Talk:Hair (musical)/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 1 |

Archive 2

| Archive 3 →

New Plot Summary

Just added new summary based on orig Bway script .. sorry it took me so long. Let the edits begin! -- Mblaxill (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I added some links and tried to make paragraphs of a reasonable length. We don't need to say that people sing a song in a musical; just put the song names in quotes. The summary needs to explain how the songs fit into the plot, or if a song really does *not* fit into the plot, then at least give some idea of what it is about, or what it evokes. I tried to do this, but see if you can improve the narrative flow even more. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it! I need to check some of the facts with the script .. not sure if Berger tries to get Sheila to sleep with Claude at beginning of Act II - a few other things need tweaking as well - will make changes soon. Overall I think it's really good! -- Mblaxill (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. The article is coming along nicely. I'm noticing that not all of the songs are mentioned in the synopsis, though. I know that a lot of the music is not necessarily plot-driven, but some sense of when they fit in the show, at least, might be a good idea. — Music Maker 5376 15:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Some songs are plot driven and some fit into more of a musical review format .. especially in Act I. Also some of the songs were cut, then put back in, then cut, etc. Most productions that are put up now cut Initials, The Bed, Dead End, sometimes Electric Blues, Great God of Power, Don't Put It Down. If you like I'll put in all the songs ... the ones I left out are NOT plot driven - For now, though, I want to correct what we have so far -- Mblaxill (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that this is more difficult than other shows just because there was never really one definitive version, but if I -- someone who kinda knows the show -- wonders how the other songs fit in, I think that the average reader might, too. I wonder if it might not be a bad idea to just say in a short paragraph before the synopsis that the synopsis includes the plot-driven songs and the songs that are not as plot-driven have been left out or that they are sometimes cut from individual productions.

Or, while we usually try to keep from saying things like, "Sally sings 'Kevin Bacon is My Hero'", I think that in this case, it might be okay, simply because it's difficult to make many of the songs fit in logically, otherwise. Usually, characters sing because they have something to say -- that's not always the case, here. I'm usually very, VERY against sentences like that, but, like I said, I don't think there's any other way to do it. — Music Maker 5376 16:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I made some more revisions after consulting the script. I tried to stay as close as possible to the stage direcitons. Some things, like Woof humping the Jagger poster (which is often the case in most porductions), there are no stage directions for so I left that ambiguous. Interestingly, there are no stage directions for the nude scene at the end of Act I, BUT, everyone who was in the show originally can tell you that this is where the nude scene was and it's common knowledge among people who know about the show. Since it's such an infamous moment I think it needs to be in the synopsis -- Mblaxill (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest mentioning all the songs from the original version in the synopsis, since it is a synopsis of the original version, and, rather than an introductory note, add a note at the end of the synopsis describing which songs are frequently put into the show in subsequent productions. I don't think this needs to be comprehensive: it should cover the most important/frequently added songs, or songs that became famous. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

When I have time in the next few days I'll put in all the songs. Cheers! -- Mblaxill (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC) -- UPDATE: ok so all the songs are included now - also caught a few errors in the 1st draft and added in a bit more info. I really like the article now .. it feels complete. Thanks so much for guiding me through this and editing my labored grammar .. Cheers! -- Mblaxill (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, again! It needs a little cleanup for flow, but, on the whole, not bad. The article is in excellent shape, but let me warn against feeling that it's "complete". There is no such thing on WP.

What it really needs now are some pictures, perhaps a sound file or two. Sound files have to be relatively short -- 30 secs -- but they can be added. Pictures, generally, are under copyright, too, and require some finagling to get allowed by WP. See what you can find, and I think we're definitely on the way to GA status. — Music Maker 5376 15:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

how many pictures do you think you need? and where do you want to place them? There are tons of pics on the Hair archive site and i think they are all cleared for copyright. (love the sound files btw) - Mblaxill (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say five or six at most. If you can, try to get a representative showing of various productions -- they all don't have to be the orig prod. Since, generally, "anything goes" with this show, prods should have varying looks and feels, and, if we can capture that, great. If not, no big deal.

If you could, link me to where you're getting them from. Copyright's tricky -- even though there might not be a copyright notice, they're probably still under copyright. We can probably get them in under fair use, but, unless there's a notice specifically disclaiming copyright, they're probably copyrightable.

Glad you like the sound files! It was fun putting them together -- I really want to MD this show! I was talking to a friend about it -- we're doing Macbeth right now, but, perhaps after that.... — Music Maker 5376 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask around. Here's the link to Hair Archive pictures .. good luck with the MD! - where are you located? - Mblaxill (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in South Jersey. I'm not working with any theatre, per se, there's just a bunch of us that whenever we want to do something, we do. Kinda nice. Hard to build an audience that way, but people will ALWAYS come see Hair....

I'll check that archive when I get home. — Music Maker 5376 22:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

another picture link. Dagmar was the main photographer for the show and you might get her to let you have a few or at least point you in the right direction - Mblaxill (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I found that link, myself. Good stuff! We can write her, and she may let us use one. The GFDL is a little tricky; I'll e-mail her when I have time. I'm going to work on the citations tonight. — Music Maker 5376 02:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done what I can with what I think may qualify under fair use. I will e-mail Dagmar to see if she'll release one or two under the GFDL. You seem to be somewhat familiar with the Red Bank prod -- would they be willing to release one of those photos under GFDL? (Preferably the one with Butler and Rado....) — Music Maker 5376 17:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

RE Red Bank - definitely. I'll follow up on that. Good luck w/Dagmar - Mblaxill (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Music files/Peer review

