Talk:Broadway theatre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] 2003 Orchestra Strike

I corrected the reason for the 2003 orchestra strike. The previous version stated that the strike was to protest producers' plans to replace them with a virtual orchestra. Actually, the reason for the strike because producers wanted to reduce the minimum number of musicians required during contract negotiations. The musicians threatened to strike if the contract expired. That's when the producers threatened to use virtual orchestras.

"Musicians who work in the orchestra pits... might walk off the job after their union contract expires on Sunday. Negotiations between the musicians' union and producers have hit a snag over a clause in the contract that requires a minimum number of orchestra members to be hired for each Broadway theater... Broadway musicals this week are rehearsing with prerecorded music to prepare for a potential strike." - http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/02/25/leisure.broadway.reut/

--Uw badgers 04:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling Controversy

Moved from theatre (Brit spelling) to theater (American spelling). Thx. jengod 18:48, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the correct spelling is "Broadway theatre." Please check http://www.americantheatrewing.org/, http://www.broadway.org/, http://www.broadwayarchive.com/, and http://webcdi.com/theater/theatre.php. While most Americans spell "theater" with an "er" (as per American spelling conventions), in the field of theatre as a profession, the majority of theatres use the spelling "theatre." This can be seen from the magazine "American Theatre" published by the Theatre Communications Group and the American Theatre Wing which sponsors the Tony Awards. "Broadway theater" should be included as a cross-reference, but the correct spelling of the entry is "Broadway theatre."

DJKS 01:57, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
So then why isn't it spelled THEATRE throuout the article? --Samuel Wantman 06:52, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good question. In some cases, I left the spelling "Theater" because that is how it is spelled in the theatre's name (Winter Garden Theater, Lincon Center Theater.)

The main Wiki page for theatre is spelled "theater," so linking to theater, I left it how that page is spelled. In other cases, I left the word spelled theater when it refered more to a building, and opted for theatre in other cases. Any comments or suggestions are welcome!

DJKS 18:24, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the claim that "theatre" is the "correct" spelling. There are two widespread spellings in use, theatre and theater. It may be the case that the trade organizations prefer theatre, but that merely dictates official usage, not actual usage. The general public uses both. I have no objection to the current location, as usage is mixed, but merely to claiming it is the only "correct" location. --Delirium 06:36, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with User:Delirium -- regardless of how Britain spells "theater" and whether that's "correct," Broadway is located in America, where "theatre" is spelled with "-er" and therefore should go by American spelling standards.

The naming convention is actually a little trickier than that. In America, the word "theatre" refers to the art form and the idea, while the term "theater" refers to an actual building. Because this article is not about an actual building, but rather, about the art form as it relates to broadway, the name theatre is correct. --omtay38 01:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Guess again! The spelling variation is the U.S. is even more complicated than that! The trend over the last few years has been for the theatre spelling to be shifted towards proper names (to match the American use of centre, which is now almost entirely found as "Centre"). The trend has by no means yet pushed the spelling all the way towards the "Centre" usage, but it's getting there. Since this article is not about a particular theater known as "The Broadway Theatre", the spelling really should be "Broadway theater". --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-21 14:36 (UTC)
The professional way to pronouncer is theatre, if you are in the buisness. 71.110.39.141 (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Broadway Database

I just wanted to make my fellow Wikipedians aware of a wonderful new web-site on the theatre, the Internet Broadway Database. There have been full page ads in "The New York Times" in recent days touting it and I finally tried it today in writing an article; very useful site--like the Internet Movie Database, but appears more professionally done. It's here. PedanticallySpeaking 14:30, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cats Inconsistancy?

I was reading the pages Broadway_theatre and Cats_(musical) and found what appears to be an inconsistancy between the two pages. In the text of Broadway_theatre, I saw:

"The longest running show in Broadway history was Andrew Lloyd Webber's Cats, which closed in 2000 after running for 7,485 performances at the Winter Garden Theater."

But in Cats_(musical), I saw:

"It was on the stage in the New London Theatre for exactly 21 years and 8,949 performances, from 11 May 1981 to 11 May 2002, the longest running musical in British musical history."

The two statements disagree about number of performances and closing date. Since I know nothing about theatre, I have no idea which statement is correct or whether I'm just misunderstanding something (in which case the pages need clarifaction). Can anyone resolve the confusion?

