Jump to content

Talk:List of EGOT winners

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.116.242.206 (talk) at 06:16, 5 December 2009 (→‎Andrew Lloyd Weber's Two International Emmy Awards). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconFilm: Awards / American List‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Film awards task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
WikiProject iconReference Desk Article Collaboration
WikiProject iconList of EGOT winners was created or significantly enhanced by WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration, a project to leverage research efforts on the Reference Desks into a more lasting contribution to the encyclopedia. If you would like to help, please consider joining us.
See original question.

Dick Van Dyke's Grammy

How and when did Dick Van Dyke win a grammy? Javabeanrush 04:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Van Dyke received a Grammy Award for his performance on the soundtrack to Mary Poppins (1964). The 7th Grammy Awards were held in 1965. They recognized accomplishments of musicians for the year 1964. The Best Recording for Children was awarded to Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyke, Glynis Johns, David Tomlinson, and Ed Wynn for Mary Poppins. (JosephASpadaro 08:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Jonathan (who?) Tunick

Streisand is "on the list" only with an asterisk: She got an honorary Tony Award in 1970, but doesn't have any "real" Tonys. Jonathan Tunick belongs on the list; he has all four awards. -- Nunh-huh 01:11, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Who is Jonathan Tunick? RickK 01:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
He's an orchestrator and composer, mostly associated with Stephen Sondheim, so he picks up the awards for musical orchestration on Bway and movies. Well-known, as orchestrators go <G> ... which is to say, obscure, but an award-winner. He's the one that folk miss out on in trivia if they try to name Emmy/Grammy/Oscar/Tony winners. Nunh-huh 01:23, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Cool. We need an article on him. RickK 01:24, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'll look to see if I can at least find his birthdate<G>. - Nunh-huh 01:25, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Liza Minnelli

Note for those tempted to add Liza Minnelli: she won Tonys in 1965, 1974, 1978, and an Oscar in 1972. She apparently also won an Emmy (when?), but so far no sign of a Grammy. -- Nunh-huh 03:15, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Liza won an Emmy in 1973 for "Liza With a Z". RickK 03:26, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
In 1990, Liza received a "Living Legend" Grammy Award. (unsigned)
Yes, their website [1] confirms that she won a "Legend Award" from the Recording Academy Association in 1990, but they characterize this as a "Special Merit Award" and distinguish it from the "Grammy", saying "In addition to the GRAMMY, the Recording Academy also presents special merit awards, including the Lifetime Achievement, Trustees, Legend and Technical awards, as well as the GRAMMY Hall Of Fame honoring historical recordings. More recently, The Latin Recording Academy introduced the Latin GRAMMY and Latin GRAMMY Hall of Fame." So it's not quite a Grammy, but it is probably worth a mention in the article. I'll try and make the "with an asterisk" entries clear. -- Nunh-huh 00:21, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For many years, it has been erroneously reported that Rita Moreno was the first entertainer to win all four major entertainemt awards. Moreno was actually the third person. The first was composer Richard Rodgers (who won his final major award, an Emmy, in 1962). Helen Hayes was the second person winning a Grammy on February 19, 1977 (Note: the 19th Annual Grammy Awards was for the calendar year of 1976). Seven months later, Rita Moreno won an Emmy to complete winning all four major awards on September 11, 1977. Sources: Grammy.org, Emmys.org gmjambear 07:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had also heard for years that Rita Moreno was the first to accomplish this feat. Any idea as to why that misinformation persisted so long? Is there any qualifying criteria that makes her the "first" -- for example, the first female to achieve this feat, or the first actress to achieve this feat? (I assume she is the first Puerto Rican to achieve this feat.) (JosephASpadaro 21:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I think that I finally figured out what is behind the erroneous reports that Rita Moreno was the first to win all four awards. I assume that Moreno is credited as the first actor (or performer) to win all four awards. Rodgers was not an actor or performer ... he was a composer ... and, therefore, a bit more "behind the scenes" and away from the public eye. As far as Hayes, her Grammy was for spoken word (speaking) as opposed to singing. That is, many people might not consider "speaking" to be "performing" per se (possibly?). So, I think that distinction played a big part. As a result, Rita Moreno is indeed the first performer with the so-called "triple threat" of performing (acting / singing / dancing) to win all four of the performance awards. That is my theory as to why her name has persisted as the first. And, it does make sense on several levels. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I have been cleaning up this article ... and doing some research on this topic. In doing so, I came to discover that The Guinness Book of World Records actually listed Rita Moreno as holding the record in this category. From what I can gather, she appeared in the 1979 edition of Guinness. Various sources report different wording on her Guinness entry. I have seen that Moreno was "the first" ... "the first and only" ... "the first female" ... "the first actress" ... (etc.) ... to win the four awards. In any event, she was not the first to do so (since Rodgers was) ... nor was she the first female to do so (since Hayes was). But, whatever the case, I am sure that the Guinness "error" (I assume?) has contributed to much of the misinformation out there on this issue. As my post above indicates, I think that Rodgers got lost in the shuffle because he was not a performer in the direct public eye ... and Hayes got lost in the shuffle because her Grammy did not arise from her singing. Also ... back in 1979 ... there was no internet available ... and the vast resources of data and information were not so readily or easily accessible or verified as is the case today. So, that's my theory on how and why this misinformation perpetuated. I'd love to see the actual wording of the "record" that was attributed to Moreno in that 1979 Guinness edition. Perhaps, if it was cleverly worded, it could stand as a correct record. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