I know we said it was okay about two months ago, but I've just added some music files and I'm going to nominate this for peer review. Ssilvers did an excellent job fixing the refs, Mblaxill got the synopsis ready, so I think we should be in decent shape. — Music Maker 5376 01:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

re Head of the Class - you changed "head of the English Dept" to "Principal" .. was that intentional? According to the ref/episode guide at TV.com it's the head of the English dept who wants to disrupt the performance .. is that inaccurate (i've never seen the episode) - Mblaxill (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I did see the episode and distinctly remember it being the principal. He was very against doing the show, thinking it immoral, indecent, etc. The director/teacher was an aging hippie, so, of course, he was very for doing it. To my recollection, there was no member of the cast that was the "head of the English dept." I know what the source says, but I think the source is wrong. Maybe we can find another (correct) source? — Music Maker 5376 22:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW -- those episodes were my first exposure to this show! — Music Maker 5376 22:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC) .. lol! - Mblaxill (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

TVGuide.com says the same thing -- head of the English dept. TV.com could have gotten their info there. I just saw this episode not too long ago and remember it being the principal. Until we can get confirmation, you can change it back if you want. — Music Maker 5376 22:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's cool if you remember it .. maybe someone can get the episode on Netflix or something - Mblaxill (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, now I've seen three sources telling me that I'm wrong. I guess we'll have to trust them over the memories of a 13-year-old.... But, in all honesty, it could have been both the head of the dept and the principal. That makes some sense. — Music Maker 5376 22:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I added roles the lead actors played in the Orig Bway prod .. don't think we need roles for other prods so much but since the Orig Bway is of most interest i thought it an important enough detail to include - Mblaxill (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare question

Got a quesiton .. this factoid from Literary References section: "Many of these [Shakespeare] references did not appear in the Broadway version of the play, but were part of other productions, especially London." I'm not sure about this .. don't remember reading it anywhere .. there's no citation for it - thoughts? - Mblaxill (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Are the literary references mentioned in the first paragraph under Literary References contained in the Broadway script or not? If they are, I'd remove the statement that they're not in the Broadway script. If they're not, then we need a citation to productions that included them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, "Eyes Look Your Last" was a song added to the London production, the lyrics taken from Romeo and Juliet. Of course, it could have been added to the Bway prod at a later date. — Music Maker 5376 02:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

what's your source? The script I have is c1969 and the "eyes look your last" lyric is in it - now it might have been absent when the show first opened in April 1968. The script I'm working from is the first official Tams libretto after it opened on Bway .. it's such a fluid show and there were definitely differences between the 4/68 version that the cast worked with and the c1969 version. O'Horgan called the TAMS script "author's revenge" because the authors put back a lot of what he cut and I'm sure made some other minor changes - Anyway, it's what they used from '69 on, and the Bway run was until 1972 so it's the best we got :) Mblaxill (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My source is something I read somewhere that I couldn't possibly locate if I tried. I have the Orig Bway Recording, and it's not on there. If it's in the script, then we fix the line. — Music Maker 5376 03:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't find my CD at the moment but I'm 99% sure it's on the recording. Listen to the part where Claude starts singing "Manchester England England..." - the tribe is behind him singing "eyes look your last..." Mblaxill (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

HAHA! I had no idea that that's what they were saying -- I always thought it was random vowels! Thank you! Either way, the offending sentence has been removed. — Music Maker 5376 15:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Refs

I think everything is formatted properly, now. I added two Template:Subat:cn tags -- one for the international productions, one for the quote about the Red Bank production (unfortunately, we can't use MySpace as a reference.) — Music Maker 5376 03:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC) -- Tried to find refs for int'l productions in one of the three books but there's nada. Not sure where the mention originated - Mblaxill (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

hey - we dicussed Reb Bank back in Nov .. here's the original comment copied from above Mblaxill (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC) - I added one more community prod - the citation is a Myspace site...i know that isn't the best source but if you scroll down there's a picture of Butler and Rado with the cast - and I know the "I was there" citation is a no no but, um, i WAS there with Butler, Rado and Co and can vouch for the quote that director Anthony D'Amato cites underneath the photo :) - Mblaxill 22:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well... you're right. The "I was there" citation is a no no. It amounts to original research. MySpace won't fly if we bring this to WP:GA or WP:FAC. Please understand that I'm not doubting the veracity of the statement, but it'll need a better source. If it was in a book or a newspaper, that would be a different story. Unfortunately, it'll probably have to go. — Music Maker 5376 03:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Does the picture with Butler and Rado add any weight? I know that Butler has been working with the Red Bank director ever since on developing new prods. Mblaxill (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, yes. To the people who might eventually come through and critique the article, maybe not. Perhaps we can find a secondary source for that statement -- something that says that Butler and Rado worked with the director, or a reliable source that, at least, says that they saw the prod. I tried searching at Asbury Park Press, to no avail. Maybe you'll be a little more successful.... — Music Maker 5376 16:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

ok i'll see what i can get .. might take a few days -- Mblaxill (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. There is no deadline.... — Music Maker 5376 16:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Butler quote was from the official Hair blog .. I added the ref - Mblaxill (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Who Sang What

Just fyi .. a lot of those character names (Ron, Leata, Suzanne, Walter, etc) were just the first names of the actors in the tribe (Leata Galloway, Walter Michael Harris, Ronnie Dyson...).. The only roles with actual characters names were Claude, Berger, Sheila, Jeanie, Hud, Woof, Crissy and Dionne (also Moms, Dads, Tourist Lady, Abe Lincoln, etc). Up to you whether you want to keep it as is - Mblaxill (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought so. I took them from ibdb. I started to change all the random names to "Tribe", but it seemed strange. They can all come out, but they're kinda useful to the person who comes to the article just to see who sang what. I'm open to suggestions. — Music Maker 5376 21:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The '69 script is the best source .. i'll check the script and just say "tribe member" (ok?) for the non-leads Mblaxill (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool. — Music Maker 5376 21:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok made the changes .. a couple things.. 1) I kept "Ron" under Aquarius since Ronnie Dyson's version/recording of the song is so iconic, and 2) In the script, "Yes I's Finished" is just part of "Abie Baby" -- not sure when the script changed and they differentiated between the two -- if you listen to the CD you'll know what I mean - Mblaxill (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I made it "Yes I's Finished/Abie Baby". Up until today there was a note that said that "Yes I's Finished" was added to the '95 London prod. I raised a question about it awhile back, saying that I knew it to be on the Orig. Bway record, but no one addressed it. May there have been an extended version for London 95? — Music Maker 5376 22:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In the script it's just "Abie Baby" .. either way is cool with me - Mblaxill (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Great work!

