Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allegro (musical)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 16:55, 8 February 2011 [1].

---

Allegro (musical)

Allegro (musical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Allegro (musical)/archive1

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...I believe it meets the criteria. Allegro was one of the most eagerly awaited Broadway musicals ever, and it just could not live up to expectations and closed after exhausting its advance sale and a bit more. Perhaps ahead of its time, perhaps fatally flawed because of a poor plot? The third and final installment in my Rodgers and Hammerstein trilogy, I now leave it for others to follow in the path. Hope you enjoy it. Sorry, almost no images possible here, I'm afraid. Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Image check All three look good. Album cover has detailed fair-use rational and the two photos were cropped from a single PD Library of Congress image.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately almost no images are possible. I'm getting ahold of a cast sheet from the US tour, hopefully there is no copyright notice on it and I can upload it as published without the formalities before 1978.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"...no images are possible." Are you suggesting that you may not be able to use the pictures of Hammerstein and Rodgers? The cast sheet would be a nice addition.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No other images, I should have said.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The new program image is good as well. Cited with proper permission.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs, the metoperafamily link is redirecting to a home page, and 3 links are redirecting to a different url- see them with the tool in the upper right corner of this page. --PresN 22:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Those problems have been addressed now.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments: Here are a few initial comments on some small issues; hopefully I can finish a review this evening. I also made a couple of minor copyedits. In the "Inception" section:

* This is a matter of preference, but I often find hyphenated phrases like "Rodgers and Hammerstein-produced" to be a bit awkward. "Rodgers and Hammerstein" is already specified (and linked) in the lead; since the previous part of this sentence mentions "the duo", could the "Rodgers and Hammerstein-produced" part simply be omitted?

Yes, it was there more or less to allow me to link "Rodgers and Hammerstein", but I agree, it is awkward.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

* In the last sentence of the first paragraph, should the em-dash betweeen "established" and "the struggle" be a colon instead?

* In the second paragraph, should "often called a Greek Chorus" be parenthetical? Also, "Greek Chorus" is already linked in the lead.

* In the third paragraph, the phrase "taking ship" might not be clear to some readers, but it might not be an issue.

More to come. Great article! Omnedon (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the rest of my review. I've done a few more edits to the article that mainly involved some semicolon and comma issues. I also made a couple of reference edits where spaces were missing, et cetera. If you disagree with them just let me know.

Rehearsals and tryouts:

* 'The disasters of the New Haven opener concluded during "Come Home", near the end, the quiet urgings of the chorus and Joe's mother to entice him to return to his small town.' I believe I know what this is trying to say. Presumably "Come Home" is a song near the end of the play, and during the song the chorus and Joe's mother entice him. Could that be reworded somehow?

I've added that it was a song. Here you see the pitfalls of working with a musical unfamiliar to most, alas.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

* I believe the MOS suggests avoiding links in quotations, such as the "Billy Rose" link in the Sondheim quote.

That is true. It is a guideline. My rule of thumb is to avoid links in quotations unless I will be leaving the reader at a loss. I doubt many people today know who Billy Rose was, and without a link, the reader will be very confused. I think the link is justified.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it probably is justified. Omnedon (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis:

* In Act 1, '("Joseph Taylor, Jr.")' is a song title, but on my first reading I didn't realize that and wasn't sure why his name was re-stated; that was compounded for me, I guess, by the fact that the song has the character's name. When song titles are provided, could this be indicated somehow?

Would it help if I bolded the song titles? Italics are frowned upon but I think bolding would not draw comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's best to do here. Bolding wouldn't, by itself, convey the idea that these are song titles, and some might object on MOS grounds (though perhaps not). Could the first occurrence be described, like '(in the song "Joseph Taylor, Jr.")', or something along those lines? That would establish the idea that these are song titles and might not have to be repeated on the rest. Just a thought, though. Omnedon (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've labeled "Joseph Taylor, Jr." as a musical number, in the hopes that the reader will take it for granted that anything in quotes and parens in the plot summary section is a musical number.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that works. Omnedon (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

* In the second sentence, I feel 'the sounds "ipecac" which signal disagreeable medicine' may need rewording. Presumably this refers to the way the word "ipecac" sounds, in which case it should be "sound" and "signals". Is that right?

