue-q-purpose-lyrics.html -- MorWired (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Info

Is it nessecary to include info that it's currently on at the Palace Theatre in Manchester (UK)?

(Also, while we're here, does this page need archiving?) George8211 // Give a trout a home! 20:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Title...

Any reason this page has the (Musical) disambiguation? Seems to me that, since everything else (except possibly one) on the disambig is derived from the original musical, this should simply be at West Side Story. I don't see any discussion about it, was there any? Thoughts? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. This is an almost perfect example of a primary topic. I think it should be changed back. --Kleinzach 08:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. I've just seen this come up on a watchlisted page. This is clearly the primary topic and the disambiguation page just makes things...ambiguous. --Folantin (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've moved West Side Story to West Side Story (disambiguation), but I wasn't able to move West Side Story (musical) back to West Side Story. --Kleinzach 01:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC) The redirects are also a real mess. --Kleinzach 01:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves uncontroversial moves. We'll have to watch to see if anyone objects and puts it in the controversial section. --Jubilee♫clipman 05:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The movie is very well known its not own right and many musicals that are also films are have "musical" in their titles--Levineps (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Any futher move will have to be placed in the controversial section and discussed fully. The page itself now lies at the undabbed name (though the admin forgot to move this talk page with it but that's no big deal, perhaps). --Jubilee♫clipman 10:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is a big deal: just try to follow the talk page/article page links round and see how dizzy you end up! Press article in the tabs above then press discussion (or talk if you use Friendly) then press article again etc... --Jubilee♫clipman 10:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Who said it wasn't a "big deal"?--Levineps (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I meant the redirects mess perhaps isn't a big deal rather than the wider issue of the actual title of each article. Your objections are actually quite cogent and should be gven serious consideration. In the meantime, we really are going to have to sort the redirects: the discussion link at the top of "West Side Story" (no dab) leads not to this talkpage (as it logically should, at present) but to the disambiguation page's talkpage, for instance. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Further to Levineps's objections and the counter-arguments, it should perhaps be mentioned that The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) is dabbed when it is clearly the most famous of all adaptations of that story while The Phantom of the Opera leads to the little-known original book --Jubilee♫clipman 22:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Which ever way you cut it, you always end up at Talk:West Side Story (disambiguation) from three distinct article name spaces:

1. West Side Story, the discussion link takes us directly to Talk:West Side Story which then immeadiately redirects to Talk:West Side Story (disambiguation)
2. West Side Story (musical) redirects to West Side Story, so the above again applies (in a very weird sort of double redirect) and the result again is Talk:West Side Story (disambiguation)
3. West Side Story (disambiguation) correctly links to Talk:West Side Story (disambiguation)
4. All the other artcles listed in West Side Story (disambiguation) correctly link to their own talkpages

Not sure quite how to solve this, especially since there is the question of "which article should get which name?" anyway. Any thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 23:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Update - requested admin assistance via WP:ANI. I had no idea where else to send this! --Jubilee♫clipman 00:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm late to this party, but I agree that the musical is the primary topic, as all the other versions of adaptations of the musical. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Being the original version of something does not make you into the primary topic. The film is at least as famous as the musical, and has almost certainly been seen by an order of magnitude more people than the musical. At the very least, there ought to be a direct link to the film in the disambiguation notice, rather than forcing people through the disambiguation page. john k (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Names of cast members and characters

Please, someone, double check all the names of the cast members and characters! A few of these are surely not genuine. Writers Bond (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Found unsourced additions of last names, unsourced descriptions and incorrect order. Fixed all. --Thomprod (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Caucasian Gang

I hope y'all know, that, according to the Demographics of Puerto Rico Puerto Ricans aren't always non-White. 64.134.178.114 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC) "Latin" or "Hispanic" isn't a color anyway. -- megA (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on West Side Story. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120325072207/http://www.leonardbernstein.com/studio/element.asp?FeatID=8&AssetID=24 to http://www.leonardbernstein.com/studio/element.asp?FeatID=8&AssetID=24
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080926180941/http://www.westsidestory08.com:80/artisans.html to http://www.westsidestory08.com/artisans.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Orchestration

