Talk:Little Mary Sunshine

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera articles

Musical Theatre

Little Mary Sunshine is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Musical TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject Musical TheatreTemplate:WikiProject Musical TheatreMusical Theatre articles

Little Mary Sunshine Article

The article on Little Mary Sunshine (LMS) badly needs editing. This musical is a satire, but the article barely scratches the surface of this satire. Seven of the eight main characters allude to other characters from earlier operettas and musicals, yet the article fails to reveal this or to identify the earlier characters. Sixteen of the LMS songs allude to (a) specific songs or song categories (with examples) from earlier shows or (b) an earlier show itself, namely, Naughty Marietta or (c) a character from Tchaikovsky's The Nutcracker. Again, none of these antecedents or even the fact that they exist is mentioned.

The article also contains errors, both factual and editorial. Contrary to the article's "Background" information, LMS is not a narrowly conceived "sendup of the operettas of Victor, Herbert, Rudolf Friml, and Sigmund Romberg" (although those composers do get the most emphasis). Thirteen other composers--most wrote musicals rather than operettas--and their songs are also alluded to. And, whereas the operettas of the Big Three operetta composers end with Romberg's 1928 operetta The New Moon, LMS alludes to four musicals from the 1940s and three from the 1950s. The most recent prior musical alluded to is Meredith Willson's The Music Man, staged in 1957, just two years ahead of LMS--a long way beyond 1928. (The article does say "hints of Noel Coward"; but the Noel Coward material is more than a hint, and a dozen other additional composers alluded to amount to a lot more than Noel Coward.)

Another factual error is the statement that the "villainous Indians" of LMS are "taken from" Friml's Rose Marie. Rose Marie has no villainous Indians, just one villainous half-breed (Black Eagle). "Indians" and "forest rangers" should not be enclosed in quotation marks. And Rose Marie should not be hyphenated.

I have prepared extensive revisions of the article to correct these deficiencies. Among other things, the revisions identify the characters and songs from earlier operettas and musicals that the characters and songs from LMS allude to.

But I am a complete klutz when it comes to technical matters, meaning the techniques used to amend Wikipedia articles. I need help. If I supply the revised text, can someone out there help me by doing the actual revising of the article?

Saul Tillich gopher31@earthlink.net

Saul Tillich 15:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saul - I have made a few changes that hopefully answer most of your criticisms - if you can work out how to edit Wikipedia (it definitely doesn't need you to be a "techie") then by all means go for your life - but realise that others have the right to "counter-edit" your work! I wouldn't put in too much extra detail about who is being taken off, and by what - too much detailing of the jokes in a humorous work NOT all that appropriate - leave a few for the listener to discover for him/herself!! Soundofmusicals 06:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to respond to your suggestion that I "have a go" at editing the Little Mary Sunshine article. I made 19 minor edits--mostly things like changing misused words (emulation, executed, invoking, rendering), tightening wordy phrasing, changing passive to active voice (part of the wordy phrasing problem), striking needless words, correcting faulty syntax, correcting punctuation, and standardizing the spelling of "favourite" (British) to agree with the later spelling of "favor" (American).

I also added several other composers (Sullivan, Berlin, Kern, Rodgers) and lyricists (Gilbert, Hammerstein) to your previously added Noel Coward under "Background." (Does this change qualify as a minor edit?) But I couldn't get all the double bracket internal links to work. Gilbert and Sullivan came out fine (colored), and so did two other links under "Synopsis." But other composers did not respond to my typed double brackets--typed because I could find no internal link button at the top to the field. Can you please insert the links with your magic wand? And then tell me what I did wrong (is there a secret button?)?

Under "Music" I deleted the parenthetic reference to duets between Jeanette MacDonald, both (1) because it misused "invokes," which I admittedly could have simply changed to the correct "evokes," and (2) because the reference to film duets in an article about stage productions seemed not only inappropriate but unlikely to be what Rick Besoyan was alluding to. But this might not qualify as a minor edit, in which case you might want to review and (I hope not) restore what I cut.

Under "Characters," I inserted additional information opposite Chief Brown Bear and Madame Ernestine. Please let me know if this sort of change qualifies as "minor."

I guess I can make the other changes, the major ones, myself. I'm referring primarily to the new explanatory paragraph about the characters, the expanded discussion of criticism of the musical, and the annotations of the songs. But I'd like to first hear from you regarding whether these changes are too "bloating." You did comment that this musical "is after all meant to be fun." I agree. But the fun in satire is in knowing what is being lampooned. I think my annotations, rather than being "too academic," add to the fun. I would also point out that it is the musical and not the encyclopedia article that is "meant to be fun"; the article is meant to be informative--but if it can add to the fun by clarifying some of the humor, so much the better. Saul Tillich 16:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're getting the hang of editing!!

