Talk:Hair (musical)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Theme section

Hey thanks MM for the To do list! .. that's really helpful. So got us started on an expanded Theme section. Right now I'm wondering if we might want to combine some themes since the list get a little lengthy in the TOC. Suggestions might be "Religion and Astrology", "Pacifism and Environmentalism", or we could get cute with "Sexuality and Drugs". Race is (imho) one of the biggest Themes and needs a lot more stuff. I'll put my brain on it and add some more in the next week or so. - Mblaxill (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I combined a couple of the shorter sections - looks OK? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OK for now. Possibly a little clunky. Can we give some of the themes smaller subheds under a larger themed heds so they're not in the TOC? I dunno .. just throwing it our there - Mblaxill (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the to-do. Always easier to see what needs to be done that way.

I'm sorry I've been relatively MIA these last few days -- lots of stuff IRL. I've got some ideas to get in there, and I will probably be able to sometime this week. I have some stuff to add to some of the themes that we've combined, so I'll probably end up uncombining them. — MusicMaker5376 15:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MB, that it would be preferable to shorten the TOC. I think Maria told me at one point that there is a way to get the TOC to ignore the subheadings in a section. Do you know it, or if not, can you check with her? It didn't sound like it was for technophobes. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like it's impossible -- there's probably a magic word for it. I'll look into it. — MusicMaker5376 15:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no magic word, but.... I can use {{TOClimit}} where the limit refers to the heading level. If I set it to 2, it will only show the main headings, and if I set it to 3, it'll show everything. It looks like there are ways to create single headings that won't show up, but the technobabble is a little beyond me. I'm not sure where to put the code that is says to use, nor am I sure that it would be something the average not-signed-in user will be able to use. I'm gonna have to ask someone.... — MusicMaker5376 16:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you could either set it to 2, and get all the subheadings off the table, which is fine with me, or you could set it to 3 and then add an = (equal sign) before and after the subheadings we don't want to see so that they will not be picked up by the TOC. Hmmmm. Maybe I like this technology stuff after all. The problem is, I won't remember this tomorrow. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think (and I could be wrong) that the MOS advises against using the wrong level heading. IE: there shouldn't be a third-level heading with no second-level heading. I could definitely set it to 2, but I want to look into the individual heading option a little more. Since I have my TOCs set to off, you're going to have to let me know how things look. — MusicMaker5376 17:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dramatics.

Meh. Lemme know what you think. — MusicMaker5376 03:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a good start, but it needs to talk about how the same dramatics were applied to more than just the B'way production. I think there's also information about how the choreography was intended to assist the drama, etc.... -- Ssilvers (talk)

this is the kind of thing i know little about and will be very little help on .. Sorry! I like it so far though!! - Mblaxill (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Local Reactions to Regional Prods

Hey I noticed that we left the info about Minnesota, San Fran hippies, etc out of the Social Change section and kept it under Early Regional Prods. To me it feels a little out of place where it is. Can we find a way to make it fit into Social Change? - Mblaxill (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My bad. Meant to put it in there. — MusicMaker5376 02:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ref question

In the lede, ref #4 is for a novel. The link leads one to a copy of the cover of the book. I don't understand why that statement even needs sourcing. Anyone? — MusicMaker5376 04:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is kind of like your old question about needing to explain the connection between the name of the show and the hippie movement. Just as Michael Butler thought that the show was about American Indians, I think a lot of readers will wonder, what does "Tribe" have to do with Hair and the hippie movement? It took me some time reading this article before I understood that none of the references to Tribe were literal, notwithstanding the pictures of Indians in the posters. But when I saw this book cover in my various researches, I thought of Berger, Claude and Sheila living together, and I thought the book cover instantly explained a major aspect of what Tribe meant to hippies. So, I guess to make a long explanation short, I hope we can reference this book cover, or a similar photo, somewhere in partial explanation of what we mean when we say Tribe, since we do not mean, like, Apache or Blackfoot. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead, we should include an actual explanation. There's quite a bit in Miller about theater as ritual and the summoning of the Tribe during "Aquarius", how each production of Hair chooses a Tribe name, etc. I've been wanting to include some of that info, but wasn't sure how to do it. A section in Dramatics on the Tribe might be warranted. I think that leaving it just as a ref like that may confuse people (as it did me). It looks like we're implying that R&R got their ideas for the Tribe from that book. — MusicMaker5376 15:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it will be much better to pull some info from Miller. I think an explanation of what is meant by "Tribe" will be very helpful. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Miller article