As it stands now the orchestration section says in part, "The orchestra personnel required for a proper performance of the score is among the largest in the musical theater repertoire. The score calls for five woodwind players (each doubling on multiple instruments), seven brasses, three percussionists, a pianist, a guitarist, and twelve string players. In all, 30 musicians are needed to perform the score as intended by the composer." This isn't terribly remarkable at all for its time. Many shows of the era need 25+ musicians in their orchestra (How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, The King and I, and others). Moreover, later British supermusicals and modern American shows with lush orchestrations (The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical), Ragtime) often require more instruments than Bernstein's score calls for. Also, the fact that woodwind players double is not worth mentioning--such is common in musical theatre orchestras, nor is the makeup of the orchestra (although it may be the first musical score that called for an electric guitar, but that needs verification). I'm just mentioning all this so no one complains when I cut all of that out in a few weeks. Comments are welcome.--Cassmus 03:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Some later musicals are scored for more instruments, but many productions can make due with fewer. WSS was unusual in requiring three percussionists when one was the norm at the time, and four cellists in "Somewhere". A brief mention is appropriate.Thomprod 20:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the original play orchestral makeup but the film's orchestra included a vibraphone (or marimba) trio in the opening scene. That was remarkable for its (or any) time. -- Dcrasno (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference cited for the orchestration [38] makes no mention of the actual orchestration and only serves to emphasize someone who has played the music before. Citation [56] would be a better match for making this claim. I also find it hard to believe that the string section would exclude violas. -- Daviwrng (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed reference 38 from this section. It was added to this point in the article at a later date and does not belong here. It still belongs in the 2009 Revival section where it mentions trimming the orchestration down for that production. --Thomprod (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there were no violas. From page 90 of the book "Leonard Bernstein, West Side Story" By Nigel Simeone: "He (Bernstein) asked us (Ramin and Kostal, the orchestrators) if we could hear the violists. We said no. At our next meeting, Lenny asked us how we felt about eliminating the violas from the orchestra...and we readily agreed to a two-part string section, celli and violins..." --Thomprod (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The following was copied from User talk:Ssilvers, since he replied to it below:

Greetings. I just noticed that you removed the Orchestration section last month [1] with the summary "Rm excess spaces and some trivia". I spent a lot of time researching, correcting, expanding and adding references to this section back in March 2015 and as such, I don't consider it "trivia". Information on the unusually large (for that time) orchestration for this musical has been part of the article for many years, but was unsourced and misleading prior to my edits in March. I would like to restore this information, unless you have a compelling reason for its removal. --Thomprod (talk) 9:03 am, 26 January 2016, last Tuesday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)

User:Thomprod, I agree with User:Cassmus's original comment above that the orchestration here is not unusual for large-scale musicals. You replied that "WSS was unusual in requiring three percussionists when one was the norm at the time, and four cellists in 'Somewhere'. A brief mention is appropriate". I agree that if you have a good source stating that this is unusual, you could mention it briefly in the music section. But I feel very strongly that it would be absolutely wrong and unencyclopedic to include a list of instruments in a separate section in articles about musicals, unless the orchestration calls for a very small number of instruments, such as in The Fantasticks, where only a piano and harp are used, or where there is, say, a five-piece rock band, in which case it would not take up much space to list the instruments used. Even so, it should not be a subsection with a bulleted list, but just a sentence in the music section. If a show has an otherwise unusual orchestration, a brief sentence noting what is unusual should be included, with a WP:RS stating why it is unusual. I'm sorry that you went to trouble to create a section, but if you had looked at the Talk page here, you would have seen that other editors object to such a thing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

1. The information should not have been removed without a note on the talk page: One of our guidelines states that "If information seems unnecessary to you, please transfer it to the talk page to see if another editor can rescue it by rewriting/improving/referencing it and putting it where it belongs in the article ... You still should note on the talk page when you delete a significant amount of information so others can review your edit and make sure they agree."

