Talk:Musical theatre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Musical Theatre Portal
Musical theatre 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class
WikiProject Musical Theatre tasks:


Theatre Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Musical Theatre/Musical Comedy/Physical Theatre/Brecht and Opera

I would edit this myself but I know I'd just end up buggering it up but there's stuff in this article that, as a performance arts student I feel it is pointing out.

Firstly: correct my if I'm wrong but isn't the difference between musical theatre and musical comedy the sourcing of music? I thought that musical comedies used non-original popular music of the era it was written. Musical Theatre had original music.

Secondly, I think it's worth pointing out that there's a distinction, though perhaps not a clear one, between musical theatre and other forms of theatre that include acting, singing and dancing. For example, Brecht used song and to a lesser extent dance, along side acting, but not many people would call them musicals neccesarily. Also physical theatre, again, uses singing, acting and dancing, but without being considered, by most musical theatre.

Thirdly: If musical theatre's origins are in Musical Comedy, then wouldn't it's roots be predominantly seperate from Opera; seeing as Musical Comedy was a popular American form and Opera was a classical European one. This is not to say that the two never met; take Phantom for example; I just think that the article suggests that Musical Theatre was born, reasonably directly out of Opera, and though there were, inevitably some influences, I was under the impression it was born more out of popular American movement of the time. Sebbi 01:10, 19 August 2007 (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)

  • ????? It's not new. A very useful site, but not new. I've been using it for at least a year... and http://www.archive.org 's wayback machine shows it's been around since late 2001. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:14, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I had been unaware of it until the ads this month in the Times. PedanticallySpeaking 19:47, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History

I wanted to get something written for the history section so that at least there would be a framework of sorts for anyone else who wants to contribute. I'd love to see a much more complete development, whether in this article or in a separate "History of musical theater" article. I feel somewhat confident writing about the modern stuff, but the farther back the history goes the less knowledge I have. It'd be great if someone could flesh out the early history (pre-1940) much more fully.--Kevin Marshall

[edit] Page Organization

I added a section describing some things about the production and writing process. I'm really not sure what the best way to organize the page is. Right now it's mostly comprised of a history section with other stuff tacked on before and after. The stuff afterwards is fine, but we need a way to get all the information that needs to come before the history section well-organized and make sure all the proper information is there. Hopefully I've at least laid the foundation for that. I think most of the information we should have is up there. Kevin M Marshall 15:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Note: this page currently has many images uploaded by User:SFTVLGUY2 from the period when he was labeling everything as a "screenshot", although many are clearly not screenshots. (Earlier this user dubiously claimed everything was "PD"). If anyone can identify the sources of these images and change the image tags as appropriate on the image description tags, this would be very helpful if we want to keep these images. (For those unfamiliar with Wikipedia image use and tagging policies, see Wikipedia:Images and associated pages). Thanks, -- Infrogmation 18:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirection from "Musical Comedy"

I don't think that Musical Comedy should redirect to Musical Theater. Musical comedy should be more specific about comedy music. Normally songs that are humerous. Sometimes you get people who do stand-up with music / songs. This is not musical theatre.

That, I fear, would involve redefining terms for our own ends. Comic Songs would be a better term for such things. That said, Musical theatre and Musical comedies aren't *quite* the same thing - musical theatre is a broader term. Adam Cuerden 17:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not so

Musical Comedy in the way it is used is musical theatre. this is the way that the musical genre was described in the 1st half of the 20th century. The word "musical" itself derives from it.

  • This may be so, but musical comedy has split off into a different category now. We write in the present, and musical comedy should be an article about that category of Musical Theatre. --Driken 05:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

The introduction is way too long. I feel it needs to be shortened and have the information in redirected within the article. When I first came to the page, I almost exited thinking it was a Stub--not being able to see the contents.

[edit] "Theater"? Not "theatre"?

I'm American, but I've only ever seen theatre spelled theatre when referencing theatre. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 01:57

  • This is definatly an issue in this article. Please use the "re" spelling in an article spelled with "re". --Driken 05:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music theatre vs Musical theatre

There is a difference, but when you try and find the article for music theatre you get redirected to this pag MikeyB! 14:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I edited the following sentence for clarity: "sometimes, although less often than not, spelled theater rather than theatre" to "sometimes spelled theater". UrbaneLegend 23:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crediting Casts

I'm not quite certain that this is the best place to ask this, but It'll do

Is it alright to post the Original Broadway Cast of a show on the show's page?

For example, IBDB has the Original Broadway Cast listed for Arthur Miller's The Crucible, but it's not listed on the show's page. Is it appropriate to provide the list there?