OK, Hair fans, I am finished pulling info out of the Miller article, although it has even more analysis of the show, if anyone wants to look at it. MM, you had noted that most of what is in the article is also in Miller's book, so if you want to check the **ref name=Applause** cites and find the page numbers in Miller, that might be considered better sourcing. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The library was threatening me with bodily harm (those library goons!), so it's had to go back. It was on Inter-Library Loan so I couldn't renew it. I do have Horn, though. I'm trying to get my hands on a copy of Lorrie Davis' "Letting Down My Hair", but it's at my old high school's library, and they're closed till July. — MusicMaker5376 15:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Miller says that "Letting Down My Hair" is a good read, but that it contains a good amount of fiction. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably. What I'm really looking for is stuff re: the nude scene, staging, things like that. I think she'd remain relatively reliable on that. — MusicMaker5376 16:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah Lorrie has issues with the authors and might not have a npov - Mblaxill (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

German production: Censored

How about "In some early performances"? The wording there now is passive voice. BTW, MM, I sent you an e-mail. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

works for me - Mblaxill (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSDATE

Due to my misunderstanding... something... somewhere along the line, I gave you guys bad info regarding dates in citations. Apparently, the software doesn't automagically change the ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD) into Month Date, Year, as I thought. Since I had my settings set to make all dates do that, I didn't notice that things weren't consistent throughout the citations. I've gone through and fixed all of them (I think), but, from now on, dates everywhere in the article should be American style: July 4, 1776. Full dates are linked. Bare years are not. Month and year (June 1969) are not, and there should be no punctuation between. Sorry to have led everyone down the primrose path.... — MusicMaker5376 23:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow -- and, apparently, I can't even do that right.... In the templates, some dates are automatically wikilinked, and some are not. It's that 70's date I gave earlier that is the cutoff. I screwed some up -- royally -- but my carpal tunnel is seriously acting up, so I'll fix them later. — MusicMaker5376 23:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I revertd. — MusicMaker5376

Citation templates are the root of all evil. Down with them! I'm writing a letter to my congressman. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to come around to the dark side.... I may convert them all. I wonder if they can be subst'd.... — MusicMaker5376 03:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Expanding the lead

What else do we need to say in the Lede? I have a few rough ideas, maybe talk more about themes and the 60's. Thoughts? - Mblaxill (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure. I just have a feeling that at FAC, they're going to tell us that the lede should be longer for an article of this size. We could expand the paragraph on the plot a little, too, include specifics regarding Claude. — MusicMaker5376 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Other Hits

The article mentions the Fifth Dimension's "Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In", the Cowsills's "Hair", Oliver's "Good Morning Starshine", and Three Dog Night's "Easy to Be Hard", but "Where Do I Go" and "Be-In" were also sixties hits and should be mentioned as well. Unfortunately, I don't recall the singers or groups. 24.183.105.218 (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The place to look is probably Billboard. I'd start with 1969 and then try 1970 and 1968. Billboard on the Internet charges for these sort of searches, but public or university libraries may have old Billboard issues bound or on microfilm or microfiche. TheScotch (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

here's a link to All Music Guide's list for Where Do I Go .. from what i can tell the only successful major artist to record Where Do I Go was Carla Thomas on Stax Records but it didn't chart as a single .. and i'm 99.9% sure that Be-In was never a hit single (you might be thinking of George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord") - Mblaxill (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I'm not thinking of "My Sweet Lord"; don't be absurd. Neither hit was as big a hit as the ones the article mentions, but they were both hits. "Where Do I Go" was sung by a male. There is no reason at all that the singer or group would have had to have other hits or be "successful" in any other respect. The most likely suspect on your link seems to be The Free Design, but I don't see that your link provides any chart information at all. No, I think Billboard is the place to look, and I wish someone else would make the effort because I'll never remember to when I'm at the library--at least I haven't remembered so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.105.218 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps it was John Savage from the film soundtrack? — MusicMaker5376 14:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

lets keep it polite folks ... and btw Billboard historical only lists top five songs from each year. Feel free to do your own research project - Mblaxill (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Delacorte production Wall Street Journal review