For the 3 time winners?

Bette Midler has won everything except for an Oscar, whereas Glenn Close has won everything except for a Grammy.

Dear Unsigned, I see you posted this on March 31, 2007, so I am moving it to the end of the talk page where additions customarily go. You are right about Midler, but Close hasn't won an Oscar yet. Correction noted. Bruxism 16:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name change for this article

I think a better name for this article would be "List of people who have won Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony Awards" (that is, removing the words "a" and "an" before the names of the awards). First, I think it is more grammatically correct. Second, as it now stands, the title of the article implies that each winner won each award only one time. That is not the case, as several of these winners have won multiple awards in each category. Any thoughts? (JosephASpadaro 16:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with the points you have listed. The changes would make sense, and it hardly changes the important content of the title (as regards to searches). Cybertooth85 05:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. I will give it a few more days, see if others weigh in, then make the change. Thanks again. (JosephASpadaro 04:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I changed the name of this article on May 28, 2007 for the reasons listed above. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 20:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Slight reformat

I changed the formatting of single awards to have the same indenting as multiple awards. The downside of this is the increased veritcal length of the article, but to my eyes it makes the entries much easier to read. Revert if there is strong disagreement. Manning 02:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason why Pulitzers are mentioned in this article? Two of the people happen to have won a Pulitzer, but so what? How is this relevant to people who've won an Oscar, an Emmy, a Tony and a Grammy? Helen Hayes won the inaugural Sarah Siddons Award, so why not mention that? I'm sure Gielgud and Hepburn et al won all sorts of awards throughout their careers, but this article has nothing to do with any awards apart from the 4 the article is about. I'm champing at the bit to remove all reference to Pulitzers, but will wait for feedback. But not long. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add the Pulitzer Prize information to this article and, therefore, I can only surmise as to why it is here. I surmise that the article originally dealt with the four "big" awards, and it detailed the nine people who have won them. However, if there is any award "bigger" (i.e., more significant, more prestigious, more popular recognition, etc.) than these four "big" awards, then it must be the Pulitzer. (One could also argue for the Nobel Prize, I gather.) So, I believe that as an aside, some editor simply said (in paraphrase), "Wow, not only did Rodgers and Hamlisch win all four of these four big awards, but they also won the bigger Pulitzer Award as well. I think that's important information that is worthy of mention in the article. Let me put it in!" With which I would agree, by the way. Yes, I am certain that all nine of these individuals have won many, many, many awards ... but I personally cannot think of any more prestigious and notable than the Pulitzer (or the Nobel). In fact, if one of these nine individuals has also won the Nobel, I would think it irresponsible to not include such information in the article. It's pertinent and it's relevant. (I would have to do some research on that. But, I am sure that if one of the nine also received a Nobel, it would have been mentioned in here somewhere already. And with good reason.) In essence, this article is detailing those who have won the most coveted awards in entertainment. So, yes, the Pulitzer and the Nobel align as such. One could hardly argue that the Sarah Siddons Award approaches the level of "importance" (if you will) of the Pulitzer and/or the Nobel (where "importance" refers to honor, prestige, significance, recognition, etc.). In a nutshell, no one has ever heard of the Sarah Siddons Award ... and, well, everyone has heard of the Pulitzer and the Nobel. The only thing I might be troubled by is that the Pulitzer is "listed" along with the four major awards --- whereas, more appropriately, it should probably only be mentioned as a footnote or as an aside. In fact, I had debated formatting the Pulitzer Prizes in that very manner, but I never got around to doing so. I can certainly live with reformatting the Pulitzer information. (Which I will actually go ahead and now do.) But, I would most strongly object to its removal in entirety from the article. Your thoughts? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I must respectfully disagree. It's true that the winning of a Pulitzer, a Nobel, an Olympic Gold medal, a Congressional Medal of Honour, a Victoria Cross, a Time Person of the Year, or whatever, are entirely relevant to the individuals' own articles. But this article exists solely because these people have won these 4 awards, and whatever else they did in their lives and whatever other awards they might have won are just not relevant to this article. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I also respectfully disagree with your post above. In the context of this article, the Pulitzer information is indeed relevant and appropriate. This article details the four "big" awards in entertainment / show business. If a Pulitzer Prize or a Nobel Prize is likewise awarded in an entertainment category, then it is noteworthy (and relevant to the information contained in this article). To boil it down to its simplest terms, this article is about winning the "biggest" and most coveted awards in entertainment. So, if someone wins an even "bigger" award (e.g., the Pulitzer or the Nobel) ... why would that not be mentioned? I would further argue that winning a Pulitzer or a Nobel in Chemistry or World Peace, say, would be irrelevant to this article (as it has nothing to do with achieving high accolades in entertainment). Similarly, winning, say, a Sarah Siddons Award is not relevant since -- even though it is awarded for work in the entertainment field -- it is not particularly noteworthy, notable, important, or prestigious (relatively speaking ... and for lack of better words). Yes, Olympic Gold Medals are extremely high accolades to win. But they are not awarded for acting / show business / entertainment. If they were, then -- yes -- I would argue that they too would merit mention in this article. But, they are not. Ditto for the other awards you cite ... while they are prestigious, they have nothing to do with acting / show business / entertainment. Certain Pulitzer Prizes and Nobel Prizes do, however. So, what is the harm of their mention in the article? Their existence is a side note, to be sure, ... yet still relevant to winning prominent entertainment awards --- as they themselves are arguably even more prominent entertainment awards! If we follow your proposed logic, the article would merely be a list of nine names --- end of story. That's like saying that we cannot mention in the Academy Award article that George Bernard Shaw won both an Academy and a Nobel in Literature ... because the Academy Award article is about Academy Awards and not about Nobel Prizes in Literature. That argument makes no sense. It is indeed relevant when an Academy Award winner, such as George Bernard Shaw, also wins a Nobel (especially since he is the only person ever to do so in history). How would that not be relevant? And that is, in essence, the same case presented here. In any event, these are my two cents on the issue. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
OK, your arguments make a certain sense, and I can live with the Pulitzers becoming notes rather than main entries. Thanks for the change. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I am glad that we can agree on this. And I do completely agree that the Pulitzer information, while relevent and interesting, is merely a side not that is secondary and peripheral to the main four awards of the article. I have made the appropriate changes to the article to reflect this. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