-Swiftblade21

[edit] Musical comedy again

I was looking up a work called The Geisha, clicked the musical comedy link, and found myself here, in an article almost entirely devoted to the Broadway musical. It seems to me that there ought to be a Musical comedy article which deals with works written between about the 1880s and WWII (and perhaps beyond) by composers such as Sidney Jones, Lionel Monckton, Ivor Novello, Noel Coward, Montague Phillips, Vivian Ellis, maybe Julian Slade, Sandy Wilson, and, in the USA, perhaps Victor Herbert, plus later composers such as Gershwin who called some of their works musical comedies. I am far from being an expert in this field, but I could cobble something up from stuff on the Internet. It would fill a gap created by the unsatisfactory current musical comedy redirect - just look at the list that links to that redirect page! Of course there should be links to this Musical theatre page (where a short para on musical comedy could be inserted), as well as to the operetta page (where, quite correctly, operetta is dealt with at greater length than here). --GuillaumeTell 15:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I put in a little bit about Jones and Monckton, but it would be great if you could do a more thorough job. The British musical is not adequately covered until the more recent era stuff. Ssilvers 06:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the Introduction

Is it just me or does that last paragraph seem like a hidden jab at musicals? It's well written to be sure, but its bias for straight theatre, and I think it should be removed, any objections?

[edit] Merge

Bring the content of this article into Broadway Musical and remove this article. Living large 02:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] instrumentation: musicals/opera

I disagree that instrumentation is an important difference between musicals and opera. Most big-stage musicals have an orchestra that is very similar to many operas' orchestration, except with fewer strings, and all bets are off with modern operas, as their orchestras could be anything. Plus, there are chamber operas and varying kinds of opera orchestras, so there is no one kind of instrumentation used in opera. Similarly, Show Boat uses a different orchestra from Bat Boy, The Fantasticks or Little Shop of Horrors. So I suggest deleting the reference to intrumentation. I think bigger differences include (1) The importance of dancing by the principal cast; (2) the use of microphones; (3) the style of singing (in general). Of course, the line is blurry, no matter how you try to separate the two forms. Ssilvers 23:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has disagreed, I went ahead and made changes along these lines. --Ssilvers 06:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] limitedgeographicscope

I don't see why we need this tag. The vast majority of musicals are either American or British. The intention of the Project is to put up good articles for all notable musicals, and I don't see what good the tag will do anyone. Ssilvers 04:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"The vast majority of musicals are either American or British." <--- Yup. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Austria, Germany, France, and Japan all have active musical scenes. As so Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic. --Kunzite 04:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I wrote a good deal about those other musical scenes (as well as Bollywood), and I created numerous articles and stubs for Austrian, German and French musicals, as well as adding numerous names of Austrian, German and French musicals to the List of musicals. Therefore, I have removed the geographic tag. Having done all this research, I feel more confident that I was mostly right, originally. The vast majority of musicals over the last 150 years have been American and British musicals. Although the Austrian, German, French, Japanese, Canadian, etc. musicals scenes have become more active in the last decade or so, they have a lot of catching up to do. Plus, in the US, there are numerous musicals being created Off-Broadway, off-off Broadway and regionally, as well as on Broadway. The number of notable musicals from those places is particularly small compared to the number of notable American and British musicals. The Bollywood movie musicals and Japanese anime with music, are very vibrant scenes, but they're mostly films. So: I did more work on foreign musicals than I ever dreamed of doing! Your turn to do Eastern Europe and expand the description of the foreign musicals in the main article. -- Ssilvers 03:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling of Theater/Theatre

I finally took out this parenthetical: (generally spelled "theater" in the USA, though often spelled "theatre" by people involved in theatre).

We have been arguing about it forever. First of all, Theater is the normal spelling in the USA EXCEPT for usage by people connected with the theater. Second of all, it is stupid to keep arguing about spelling and has nothing to do with the article. It certainly does not need to be the first thing that readers see, as if it's the most important topic related to musicals. If someone wants to drop a footnote or something fine, but let's put the most important information in the intro. Since people everywhere except the US spell it Theatre, and most people in the USA who like musicals will have seen this spelling, let's use the Brit. spelling. --Ssilvers 15:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Musicals/Opera, etc