The Wall Street Journal just came, and it included a review of the Delacorte production. That review was more critical of the show than the reviews currently included in the article. It might balance out the other extremely positive reviews; I hesitate to edit, though, because this is a Good Article and I haven't contributed to it so far. Should I put it in? MarianKroy (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

almost all the reviews have been positive - NYT raved, Variety raved, most other local NY papers either raved or gave it a positive slant. This link has a list of all of them. Sort a slam dunk as George Tenet would say - Mblaxill (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Disproportionately long

This article seems absurdly long for the importance of its subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.52.191 (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. — MusicMaker5376 23:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Castelli obit

NYT obituary of Bertrand Castelli ... Sadly, Castelli passed on Aug 1. - Mblaxill (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved O'Horgan sentence to dramatics

I thought the sentence in History about O'Horgan putting the cast through sensitivity exercises fits better in the Tribe section of Dramatics so I went ahead and moved it. Hope thats cool w everyone - Mblaxill (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Revival?

I may be only dreaming, but is there any word that Hair will ever be rereleased on Broadway, or a new movie version made? It was popular, or at least famous because of its controversial matter, so you'd think one day someone would revisit it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.102.111 (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Lots of rumors, nothing specific. Since the Delacorte got such good reviews they'll at least try. Gibson DelGiudice on Michael Butler's Hair blog says its likely. Other articles (Variety i think, a few others) are speculating about it - Mblaxill (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Two articles w lots of new info

There's gonna be a lot of articles coming out for the Delacorte show that opens tonight here's a couple that already have lots of great new info and quotes..

Hartford Courant

Newark Star Ledger

Reading these it seems like all the work we've been doing on the article is helping the reporters a little - Mblaxill (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice! INFO ON THE TITLE!!! WOOHOO!!! (And, yeah, we should sue over "anthems of the era".... Damn GFDL....) — MusicMaker5376 17:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry I haven't been able to help much lately, guys. I've got a big trip coming up and lots of pressure at work. I'll pretty much only be able to police the G&S project until the end of August. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I added everything that needed to be added .. let me know if you think there's more - Mblaxill (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff, but I'm questioning the claim that MacDermot wrote the score in three weeks, just because we say that 13 songs were added between the Cheetah and Biltmore prods. Do they mean that he wrote the original score in three weeks? The added stuff in three weeks? The two claims don't seem compatible to me, and, ultimately, I think the fact that 13 songs were added is more notable in the creative arc that we present than how long it took him to write the score. AND we say that they were constantly adding stuff. Am I making any sense at all? — MusicMaker5376 23:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

he's probably talking about the Public version - Mblaxill (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This sort of statement by authors to reporters is notoriously unreliable. I would rather omit the statement, as I don't think it adds much and has a high probability of being a romanticized memory. We also say in the article some things about MacDermot's composition of the score that are similar but, I think, more interesting. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

dunno .. Galt isn't the type to brag or overstate things. I've also heard this timeline elsewhere (I'd have to go look it up to say exactly where) -- i think if we qualify it as the Public version then we're good - Mblaxill (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If we can qualify it as one version or another, I don't mind keeping it in. It just seems sort of vague right now. — MusicMaker5376 15:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Another great article in The Advocate .. when i get a chance I'll add some of this here and in Jim and Jerry's wiki article. If anyone else wants to jump in feel free - Mblaxill (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Australian soundtrack position?

Not sure if this needs to be included .. delete? - Mblaxill (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tonys

I'm thinking that the Tonys info should be moved from History to Early Prods - Broadway. If no one has any objections I was going to go ahead and make the change - Mblaxill (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

I recently found out that Wikipedia has made a major change: No more linking of dates. See WP:MOSNUM#Date autoformatting. I think there is some kind of tool to de-link the dates and turn them into regular dates, like April 5, 2008. I think this guy could fix it for us: User:Tony1. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Too Long?