Nice job on the article, gentlemen. The new images are excellent. One minor thing. You don't need the year dates in the book refs where only one book by that author is given in the sources, since there's no confusion. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The only thing I found to reference books like that included the year. There was another way, too, but I forget what it was. We can take them out, if necessary. — Music Maker 5376 15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to see that this article is better than the article on hair! — Music Maker 5376 15:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Media

I'm noticing that the mentions of covers seems a little 60s-centric. There were subsequent covers of some of the songs that didn't chart quite as well -- mainly I'm thinking of The Lemonheads cover of "Frank Mills" from '92. The album charted, but the single did not. Do some of these bear inclusion? — Music Maker 5376 15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes the Lemonheads should go in i think .. also Barbara Streisand covered Frank Mills as well but it's hard to find any mentions of it. Wasn't on any of her LPs .. i think it was a single - Mblaxill (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not mentioned at All Music Guide. I'm all for keeping any reference to Babs out of the article....

I'll do a little more browsing at AMG when I have the time. I'm sure there are more that can go in. — Music Maker 5376 15:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Our PR has finally seen some activity! There are a couple of great suggestions that I agree should be implemented. If anyone gets the chance today, great! If not, I'll get to them tonight. — Music Maker 5376 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

what're the suggestions? - Mblaxill (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have linked you: Wikipedia:Peer review/Hair (musical)/archive1. — Music Maker 5376 17:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to concentrate on some of the points that she says needs more info and leave the copy editing to me, that would be fine. I think the main point is fleshing out the section on the '77 revival and the movie. I know that, generally, they're seen as being weak in the overall story of the show, but we can still add more information.

Since the movie had so little to do with the stage prod, i would opt for the Peer Review rec that we just combine into one para .. imho there's really not that much to say about it - Mblaxill (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, she mentions a need for critical reception. I know that the NY critics were generally kind, but what about the rest of the productions in other cities? We could probably devote an entire section to that. — Music Maker 5376 17:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would focus on the critical reception of the early productions. After that, I think the critical reception should focus on "mature/historical assessments" of the show rather than trying to go production-by-production, except to mention if a particular revival was reviled, or if the critics thought that revisions were helpful and should be retained. But I'd say it should follow the early reviews and box-office results and then move on to what the pundits say about the show's place in the history of musical theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

there's a ton of critic reponses on the michaelbutler.com site (link here) - how many are you thinking?..how big should the section be? It could be two paragraphs or twelve (!) - Mblaxill (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A good size paragraph or two on the initial critical response and a paragraph or two on the mature assessments, I'd say. The reviews chosen should be a cross-section of the major critics; something like "most critics agreed that...." or "Clive Barnes disagreed with most of his colleagues, writing...." -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to focus on the early prods, perhaps noting the differences in reception in the different cities. We talk a great deal about how nudity on the New York stage was acceptable, and, while I don't want to oversell the nudity in the show, perhaps the different reactions to that around the world might be interesting. Doing that may necessitate the breakdown of that "Politics" section, but things can get spread around.

As for size -- something between two grafs and 12.... :-D — Music Maker 5376 19:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC) - lol Mblaxill (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

okey doke! I'll find some time soon to put it together - Mblaxill (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Remember: no deadline.... — Music Maker 5376 19:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

O Horgan

The story is that he was busy with another show he was working on - not sure what it was, if it was LaMama or another group .. there's also speculation in the Horn book that Papp wanted someone more "traditional". If I can find more detail from Horn book I'll add it - Mblaxill (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Whose "first choice" was he? I wrote "the producers", but should it be "Butler's"? or "the creative team's" first choice? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Rado and Ragni - Mblaxill (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

'88 Concert at the UN

I'd say this is relatively important, and could use a mention in the article, but I'm not sure where;

On May 26, 1988, a 20th anniversary concert event was held at the United Nations General Assembly to benefit children with AIDS.^[1] The creators, Ragni, Rado and McDermott, reunited to create 9 new songs for the concert. The cast of 163 included former stars of the show from various productions around the globe: Melba Moore, Treat Williams and Donna Summer. Ticket prices ranged from $250 to $5000 and went to the United States Committee for UNICEF and the Creo Society’s Fund for Children with AIDS.

Maybe move the 77 revival and the movie down into "Productions" and add a heading "70s and 80s"? (And I have a source for the prices; AP's site is just being a bitch.) — Music Maker 5376 02:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, gonna do that. — Music Maker 5376 03:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! I might be able to add another 80s prod from the Horn book - Mblaxill (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Images

Things are coming together in terms of images. I've got emails to Dagmar and D'Amato, and I'm waiting for a response -- Dagmar's stuff for the synopsis, D'Amato's toward the end. There's an image need around "Politics", but I'm not sure what should go there to illustrate the section. Any suggestions? — Music Maker 5376 04:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

how about a picture of the Boston cast and/or something else releating to the court cases in Boston and Chattanooga - Mblaxill (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OK here's a link to a picture of the Hanna theater after the bomb got thrown at it (scroll down about two thirds of the page) - Mblaxill (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was hoping for.... Seriously, man, SLEUTH! — Music Maker 5376 16:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

i credit the Google :) .. another idea (lighter, not so political) would be a picture of the Supremes trio singing White Boys (on Bway Melba Moore sang the lead so that would be a cool pic indeed) - Dagmar would be the go to for this. If you don't have any luck with her i have another person you can email - Mblaxill (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to e-mail Kent State either later today or tonight. I would definitely prefer that image. Still waiting for a response from Dagmar and D'Amato. — Music Maker 5376 17:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Heard from D'Amato; picture's in there. E-mailed Kent State; still haven't heard from Dagmar. — Music Maker 5376 02:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow .. Love the Red Bank Pic! great idea to include that!! For actual pics of the show being performed, if Dagmar doesn't get back to you go to this link and scroll down to the bottom - there's an email contact link for Nina who basically runs the Butler website .. she'll be very helpful - Mblaxill (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