John Kander

Hey there, I believe that John Kander should qualify for having won all four, seeing as how he composed the music for Chicago (musical) which won the academy award for best picture. Thoughts? Hockeyplyr042 (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He never won an Academy Award, although he was nominated for two (including Best Music for Chicago). Indeed, Chicago won Best Picture. But many, many, many individuals collaborated on that film ... Kander and many others. But that in no way "qualifies" them for this list, much less qualifies them as winning an Academy Award. In fact, quite the opposite. Kander was nominated -- but lost -- for his work on the music in Chicago. There is no valid argument that Kander "won all four" ... and there is no valid reason to add him to the list. Did he win the other three awards, however? If so, he can rightfully be added to the bottom sections of the page. He may be there, I did not check. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
He is indeed there, in the emmy, grammy, tony category. I think It would be appropriate/reasonable to add Fred Ebb (not listed) to that category, as they were partners and never won an award for anything they didn't collaborate on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hockeyplyr042 (talkcontribs) 04:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone ever thought of adding Golden Globes?

anyone? IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's not considered one of the four highest awards in entertainment ... which is what this article is all about. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Why is it that, to officially qualify, one needs to have a Primetime Emmy? Daytime/International Emmy are still Emmys. They aren't honorable mentions. Latin Grammys are Grammys. They are the same award and Daytime is especially. It's Primetime but for daylight hours. I don't get why there has to be a different section. It's not as though there is an international list and Wikipedia is following it. This is a made up page and we make the rules. It would be similar to saying a Golden globe for a comedic television role qualifies but a Globe for a dramatic movie role doesn't.