2. A musicals article section on Orchestration is not without precedent, especially when giving details and comparing the instruments used in the original Broadway production with a more recent or reduced orchestration, such as in Wicked (musical)#Orchestration.

3. I want to respond to four points in your remarks above: "if you had looked at the Talk page here": I have looked at the talk page and added to it previously in 2007 and 2011.

4. "I'm sorry you went to trouble to create a section": I did not create the Orchestration section. I corrected existing erroneous information that gave the wrong number of players and clarified the differences between the original and the reduced orchestration currently available for amateur productions.

5. "other editors object to such a thing": The only editor who has objected on this talk page was User:Cassmus and that was eight years ago.

6. "I feel very strongly that it would be absolutely wrong and unencyclopedic to include a list of instruments in a separate section in articles about musicals": Again, I did not create the section. My most recent edits in March 2015 corrected and clarified a section that was added to the article well before 2010. If you objected to the section, why did you not remove it until December 2015 and then without following guidelines? I fail to see the wisdom of deleting detailed, well-sourced and wikilinked information from a section on Orchestration in a musicals article. --Thomprod (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that I misunderstood the sequence of events. Let's take a step back to 2011.

• Based on the old discussions above, and for the reasons I recently mentioned above, I had greatly trimmed the orchestration details in August 2011. I had been working on the article off and on since 2007.
• I seem to have de-watched the article around November 2011, so I did not see that IPs and other users started re-adding extensive orchestration information by the end of December 2011. You added more to this in March 2015.
• I returned to the article in December 2015 having followed this edit that I noticed was made by the prolific and excellent contributor BrownHairedGirl. Her edit raised my eyebrow because it appeared to be about something that was clearly trivial with respect to a musical theatre article. Taking a quick look at the article, I saw that lots of cruft and bad formatting had crept into the article since I last saw it, and so I trimmed material that is not of encyclopedic interest, including the overwritten orchestration information, as discussed above, tightened up some formatting, and removed lots of non-notable, crufty information from the productions sections. All of these changes are in line with the Article structure guidance at the WP:MUSICALS project and my extensive experience with musical theatre articles on Wikipedia.

I have been working on musical theatre articles in Wikipedia since 2006, making tens of thousands of edits on American musical theatre articles. I have contributed heavily to many of the ones that have been promoted to Featured Article class and GA class, and so I was involved in the FAC discussions about what people felt was appropriate and not appropriate in musical theatre articles, and therefore I can assure you that the sort of orchestration information that I deleted from this article is *not* customary in better-quality Wikipedia articles. BTW, Wicked (musical) is an overwritten article that contains lots of fancruft (see, e.g., its largely unreferenced "Cast distinctions" section). It is of no encyclopedic interest to set forth the differences between the Broadway and touring orchestras, as such a reduction for a touring orchestra is nearly always the case. A discussion of that fact, however, would be of interest in the pit orchestra article. As I noted above, extensive information about orchestration is generally not appropriate in an encyclopedia article for general readers about a musical, except in select cases, when we should explain why the orchestration is significantly different from what is already described in our article on pit orchestras. It would not be consistent with the spirit of WP:BALANCE and WP:UNDUE to add such details, which are basically a recitation of what is in a standard full-size pit orchestra. What would be of much more interest to readers is, again, a brief description of what is unusual about this orchestration. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree that it seems redundant and unencyclopedic to include a huge section on orchestration or "instrumentation"; in my mind it raises the red flag WP:BALANCE and just bogs down the article with technical detail. I do think a list of the number of instruments to be out of kilter with an encyclopaedic overview, but agree that if a musical has a unusual orchestration, or there is something of unusual interest about the orchestration history then it should be noted. Having said that, providing a list of the instruments doesn't actually help anyone! If, as has been mentioned here, WSS is unusual in some aspects of the orchestration, it would be far better to have a couple of lines saying that, and saying just how it differed, than the full orchestra list (which supposes too much knowledge of orchestras from the reader). – SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur that sedulously listing (let alone bullet-pointing) conventional instrumentation is rather a waste of our readers' time. It is right to mention major deviations such as described above, when e.g. triple percussion is specified in the score. Curiously, perhaps, listing the instruments seems to be normal in articles on orchestral works but not for those on musical stage works, whether they be operas, operettas, musicals or revues. A norm has clearly been established, and I'd be hesitant about going too blatantly against it without discussion at the relevant project talk page. – Tim riley talk 11:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Subsequent production in Queens, NY