New Critical Reception section

First draft is up -- the refs aren't formatted yet. - Mblaxill (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, excellent, excellent work! I can get the refs formatted later. — Music Maker 5376 19:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

good! because I'm making a mess of it - Mblaxill (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Great!!! I wikified the section and moved it below the songs, since the Synopsis and songs should go first. Question: Should critical reception go first, or the analysis of the political impact and themes? I like Critical reception first, I think, but just thought I would ask. I think the politics/themes stuff is for a really committed reader who wants to read the entire article. Boy, Mblaxill, this is a great article, and I think it's worth taking all the way to FA! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To answer MM's message on my talk page, I feel strongly that we do not want to bury the Synopsis and musical numbers too far down. I like this order (and the order pretty much as discussed at the project's article structure page). I think that, after the overview, most readers want to see the synopsis, the list of songs and information about the original Broadway (or maybe London) productions (I wouldn't mind moving the subsequent productions lower down with the later ones). Then, we have critical reception, analysis sections, and finally discussion of the various subsequent productions and "recent" items. That seems like a logical order to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I like the order of things - Mblaxill (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)My thought was that the critical reception section, while certainly worthy of a section itself, is thematically part of the history. As such, if the history is before the synopsis, so should the criticism. I think the way the productions are structured makes sense -- this show had several simultaneous "original productions", then they sort of died down, and we pick it back up with the first Broadway revival. But I think that the critical reception should be closer to the productions that they're describing. — Music Maker 5376 20:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Question....

All of this, and I still feel as I have an unanswered question about the show:
Why "Hair"? (I feel like the Tourist Lady!) Was the show called "Hair" from its inception? Did the writing of the title song make them title the show as such? It seems like such an odd name for a musical -- even this musical. Feels relatively arbitrary. I'm wondering if any of the sources say anything about it. — Music Maker 5376 22:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we answer the question in the history section: Rado described the inspiration for Hair as "a combination of some characters we met in the streets, people we knew and our own imaginations. We knew this group of kids in the East Village who were dropping out and dodging the draft, and there were also lots of articles in the press about how kids were being kicked out of school for growing their hair long, and we incorporated that in the show too." That works for me, unless there's more about it somewhere else. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, that doesn't seem like enough justification for an entire title, is what I mean. It's definitely a major theme, but, to me, not necessarily title-worthy. It seems like they were really out to "say something" and all they could come up with was "dead protein". — Music Maker 5376 22:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If I find anything I'll let you know, but I'm 99% sure that Rado never told anyone, newspaper, book or otherwise - Mblaxill (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're probably right. He seems... inscrutable. — Music Maker 5376 00:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm hairy high and low, Don't ask me why, don't know. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that this might be a generational thing. In the 60s, it was a big deal to have long hair. In the 1950s (think Leave it to Beaver), and really since the "Gay 90s", men had short hair, and it was really, really rebellious to grow it longer than the tines of your comb. Look at JFK's photos in the early 60s; compare them to the rebellious Bobby Kennedy later, with longer hair. Only rebels, beatnicks and criminals might grow their hair longer. James Dean's hair was very long for his generation. So, growing the hair was more than normal teenage rebellion, it was a revolution in society and a sign that you wouldn't go along with the "government's war against the little people in Vietnam". Notice that the Beatles hair got longer and longer, until they were writing songs about using drugs. Soldiers, of course, had to wear short hair, so by having long hair, you were the opposite of a government-controlled robot of death. People who were brought up during World War II were completely affronted at first and did not accept long hair until, during the second term of Richard Nixon's presidency, it became clear that the war was a failure, that the government was corrupt, and then even moderate adults over 30 began to see the wisdom in the kids' message. So, I think that people who saw the early productions, and the long hair on the poster, thought that the name of the musical was a clear message. I bet that some Wikipedia articles might describe this better than I just did. I was a little kid in the 60s (born in 1960), but I was shocked and appalled when my own father, a man over 40, began to grow long sideburns around 1970 - but then, my parents voted for McGovern! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Check this out. And this; and this. Time Magazine said, in 1967, "The hippie is all juvenile protest. He wears his hair extravagantly long because short hair was once the Establishment's style, and he opposes the Establishment." -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand the connection. My hair is to my shoulders. It's not "down to there, hair," but it is "shoulder-length or longer". This was the time that that became "acceptable". I guess I take it for granted that it was still relatively controversial. At the same time, so was everything else in the show. But I guess hair was where it started: people judged you on your hair and just assumed the rest. Then, hell yea, might as well go see a show that lets you know that everything you assumed was correct! — Music Maker 5376 00:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia actually has an article on Long hair. Given that other people under, say, 40, might ask the same question that you do, I would have no objection to adding a sentence or two citing either one of the refs that I give above, or possibly one of the refs in the Long hair article. Food for thought, anyhow. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As a postscript .. lyrics from the song "Hair" .. "hair like Jesus wore it / hallelujah I adore it / hallelujah Mary loved her son / Why don't my mother love me..." - Mblaxill (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Picked that line for the audio file for a reason.... — Music Maker 5376 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Be-in

Great article re: Be-in here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Let the what-what in?