Yes, but I'm making a fine distinction there. Joe is not yet aware that "ipecac" is a word. He simply associates the sounds with what follows, a spoon full of medicine. I'll play around with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

* In Act 2, I understand that "kicked upstairs" means he was promoted (with certain connotations), but some may not.

It's actually a direct quotation, how Digby himself describes it. There has apparently been a power struggle at the hospital. Lonsdale has won and Digby has not. I'll play with that one too. Allow me a bit of time, I need my copy of Allegro in front of me.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the rewording here. Omnedon (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath:

* In the third paragraph, I see "A decade after Allegro's premiere, after learning of his fatal cancer, Hammerstein turned to the musical,..." Should that be "returned to the musical"?

I think it works either way. I like yours better, on consideration.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

References:

* I believe the MOS calls for citations like "Mordden, p. 98" to end with a period. These don't, so perhaps there is an alternate style of which I'm unaware.

I don't know, actually. I just adopted the referencing style already in the article. Let me sleep on it. I don't mind adding a bunch of periods but I want to consult MOS first.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

* In reference 30, the title starts with a capital "I" which I presume is an error, and the rest doesn't seem to match what's on the referenced web page.

On this reference, just after "Gans, Andrew.", there is a capital letter I. Not sure if that's an error or if it conveys something somehow. Omnedon (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I overlooked this! The I was probably from a random word that was deleted or something, in any case it is now gone.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

* The several web references don't seem to have an entirely consistent format when it comes to periods and commas. Aside from these relatively minor issues, I think it looks good. In general the article seems to flow well, and I found it an interesting read. Omnedon (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the positive comments; I will hopefully fix them tomorrow. I am addressing several points by comments directly under there.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Support: This is a comprehensive and well-written article, and I believe it now merits featured article status. Omnedon (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources look good (I now know who John Kenrick), spotchecking OK. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Me too. Well, by the time you get to the conclusion of the trilogy, you ought to know the players! Incidentally, I just got a four-page programme from a performance of Allegro in 1948, published without copyright notice, of course. No images. I will upload it next week. I am hopelessly backed up with real and wiki work.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Support (TCO) I had never heard of the play before, but enjoyed the article and learned easily from it. Please take my comments as suggestions, even if phrased as orders. This may end up being kind of a long crit, sorry! Just print it and then power-skim it, go past all the excess rationales for crits, while tracking your article.

Topic is a worthy one in terms of the connect to R&H who are extremely notable (everyone has seen Oklahoma! on TV) although Allegro seems to have been one of their duds. Not a huge traffic article (80 hits per day), but good thing to be shore-ing us up where we are touted as weak (older stuff).

I got readily drawn into the two article narratives of the plot and the production. Joe's struggle between integrity and advancement (who hasn't felt that?) and then R&H's effort (and failure) to be a little bit more serious and do something like Arrowsmith (novel).

Things I liked:

• Word choice was skilfully adult. But very easy to read. Not "hard". Not pretentious or misusing words. And not a bunch of specialized words blue-linked, making me feel like I have to read 20 other articles to understand this one.
• Very nice flow of logic and organization within paragraphs and then the paragraphs within sections. Totally pulled me along. Generally good organization of the sections, although I have a couple questions.
• Obviously you're great writer. Know grammar. Know prose.

I am a very specialized writer in an very niche field!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Some places where I got the impression coming through that you had a good overall understanding of R&H and could put this work in context of that. Also of Broadway in general. Helpful to the reader!