Hello. In this encyclopedia, when listing subsequent productions of a musical, we normally list long-running productions in major houses. A musical like West Side Story receives numerous productions every year, including by major regional theatres and international productions, as well as revivals in major markets like Broadway and the West End. So a short-running production in a restored factory in Queens, NY should not normally be listed in a musical theatre article in Wikipedia. The fact that the recent production featured a large number of high school students is fun, but not encyclopedic. The fact that it was, in part, financed by Carnegie Hall certainly does not make it encyclopedic. Indeed, any description of the production would have to be careful to explain that the production was *not* given in Carnegie Hall. See also WP:RECENTISM. If you disagree, you need to establish a WP:CONSENSUS on the Talk page. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, does notable cast, director, musical director help determine the show was notable?

• Tony: Skylar Astin (Broadway: Spring Awakening and movie: Pitch Perfect).
• Anita: Bianca Marroquín (Broadway: Chicago musical, In The Heights).
• Musical Director and Conductor: Marin Alsop music director of the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra and protégé of Leonard Bernstein.
• Choregorapher: Sean Cheesman credits include So You Think You Can Dance (United_States)

Thanks, -- Ericpearl (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it helps, as does the fact that it got quite a bit of press coverage because of the teen participation, but the two huge problems with this production are that there were only a few performances at a totally non-prestigious venue without a set. Also, none of these blue-linked people are really big stars, although Alsop is fairly well-known. If it were, y'know, Selina Gomez as Maria, Justin Bieber as Tony and Lin-Manuel Miranda directing, or if the production were broadcast on a major TV network, that would push it closer to the bar. I always ask myself: In 20 years, will this production be considered one of the 2 or 3 most interesting West Side Story productions of this decade anywhere in the world? If not, it shouldn't be listed. Anyhow, wait a few days and see if other Wikipedians join this discussion with their opinions. See WP:CONSENSUS for more information. Below I list just a few of the professional productions from this season that we do not have space to mention. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• 5-week long regional production at the Paramount Theatre (Aurora, Illinois).
• Regional production at the Ordway Center for the Performing Arts.
• Israeli production at the Cameri Theater in Tel Aviv.
• 7-week regional production at the Signature Theatre (Arlington, Virginia). -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ssilvers: we just can't list each and every production, even if it is with someone "part-famous". There doesn't appear to,have been anything particularly notable about the run either (a re-imagining, a radical interpretation, etc), so it doesn't tick that box either. – – SchroCat (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it’s important not to overload an article with details of this and that revival. I hadn’t thought of the rule of thumb Ssilvers suggests, above, but it seems to me a wise and practical one. Will the revival in question be among the ones seen as important in years to come? Almost certainly not, I think, and therefore it is best omitted. I am, as it happens, a huge admirer of Marin Alsop and I bet she conducted the work superbly, but that doesn’t mean that this revival will be seen as one of the most important ones when people come to look at the article over the years. Tim riley talk 07:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Huge amount of info removed now

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd never remove this much information, which has been there for a long time, from any article without mentioning here that I was doing so. Maybe asking if it was OK to do so? Am I way off base? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Gilabrand removed too much. That's why I put almost half of it back in with this edit. But Gilabrand was right to remove the references to individual songs. If those items are of encyclopedic value, they can go in the articles about the songs. The section remains greatly under-referenced, so if anyone wants to help out, the most useful thing to do now, IMO, would be to research sources for the unreferenced assertions. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Plot: Was Anita nearly raped?