An anonymous editor added more to the intro about what is a musical and how to distinguish it from opera. I don't think that it helps the article to begin with this rather long discussion of what a musical is or isn't and the difficulty of defining it. Why not start out with a relatively short and snappy definition, and put the discussion of the difficulty of defining exactly what a musical is lower down under the table of contents? Opinions? --Ssilvers 18:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Usgnus 18:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I concur. --Drenched 22:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I have moved the info into two paragraphs in the "Introduction" under the TOC and copy edited it. See what you think. --Ssilvers 00:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British musical theatre, 1875 to 1920

I have spent that last couple of months adding info to Wikipedia on early British musicals and operettas from the 1870s to about 1920. There is now an article or stub on every musical and operetta from that period that ran for at least 400 performances in London (except for a few revues). BTW, London was a much hotter venue for musicals than NY during that period. See the introduction to this list of longest running plays in London and New York. I also added articles on most of the important British composers, writers and lyricists for musicals of the period (and some Americans) and on a number of producers. I am tired now, and my job is in jeopardy, so if anyone is interested in going into the articles and stubs for these musicals and beefing them up, please do so. In many cases, I have put links at the bottom of the articles that should lead you to more online information, such as links to song lists, cast lists and synopses. This site also has a heap of information about these works. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers 03:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of representative musicals in intro

The list of musicals named as examples in the article's intro was agreed to by members of the musicals project. Obviously, others could have been chosen, but this seems like a reasonable short list. Please do not change it without discussion here. -- Ssilvers 21:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support adding The Fantasticks!, by some measures the most successful or popular musical of the last century. [Unsigned comment added by: User:66.171.197.58]

First of all, please sign your comments on talk pages by using four tildes, like this: ~ ~ ~ ~. Second, there is a big fat picture of the cover art for the Fantasticks album right there, that says that it was the longest-running musical in history. So, I don't think it's being left out! Note, however, that The Fantasticks played to half-empty houses much of the time in a tiny 200 seat theatre. Les Mis probably is seen by more people every year than the Fantasticks was in its entire run (just as a measure of popularity). I happen to LOVE the Fantasticks. -- Ssilvers 21:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese/Indian and other non-western traditions

Look at the last several edits that introduced the non-European tradition heading and Chinese Opera info. Is this the right way to go with the article? -- Ssilvers 06:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] videos

do they generally release a video version of musicals?

[edit] Theater/Theatre

This spelling issue was discussed at length previously on this page, and the agreement was to use "theatre". Even though "theater" is a correct spelling in some countries, notably here in the U.S., "theatre" is the spelling preferred by theatre professionals, even in the U.S. U.S. dictionaries also confirm that "theatre" is a correct alternate spelling in the U.S. "Theater" is absolutely incorrect in most other English-speaking countries, so we agreed to use "theatre". Regards, -- Ssilvers 16:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] West End?

This article might as well by about Broadway there is very little about the West End on here... - Posted by 82.18.73.237 on April 26

By all means, edit the article to improve it. If you look at the early section about the 19th Century and up through WWI, it's mostly about London. Also, the last couple of decades of the 20th Century were very strongly influenced by Lloyd Webber and other British composers/writers. However, the "Golden Age of Musicals" was dominated by American musicals, and the article reflects this. The article could certainly use attention from more people with knowledge about British theatre. The other problem is that one of the biggest online sources of information about musicals is the IBDB database, and unfortunately, there is no equivalent online source about British musicals. But if you can help us balance the article, please do! -- Ssilvers 13:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 8-mile, etc

Someone added this:

There are also some precedents for 'musicals' that are based around contemporary styles such as hip-hop. Recent examples include the Oscar-winning 8 Mile (1999), starring eminem, the MTV-produced Carmen - A Hip Hopera starring Beyonce Knowles and Mos Def and, more in line with musical tradition, the 2006 film Idlewild, which while set in the prohibition era, uses hip-hop songs, performed on camera by the characters (but outside of the internal reality of the film), rather than as background, to advance the narrative.

I think this is interesting, but it doesn't add to the musical theatre article. People rapping in a film may be interesting in some kind of film article, but it does not make those films "musicals". Similarly, "Austin Powers" films and "The Blues Brothers" have music, but they're not "movie musicals", they just have some musical numbers in a comedy film. -- Ssilvers 18:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Idlewild is certainly a musical film, with songs (including rap) as part of the narrative, and certainly represents something in the film musical tradition (following on from Moulin Rouge). I added this section, as there isn't an obvious article to record these developments. Think this text does belong in this article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.154.29 (talk) 20:47, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Oklahoma-DVDcover.jpg

Image:Oklahoma-DVDcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of non-free images