I could give the reader some of the background I did in Carousel about R&H?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No. It's perfect as is. The benefit of doing multiple articles in a topic comes through in little ways. R&H are well notable and have articles.TCO (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

High level improvement suggestion: Some of the sentences seemed too complicated and paragraphs seemed too long. For places where there is a lot of information to keep track of (names of characters, names of songs), would try to do less of the whole stitching lotsa clauses and phrases together. And definitely less parentheticals and asides. It's just that if the material is a little harder to grasp because of type or amount of content, then shifting to a simpler style can help reader who is pushing through. Place where this is most a concern is in the plot summary.

I'll read through and do some separating.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead:

• Very engaging lead. Not a messy glom of too many factoids. Good selection (in general).
• Like that you did NOT give a cast list here as the cast really didn't play an important role in the threads of the article (inherent plot of story OR "R&H's bomb").

Exactly. As noted below, they were unknowns, which was standard for R&H before Ezio Pinza and Mary Martin in South Pacific--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Add de Mille. She is a big part of your article. A big part of the story. She may have been a bitch, but she was right on her criticism of the R&H story and she got congratulated on the management of the complicated actor movements.

On consideration, I think the Sondheim quote leaves it a little too POV so I will add something more positive on her.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind if the portrait is negative or mixed, just thing she's discussed at length and it's interesting.TCO (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(more thoughts, no biggies): might put her in the Infobox as well. When looking at the program, her name is below the other two, sure, but still at same level of prominence in the type. I am fine with leaving the cast off, from the box (don't care either way on them). Also later down, you have choreagrapher and de Mille both blue-linked. I try to avoid putting two blue-linked terms next to each other as ambiguous if whole phrase is a link or two items. Not sure if there is a convenient re-word. Guess you could de-link choreagropher, but maybe it is an important word to link. Would not mess the sentence up to much if it's hard to separate the words.TCO (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• "birth to 35" feels a little akward here in lead, but is OK later. Maybe the number staring at me. Also made me wonder if he dies later, or if there is a sequel or what. Maybe "first half of a man's life" or something would be easier.
• Maybe break the dashed plot "sentence" into two sentences. Could sneak in a little more content on the plot too.

As I seem to be shouting to the rafters these days, I don't want the lede to give away too much plot. With so little plot in this musical, you have to give away something, but I don't want to overdo it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Mention the play is two acts. This seems a little unusual, no? Anyway, it helps me later with the fire alarm story and even with the sectioning of the plot summary.

Standard for a Broadway show.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Inception

• Second sentence is too long and complicated. Four plays mentioned. The non-trivial logical relation.
• "from life to death"? Birth to death? Manhood to death?

Nice catch. Senior moment.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Repeat "kill". I liked it the first time you said it. Hit me again. He'd killed one and didn't want to kill another!
• 3rd para: confusing how you mention the Rogers dashing off 3 songs and then go right to the Hammerstein son talking about H's songs. Maybe split the para. Also could say Rogers wrote the music for the songs. Or something.
• Block quotes rock! I love how they look in your article and I love the content in them. Very engaging! I'm stealing that.

Please do. I find nothing ends an article, or sometimes a section, then a really good blockquote. See my FAs John Diefenbaker, California's 12th congressional district election, 1946, Rise of Neville Chamberlain, Statue of Liberty, Checkers speech ... I could go on.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Rehearsal

• Nothing in the section on tryouts. Either add the info or change the title to just be rehearsal.

Tryouts in the sense of "previews". I can find nothing about how they casted the play, although all were theatrical unknowns, which was par for the course for the early R&H (that shifted a lot in South Pacific). What you are thinking of is "auditions".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Tryouts in the sticks!TCO (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• (More of a content question, maybe can write on) After DeMille criticized the story (seemingly identifying the fatal flaw that made it bomb) was anything changed? Like in movies I thought they were morphing scripts all the time. Did they blow her off and she just had to suck it up since she was a first time director? Or was she actively working to fix it? how much rewriting and story revision was going on as they worked?