I agree with almost all the changes you actually made - although I think "satirizes" in the top line is a little too strong a term for what this jolly little thing really is - "satire" to me evokes Swift and Defoe rather than the Simpsons - (mind you I agree with you about "emulates") - anyway I have changed it to "gently pokes fun at" (or something like that - forget now exactly what I did put!). Also, unless you feel strongly about it - I'd reinstate Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy, perhaps rewording it a bit - I think their singing style and rendition of Indian love call may VERY well have been in Rick Besoyan's mind.

Several people have worked on this article, and your "tightening up" so far is a real improvement. Many Wikipedia articles that have been patched and repatched by a dozen people over several years cry out for this kind of thing. Also, your links are in fact all working, so far as I could see. I just manually put in the double square brackets myself - although there may be a short cut somewhere I have never found it! You will find that the colour varies - red means that the link can't be found - blue that it can, and purple that it can find the link - and it is to an article you have recently looked at yourself. I always check links with the "preview" button (although if you use this you do also have to "save" it afterwards). Sometimes links can work unexpectedly - sneding you to a totally irelevant article, so it is worth checking!!

The extra composers etc. are fine - as this whets the appetite rather than spoiling any jokes.

Personally - I do have a few misgivings about some of the other changes you have in mind. The remarks about "political correctness" for instance - I made a similar, but much more gently worded one - pointing out that the lyrics "failed the test of political correctness" and it got wiped almost immediately! An encyclopedia article about an artistic work is VERY different from a review. What the reader expects is "hard data" rather than too much interpretation of that data. (Although you can get away with a little bit here and there).

And as I said - you don't really want to give away too many of the jokes - perhaps one or two examples might be better than a comprehensive list? If you want to do this - put them in a separate section (look how the other section headings are built and copy that. Soundofmusicals 00:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made just two slight changes in your song annotations - where I thought the connection was MUCH too far-fetched. There are a number of other places where there is either a more obvious allusion that you have missed - Mata Hari, for instance, is (from memory - must check this!) a very close take off of a song from Noel Coward's Pacific 1860 - and others where the connection seems to me a bit fanciful. Also - if you mean to make a point in the "character" annotations (or elsewhere) - there is no need to repeat exactly the same point in the song annotations.

Do have another look at this, and consider trimming the character/song annotations a bit in light of the above. Otherwise I'll go through them when I have a moment (if someone else doesn't beat us both to it!). Soundofmusicals 04:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

You need to show which song allusions came from which references. See WP:CITE about how to add references into the text. It looks like you're getting used to the Wiki software. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 21:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I haven't figured out how to add footnotes. Perhaps you can help by adding three. The edited text's references to (1) "There's a Hill Beyond a Hill," (2) "In Ingern on the Tergern See," and (3) "Tell Me Pretty Maiden" are from Mandelbaum, who I have added (along with Kreuger) to the list of "References." All other interpretations are my own. (Scholarly interpretation is an area where I have lots of experience--three published books interpreting symbolism and allegory by as many authors and auteurs. I've seen Little Mary Sunshine three times and have listened to the recorded songs countless times. The allusions aren't hard to pick up if you are familiar with the best musicals of the past and their songs--and are willing to spend a little time checking and exploring with Google to find unfamiliar songs. The Google work mainly involves checking the song lists of various musicals to catch songs alluded to. For example, although HMS Pinafore's song "I am the Captain of the Pinafore" came to me immediately when I asked myself, "What song features a leader who brags?"--no Google help needed here--I was not familiar with the song "Oh Joy, Oh Rapture Unforeseen," also from HMS Pinafore and alluded to in the words of "Tell a Handsome Stranger." But, seeing a song title with the words "Oh Joy,", I immediately made a connection. That connection was reinforced by my knowledge that Besoyan had already alluded to another song from Pinafore and was therefore extending his reach back as far as 1878 and was including comic opera among his allusions.)

Now I'm wondering how to indent this reply to signify that it is a reply. Maybe the four tildes do the job. We'll soon find out. Nope, that didn't work (preview), so I'll just separate our two messages with some asterisks.Saul Tillich 02:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to forget about footnotes and use parenthetical text citations (to an author--Mandelbaum--listed under "References") instead. The three Mandelbaum references have been cited. No other references have been used. -- Saul Tillich 03:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just use a colon (:) at the margin to indent. We need page numbers for the references. Please take a look at this: WP:OR. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers 03:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated under "References," Mandelbaum is "notes included with Angel Records original cast tape cassette and CD recordings of Little Mary Sunshine, Trio Music Corp. and Alley Music Corp, 1993." All three Mandelbaum References are from page 10 of the CD notes; there is no pagination with the identical cassette notes, just lots of folded columns. I will expand the three text references to include this page number and it's CD origin, using the MLA Style Manual's parenthetical style. (I'm not a fan of the ML Style Manual--my preferred style manual is Chicago--but as long as Wikipedia accepts MLA I'll use it.)