When i addecd the info about the upcoming Bway revival today a note at the top said we should think about making the article shorter or separating into different articles - thoughts? - Mblaxill (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a pretty long article. I see three possibilities: 1) I think the Themes and Dramatics sections are too long and that the Themes section should be combined with the social change section. We should decide if there are examples and points made in these three sections that are really not important to a general reader and cut them down to the most important (and best referenced) ideas. 2) Alternatively, there could be a separate article on Themes and social change with all this information, and the information in this article could then be put in a much more summary form. Also, I suppose there could be a separate article on productions, including all the massive information that we currently have on productions, and then really condense and summarize the productions info in this main article. Likewise some of the other sections like Dramatics and legacy. 3) HOWEVER, it is easy to do the second alternative, so if you decide not to do the first alternative (cut out less important info) and instead that the second alternative is preferable, then you might decide to leave it alone for now and wait for the FA review. Once the article goes to FA review, a number of experienced readers will comment on the article, and if a couple of them agree that the article is too long and sections ought to be split off and summarized here, then we can do that at that time. In fact, the FA reviewers may come up with a 4th and better solution than the ones I've mentioned above. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In the mean time we might be able to trim some - not sure if we need all the quotes from Scott Miller. Other stuff as well .. all those quotes about the nude scene, etc. It'll definitely be hard to take stuff out though :( Mblaxill (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Lede 2nd paragraph

I tried to expand the 2nd paragraph of the Lede and Ssilvers tried to fix .. i still think it reads a little awkward. Here's the section

Claude, his good friend Berger, their roommate Sheila (the leaders of the tribe) and the rest of the tribe struggle to balance their young lives, loves and the sexual revolution with their pacifist rebellion against the war and the conservative impulses of their parents and society. Claude must decide whether or not to resist the draft, as his friends have done.

Too many "tribe" references .. doesn't really flow, imho. Anyone have a suggestion (Musicmaker)? Maybe delete "(leaders of the tribe)". The last sentence needs to fit in better as well i think - Mblaxill (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we need to say "(leaders of the tribe)" in the Lede. I agree that would solve the problem. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Gave it another shot .. here's how it reads now...

Hair tells the story of the "tribe", a group of politically active, long-haired "Hippies of the Age of Aquarius" fighting against conscription to the Vietnam War and living a bohemian life together in New York City. Claude, his good friend Berger, their roommate Sheila and all their friends struggle to balance their young lives, loves and the sexual revolution with their pacifist rebellion against the war and the conservative impulses of their parents and society. Ultimately Claude must decide whether or not to resist the draft, as his friends have done.

Mblaxill (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Most Countries

It's definitely been in almost all the developed countries .. might be better to say "many" instead of "most" (btw source is Rado's website) - Mblaxill (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why the statement should be modified. I re-arranged the text to clarify that the information is based on Rado's website. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Roger that - Mblaxill (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

New Australian info

hey thats great new stuff .. whats the source? - Mblaxill (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Factual / Historic Objection

I think that the line posted below misstates the facts directly and by implication.

A product of the hippie counter-culture and sexual revolution of the 1960s, several of its songs became anthems of the anti-Vietnam War peace movement.

This, at best, must be scrupulously and heavily documented and referenced to a restricted temporal and geographic area. It would probably be better to say that it was based on or talked about the hippie counter culture, etc. The part about its songs becoming anthems of the anti-war movement should be deleted in its entirety. While some of Hair may have got some play time at checkbook liberal cocktail parties and gatherings, it was not, by and large, the source of any anthems of the anti-war movement.

I suspect that neither author was a hippie or had (m)any hippie friends. That is certainly not alleged in the article. The hippie phenomenon did not create, drive, produce or participate in the production of Hair. The hippies themselves listened to a large variety of music, folk, blues, some jazz, rock, protest rock, folk rock, jazz rock, and acid rock, etc. The "San Francisco Sound" was big. Hair never was. It got a lot of play on mainstream radio, but never on underground radio. I never heard anybody speak approvingly of Hair except one guy from the theater crowd. If you check sources other than theater oriented sources dealing with and preferably written by hippies, you will find scant references to hair. It was an object of scorn and derision, generally believed to be an uninformed or ill informed ("it's not for lack of bread, like the Grateful Dead") attempt at ripping off "our culture". It was considered to be an insulting trivialization of something of significance created for the titillation of the masses.

If you review the news reports and surviving posters and announcements for the innumerable anti-war and other leftist rallies, teach-ins, demonstrations, protests and the like you will see references to invited or live musicians, people like Phil Ochs, Pete Seeger, Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Arlo Guthrie, Malvina Reynolds, Country Joe and The Fish, etc. You will find very, very few references to Hair, if any. Phil Och's "I Ain't Marching Anymore" might have been an "Anthem", as well as some of the musicof Country Joe and The Fish, but nothing from Hair. I have no references beyond myself, who was present and involved, to the fact that Hair was not played at parties, organizing and planning meetings and the like by those driving the movement, at least up through the early seventies. Hair, once awareness of it became unavoidable due to air traffic, was generally scoffed at and derided by the political activists and most of the participants in the anti-war, womens' rights, black power and civil rights movements. It was viewed, as above, as an attempt by "them" (often specifically "the bourgeoisie")to cash in or capitalize on the movement and as being both insulting and trivializing.