Hammerstein said something like "But we're already committed to the theatre in New York." (that is, there is no time to start again)--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Consider to add. Felt an omission.TCO (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Sentence with number 41 and word hundred seems odd. Suggest number 100 (know it's a around number but you have the about caveat).
• This is a really subtle ear thing, but the "During dances, Joe is born, etc." sentence seemed to throw me. Tried thinking of an active verb for being born, but I guess there isn't. Mom does the work. (emerges from the womb?) Maybe "During dances, Mary gives birth to Joe, who then bla bla." Or maybe some thing with a colon and then the list of actions. Donno.

I'm going to slice the being born bit. The play begins the day of Joe's birth, but after it takes place.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Concluded": don't think this is the right connector, especially as there is a later disaste in same para.

That happened several days later, In Boston. What would happen in the early R&H is that they would play four performances, about, in New Haven, then go to Boston for two to three weeks of tryouts. Later on, they tried other cities, such as Cleveland, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• "At the end of the second act": At the end of the play. (clearer...I really did not know difference until the plot summary read later. Just simpler.)

Act 1

• Specify "ipeac" is a syrup before the using the word. I clicked the link thinking it was a linquistic term. Even if the play is about some confusion of sound versus meaning, would just make simple for reader here. Or maybe shift the blue-link to later somehow.

The whole ipecac thing is getting to be too much of a problem. I think I'll change it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• The "his grandmother notices him" sentence is too complex when it includes the shift at the end. Although I really like that shift. How about cutting the "Marjorie watching" (is that important?) to make the thing more streamlined.

It is important. See the end of Act 2, where it is repeated.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Cut "literally". Maybe simplify that whole "literally finally introduced in flesh" to "first sees on stage".
• Content question are the purple (not sure about brown) Wildcats a take on Northwestern University?

I do not think so, in particular, though the setting for the play mentions that the town, the college town, and the city are all in the same state. I suspect Wildcats just sounded good to Hammerstein when he was writing the cheer, "The Wildcats are on a rampage/Hear those Wildcats yell—Yow!" (perhaps not his best work), and the two lifelong New Yorkers were unfamiliar with Illinois outside Chicago city limits.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delink pre-med. That's a normal word for anyone reading this far into your article. Not an important concept for you. Not a link you want reader clicking.
• [ADDED] Consider to linke hypochondria. No push (I like LESS blue on Wiki). But R&H would smile. And it gets a mention at the end also.TCO (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• That second para is really long and with a lot of names of characters and songs and twists of the story. Intimidating. Would do a break at "While Joe is at...". And probably a break at "Marjorie Taylor is convinced..." Little more white space will make it less daunting.
• "Jenny does not trouble..." sentence is too long and complex. Also stray period at Beulah.

Act2

• Para 1, last sentence is too long.
• Para 2, "The elder doctor has less time for a nurse" Had a huh factor on which nurse. Repeat "Emily".

It wasn't Emily. Obviously this was my fault for not making it clear, but I hesitated to name an individual who never appears onstage.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Please NOT another name. "A different" will do.TCO (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• (nothing to do with the review, but): Go Emily, go Joe, go Charlie! Boo Jennie!

Musical numbers:

• (Section org. recc) Take the musical discussion (but not the record stuff) and move it up above the list of songs. Will give you a little text before the bulleted lists and just feels like it is same content, should be grouped. Then take the stuff about the LP and CD and the 2009 recording and push that all the way to the very end of text, past Aftermath, and making it a short "2 equals level" section. That LP (and re-recording) are different artistic pieces of work, different commercial vehicles. They should be kept after discussion of the play itself. They are the rump section of what would include a bunch of properties (movie, sequel, etc.) if the thing had been more succesful.
• Maybe move the new music section down below criticism.