IntMan 15:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Broadway article is referring to the show's run on Broadway whereas the Cats article is referring to its run in London. Lisiate 04:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chatty

I'm a little surprised to find that the talk page here is about the things it's about, when the body of the article is quite breezy and chatty, and unsourced. Perhaps that could be tuned up? (I don't have the background, mostly, to do it myself, although perhaps that would make me a better candidate for the work...) --Baylink 21:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No references

In addition, the development of Broadway theatre owes a great deal to the theatrical traditions and contributions of four immigrant or minority groups: Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Jewish-Americans and African-Americans.

How is the above sentence verifible? There is absolutely no reference. I believe this should be removed. American theatre draws from many backgrounds and traditions. That sentence cannot stay in the article without proper documentation or supporting facts. - --Tribeca 728 05:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Venue names

Hi, I have edited a few of the pages and links for some of the Broadway theatres. Not all of them--such as the Belasco, the Broadhurst, and the Cort--bear the first names of their namesakes. I've fixed these up according to reliable sources such as Playbill and books like William Morrisons' Broadway Theatres. Namaste, Mademoiselle Sabina 09:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 500 seat regulation?

Can someone confirm this? I've personally heard 499—but this statistic should be reputable. Can anyone find the actual requirement from the true source? mxdxcxnx T C 00:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

A New York theatre is a "Broadway theatre" if it's owners are members of The League of American Theatres and Producers, and the League has determined that theatre to be a Broadway Theatre. The 499 seats is a reference to one of the factors that determine which contract actors will work under. For instance, 99 seats is the usual maximum for an Equity waiver show. Swango 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that is totally correct. The League is basically a trade organization that has two primary functions: to promote Broadway theatre, and to negotiate contracts with the theatrical unions (Actors' Equity, the various IATSE locals, and the musicians). Contract language with these unions defines what is and isn't a Broadway theatre. I don't have the Equity Production (i.e. "Broadway") Contract in front of me, but my recollection is that it defines a Broadway theatre as one which is in a certain area of Manhattan (i.e. the Theatre District) and which has over 499 seats. Over the years, that definition of what a Broadway theatre is (however it first came about) has been integrated into all kinds of agreements and contracts, and it's pretty solid at this point.
There is another factor as well: the definition of what theatres are eligible for Tony Awards, which is set by the American Theatre Wing and the League, which co-administer the awards. By this definition, the theatres of the three non-profit companies (MTC, Roundabout and Lincoln Center) are Tony-eligible, and therefore considered by most people to be Broadway houses, even though the actors work under a negotiated rider to the LORT contract, which is generally used in regional theatres, and not the Production Contract. (Disney, too, has a seperately negotiated contract, as did LiveEnt before it went belly up.)
Fortunately, the Venn diagram of these various definitions pretty much overlaps perfectly, and there isn't all that much confusion about which houses are Broadway houses and which are not. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 20:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who are those "many" and why do we give a damn about them?

Please cite references in this article when adding stuff like: "although many deride both Broadway and West End product as excessively commercial." --Kunzite 22:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of term "Legitimate Theater"

This article contends that "legitimate" refers to theater in opposition to film or TV. This doesn't make much sense when you consider the term "legitmate THEATER" which seems to suggest an opposition to other forms of theater, not another medium entirely. Specifically, I have heard this term to be used to describe plays in opposition to musicals or revues, or else refer to narrative performance in opposition to performance art, burlesque, or stripping. The citation associated with this comment, at Variety's Slanguage" defines the term thusly:

"legit -- legitimate (live) theater. The term seeks to differentiate serious theater (think Shakespeare, think O'Neill) from vaudeville or burlesque"

Clearly, this contradicts what is written in the article. I suggest removing the reference entirely or else changing it to reflect its actual meaning.