As I said, all the other interpretations are my own and are based largely on my own fairly extensive knowledge of the better-known Broadway shows and songs--plus a little help from Google.

To elaborate further on Google, Google helped not only with one of the two Pinafore allusions but with the counterpoint allusions. I was familiar with all three of Besoyan's counterpoint antecedents, and I knew which Broadway shows two of them came from. (I had even seen Meredith Willson's The Music Man on Broadway and had been deeply impressed by the combining of "Lida Rose" and "Will I Ever Tell You?") But I knew the counterpoint song "Simple Melody" only from my ancient Bing Crosby/Gary Crosby recording; I had no idea it was written by Irving Berlin and was from a Broadway show. But I applied Google and learned the song was from Watch Your Step.

Again, I was thoroughly familiar with "Every Little Movement," which is my favorite Doris Day recording. And the connection with "Every Little Nothing" seemed obvious--were it not for the fact that "Every Little Movement" was just a routine popular song, or so I thought. But this was definitely worth checking. Google told me that "Every Little Movement" was from Madame Sherry, produced way back in 1910.

All the other songs I was familiar with. I also knew which shows they were from, except in a couple of cases where I had to check. Each song is a song for which I long ago worked out the key-of-C ukulele chords (but you wouldn't want to hear me sing them).

Hmmm, interesting: preview tells me I have to put two colons in front of each paragraph, not just at the beginning of the message. Let's try again. -- Saul Tillich 04:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Now that you have subdued indenting, please read WP:OR and consider your statement that this was written based on your own knowledge. I think that if you have seen these relationships, other writers must also have remarked on them. After all, this is a fairly obvious aspect of the show, no? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 13:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm just a rookie, I'll challenge your old-pro suggestion that Wikipedia rules totally forbid personal knowledge and (as I think you meant to imply) interpretations. After all, the original article--before I touched it--had original, uncredited interpretations. These included (1) the references to Victor Herbert, Rudolf Friml, and Sigmund Romberg, (2) the sentence "Its villainous 'Indians' and gallant 'forest rangers' (thinly disguised mounties) are taken in particular from Friml's Rose-Marie," and (3) the clause "there is the 'Colorado Love Call' (invoking [sic] duets between Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy)," which clearly implies that Besoyan's song imitates "Indian Love Call." And why should anyone need to cite a reference for the fact--yes fact, not opinion--that "Colorado Love Call" alludes to "Indian Love Call."

Where documentation and references are concerned, you need to distinguish between (1) empirical facts and (2) interpretations. Certain little known or recently discovered facts do need documentation; most facts do not or can be attributed (explicitly) to the author's own experience and observations. Interpretations are another matter. Interpretions are sort of like the "first cause" argument for God's existence, to which the well known answer is, "What caused God?" By that I mean, if you demand a citation for an interpretation, you had better be prepared to ask where the cited reference got its interpretation. Is that reference invalid or inadequately supported if the cited author provided an original interpretation rather than borrowing from an earlier author? Somewhere back down the line, somebody made an original interpretation. And there is no reason that original interpretation cannot be made right here at Wikipedia by someone who is familiar with Broadway (and British) shows and songs and can recognize the allusions.

Why on earth should anyone need to cite a source for the information that Besoyan's "Every Little Nothing" alludes to "Every Little Movement"--especially when, as stated in the revision, (1) the first five notes of both songs are identical and (2) the later words "every little moment" reinforce the parallelism by substituting "moment" for "movement"--a clever play on words.

Or take the mention of counterpoint songs. If a person is familiar with counterpoint (I am), he need not be a genius or even a professional musician to recognize that the three cited examples of counterpoint from earlier Broadway shows constitute counterpoint. Neither does it take a genius to see that all of Besoyan's songs allude to an earlier song or earlier songs (or, occasionally, an earlier show title--"Naughty Marietta"--or character). Put two and two together. If (1) three consecutively and then simultaneously sung LMS songs represent counterpoint, as they obviously do, and (2) Besoyan's lampoonish exaggeration (three songs instead of two) reinforces our prior knowledge that something is alluded to, why do we need a reference to name the three allusions (two from Berlin, one from Willson) that I named?

My point is that interpretations, contrasted with facts, do not require citations. They merely require knowledge and insights, and sometimes nothing more than pointing out the obvious (as with "Indian Love Call" and the Mounties). And if the interpreter happens to be experienced at interpretation (as I am, having written three scholarly books devoted entirely to interpreting allegorical and nonallegorical symbolism), so much the better.