I will think about the last two points, but do not want to incur the further wrath of the WP:MUSICALS people for varying from their format too much.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Pick your battles. I look at it from clean slate.TCO (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Production history

• Make that image 240px if you are going to leave it on the left. Or really, better, make it 400px and put it on the right (causes less damage there) and just move Rogers around if you need to. The MOS "rules" allow you to go to 400 and this is the perfect spot to go that far. As is, that image is an image of a piece of paper, that forces opening another window to get any use from it. At 400px, I can read every bit of it. It's actually a thinking man's infobox with the cast list and all! I know it sounds scary, but it looks SWEET at 400.
• Maybe do the math for the reader. It seems like you don't know how many tickets were sold, but by math it must be at least 125,000 (or whatever it works to). And you're sort of wanting us to calculate that. Just explain the point.

Not all the tickets sold for the same amount.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• second para, second to last sentence. Semicolon is not enough for joining these two contrasting audience reactions. Need a but or a however. Or a stronger break. Period. Or at least a colon.
• This would maybe go in Aftermath anyhow, but was there any more result from the commercial failure of the play (like backer reactions or R&H selling a yacht)?

Not particularly. R&H were still making oodles of money off of Oklahoma! which was still running after five years, plus the Oklahoma! and Carousel road companies, and the plays they were producing, too, plus sheet music, albums ... I do not think they had trouble raising money for South Pacific and I know by The King and I (which followed South Pacific), they and their friends and associates did the financing. I doubt there was public comment then for anyone who hoped to remain involved with them; Rodgers could be a bit ... harsh when it came to business.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The show was popular in the 1950s among amateur drama societies, because of the large cast with no star and the bare stage. It has rarely been presented since then: the St. Louis Municipal Opera presented it in 1955..." 55 is not after the 1950s, so confuses. I think you mean major productions after 1948 or something, so state.
• "the original, lavish orchestrations were simplified" Also content question: I guess they changed the music and then that required less musicians? Or just one or the other? May be fine as written, though. Maybe most people get that. I guess they had to change the story when they combined parts and eliminated actors too. Unless they were like nonspeaking.

Yes, Allegro had a very large orchestra by the standards of musicals of the day. They cut that back, so the orchestration had to be rewritten. Music seems often to be reorchestrated.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hey! I finally see a name I recognize (Reeve). Tell me what he played (even if not an important part). Just gives me some payoff as he is so recognizable and was even at that time. I actually clicked his page but couldn't find it there. And it seems like he had the accident at around that same time. Had he completed all the runs for this play before his horse mishap? (would definitely mention if it happened during the play's run.)

It was a year before the accident. He was the narrator, which is not an actual part in the play. A concert performance, the performers are not really acting, they are standing at mics usually. So someone needs to explain the action, I guess, especially given how unfamiliar people are with Allegro.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Musical treatment

• Had to read first sentence twice to get it. Read at first as if you were saying songs interrupted music. Maybe more direct: "The play has music in all the scenes, but often in very short songs that the characters use for dialogue." Or maybe just leave out the thing about music throughout (since para is about everything they did that was abnormal, why mention a normal thing. I mean if I know we're doing songs for dialogue purposes, I probably don't think there will be musicless stretches, if anything implies will be less purely dramatic stretches).
• Subtle, but I struggled a little with the Moore comment at end (getting the solid logical connection...I get it...but I didn't get it fast). Maybe if you change the para around and just have some topic sentence at the beginning "the song arrangement differred from normal works", then the Moore quote. then the other sentences as sort of supports and examples for all that. Or maybe if you have a topic sentence, I'm OK with Moore at the end.
• I'm kind of free associating, but wondered if the second para is about Rogers and starts with him, could you be parallel and start the first para using Hammerstein's name. Maybe at the front of that topic sentence I was asking for. "Hammerstein did the song arrangement differently from normal works, he ran short songs, he didn't give Joe much, etc."