Is it "Let the Sunshine In" or "Let the Sun Shine In"? I think different sources say different things. I was under the impression that it was "Sun Shine", though I recently wrote "Sunshine" because the article Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In is that way. Is it "Sun Shine" in the show, but "Sunshine" when we're talking about The 5th Dimension? — Music Maker 5376 16:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

IBDB says Sun Shine. I would think that's right: I always thought that we want to let the sun "shine in" rather than letting in sunshine. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Much more active. I'm going to go fix a couple of things. — Music Maker 5376 16:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sun Shine in script - Mblaxill (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Left Sun Shine for the show, Sunshine for 5th Dimension. — Music Maker 5376 17:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

i'm pretty sure it's "let the sunshine in" in the musical score---musical15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.179.152.201 (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

GA?

I think it's ready. Does it need a more comprehensive copy edit? — Music Maker 5376 16:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

still need to format the refs in Critic section - Mblaxill (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Indeed. Good point. We also still have a few ^{[citation needed]} tags to worry about. I think I found a ref for one of the actors in the Melbourne prod -- not a great ref, just his bio on a random Aussie website that makes mention of it in passing, but, hopefully, it'll work. — Music Maker 5376 21:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

found a cite for McKinney - Caton has Hair on his Wiki page, is that enough?? I'll look into the London roof collapse (i think i tried to find that earlier and couldn't .. Horn book will definitely have a cite for number of performaces .. might have to take out the roof thing) - Mblaxill (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If it were cited on his Wiki page, it would be enough, but it's not. I haven't been able to find much on him that didn't have to do with The Castle (film) (which I loved!). — Music Maker 5376 21:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

how about his Rotten Tomatoes bio? - Mblaxill (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya know, I saw that and I'm not sure. I don't know if it's generally considered reliable or not. May as well put it in -- if someone along the line doesn't like it, the whole factoid can go. — Music Maker 5376 23:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominated! — Music Maker 5376 03:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, now we wait for about 3 weeks or so. Then a reviewer will likely give comments and give us a chance to respond to them. That's the usual "on hold" system that reviewers are using now for articles that they think can satify the standards quickly. I just went through again and made a variety of minor copy edits, except that I found a great cite to add to the Shakespeare section, which had some OR before. I also put in cites to better define "Be-In" and "Tribe". -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Great job! I moved Ragni's passing in 1991 to the first paragraph to keep the correct order of events - Mblaxill (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Gap in the 1980s

The Canadian Encyclopedia entry on Hair says that a 1985 Montreal production was the 70th professional production.See here. Cite it if you like. It also has some other info that you may find useful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy-editing notes

Ssilvers asked me to do help with some copy-editing, so here goes. I do have some specific questions/comments about the prose that I'm not sure what to do with, however:

At the time, the musical's depiction of the use of illegal drugs and profanity...: at what time? At the time of its off-Broadway premiere? Broadway premiere? Some kind of context is needed.
- I took out "At the time". There was controversy every time the musical opened somewhere new, and I think it's clear from the context that we're talking about the early productions, no? -- Ssilvers
  - Works for me - Mblaxill (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The lead may need to be reordered; as it stands now the musical's initial controversies are stated before its basic plot, which seems out of place. That it broke new ground in musical theatre is mentioned before its production history; would a chronological lead make more sense?
- Personally, I think people are more familiar with the controvercies than the plot, or, that is to say, the show is more identified by the controversies than the plot. --MM
  - Our usual structure is to describe the production history last (or near the end) in the intro, so that shouldn't be changed. I agree with MM -- the groundbreaking nature of this show is more notable/important than its plot, so it makes sense to talk about what was new and interesting about the show for a couple of sentences before saying what the show was about. I'd say, let's leave the order of the intro alone, and let the FA reviewers discuss. There may be another solution, but it seems right to me. -- Ss
The first two paragraphs of the "History" section are also confusingly out of chronological order. One paragraph says "While writing Hair in 1966..." and the next jumps back to 1964. We also have Ragni would later interest Rado before the part in the narrative when they actually meet. I don't want to mess things up by reordering things, but the "story" is difficult to follow as is. Viet Rock can be mentioned after Rado's quote about the plays inspiration, for example, since it happens after they began writing it together.
- I'm fine with someone reordering it... part of the confusion is that I couldn't find when exactly Rado studied with Strasberg so I kept his background vague... my purpose was to describe them both individually and then together working on the show - Mblaxill (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Ibdb puts The Lion in Winter at Mar 3, 1966 - May 21, 1966. — MusicMaker5376 19:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    - I reordered the first two paragraphs chronologically, as Maria suggested. Please take a look. I also took out The Lion in Winter and Lee Strasberg. Unless you can relate these more to the writing of the show, ect, I can't figure out how to fit them in. Perhaps being on B'way made Rado's contribution to the writing come along slowly, or somehow Strasberg's technique is relevant to the show's eventual style/techniques? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
      - Been trying to keep track of everything today (was busy at work) .. i'll need time to read the whole article again .. First glance looks great! I like the flow of History now but i might try to put back Lion in Winter where it makes more sense. Just like MacDermot winning a Grammy i want to just say something brief about their accomplishments pre-Hair (in Ragni's case he didn't do anything that high profile outside of Open Theater) - Mblaxill (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
To make them consistent, I changed the dates to American-style (April 18, 2008); some were International (18 April 2008) or American-International (18 April, 2008). :) If International is preferred, please do change it back; I'm just looking for standardization.
- That's fine. --MM
  - Agreed, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Regrettably, I've removed the "and it fell victim to tragedy" bit from the "Social change" section; I can see where some users would think it a little too melodramatic. I've changed it to "In addition to anti-Vietnam War themes, these controversies caused occasional threats and acts of violence during the show's early years" but I'm still iffy about the wording. Thoughts?
- Looks good to me. --MM
  - I took another crack at it. Check it out -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I reduced some redundancies in the plot section, but it still needs to be cut down. Every song doesn't need to be mentioned within the plot, for example; that's what the "Songs" section is for, after all. The "Media" section looks good and I approve of the new section-ordering with reception below the plot. Keep at it! María (habla conmigo) 18:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hehe -- one of the things Mblaxill went back and did was mention every song in the synopsis! Our article structure suggests that it be that way. Of course, it doesn't have to be that way.... — MusicMaker5376 18:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Doh! Foiled again by tricksy guidelines. Well, despite the fact that I believe there should always be an exception to the rule, I'll let that one pass if you guys think it's truly necessary. María (habla conmigo) 18:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    - I agree -- huge fan of WP:IAR! I think we could probably do without the songs that don't really further the plot, but I like having them in there just so one can see where they fall. I dunno -- I'll leave it up to the other editors around here. — MusicMaker5376 19:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
      - I'd say that before removing any songs, let's discuss here and decide. I would say that they could only be removed if they generally are not done in the show.... I don't mind taking out mentions of reprises, if there are any. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
        