The derivation was incorrect, and I've changed it. "Legtimate" was meant in opposition to vaudeville and burlesque. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 18:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article should include the general time that Broadway theatre is offered

In the 1920s, the Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation rerouted its Brighton Beach Line services during theatre hours, then 7:30 pm to midnight. (Image:1924schedule2.jpg shows this at the bottom of the left side.) Is this still when most theatres are open? --NE2 07:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot more variation on playing schedules than there used to be, but generally speaking a Broadway schedule is Tuesday through Saturday at 8, Wednesday and Saturday matinee at 2, and Sunday matinee at 3. An alternative that many shows also use is to have a Monday night performance instead of a Sunday matinee. Some shows have started doing an earlier performance on Tuesday (7:00), and shows much more frequently than they used to will juggle their schedule according to the season. Thursday matinees (at 2) are now used more than they used to be 20 or so years ago, and sometimes a show will add that matinee and lose a mid-week evening performance. Producers are a lot more aware now of who their target audience is, when they are more likely to come to a show, and what days are the dead ones, and they adjust their show schedules accordingly. Several factors limit their flexibility: they have to pay everyone more for doing more than 8 performances in a week, and Equity limits actors to doing 5 performances over the course of three days, unless a penalty is paid. (The other unions may have contract language that places limitations on the schedule as well.) Also, shows generally try to come down after 3 hours, since the stagehands get additional if it goes over that. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 20:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I tried to cut down the external links to those directly relevant to this article, and especially ones without a commercial incentive for existing. The unions all have articles where the external link is appropriate. I provided an edit summary, yet I was reverted without any explanation. Why did this happen? kmccoy (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The unions are an intimate part of the Broadway community -- as the current strike shows -- and their websites clearly should be included. The commercial sites, which would ordinarily not be included, happen to be a good source of Broadway news and information (remember, Broadway is, by its very nature, a bunch of commercial enterprises). I eliminated the multiple League-sponsored sites, leaving those which have good information value, and re-organized the sites into coherent groupings. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 02:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I am well aware of the unions' importance in the Broadway community. However, they have their own articles. The appropriate thing to do is to link to their Wikipedia articles, and keep the external links in the union articles. WP:EL suggests the following in its list of links to be avoided: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." The commercial sites really skirt the edge of acceptability, the value of their "news" is questionable and I don't see what they add to the article other than to build up a link directory. kmccoy (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History?

No section on history? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this section could certainly use a brief history section, but I'm not the one to start it. I have no reference books and my local library has very little in the way of "arts" materials (and I don't have the time to do any kind of internet research). This site musicals.101 has some historical material (NOTE THE COPYRIGHT), as does this talkingbroadway. JeanColumbia (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How's that?  :) Someone, please add some info about non-musical plays, as my knowledge is mostly about musicals. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks! JeanColumbia (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recoup

The recently-added list of shows that have recouped cries out for verifiable, reliable sources, in my opinion. (WP:RELY) (I'd do it but I have no idea where to begin, especially with a list that contains 25 shows.)

Any thoughts/ideas? JeanColumbia (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

One answer to my question--a quick search of the "New York Times" gives this article about Spelling Bee and Avenue Q recouping. (NY Times, Sept. 12, 2005).
Additionally, a search of playbill.com (using the term "recoup") gives many articles, for example here.
So, I suppose there could be perhaps 25 or so separate references, but that seems like overkill. JeanColumbia (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Does it make sense to have this list? How can we be sure that these are the only "recent" shows that recouped the investment? Why recent shows? Some shows that didn't recoup their investments ran for a long time and employed a lot of people... Also, some shows lost money but were a critical success and helped thier authors or composers become famous.... Is recoupment a key topic in an article on "Broadway theatre"? I'm no expert, but it seems like we ought to rethink what should be contained in this article. How about top grossers? Longest runners? Most awards won? Greatest artistic successes? Trends for Broadway? Types of shows that play on Broadway? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the entire list out. (It's below this comment.) I've worked in theatre in NYC as a stage manager for 30 years, even done a few shows on Broadway, and this list seems extremely suspicious to me -- there are way too many shows listed as recouping their initial investment. Show can run for very long times without recouping, but making enough to justify their continuing to run.

Until someone comes up with a verifiable citation for this data, it should remain out of the article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, it is surprisingly infrequent that a Broadway show recoups, or makes back it's entire investment. Recent shows that have recouped their entire initial investment are:

Also, it may be a prejudice on my part, but this data was posted by an IP address from NYU, which makes it somewhat suspicious in my mind. Even if their intent was legit, though, because of the anonymity we can't inquire about sources. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)