Recording

• date of CD release?
• any more content for the original record in terms of reviews or sales?
• "According to Hischak, only Lisa Kirk as Emily shines on the CD,": cut 'on the CD' as it confuses. Seems like the person is making a review of the album itself, not the media. So doesn't matter even if on tape or whatever.
• Guess this was info availability but discussion of 2009 recording seems disportionate to be longer than of the original.
• In the quote, cut dash and all after. Doesn't seem relevant to discussion of the music. More of a preachy plot slam, and we hear that already in right sections.

Critical reception

• At the very end of this section, you talk about the controversy contining past opening night. Clarify before that all the earlier reviews are of the first performannce (for contrast).
• I'm kind of curious about this Greek chorus thing. Imagining some wailing from Oedepus Rex. The wlinked article is almost all about actual Greek chorus, but has one sentence saying that when the term is used for modern plays that the usage is kinda different. Not something to hold this article up, but might be interesting for readers to build up that other article to have more of a section on modern Greek chorus. Or even a separate article.

You are correct, the Hammerstein Greek chorus differs from the classic Greek chorus in its role here in some particulars. In the published script (I have all the scripts for R&H except Pipe Dream and The Sound of Music (I'll get those if I need those), it is briefly talked about: "The singing chorus is used frequently to interpret the mental and emotional reactions of the principal characters, after the manner of a Greek chorus". (Six Plays by Rodgers and Hammerstein, p. 185). I am afraid that is too complex for this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I don't want a tangent in this article. I will cut and paste what you wrote here and put it in THAT article. Right...now.TCO (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath

• Like this section a lot. Even has a "plug" for the next FA that really works.

Still thinking about that. I might do one of the other flops next, perhaps Me and Juliet, but it might be a bit. But I was definitely trying to tie up loose ends and take the reader back to more familiar ground.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It's great fun of a play. But the Michener book is different (but good). And better than any of James's historical novels. I'm acting old to think of "Tales of..." instead of the musical. I guess whatever seems tractable, but I would go with SP over some obscure bomb as long as the amount of work doesn't daunt you.TCO (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I have seen South Pacific and read Michener's book. In my view the play is better. The problem with writing a FA about South Pacific is not so much the work but the fact that writing it would take more references than I presently have. There is a lot to say about South Pacific. There is a new book on the conversion from novel to play (I consider TotSP a novel, even though it is structured as 19 short stories). I've read it. But an awful lot more has been said, for example, about the social influences of South Pacific. I want to shovel some more snow off the path before trying to bring in such a heavy item.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• [NEW]Just had a little content wonder about the "end of the R&H revolution". Was it both the beginning and the end of the revolution? I mean the previous ones were typical crowd-pleasers and then the following ones were typical crowd-pleasers also, no? What were the other ones that were departures? TCO (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Oklahoma! was highly innovative. Most of the things Oklahoma! did that seemed new had been done to some extent at some point by someone (sometimes Rodgers) but Oklahoma! put it all together and did it in a way that had to be considered genius. Carousel both proved Oklahoma! was not unique and applied it to a serious setting: Sondheim once said "Oklahoma! is about a picnic. Carousel is about life and death." Killing your leading man onstage just wasn't done. Allegro foreshadowed, in many ways, composers like Andrew Lloyd Webber, with the almost constant music, and the small snatches of song. I think Hischak is right on. After Allegro, R&H reverted to the sort of musical Oklahoma! and Carousel are. They did it much better than they had before (sometimes), but R&H never did anything close to Allegro.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Awards

• Maybe some discussion here? Were they happy for their awards? Was it a surprise they got them with the play fizzling? Was it trading off the earlier success? Must be some news articles or journal articles on a major award. Maybe some critics who said "why the heck did that thing get awards". Just seems like it would make the list look better with a little text above, plus there are nice things to know.
• Other thing is I totally clicked on the wl and read about that award. But maybe a quick in article would be helpful context. Also why didn't they get Tony's (they were in first year then, no)?
• Add the year for the award. 47 or 48?
• You could also just bury this in the infobox too. But rather see some content added to explain the awards. [Edit in sig: TCO (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)]