• I may be wrong but I was under the impression that the Jets did more than just taunt Anita, I thought they almost raped her and was stopped by Doc. Am I incorrect? GracieLizzie 16:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• You are correct. It is mentioned in the 2004 Broadway special on PBS. User:Fame live4ever

• Since I was under the impression that she was nearly raped...why does the page say that she was? I edited it, and ClueBot shot me down. Should I report it as false positive and re-edit it in? Chinesedude4 (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

she was raped — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.3.105 (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on West Side Story. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090508055902/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/128922.html to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/128922.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080504052448/http://www.tectum-verlag.de/9783828811416.html to http://www.tectum-verlag.de/9783828811416.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

"Anybodys" or "Anybody's"

What is the name of the tomboy character who's a member of the Jets? "Anybody's" of course would make more sense, but it certainly seems to be "Anybodys" - I found reliable sources here, here (the official novelization) and here (the official website). Right now the article has it as "Anybody's", but that seems to be in error. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The published vocal score has "Anybodys" (without the apostrophe), and I changed it [2] in 2014 and again [3] last September. --Thomprod (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Thomprod. Korny, please note that when you make a change in an article, you need to change it everywhere in the article, not just in some instances. Also, please show your sources, either in the article, in the edit summary or on the Talk page. This will help the regular editors who try to maintain the article against vandals and poor edits to fend off bad changes, like the ones that reversed Thomprod's edits. BTW, the score is obviously definitive, but unfortunately it is not online, so it does not give editors an online reference that we can use to check things. The novelization is not definitive, as changes from the stage musical's script might have crept in, and the film script is definitely not helpful, as there are some differences between the film and the stage musical. Note that the character names in this article have been changed repeatedly, so, User:Thomprod, would you please add the most definitive online source to the Characters section? Articles like this one, where the musical and film versions are slightly different, are especially hard to maintain, so I would love it if you would keep this on your watchlist! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I partook in a discussion about this back in the 70s with people there who knew the originator's intention: not to pass the character off as anybody's slut but as belonging to a group of anybodys, i.e sexually undefined. I'm glad our article has it right. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Also re character Diesel

Note: The Internet Broadway Database is reliable, because the information comes from the Broadway Playbills. I note that the West Side Story IBDB entry does not mention that Diesel is 2nd in command of the Jets, it gives Mouth Piece as two words and Gladhand as one word. Does the score differ? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The 1979 Schirmer piano reduction score shows "Mouthpiece", "Anybodys", and "Glad Hand", all consistent with the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

[4] shows "Anybodys" and "Glad Hand". [5] shows "Anybodys". [6] shows "Glad Hand" and "Mouthpiece" but has the apostrophe in "Anybody's". I'm not sure if any of these would be called "reliable" sources. --Thomprod (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Does anything support our article's statement that Diesel is is 2nd in command of the Jets? If not, I think we should remove the statement. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of relevant photo