        I agree - although I mentioned the "Ain't Got No" reprise only because it's a really BIG reprise .. bigger than the 1st version and more active, crazy, etc - Mblaxill (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    - I went through the synopsis and tried to streamline it some more. Take a look. I don't think it's too long, really, but MM, please take a look and see if there is any fat to trim, and also if you and Mblaxill agree with my edits. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
      - I tweaked a few things .. the "black out" at the the beginning of act 2 is an actual power black out (not a stage direction - lol!), which is why the tribe comes in singing "Oh Great God of Power" (punchline - "Oh Con Ed...") - the "pill for the Pope" line is an iconic line, and one of the handful of ways they poke fun at religion so I think it's important to emphasize that line. Also it's never clear if Berger rips the shirt on purpose or not. i think that covers it. Great job on the copy edits btw! - Mblaxill (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much, Maria! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why "Hair"? Maybe we should add a box with some lyrics

"She, as a veil down to the slender waist,
Her adorned golden tresses wore
Dishevelled, but in wanton ringlets waved,
As the vine curls her tendrils..."

— John Milton's description of Eve in Paradise Lost

She asks me why,/I'm just a hairy guy.

I'm hairy noon and night,/Hair, that's a fright.

....I let it fly in the breeze and get caught in the trees,

Give a home to the fleas in my hair,

A home for fleas (yeah)/A hive for bees (yeah)/A nest for birds,

There ain't no words for the beauty, the splendor,/The wonder of my Hair....

Flow it, show it, long as God can grow it, my hair.

I want it long, straight, curly, fuzzy,/Snaggy, shaggy, ratty, matty,

Oily, greasy, fleecy, shining,/Gleaming, steaming, flaxen, waxen,

Knotted, polka dotted, twisted, beaded, braided,

Powdered, flowered and confettied,/Bangled, tangled, spangled and spaghettied.

Oh say, can you see my eyes?/If you can then my hair's too short.

Down to here, down to there,/Down to there, down to where it stops by itself.

They'll be ga ga at the go go when they see me in my toga,

My toga made of blond, brilliantined, biblical hair.

My hair like Jesus wore it,/Hallelujah, I adore it,

Hallelujah; Mary loved her son, why don't my mother love me?....

-- Ssilvers (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

great idea! Are there copyright issues? - Mblaxill (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I definitely have no problem with adding some lyrics (as long as we don't go overboard and quote an entire song, there should be no copyright issues), but I want to make sure that we don't synthesize a response to my question. — Music Maker 5376 17:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: yellow shirt

Doesn't he tear the shirt on purpose, telling Shiela that he "hates yellow", and prompting her to sing "Easy to be Hard"? — Music Maker 5376 17:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Claude and Sheila cover his head with the shirt while he's going on a goofy sort of rant ("[sex is] super-goosey-gassy, I'm hungry-uppy...") and that's when he rips it. They ask him why he ripped it and he acts petulant, saying "I hate yellow" .. BUT!!.. the stage directions just say "BERGER grabs the shirt and rips it" and I've seen it staged where he rips it on purpose and not on purpose, like he doesn't know what they put on his head - Mblaxill (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that he doesn't treat her gift seriously, and she feels that he doesn't care about her - so even if he doesn't rip it in purpose, he rips it without considering her feelings, which is just as bad in her eyes. So, I guess I'm ok with leaving it that he rips it while goofing around.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

True. Works for me. — Music Maker 5376 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sprecken zie deutsch?

I, obviously, do not. If anyone speaks German, I would love to use this image from the German WP in the article. It says it's GFDL, but I'm a little dubious of that. If anyone can tell what the source is, etc., it would be rather helpful.
Also, no response from Dagmar. — Music Maker 5376 15:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't sprecken, but Google Translation says that the image was uploaded under the GNU Free Documentation License and that it was "released" by the dissolved company's production manager. Because it isn't uploaded at the commons, however, I don't think it can be used on the English Wikipedia unless it's uploaded here. I'm not even sure if the released rights proclamation is correctly done; it's just a quote from another Wikipedia user. María (habla conmigo) 13:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks! I'll either upload it here or to the commons. — Music Maker 5376 13:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it a little deeper, it looks like the user who "released" the rights has been indef blocked -- it appears for denying the existance of the Holocaust.... Maybe I can get it in under fair use.... — Music Maker 5376 21:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

On this day....

