Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre

WikiProject Musical Theatre

Main Talk Page

Some issues in List of musicals: A to L

Hi all. I am taking on the task of referencing this list and as I do so I am coming up against several issues. The most problematic issue is the venue/type section where I have caught both inconsistencies and errors. Most of the errors stem from shows where the Broadway production was not the original stage production and sometimes happened a year or two after the stage musical premiered in a city other than New York. In such cases the show is mislabeled as dating from a later date than what happened in reality or the Broadway show is listed as occurring in an earlier year than when it actually reached the New York stage. There are other issues involving the identification of a medium of the work, and occassionally the duplication of works that got revised and staged under a new name but are essentially the same musical.

All of this to say, I'd like to propose some alterations to the list structure to prevent errors. I would like to retitle the venue/type to medium where the choices would be: stage, television, or film musical. There might be the further choice of "album" or "concept album" if it was a musical that never made it past a recorded work which has happened a few times, or in the case of a show like Evita where the premiere was really a studio recording of the work rather than a staged production. I would then like to add the column: premiere where the date and place of the original stage productions can be given, or the date of a television or film's release can be placed. We could then do one of two things. The first option would be to create a "Major productions" column to cover Broadway, West End, productions after a premiere, or we could simply relegate all of that to the existing "notes" section.

I think these changes would make for a more informative and accurate list. Thoughts?4meter4 (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no definitive answer. But if the show had a short-running tryout, or series of short-running tryouts prior to a successful Broadway or WE run, then I think the premiere production is the Broadway or WE production, and the tryout is essentially a footnote. Note that "premiere" is a nearly meaningless term, as media use it indiscriminately to refer to even revivals in new places. If, on the other hand, the show had a major, or long-running off-Broadway, regional or off-WE production, like Hair or Little Shop of Horrors, then that production was the premiere. If the show had a major concept album, like Evita but then went on to a successful stage production, then the concept album was not the premiere of the musical, but a separate adaptation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I personally think the first performance should be catalogued for all works; because that is how works should be dated. If a show premiered in June 1903 but didn't reach Broadway until March 1904 then it is a 1903 musical and not a 1904 one. It's not unusual for musicals to have premiered in a city like Chicago long before they reached Broadway, or for shows to tour before they reach New York (particularly shows pre-1940). I can't tell you how many Broadway shows I've come across in theatre reference works which date shows to their Broadway production; only to find that they premiered a year or two years earlier in another city and toured widely before they reached the New York stage; some of them having longer runs in the Windy City and on tour then the New York production. Likewise, many shows in the late 19th and early 20th century had stops on Broadway on tours; a fact that often gets overlooked when cataloguing shows with short runs. Writers on these works fail to recognize the "road musical" that came into New York not for a lengthy stay but as part of a national tour; which is why they only played Broadway for one or two weeks. A good example of this would be The Floor Walkers (1899) which is erroneously dated to the brief Broadway stop in 1900 in most sources. There are many musicals of this type. I get that tryouts often involve making major revisions to shows, but I don't think we should ignore the first performance of a work for the purposes of dating that stage work to an accurate year. Cataloging the first performance is a much more accurate, objective, and encyclopedic approach to dating stage works. It's also what we do at WP:WikiProject Opera.4meter4 (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Musicals and plays should NOT be dated!! I strongly object to calling a show a 1903 musical. It may be *written* in 1900, *published* in 1901, have a reading or workshop in 1902, have a one-night performance for a special event later in 1902, a one week tryout in a small theatre in 1903 and a West End production beginning in 1904. Musicals should be identifed by composer/lyricist/book writer, not by year. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Ssilvers The article already dates all of the works with a year in parenthesis; often incorrectly as explained above. I want to remove that parenthesis and replace it with a premiere performance column and better details on the major productions. I don't see how listing the performance premiere in a column designated to listing the first performance is doing something that is hurting the list; nor is it slapping an over-simplified label in the manner in which you just claimed above. All it's doing is giving the first date a work was performed and the name of the city and theatre where it happened. That is improving our understanding of the work in context, and it more accurately represents when a work began its performance history. We could also include a publication date column to provide details on published scores/libretti, and provide any other details in the notes section such as to say when it was created. There's a lot of ways to approach this; none of which simplify the presentation of the works into a single dated parenthesis which is the current practice that I am objecting to. I personally would prefer if we also listed the Broadway and West End premiere dates as well with the names of the theaters.4meter4 (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, but I would state in the Notes column \when/wnere the first major-market production opened, if any, and the original production should be defined as a fully-staged professional production of the full work before a paying public, not a workshop, concept album, theatre festival performance or backers' performance (those things could be described in the article itself, but they are not original productions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

First Lesbian Protagonist?

Can anyone comment here, please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fun_Home_(musical)#Error_re:_first_Broadway_musical_to_feature_a_lesbian_protagonist -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:The Red Moon (Johnson and Cole)#Stage work; Musical v.s. Operetta

Hi all. I would appreciate some input at this discussion. FloridaArmy was wanting to describe the work as a musical comedy, but I am advocating for the more generic term "stage work" based on discrepancies among published literature. Per WP:NPOV, I have now documented a neutral presentation of the discrepancy in the article itself in The Red Moon (Johnson and Cole)#Operetta or musical?. I tried to be as balanced and neutral on this issue as possible and provide an overview across a wide range of sources. All opinions are welcome. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

A confusion of Monte Cristos

Hi all. I just knocked off a stub on the Sigmund Romberg, Jean Schwartz, and Harold Atteridge musical Monte Cristo, Jr.. That page had previously been a redirect to the Victorian burlesque Monte Cristo Jr.. All that separates them in terms of name is a comma in the title. The chance for confusion here is pretty high. We probably need to check the in-coming links at both pages to make sure they are going to the correct stage work. Additionally, is this enough disambiguation between the two pages? Thoughts Jack1956 and Ssilvers?4meter4 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I guess the hatnote covers it. I also added something here: Monte Cristo#Film, television and theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songwriters on Parade

I would appreciate some input here. All opinions welcome.4meter4 (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Casting Table Formatting

Hello. I have done some formatting to casting tables on numerous musical pages for both Broadway and West End. The way I reformatted it was to add an extra row for the year it premiered. The reasoning behind this was becuase there could be another production that opens in the same year as the previous and those cells could be merged. I also cleaned up the titles on the headings (ex. change "2021 Broadway to just Broadway and place the year below it, or change "Broadway revival" to "First Broadway Revival") Some examples of the work I have done include Hair and Back to The Future. Is this style of formatting ok? I was just trying to make the tables neater and organized. I personally do not see an issue here but if other people do not agree with this style, I will undo the edits. I do apologize for not coming here beforehand. Smitty1999 (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I oppose these changes. They make the already bloated casting tables bigger and longer. Why have 2 rows for a 2021 Broadway production instead of just one? There are not going to be two Broadway productions of a musical in the same year. And why do we need to number the revivals in the headings? Who cares if it's the 6th West End revival or the 7th? If we just say Broadway revival (2020), that is crystal clear. I would appreciate if others would weigh in here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I can compromise on the "number" titles for revivals, but I still think the extra row for the year the production premiered is still necessary. Let's say a production opens in the West End or Broadway and then a subsequent production, say a tour or transfer happen in the same year, then the cells the year is on can be merged so that they are not repetitive. Look at Sweeney Todd for example, the West End Production and the First US National Tour opened in the same year. If we remove the number titles, the table headings might not look as bloated. Smitty1999 (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)