|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I want to clarify some of my thinking, as people have put in a lot of work and thought to this article, and I don't want anyone to think that I haven't been carefully reading--and appreciating-- the work.
- I've put back a sentence into the opening, to show the importance of this play--it just seems to fit, right up front. The trivia section does not read very well, it is just a collection of bits and pieces, I'd like to see the items integrated. I removed the sentence about amateur productions as being somewhat irrelevant. The item on being in a book is not very useful, Gypsy is in many many books.
- The sentence in trivia: "The role of Mamma Rose is seen as one of the biggest ever written for the stage." is certainly true, but perhaps can be expanded, or added onto the Frank Rich statement about "King Lear". As it stands, it is perhaps too self-evident, almost a little bit close to point-of-view.
- I've added some specific comments about the character of "Rose" to replace the more general statement noted above (in Trivia), and removed the sentence from Trivia.JeanColumbia 12:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- We use, variously, "Mama Rose", "Mamma Rose", and "Rose". I've even seen her referred to as "Madame Rose". I'm beginning to prefer just "Rose". She is listed that way in the playbill of the 2003 revival and on the Internet Broadway Database. Until someone gets a script, I'm in favor of "Rose".
- Today I looked at the printed script on Google books--it does not seem to refer to her by any other name but "Rose". However, enough critics (Walter Kerr, Frank Rich) do refer to her as "Mama Rose" so that I will not worry about this. JeanColumbia 12:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Using the heading "Patti Lupone Producton" really doesn't seem logical to me, unless we use, uniformly, the "Ethel Merman Production", etc. Probably some writers do that, in newspaper and magazine articles, but I've not seen that usage in Wikipedia for other plays that have revivals. (This has nothing to do with Ms. LuPone but rather terminology.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeanColumbia (talk • contribs) 00:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
Sorry I'm late to this talk page, but I agree with the conclusions that you came to. -- Ssilvers 03:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The Wikpedia article on trivia states: "This page in a nutshell: Lists of facts, as found in trivia sections, are better presented within the context of the text rather than in a section of unrelated items." reference: WP:TRIV. JeanColumbia 12:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. If the facts are of interest, they should go either in "background/history", "productions" or a "Cultural impact" section. -- Ssilvers 01:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Split musical and film articles
Both the musical and film are notable, I would think, and the film article ought to be split off of the musical article. Then the film project tag should be moved to the film article's talk page (also the "what links here" links pertaining to the film will need to be moved. -- Ssilvers 01:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, sounds good. Seems simple enough: 1)take the film and tv section out of this article and place it in the existing Gypsy film article 2) may need to make changes to the film article, for consistency, redundancies, etc 3) remove film stub from this article and place it in the film article 4) do the links.
- I'll have some time either Friday evening or Sunday and could try to do this, if no one else has the time. (Also probably a good idea to wait to see if anyone would like to discuss further.)JeanColumbia 02:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oops! Sorry, I didn't realize there was already a film article! I was fooled by the film project tag on this page. Once there is a separate film article, the project tag is supposed to come off. Sorry, I don't think there's anything to move over. I just slimmed down the info on the move a little bit. I don't mind keeping what's there now, as it reflects on the notability of the musical and its influence on other media. Feel free to do step 2) of your list above and check on 4, but supposedly 4 was already done when the film article moved over. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 03:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Now that I've embarrassed myself by not paying attention to the disambiguation notice, let me raise another issue. The article needs information about the genesis/background of the show's creation. But that'll have to wait for another day. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 03:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
→OK, film/tv/split resolved--I'll look again at the film article, but I think it's probably OKJeanColumbia 11:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I've often thought it would be good to have the quite interesting background of this play/musical in the article--but I just don't know how to write it. I have some of the reference books I think I need to refer to, and have read one or two others. I think I could do a first draft, perhaps Sunday or Monday, if no one else wants to. I need to re-read some material, perhaps get the Arthur Laurents book again.JeanColumbia 11:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Notes on "Background"
- I took a deep breath and wrote the "Background". I decided to keep it short, just showing, in effect, who wanted who, trying to show the influences between the principals. There's a wealth of material about rehearsals, out-of-town tryouts, etc, and if anyone wants that material, it could certainly be added. My main source is, as I referenced, the Zadan "Sondheim & Co."
→Feedback, discussion?JeanColumbia 14:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's very nicely done. There may be more to say that can be gleaned from other sources, but this is a good, brief explanation and adds a lot to the article. -- Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
As I write this (10:37am (EDT), April 22, the film and tv section has been moved to the very end of the article, after references, and external links. I suspect this was not meant to happen. Therefore, I am moving that section to immediately after "Stage Productions" (which is where the section has been).