Hope everyone has seen the Selected Anniversaries for today on the Main Page.... — Music Maker 5376 02:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Tourist lady

The way the synopsis describes it, it sounds to me like the Tribe simply refers to the Tourist Lady as "Margaret Mead", not that it's the actual character name. I'm wondering if the lines in the script say "Tourist Lady: Be free...." or "Margaret Mead: Be free....". If it's the latter, that's fine, but if it's the former I think that the article might make a reader think that the character is actually supposed to be Margaret Mead. I'm going to leave the reference in the synopsis, but remove the other two. If I'm not correct or if someone disagrees, feel free to undo or revert. Same goes for separating the 70s and 80s. — Music Maker 5376 01:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

people in Hair call the character Tourist Lady and/or Margaret Mead - I don't have the script with me right now so I don't know what the exact first ref to her is. I'll double check later - Mblaxill (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE - in the script, the stage directions ID the two as a "touristy looking couple, HUBERT and MARGARET MEAD" and the first ID for her lines are "WOMAN (MARGARET MEAD)" ... since everyone I know from the show either refers to her as tourist lady and/or Margaret Mead, I think it's fine to reference her both ways but using the lower case for "tourist lady" - also just a side note .. we don't find out she's Margaret Mead until the tribe calls out to her at the very end of the scene - Mblaxill (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, cool. The references can go back in, if you want. — Music Maker 5376 01:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Young Recruit scene

Just added a quote to the synopsis, beginning of Act 2. I know we're trying to keep it as brief as possible but the more I thought about it the more I wanted to add it, since the quote is one of the more famous ones from the show (along with "a pill for the Pope" :) - Mblaxill (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree - it's a particularly memorable quote. I don't find "a pill for the pope" as memorable, though. Something struck me as I read it: is it necessary to say *how many* tribe members do various things? I know it's got to be three girls for each of Black boys and white boys, but does it have to be six parent figures? Four black guys, etc? Was that consistent throughout the Broadway run and in the script? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea that this show was the genesis of that quote -- it should definitely stay. Frankly, I've never heard of "a pill for the pope", but I'm a child of the 80s....

As for the numbers of people, I think that in some cases -- 6 parent figures (since most people only have 2) -- it's kinda important. I don't think it sounds redundant, but we could cut a couple.... — Music Maker 5376 01:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with taking out the 3 ref - but i'll argue to keep "pill for the pope" - Mblaxill (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue to remove it -- it's only 5 words -- but a Google search for "a pill for the pope" yields 2 results: one being this article, and one relatively out of context. A google search for the other quote yields 82 -- and there are probably more that didn't quite word it that way. I don't necessarily think that, with 40-year-old quotes and concepts, googlehits are relevant; I'm just putting it out there. — Music Maker 5376 22:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

think of "pill for the Pope" as more of an insiders thing .. Trekkie-eque :) - Mblaxill (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That would argue for removing it. WP is supposed to be understood by general readers. But as MusicMaker says, it's only 5 words. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Unhappy with the Movie

Responding to ssilvers .. Rado/Ragni thought that Forman failed to capture the essence of Hair, that the hippies were portrayed as, to quote Rado (Horn p.118), "oddballs" and "some sort of aberration" without any connection to the peace movement, etc. Both are quoted as saying "Any resemblance between the 1979 film and the original Biltmore version, other than some of the songs, the names of the characters, and a common title, eludes us." In their view, the screen version of Hair has yet to be made (Horn p.118). I'll leave it up to you guys to fill in the blanks in the article - Mblaxill (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that pretty much did it! — Music Maker 5376 17:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't they have any artistic control over the screenplay? Did they completely sign their copyrights away to Forman without any idea of what the film version would be like? That is surprising. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Forman was so respected and they were thrilled to have him sign on, they basically agreed to let him do his own thing .. much to their later regret - Mblaxill (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing info

What strikes me about the article is that nowhere does it make mention of Hair being the first show on Broadway with rock music, or it bringing to an end the "Golden Age" of Broadway, or its effects being felt today in shows like Rent and Spring Awakening. Ssilvers, I'm wondering if you might have any sources to back that up? — Music Maker 5376 19:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I added an assessment of Hair from Kenrick (he just published a new book that probably has an even better quote, but I don't have the book yet :)~ ). It may also relate Hair to later works. Also, if you have access to this book, I am sure that it will do the same, but I also don't have it: Wollman, Elizabeth Lara, The Theatre Will Rock: A History of the Rock Musical from Hair to Hedwig (University of Michigan Press, 2006). -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I like this..not sure it belongs in History (maybe Social Change section??) or that warrants a whole paragraph .. anyone else want to weigh in? - Mblaxill (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree -- probably under a heading like "Legacy" or something along those lines -- but it can probably wait until we have more information. Or use it as the intro for that section. Actually, I'm gonna move it down there now. — Music Maker 5376 22:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Reunion

It was a hugh pleasure to meet you (MB) at the reunion! The singalong was mad fun, and it was nice to celebrate O'Horgan's birthday with him. It was also nice to hear Rado speak about the show. I e-mailed Nina and told her that if she has any comments/suggestions, she can e-mail them or post them to the talk page, and we can consider them then. I also asked if she has any historical images that they are willing to release to the PD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes very fun indeed!! I was so surprised when you tapped me on the shoulder. Great to meet Broadway Girl as well. I think Nina (scroll down for email) will definitely be able to help out w/photos and other things as well .. She knows everything!! We need one of Rado/Ragni/MacDermot together for History (plus one of O'Horgan) and at least two from the '68 Bway show for Synopsis. Pics from songs Aquarius (the Aquarius circle!!), Hair, I Got Life, Walking in Space, Black Boys/White Boys, Three Five Zero Zero, Flesh Failures/Sun Shine would be my first choices .. more later. xox - Mblaxill (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Rehearsals pre-Broadway; Long Hair, etc.