I have opened a discussion at WP:FUR regarding the use of the copyrighted images in this article. Please make inputs there, thanks. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I know this has been a hotbutton over the past week or two, but now the article seems "top heavy" with images. —  MusicMaker5376 22:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty mad. I can't understand why people who have no interest in musical theatre want to remove these perfectly legal images. This is just a very bad policy, and WP is poorer for it. Please leave it alone for now, unless you can figure out a way to put in some images in the bottom half that are acceptable to the image Nazis. I will think about this and come up with something. I think this just sucks majorly. -- Ssilvers 03:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
But, unfortunately, as the discussion at WP:FUR has shown, the consensus of Wikipedia editors -- with whom I FULLY agree -- believe that the use of non-free images in this article is to be avoided. It's not one editor here, another editor there: its EVERYONE UNCONNECTED TO THE ARTICLE. You are clearly in the wrong here, and, frankly, you're making the entire WikiProject look bad. Is the health and future of the entirety of Wikipedia really worth the inclusion of a couple of copyrighted logos? Now, I'm going to respectfully request that you cease and desist from adding ANY unfree images to this article. Your repeated insistence to the inclusion of these images and the disregard of Wikipedia policies and rules is only going to result in your being banned from the project, something that would, frankly, be to the detriment of our WikiProject and Wikipedia at large. This losing fight isn't worth it, man. You are going to lose and lose big. Concentrate your energies elsewhere. Please. —  MusicMaker5376 03:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's just not true. At least four other editors who are not contributors to the article agreed with me at the FUR. Also, I do not disregard Wikipedia policies. I am simply criticizing Wikipedia policy in this instance. Not only that, but the policy is open to some interpretation, as the other editors pointed out at the FUR. So please don't make wild accusations. Anyhow, it appears I have already lost this argument for now, so you don't need to rub it in. -- Ssilvers 04:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't rubbing it in. I just noticed that the Fantasticks logo is back in the article with an over-written and faulty FUR. This policy is not open to interpretation: either something is legal or it is not. It is not for you or for me to determine what the Wikimedia Foundation decides is its best course of action in avoiding lawsuits. It is up to you as an editor to conform to those decisions, no matter how much you may disagree. This isn't like wikilinking in headings or the use of a list -- this is a little bigger than that. —  MusicMaker5376 14:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not particulary connected to the article, but I share Ssilvers' sentiments. I don't understand how User:MusicMaker5376 can conclude that this discussion has reached a consensus. That user then asserts: "you're making the entire WikiProject look bad. Is the health and future of the entirety of Wikipedia really worth the inclusion of a couple of copyrighted logos?" I fail to see how it would. In fact, from a reader's point, the article would clearly be worse if all the images were removed. (But I suspect the readers are not exactly the main concern of many editors.) As to copyright: the way I understand it, Wikipedia's own logo doesn't seem to adhere to its own policies and guidelines - it's not free. Michael Bednarek 05:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Please try to stay cool, everyone. I was unaware of the FUR, and reviewed the disputed fair use rationale of the tagged images, while I was clearing out an old speedy deletion category. I have no connection to this wikiproject, and I believe I came to an unbiased decision to remove the images. Having now looked over the FUR debate and the test case of Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 19#Image:MusicalTheater7.jpg, I stand by my decision. My main justification was that I do not feel that I understand the topic significantly less without the images. You have given good text descriptions of the shows, and seeing their posters adds no useful information for me. I believe that the same would apply to the majority of readers. The use of the images therefore fails NFCC#8. The removal of non-free media from the article isn't an entirely bad thing anyway: remember that one of the aims of Wikipedia is for content to be free for anyone to use. Papa November 09:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
There is consensus. Weak consensus, perhaps, but consensus. By my count, disregarding editors who were mainly assisting in "points of order" and didn't appear to have an opinion, in the FUR there were 6 editors arguing for removal and 4 arguing for retention. When you add Papa (who obviously supports removal), myself, and another editor arguing for removal in our WikiProject, consensus seems clear.
The editors arguing for retention need to keep in mind something: no one is arguing that the article will be better with the removal of the images. It doesn't matter how one article fares in the long run, it matters how Wikipedia as a whole fares. "The kingdom was lost all for the loss of a horseshoe nail."
The argument about Wikipedia's logo doesn't even make sense. In the article Wikipedia, the logo is used and used correctly. It's not used wantonly throughout other articles.
What set me off was the re-inclusion of the Fantasticks logo. Three sentences on the show does not warrant the inclusion of copyrighted material. This is akin to having three sentences on the show, and quoting all of "Try to Remember". All I see is one user's continued disregard of policies and its detriment to our mission, not an honest desire to improve the article. —  MusicMaker5376 14:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration of the Month