Should anyone want this section to be at the very end of the article (after "references" and "external links"), your choice.JeanColumbia 14:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Turned out to be a minor edit situation, easily resolved (a code "</ref>" had been dropped somewhere along the line). Case closed.JeanColumbia 14:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think so (since I did it!). Those awards are important because they are sometimes the first award for the new performer, and I think a "first" is important. If you folks think they are not important, best to include that specifically in the Musical Theatre structure article (and then get one of the programming whizes to make a program to delete them from all of the articles they are in.) I shall not put any others in, but I will not remove them, awaiting the consensus. (Just occurred to me: 1) would you also question the listing of the Theatre World Award on an individual performers' article? 2) Would you delete the entire article on "Theatre World Award" as being not notable?) JeanColumbia (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Jean. As far as I can tell, only you, me and MusicMaker are really active in the project (although other editors have an interest in particular musicals). If you think these awards are important to a general reader of the encyclopedia, then I will rely on your excellent judgement. It just seemed to me that these award sections are rather long in relation to the length of most articles on musicals. Perhaps columnarization would help? BTW, if you think any changes ought to be made to the sturcture guidelines, please propose them on the Musicals project talk page. Since you are one of the most active editors in the project at present, your experience as to what ought to be included or excluded from our articles is very important, and I think that the structure guidelines would benefit from your advice. Best regards, and happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, Ssilvers--OK, let's leave Theatre World Awards in, at least for now, but I must admit I don't care for the look (and readability) of some of the long Awards/nominations sections. I don't have time right now, but shortly I'll try out some other formats--columns are good, probably the best I can think of off-hand. JeanColumbia (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it looks great - you're an html wiz! But I think it is harder to see, at a glance, who won and who was nominated. I can't tell, for the original productions, if all of those were wins or nominations. How about putting winners first in bold and then nominees in *not* bold, and then the footnote could clarify that winners are in bold and other nominees in not bold? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- This actually motivated me to create a more general format for all these large award sections popping up in articles. I've made a mockup here. Take a look and tell me what you think! (And yah, I know it's a little hard to read, that's been my biggest concern so far.) I used a massive example over there to see if it would work and it also is hard to read. But take a look, tell me what you think! --omtay38 22:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Mwah!! to Mr. Omtay38! Keep trying, looks very interesting so far. 1) I agree, it's a little hard to tell winners from nominees (personally I don't care much for footnotes, I like it to pop out); 2) can an ordinary mortal make or add to or alter one of these tables (for example, a semi-computer literate Medicare-eligible senior? No one get insulted, that's ME...)JeanColumbia (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- How about a pre-note? (if i put the note at the top of the table instead of the bottom). As for the ease of formatting, I'm hoping to figure that one out after we get a nice, visually pleasing, format down. If all goes as planned, it should be as easy to ad as any normal infobox. It should.... :-) --omtay38 22:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
2008 production cast; WP:CRYSTAL
I think it's premature to add the 2008 cast to the table, because one or more of them could get sick prior to the opening, the revival itself could get cancelled, and a whole host of things could go wrong. Look at what just happened with Lone Star Love. Just my opinion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm laughing here--Lone Star Love! I don't think it's premature, they are selling tickets as of yesterday. I can imagine many things that could go wrong in life, but this not going on with Patti/Arthur is not one of them (a bit of a joke). However, I don't care, will defer to anyone on this. (At least I got practice in adding to the chart--not something I'm good at.) JeanColumbia (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I reverted (twice) the edits to this song list, on 4/23 & 24/08. The newly added edits seemed to be in non-standard format (using ... instead of "—"), added odd characters, and showing "MONTAGE" (that may be on stage but is not part of the song list); adding reprises, etc. I prefer to stay with a reliable source WP:RS (IBDB) (which is WP:VERIFY). This is a well-established song list, I cannot see any reason to think it would change! JeanColumbia (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I've looked at the IBDB listing for the songs for the 2008 revival and compared with the last few revivals; of course I am wrong, this "well-established song list" ((my words) did indeed change. I've added the changes as notes to the song list. JeanColumbia (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Analysis; critical response
There was too much analysis of Rose in the Lead, so I moved it down. Eventually, there should be a Critical response section and an analysis section that describes the reviews and gives more analysis of the show and its characters. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good, I wanted to move it but I couldn't figure out where to put it. (The Frank Rich article I referenced (from May 2003) gives a nice analysis of the show, for future reference. I also find the Martin Gottfried description and analysis in his book "Sondheim" useful.) By the way, when the Tonys are announced next week, will someone be willing to add the "2008 Revival" award nominations to the Award table?JeanColumbia (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
To answer the question (is this the 1st production in London--1973) more fully. I use as basic references these books: Craig Zadan, "Sondheim & Company", 2nd Edition, 1986; Martin Gottfried, "Sondheim", 1993, 2000; Merle Secrest, "Stephen Sondheim, A Life", 1998, and . Both the web site (sondheimguide.com), the Zadan (pp. 53-54) and Secrest (p. 140) confirm that the 1973 production was the first production in London. I don't see any mention of any other productions in the Gottfried. I think that is sufficient per WP:VERIFY. JeanColumbia (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree - sorry, I asked too quickly, as my google search confirmed that this was the "long awaited" first production in London. The reviews at Amazon for the cast album are funny, if you want a chuckle. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Does this information suggest to you that we should say something about recordings of songs from Gypsy?: http://www.sondheimguide.com/gypsyrec.html#Songs Sometimes we say something like "Songs of [x musical] have been covered frequently, most notably by [x performer/band] and in [x film/TV show, etc]." -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is what Frank Rick wrote--and Sondheim said-- about the ending:
- "Yet the end of Gypsy is not entirely bleak. "Louise comes out a star and forgives her mother," Mr. Sondheim says. "There is hope for her. Rose does confront who she is in 'Rose's Turn.' There is a catharsis. It's not Rodgers and Hammerstein, but you feel maybe the mother and daughter will come to an understanding and maybe triumph over Rose's craziness and Louise's bitterness." Reference: New York Times article written by Frank Rich, May 4, 2003: . I think this refutes the recent statement (that I deleted) ("...although the show ends with Louise walking away laughing at Rose").JeanColumbia (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)