By way of qualification, I'm not saying that nonoriginal interpretations--interpretations borrowed from published sources--should not have citations.

Let me add one more point. Although editing was just a sideline in my professional experience (I'm not retired), I do have about 20 years of experience editing research reports. And I've written six scholarly books (including the three involving extensive interpretation) and various journal articles. So I am well grounded in editorial matters, including requirements for documentation. There is no requirement that interpretations be documented when they are original. Prudence and scholarship do require, of course, that original interpretations be supportable and reasonable. -- Saul Tillich 16:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody around here is a bad proofreader. That "I'm not retired" in the last paragraph above should be "I'm NOW retired." --Saul Tillich 16:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK. I'm not a rules Nazi like a lot of editors at WP, and I will gladly concede that there is a good deal of the dreaded original research throughout the encyclopedia. I'm only giving you a friendly note that what you have done clearly violates WP:OR, so if you want to protect your prose, I advise you to try to find some published sources that discuss the sources for the allusions in this article. I bet there are some. You don't have to do so, and I certainly am not going to delete the material myself, but adding references would preempt other editors who might delete the info. Wikipedia is a work in progress. What survives in an article today may not survive tomorrow, just because the "rules" folks haven't focused on it yet. Obviously, the most controversial statements beg the most referencing. Anyhow, I don't want to rain on your parade, and I hope you enjoy editing here. Best regards! -- Ssilvers 19:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could well be right when you say "I bet there are some" published sources that document some of the LMS allusions other than the three document ones, but I have strong doubts. Few shows ever become the subject of feature articles. Most of those that do, such asShowboat, get attention because of controversy they stir up. The main sources of information about Broadway musicals are (1) newspaper reviews, (2) magazine (Time, Newsweek, New Yorker) reviews, (3) playnotes accompanying recordings (LPs, cassettes, and CDs), and (4) theater program playnotes.

Newspaper reviews are an unlikely source of information about allusions (even if someone had the time and resources to dig up 1960 reviews). The show ends at 10:00 PM, so the reviewer must write hastily in order to make the deadline for the morning edition. The piece is mostly opinion: no time to dig up many facts or even do much thinking.

Magazine reviewers have a little more time to think things over and do research, but they have less space than newspaper reviewers. The coverage is again superficial. I recall reading the Newsweek review of LMS back in 1959. It showed awareness of the show's being a parody of older shows, but this was mostly abstraction. There might have been references to Rose Marie, but that was as far as any material on allusions went. Part of the review dealt with the reaction of children in the audience--their being baffled by the laughter of the adults when Yellow Feather crept up on Little Mary.

I have the playnotes from the recordings. Nothing there--except for the three antecedent songs Mandelbaum identifies.

My impression of theater program playnotes is that they probably come with the rented scripts, book, and lyrics. In other words, I suspect they all copy from the same source and say about the same thing. Having seen the show three times, I recall nothing in the program playnotes that went beyond identifying "Colorado Love Call" with "Indian Love Call." Even if I'm wrong about that, how would anyone obtain by reasonable means a large collection of theater programs from among the probably hundreds of local productions that have been staged by local theater groups over the years?

I don't want to give the impression that I'm trying to pick a fight. I appreciate your advice and good intentions. It just happens that I don't think anything is to be gained by embarking on what would definitely be a major research project. Thanks for your interest and stimulating comments.

Saul Tillich 23:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay subtext

An editor saw a gay subtext in some songs (by no means impossible, although I can't hear it!) unfortunately he/she didn't have an established user name and I haven't been able to get in touch. I am by no means sure that the lyrics quoted were accurate - or which song/songs they were taken from. Can you leave a message here please - and register a user name if you want to pursue this seriously. in the meantime I have reverted the edit. Soundofmusicals 10:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Little Mary Sunshine. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 21:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do "critics" think the "Red Indians" in this one are offensive stereotypes?

They do of course - and you can see their point(!) On the other hand this whole thing is a (deliberately) silly parody that lampoons not just Native Americans but everyone in sight, so we might tend to at least partially forgive the unforgivable in this instance. But this of course is not really the point - someone had inserted "citation required" tags that either intentionally or otherwise conveyed the impression that to even mention any (perceived) hint of racism here was original research and (by implication) needed deletion! (Oh dearie dearie me!) So perhaps we'd better find a reference?! A very quick Google search produced four reviews - all of which alluded (to varying degrees and points of seriousness) to this "problem". I have stuck online web links to all four between a pair of "REF" brackets - which actually produces a neater "reference" than I expected. Anyone who wants to regularise this a bit is of course more than welcome. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]