Mladkid (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The assertion is heavily documented in the article, particularly in the "music" and "social change" sections. This article is bristling with 204 footnotes. Wikipedia policy is that the introductory section should be an overview generally without footnotes, and the detailed sections with footnotes are in the text below. See WP:LEAD. If you wish to dispute anything in the text, please produce references that dispute those given in the article. Do you have even one newspaper article or other source saying that the peace activists or hippies generally "scoffed at and derided" Hair? Hard to believe that you have no references, when the people writing this article found 204 major news sources and books. Thanks. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

ummm.. Ragni was a hippie big time (whatever a "hippie" is exactly - a broad term that covers a lot of people, no?) and came from the underground theater scene in NYC, and Rado might not have been one when he met Ragni in 1964 but he very quickly turned into one, and is very much a proud hippie now .. as for musicians at the time, Janis Joplin was in the front row all the time and a lot of the actors were rock artists (Joe Butler of the Lovin Spoonful, Peppy Castro of the Blues Magoos to name a few) .. and the guy who was photographed putting the flower in a national guardsman's rifle was the brother of original Bway cast member Walter Michael Harris (What a Piece of Work Is Man on the cast album) .. have a nice day - Mblaxill (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Character List

Is this standard to have a character list for wiki musicals? .. also whats the source for the vocal ranges? I'm gonna rv until we answer these - Mblaxill (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: character lists-I can't tell you whether it's standard or not, but I can say that the guidelines do not expressly prohibit them:

"Major roles/characters

A reader should be able to gain information about the main characters through the synopsis. For example:

At this school, Elphaba meets Galinda, a blond, popular girl who does not, at first, take well to Elphaba's strange skin tone. (From the musical Wicked)

Long, detailed descriptions of characters are not needed (unless necessary to convey the story-line). Rather at the first mention of an important character in the Synopsis, some effort should be made to convey the personality or characteristics of the character. If a story is complex, the characters confusing, then a list of principal characters may be given."

There are some MT articles with character lists, but they seem to be those musicals with large casts (see, for example, A Little Night Music, Grease (musical), Oklahoma! (musical), Annie (musical), Rent (musical), Wicked (musical), A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (musical) & Company (musical)). Many, of course, do not, too numerous to list. I have no opinion as to whether Hair needs a character list (I've not seen it [yet]).

Vocal ranges: in a discussion-now archived-on this talk page it was decided to generally not include vocal ranges. I agree with that, not only because of sourcing concerns, but I wonder if the voice part a) is relevant b)changes with the performer/production? From the MT guidelines:

"Vocal ranges: Vocal ranges for musicals articles should generally not be included in character lists unless a consensus of editors working on the article is obtained. Editors may remove the vocal ranges in the absence of such a consensus. For musicals that are similar to operas or operettas, however, such as Candide (operetta), or The Desert Song, it may be useful to include vocal ranges. In these cases, editors working on an article should attempt to reach a consensus and report the consensus on the article talk page."

JeanColumbia (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

ok for now lets keep the list out .. maybe we can add it back later without the vocal ranges though i think the synopsis does a good enough job of describing the lead characters and the article is already pretty long - Mblaxill (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the character list is unnecessary, and there is considerable discussion in the article about casting (in addition to the descriptions of the characters in the synopsis), so a cast list would be at least *third* time mentioning all the characters. As Mb says, the article is, if anything, too long. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

revival date

the first new show of hair was in 2008, not in 2009 like its written. Lahavcalev (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The 2008 production was not on Broadway. It was in Central Park. There is plenty of information about it later in the article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Indiananoplace

I fact-tagged the Sept. '70 Indy cancellation and moved the ref earlier in the sent, since the ref documents a notice of cancellation at one theater, but left up in the air both whether the cancellation would stick and whether another venue could be arranged, while our language would lead readers to believe our ref ruled out both. I'm inclined to believe there was no performance there until '71 or '72, conceivably early-early '73, but there definitely was one in that time frame (with, FWIW, audience invited on stage to dance at the finale). Sorry, i gots no ref for that.
--Jerzy•t 04:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSDASH

Has there been a change there since I've been away? I was under the impression that dashes in sentences should be unspaced em dashes, but it looks like the MOS says that you can substitute spaced en dashes. Currently, the article looks like it uses both. Obviously, it would need to be standardized, and, personally, I VASTLY prefer spaced en dashes. (I never understood the logic behind using unspaced em dashes -- I really think WP was the only publication on the planet to use them....) — MusicMaker5376 03:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You can use either mdashes or spaced ndashes. I also prefer spaced ndashes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In your copyediting, if you notice any mdashes, why don't we change them over. They're hard to tell the difference if they're not spelled out in the wikimarkup, so maybe we should just spell them all out to be on the safe side? — MusicMaker5376 05:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't like to spell them out (though I don't object to your doing so). I think I've fixed them all, but it is possible that there are some hyphens pretending to be dashes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I can go through with AWB to see what's what, but that's why I like spelling them out. Easier to tell between a hyphen and an ndash. — MusicMaker5376 16:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions/comments

I'm not sure the word "huge" financial success will fly. Also, the $1 million per day reference was wrong: it was $1 million every 10 days. It would be nice to find a figure for profits, either for the NY production for worldwide, at any date, to help quantify the financial success. Also, I am not sure that the show's helping to "launch the recording careers" of Bert Sommers, Ronnie Dyson and Melba Moore is still notable - it seems like pretty old news, and perhaps it is fair to say that it is not unusual that starring in a successful Broadway would "help to launch" someone's recording career. Did these people become super-star recording artists? What do you both think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved those two sentences (including the word "huge", and I agree with you) from the Critical Reception section because they didn't really fit in the section. They were languishing in a paragraph that included the Miller quote, and I wanted to move the quote to the last graf of CR without losing the info that I moved. If you check my edit summary, I agree that the launching the careers is not unusual, but it does help to clarify that they weren't stars before Hair. Re: the $1M, I didn't check the ref, but I'm thinking it may be referring to ALL of the productions at the time. Should that be clearer? — MusicMaker5376 16:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the section should not be called "critical reception"; it should just be called reception, and there is where box office grosses and other indicia of popularity should be discussed, as well as a critical reception subsection. I think it is clear that $1million refers to all the productions, but it is not a satisfying number, by itself, because it is only about grosses, rather than profits. I agree that the reference to Moore, etc. clarify that they were not stars before, but the question is whether the sentence really adds anything. Instead of discussing the launching of recording careers, perhaps we should just say that the show launched the careers of Plimpton, Keaton, Moore, etc. Was Vereen already a star? If I recall correctly, this type of info is scattered around, and it would be nice to consolidate it in one place. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the info is scattered about, but, generally, it's all within sections that are germane to the subject at hand. For example, the chart successes could be considered an indicant of popularity and thus part of reception, but I think they make more sense in with the recordings. We'd need to mention, for instance, the Fifth Dimension recording with the recordings, then we'd have to mention it again in the reception section, which seems a little much. — MusicMaker5376 17:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lede new edits

Gotta say i always liked this sentence a lot "Claude, his good friend Berger, their roommate Sheila and all their friends struggle to balance their young lives, loves and the sexual revolution with their pacifist rebellion against the war and the conservative impulses of their parents and society" - always though it was a keeper .. the new changes seem a little clunky to me .. my 2 cents - Mblaxill (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I started on the lede because of that sentence. They weren't balancing the sexual revolution, they were balancing their lives and loves during it. And "pacifist" is a noun modifying "rebellion", so it needed to be an adjective -- that has ALWAYS annoyed me. It's a little plodding at the moment, but perhaps it's because we're trying to say too much in one sentence? In that one sentence we're trying to say that the structure was unconventional, name the three leads, explain how they relate to the rest of the cast, explain what they do during the show, and explain one of the central conflicts. That's a lot for a sentence to do. If we can break it up and thus expand the lede, then let's do it. — MusicMaker5376 04:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

ok you're right about that but it still had a flow to it that i liked .. i'm not the most skilled copy editor so i might not be much help other than to weigh in - still needs work imho - Mblaxill (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it was likable. There's (hopefully) going to be quite a bit of copy editing going on -- feel free to weigh in! 15:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

How's this:

In a series of vignettes, Hair centers on a group of politically active, long-haired hippies of the "Age of Aquarius" living a bohemian life in New York City and their fight against conscription into the Vietnam War. Claude, his friend Berger, their roommate Sheila, and "the tribe" struggle to balance their young lives and loves during the sexual revolution, in rebellion against the war, their conservative parents, and a hostile society. Ultimately, Claude must decide whether to resist the draft as his friends have done, or to compromise his pacifistic principles and risk his life by serving his country in Vietnam.