Hey, that's a good question ... and a valid one. I don't have any "official" answer, but this is what I think. The Primetime Emmy Awards are the "traditional" ones ... and they originate back to 1949. The other Emmy Awards (Daytime, International, etc.) came about as "add-ons" much, much later on (in 1975 or so). Thus, for a number of reasons, these "add-on" awards that came later on did not exactly carry the same "clout" (if you will) of the original, traditional Primetime Emmy Awards. These reasons? Tradition and history, for one. Also, I assume that primetime TV is more of a "heavy hitter" (more ratings, more audience / viewers, more advertising money, more profit, more respect, more "at stake", etc.) than daytime TV. In fact, that's why it is called "prime" ... right? "Prime" meaning primo, first, number one, the best. So, rightly or wrongly, I imagine that the "other" Emmy Awards simply do not command the same respect / prestige / interest as the traditional Primetime Emmy Awards do. That is my guess. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Also ... everything that I said in my above post probably also applies to your other example of "regular" Grammy Awards versus Latin Grammy Awards. Finally ... your analogy about Golden Globes is an invalid one. Your example (comedic performance versus dramatic performance) is a distinction within the same award. That is, they are two different "categories" within the same exact award. That is not a valid comparison or analogy to make. The Primetime Emmy is a different award altogether than the Daytime Emmy. The Latin Grammy is a different award altogether than the regular Grammy. They are not "categories" within the same exact award. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I have decided to remove Andrew Lloyd Webber's name from the list of people who won all four awards. I will, however, keep his name on the list of people who have won three. Lloyd Webber has indeed won the Academy, Grammy, and Tony Awards ... but no Emmy. Several sources (including Wikipedia) erroneously report that he has won two International Emmy Awards. The following links to a good Los Angeles Times article on this very topic: No, Andrew Lloyd Webber is not a grand-slam winnah. The gist of the article is summarized here. This very question was asked of the folks "in charge" of the International Emmy Awards ... and their public relations representative answered the question to clarify Lloyd Webber's status. This is a direct line taken from the article at that link. PR chief Jennifer Langusch replied, "In 2001 Jesus Christ Superstar won but Andrew Lloyd Webber was not listed as a producer and then in 2007 How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria? won in non-scripted entertainment but he was listed as cast. He personally hasn't won any International Emmys." That seems to come straight from the horse's mouth, I'd say. If the Emmy Award head of PR is confirming that Lloyd Webber has no Emmy Awards, it would seem to me that he has no Emmy Awards. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Good call. Manning (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Ramin won Competitive Academy Award, a Competitive Daytime Emmy Award, and a Competitive Grammy Award. As such he should be bumped to the list of people who have won a Oscar-Emmy-Grammy. True the Emmy he won is a Daytime Emmy Award. However Whoopi Goldberg's Emmy is a Daytime Emmy Award. And she has been bumped up to the ten people won won all four awards. So if a Daytime Emmy is good enough recognition for Whoopi, the same rules should apply to Sid Ramin. Someone please make the change. Thanks - T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.92.160 (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... you have a good case here. Sid Ramin is *clearly* a noteworthy individual based on the little I could find about him. Sadly what I found was VERY little. The fact he does not have a Wikipedia article is a much bigger problem than his absence from this list.Manning (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I've modified the list in accordance with your observation. The alternative is to remove Goldberg from the main list (which is still an option, depending on consensus). Manning (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the bigger issue was that Sid Ramin had no article. So, I just started one. It's not the greatest ... but it's a start, nonetheless. And it removes the "red link" from his name, as well. Also ... please see the new topic that I started below, in response to your other issue about Goldberg, etc. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

This is in response to two different threads above ... the one entitled "Sid Ramin" (immediately above) and the one entitled "Emmy Awards" (two or three topics up). What is the consensus on how we should handle the "issues" of Whoopi Goldberg, Daytime Emmy Awards, etc.? One the one hand, a Daytime Emmy is indeed a competitive award ... on the other hand, it's not quite a Primetime Emmy. I think it's definitely considered "second rate" or a tier below. Does anyone have any input on this? I have seen various sources handle this several different ways. A lot include Whoopi. A lot don't. And a lot include her with the asterisk notation that hers is "only" a Daytime Emmy. Are there any "definitive" sources out there that indicate that the "Grand Slam" of show business / entertainment awards is indeed the Academy, the Primetime Emmy, the Grammy, and the Tony? The "Grand Slam" is an "unofficial" recognition ... but we should all agree -- one way or the other -- for consistency in the article. Any thoughts on this issue? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Quincy Jones

Quincy Jones has won Grammys and one Emmy (for music score for Roots miniseries). He has also won the Hersholt Humanitarian award at the Oscars. Does that count or qualify him for the Emmy, Grammy and Oscar category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaneshirojj (talkcontribs) 06:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quincy Jones should be bumped down to the list of people winning Three Awards, 2 competitive and one Honorary win, as the Oscar he won was not competitive. If we included every honorary win, this list would be much bigger. Someone please make the change, as someone else has bumped Quincy Jones as winning 3 out of the 4 awards competitively.

Barry Manilow

Barry is in both the three competive wins & the three including-honorary wins!? Dyaimz (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superlatives Section

After a paragraph which states that Barbara Streisand and Liza Minelli were not to be included in the superlatives, Streisand is listed as the holder of several of the superlatives. Shouldn't this be redone to remove her?LightningMan (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lloyd Weber's Two International Emmy Awards

Hey TLORK, why'd you revert the note that Andrew Lloyd Weber has won Two International Emmy Awards? 69.116.242.206 (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]