I've been thinking that we need something on the rehearsal process with O Horgan that preceded the Bway opening - that it involved a lot of improvisation that got integrated into the show - that O Horgan used some unique exercises to bond the Tribe together, etc .. if we could move the O Horgan paragraph back up to History (?) then I could write a sentence or two with the Horn book as source - Mblaxill (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Go ahead and do your thing, and we'll look at it. BTW, I just watched Hair: Let the Sunshine In, a documentary film by Pola Rapaport and Wolfgang Held, that we got at the 40th Anniversary Be-In and was recently broadcast on PBS. In this film, they interviewed cast members and the creators and O'Horgan discussed a number of interesting things. One was about the long hair them that MusicMaker asked about: They said that long hair was a back to nature/naturalistic thing - Animals do not cut their hair; so letting your hair go to where it stops by itself was a reaction to civilization and a preference for naturalism. Second, there was an arson in Cleveland in which the actors' hotel was burnt down and several cast members, including Jonathon Johnson, lost family members who died in the fire. Third, there a period where bad things happened to sour people on the show for a while. The beginning of this was a doctor who shot everyone in the cast full of amphetamines, saying they were vitamin B, and people, including Ben Vereen said that they got addicted. Then, Rado and Ragni were disagreeing and couldn't work with each other for a while, Rado said he felt lost for awhile. Fourth, Melba Moore, the first black Sheila spoke of her pride in this full racial integration of a cast. Fifth, there was a lot of discussion of the anti-war movement and Hair, including how "Let the Sun Shine In" was sung at important protest marches, etc. Here is some more info about the documentary: http://www.blindinglightfilms.com/Hair/home.htm -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the doc .. i mentioned it before as a possible source. Not sure if it was you or MusicMaker who answered - the Cleveland fire we already mention in Social Change, we discussed the "vitamin B" shots after Diane Keaton mentioned it on Letterman - Butler's dispute happened about half way through the run .. anyhoo, the O Horgan stuff should go in and maybe ask MusicMaker about the guidelines for the Doc - Mblaxill (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We can definitely cite anything in the documentary; to be on the safe side, we would need the time into the film that we're citing -- 23:05 (23 minutes, 5 seconds) or whatnot -- or a specific quote. It seems like we could use it to cite the claim in the lead that "several of the songs became anthems of the anti-war movement...." We could use that and Letterman for sources about the doctor, which could go into the history. I'm not sure where we could fit in the information about the long hair. In the history? The racial integration stuff is important -- it (along with the bit about "anthems of the peace movement") are mentioned in the lead, but not mentioned in the article, which is a no-no. I'm wondering if there are any other sources for the integration and the anthems where we can give them sections in the "Social change" section? — Music Maker 5376 17:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought before we jump in and add a bunch of stuff - the article is pretty long already. I'll leave it up to you guys how much more needs to go in, what is "encyclopedic", etc. Butler's dispute with Rado/Ragni I never added 1) because i didn't know where to put it and 2) wasn't sure if it was encyclopedic or not. Same with the vitamin B shots (also, pretty sure the bad feelings didn't "start" with the shots .. from what I know they were getting them from the start of the production because it was a physically taxing show and a lot of actors weren't really "athletes"). To be sure there are plenty of side stories, but I don't want the article to go off on too many tangents. Keep in mind that some actors have axes to grind and say negative things - Mblaxill (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say to leave out the "behind the scenes" ego-warring -- it's not encyclopedic and every show has those issues. However, I think that a production-sanctioned doctor injecting the cast full of amphetamines is relatively encyclopedic. HOWEVER -- unless we can figure out who knew what (ie. if Butler knew that they were potentially harmful and addictive chemicals as opposed to B-vitamins), we might run into WP:BLP issues. Until we can put the whole picture together, it might make sense to leave it out. The good doctor could have taken it upon himself to make the concoction, and we don't want to imply that anyone was intentionally harming anyone else. (Unless, of course, they were....) — Music Maker 5376 18:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As for article length, Wikipedia is not paper. We have a duty not to make the article overly long, and, if need be, we can break it into "daughter articles". But, for now, I think we're okay. — Music Maker 5376 18:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MM - not too long yet. If something was widely reported in the press, it is likely encyclopedic and should be discussed. If you can't figure out where to put something, put it here on the talk page, and we'll all try to figure it out. I can't remember who the documentary said authorized the amphetamines, but if it is free from doubt, we can say where the information was reported. To cite to the documenary, I think we just give the title, the name the filmmakers and producers, and the date when the documentary was shown on TV, and give the web address of the documentary's website. As MM says, if we can say the time into the film that the info is mentioned, even better. I think the doc. also get shown at various film festivals. It might have won some awards. BTW, I have not received a reply from the archivist yet. Feel free to also send her a message asking for any assistance. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a great article from the archive: http://www.michaelbutler.com/hair/holding/articles/HairArticles/scottmiller.html

Here's a recent article that may be worth citing: http://www2.nysun.com/pf.php?id=62643&v=0420200121 -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

this is a really great one!! I hadn't read it before (and i thought i'd read them all :) - You guys should go ahead and put in what you think should be included .. i'm going to be pretty busy for the next few weeks and need to take a short break from this wiki that is very addictive - Mblaxill (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You have definitely earned some time off, my friend.... Enjoy your WikiBreak! — Music Maker 5376 16:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy, man. We can pick up after we get the GA reviewer's comments. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Albums

I have a feeling that we've all been ignoring that little coda at the bottom of the article listing the recordings of the show. I'm wondering if we even need that section. Theoretically, each one would need to have a citation, and I'm thinking that the list isn't even exhaustive -- it jumps from '79 to '91 or so. The article states that over 300 different recordings of the songs were created -- do we even need that section? — Music Maker 5376 18:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. There should be a couple of sentences about the original Broadway cast album and how it differed, if at all, from the show as performed at the Biltmore; and then a sentence about the off-Broadway cast album, and then some brief information about the most important later albums. It could also state the statistics - 300 albums, covers, pastiches, etc. We ought to delete the naked list, which is not really that informative. I added some links, but feel free to revise if you don't think those are the best ones. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives

Hidden category: Articles with unsourced statements