I'll see if I can find out any information on the awards. I rather suspect that R&H used them as doorstops, under the circumstances. Yes, Allegro was eligible for the first Tonys. It was not even nominated, though the Tonys then were a bit different than today.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the NY Times article and there is no mention of any reaction. R&H were very good at controlling their image, Rodgers' drinking problems really did not become publicly known until after he died, though the in-crowd, including the Broadway press for sure knew.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for a most thorough review. I will see what I can do. If I haven't addressed the point, it means I agree (or at lease accept) your point and will make the change.

I think I have covered everything, either by comment or change. Many thianks again, TCO.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good! Really appreciate the help for reader on the plot section. Maybe one remaining suggestion is on the awards. Just think some "what does it mean", "what does it compare to" could be useful here. Additional to the 3 bullets for an award that reader does not recognize. I found some refs online. Let me throw a few thoughts in the article talk page. No push, but after finding quick hits, seemed constructable.TCO (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Support: Excellent summary treatment of a pretty well unknown musical (I'd never heard of it). A few suggestions:-

• Inception: rather than "the duo", linked, this first mention in the text should read "he and Rodgers". Thereafter "duo" is fine but they need to e identified first.
• Same section: the wording "often called a Greek chorus" looks wrong. The Greek chorus is an established theatrical device from classical Greek plays, and it would be bettter to say; "in the manner of a Greek chorus" - with the link.
• A couple of phrases/words which confused me: "caught his tap on the stage" - could this accident be explained a little more plainly? And "conventioneers"? Who were they, and is there a reason for identifying them as such?

(Harrison) "At the New Haven opening, dancer Ray Harrison caught one of his taps in a curtain track and tore the ligaments in his right leg. he was carried off screaming from the stage" (Nolan, p. 172)"

(conventioneers) Mainly because I'm paraphrasing the source here. Fordin says, "The following week in Boston, obstreperous conventioneers full of spirits, holiday and otherwise, disrupted the show until Oscar yelled out "Shut up" and the disturbance subsided." (p. 255).

In both cases, I felt that additional explanation would require still more explanation.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• It is odd that the Davidson Theatre production, with its large playbill image, is not mentioned in the text while other performances are. At least the image should have a caption.

It had one, it just didn't show as I am very thumb fingered about image template parameters. Fixed now.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It was just part of the US tour. It was the only suitable item of Allegro memorabilia that I could get my hands on cheaply. (there is a "Broadway" dealer (actually in Oregon) on eBay who has wonderful stuff, but charges through the roof for it, like a handout for Carousel's Boston tryout, for example, for forty bucks, sigh).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a big deal, but I think you can get away without a caption on this, since it's a text-based image. If you keep a caption, would just say "example playbill from tour" as that is more insight (and to the point of "why" this image) than repeating the content on date and theater name and all.)TCO (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the program does not mention it is from Milwaukee (not just that page, either, I had to do a little research, we need some sort of caption to explain where the Davidson Theatre was, and at that point, we might as well just include the whole thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Is there any available information on house sizes, or house reactions, during the Broadway run?

Not that I saw. It had a huge presale, as noted, meaning that most performances would have been sold out for several months (there are famous stories about the difficulties of getting tickets to Oklahoma!, and while Carousel was not that bad, it was still highly successful. People assumed that Allegro would be another hit and bought plenty of tickets. There's an image, obviously copyrighted of people lined up for Allegro tickets. Bet that didn;'t happen too often after opening night.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Parenthetical "they did not" in the "Musical treatment" section: is this from the source or is it an editorial comment?

I thought it was in there but I don't see it. If I can find it, I'll add it back but I've taken it out for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That is everything, I think. Thank you. Well, three supports, no opposes. checks seem to be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.