Mattsson and Mohombi in the 2002 adaptation

It's a bit hard to understand the removal if this photo, even with my admitted COI and even with the helpful project the user has embarked upon to clean up what he feels are my COI additions. The photo illustrates the text and is very rare (and free) as it shows the only two performers ever in that show to attract considerable notice internationally. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the image. It is not even from a production of West Side Story; it is from a single production of a parody adaptation of the show that is mentioned in the article only because it was long-running in other places. The image can go on the actors' own pages. Taking a look at what you did, now, I can't even see a ref that states that they even appeared in the adaptation, so you should add a specific ref to the actors' pages concerning their roles in the production. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! The reference to this show has been in other online bios about them since they were discovered years ago, info which I have not been able to see, in every case, as derivative of WP's info. Since I have met both of these people, albeit years ago, would you kindly consider adding this under Mohombi's and this under Mattsson's article? When I met them they were both proud to have had worked for Lars Jacob (who took the photo) in two of his cabarets, but it's recently been determined once and for all that I know him too well to edit articles like these 2 anymore. I believe you and I have cooperated in cleaning a few things up before, that's why I'm applying a bit of the spirit of WP:BOLD to this request of mine. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Who says you can't edit these two actors' articles, if your only connection is that you met them and know someone who directed them? I'm happy to help out, but I'm not going to read through these refs to see what parts of them would be useful in the actors' bios. I suppose that if you send me the proposed changes and refs, I can review them and add them for you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Although the edit by User:Domdeparis had a smell of WP:POINT about it, I agree that the picture was inappropriate for this article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Productions section

West Side Story is an extremely popular musical, which is produced many times every year in productions around the world. In the article, in accordance with WP:MUSICALS article structure guidelines and WP:BALASP, we report only the most noteworthy professional productions. These include those that are long-running, in major venues or national tours, with notable directors and notable cast members. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll second Ssilvers, and add that as a general rule of thumb for such sections it is a good idea to demonstrate "noteworthyness" (i.e. due weight) with citations. That is, citations for such additions should not simply verify their assertions, but also demonstrate that the production in question rises to a certain level of notability. As an example, if the production is included in a survey of productions (anything from a popular press "10 best productions of…" to a scholarly monograph or critical edition of the musical). Personally I recommend tagging all additions lacking such a citation with {{cn|reason=Does not demonstrate notability for inclusion.}} and ruthlessly removing them if no such citation is forthcoming (even if there are cites that merely verify the information). --Xover (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that only notable productions should be listed in "International productions". I disagree that the two Australian productions in 2019, which User:Ssilvers removed, do not fall into that category. For a start, having one company, Opera Australia, mount two productions in one year is unusual and notable. Second, Joey McKneely and Francesca Zambello are notable directors of notable productions, and there is significant coverage about it in Oz. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

You need show that each production listed was a long-running production with a notable director and a cast in which most of the leads were notable persons. Again, there have been thousands of professional theatre and opera companies and touring companies that have played this musical. It would be unencyclopedic to try to list even a small percentage of those. Compare to how we treat the musicals Hair, or Oklahoma!, South Pacific (musical) or The King and I, which are other very popular musicals, the last two of which are FA articles. You can say that West Side Story has been produced in x number of countries, if you have a cite for that, but the fact that an opera company mounted two short-lived productions in rapid succession is not of encyclopedic importance here. Even a production by the Metropolitan Opera would be of doubtful encyclopedic interest unless it was televised or became part of their standard repertoire. By the way, the question of whether to include content in an article is not whether it is "notable", but whether it is "noteworthy" in the context of the article. These events may be noteworthy in the context of Opera Australia's article, or and actor's article, but not West Side Story's article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Nürnberg and Vienna

User:Reluctantexan wrote, "Staatstheater Nürnberg staged the German language premiere in Germany on October 24, 1972 in a German translation by Marcel Prawy directed by Wolfgang Weber, starring Barry Hanner as Tony and Glenda Glayzer as Maria. Concurrently, Vienna Volksoper staged its own production. The Nürnberg production continued for over a year." The Nürnberg would seem noteworthy. Please cite your [[WP:|sources]] to satisy WP:V. However, the 2019 production is not noteworthy, unless it has a mostly notable cast and is long-running in a large theatre. If it is still running next year, we can revisit it then. It is not clear whether the Vienna Volksoper production is noteworthy. Was it a long-running production (say, at least 200 performances) by a mostly notable cast? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)