We have three votes for a COTM. How shall we get it started? -- Ssilvers 16:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to post that here or on our project talk page? —  MusicMaker5376 17:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Relevance" paragraph

There is some information about London attendance/grosses, etc, but I'm out of time right now, will try to get to it Monday (or in mid-October). [1]. (That is, if anyone thinks this info would be useful.)JeanColumbia 16:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please, Jean, that would be helpful. -- Ssilvers 17:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Famous Musicals in the intro; other recent changes

Generally speaking, I have removed some recent unreferenced WP:OR information added. Also, consensus was reached to keep this list short. Please do not add to the list of musicals in the intro without discussion. A discussion is now taking place on the subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre. -- Ssilvers 17:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add Aida to it? I think it's a pretty famous musical.
I would vote against that. Aida is a great piece, but we already have too many recent musicals on this list. We have discussed this list before, and the current list attempts to give a representative list of the most famous and enduring musicals worldwide and of all times. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre for the discussion on this subject. -- Ssilvers 04:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ..."also spelled"

The Manual of Style is clear on the importance of noting alt. spellings. Ssilvers, stop reverting me. Thanks for your cooperation. PeterH2 16:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE cut out this silly recert war - if you want to seriously discuss this one do it here. Repeating this edit over and over does NOT make it right, and there are a number of us watching this article who will revert you on the spot, not just Ssilvers. This is basically NOT a matter of "alternate" spelling anyway. Outside the United States "theater" is simply wrong, in any context. Within the United States "theatre" is widely used, especially in this context. It is therefore a VERY old consensus on this one that we use "theatre" in this article. (Life might well be simpler if we stuck to either British or American spellings here - the fact is we don't). If this change of yours were allowed to stand it would add absolutely nothing whatever to the understandability or content of the article - as might be the case in some instances of "alternate spelling". It would also open the door to those who want to re-raise the argument for having "theater" replace "theatre" throughout the article. In any case, haven't you anything better to do? I labelled your last edit as "childish vandalism" before I saw that you had gone to discussion - which is the proper place to argue for change in a long-standing consensus like this one - but it is still a fair summing up of your behaviour here. Soundofmusicals 21:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The Manual of Style strongly suggests -- if not requires -- noting alt. spellings. See color, humour, etc. "It is therefore a VERY old consensus on this one that we use "theatre" in this article," you write. No one is arguing that the article's spelling be changed, just that the alt. spelling is noted, as is done in virtually aLL cases where alt. spellings are accepted. Put it in a footnote if you prefer. But it's got to be there. I'll keep adding it back unless you show me where, in any WP guidelines, it is suggested that alt. spellings should NOT be noted. Thanks, --PeterH2 03:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
See color theory, color constancy, color vision. etc -- they do not mention the alternate spelling. The fact that the alternate spelling is noted on the main article, theatre is enough. This was just discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/talkarchive10-19-07#Theatre vs. Theater. I held your argument and was incorrect. —  MusicMaker5376 04:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the alt sp should be on the theatre page, but not here. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Musical theatre vs. Theatre with music

The "definitions" section effectively covers the fuzzy boundary between "musical theatre" and "opera", but doesn't say whether there's a clear distinction drawn between a musical and a play-that-has-some-songs-in-it. Is there? - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate musicals

The link to the page on corporate musicals is currently in the 1970s section, but actually that's when they were on the wane. Ideally it should be mentioned as a growing phenomenon of the late 1950s. Would it be possible to move it back to the 1950s paragraphs? I don't feel comfortable making the edit myself, as that whole historical section has a narrative flow that someone else has put a lot of work into, and when I try a test edit to figure out a good way of wording it in there, it just feels like it sticks out like a sore thumb. Tomt 13:55, 3 Apr 2008 (CST)

Done! Thanks for pointing this out. Let me know if you think it reads smoothly enough where I put it. This article was put together piecemeal by many editors over a period of several years, although I admit to doing quite a bit of work on it. If you think it reads OK, then thanks, I'll take credit for some of that (with a lot of help from John Kenrick's amazing website), but any further suggestions would be most gratefully accepted. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto

I have noticed that many pages on Wikipedia, including this one, mention London and New York as the two big theatre centres of the western world, yet when reading on world theatre elsewhere, many sources expand the list to London, New York, and Toronto. Is there a consensus in Wikipedia not to mention Toronto in theatre articles or, can I add the city to them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.159.197 (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting. I have never heard that, certainly with respect to musical theatre. What are your sources for that? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)