— MusicMaker5376 04:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I LOVED the beginning about "the tribe". Just to address all the points above: One must "balance" A and B WITH C and D. I have restored the grammatical structure as MBlaxill had so beautifully designed it. Also, my dictionary says that "pacifist" can be either a noun or an adjective. I find "pacifistic" to be rather precious, but I'll leave it your way. I don't think we need to say anything about the "unconventional structure" in this paragraph. This is about the plot, and the previous paragraph already discusses that the show was groundbreaking. The structure can wait for the discussion below. Since the mention of the vignette structure is making the paragraph feel clunky, I've taken it out. If you guys agree that it should go back in, good, but not in the opening line of the paragraph. We should start with the tribe, I feel confident, and we should mention "and their friends", as MB had it (the way MM had it implied that Claude, Berger and Sheila were not part of the tribe). Finally, the tribe is rebelling against their conservative parents and a conservative society. I don't think we want to introduce the concept of "hostile" yet. It wasn't broke, so I really don't think we should fix it unless you have a particular problem with it. See the new language and comment here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, also, if the vignette structure was really notable, we can mention it in the last sentence of the prev. paragraph. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The way I was considering it, the first sentence talked about the plot of the show in a generalized way. The second sentence mentions the characters, and I think the tribe should be considered a character. The third sentence discusses the main conflict. The way I had it mentioned the three elements of theatre -- plot, character, and conflict -- in three separate sentences. Mentioning the tribe first off causes an unnecessary explanation of who the tribe is and a secondary reference to them as "friends". Stating that the show is about a group of people then telling us that they're called "the tribe" makes more sense, in my opinion. And, yes, I liked mentioning the tribe first off, but I don't think it works.

If we take "sexual revolution" out of the sentence, I think it's alright. We mention it in the paragraph before, and we're at an impasse as to what it should mean. I feel your read limits the sexual revolution to the younger generation, and my opinion is that it was taking place throughout society, so let's cut it.

I also think that you're considering "parents" and "society" to be a unified concept. I agree, but, if that's so, "parents" is a synecdoche, and it's redundant. Why don't we say it like this: "...balance their young lives and loves with their rebellion against the war and a conservative society."?

As for introducing concepts in the lede, that is what WP:LEDE tells us to do. The lede needs to be an overview of the article, and, as it stands, major points addressed in the article are not in the lede -- the unconventional structure for one. That's why I've considered the lede to be "broken". I'm not arguing that it was well-written, but there are important concepts that are overlooked, which is why I jumped into it. We say that the structure, rather than the music, revolutionized B'way. I think that's important enough for the lede, which is why my first run said something like "Through an unconventional plot structure". (I didn't want to use the word "vignette" because I feel it has a negative connotation, but that could just be me.)

And, for what it's worth, both dictionary.com (citing Random House and American Heritage) and Wictionary state that "pacifist" is a noun and "pacifistic" is an adjective. — MusicMaker5376 19:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Just saw the comment about the sentence implying that Claude et al were not part of the tribe, and I think you're right. How about, "Claude... and their "tribe" of friends...."? — MusicMaker5376 20:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

i'm all for adding info to the lede - how about leaving the 2nd paragraph as it is for now and add the info you think needs to be added in another paragraph or two - if you still think we need to "break" the 2nd paragraph we'll consider changes. For me, the information is pretty clear already and we should be wary of tying ourselves up in knots over too many details - Mblaxill (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I don't object to adding information to the lead that is especially important in the article and completes the "overview" of the article; but saying that the show has an "unconventional" structure is so vague as to be meaningless. Also, I just disagree with you about the "tribe of friends". Yech. I wouldn't object strongly to the removal of the sexual revolution if Mb also doesn't feel strongly. Other that that, I think this paragraph is very good, and I don't agree with your analysis of it above. Other items that you want to add can go in another paragraph(s). -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

getting back to this phrase "the tribe struggle to balance their young lives, loves and the sexual revolution with their pacifist rebellion against the war and the conservative impulses of their parents and society" .. we went through a couple different admin copy edits before it was GA status and no one raised an issue over it - i actually didn't write it .. it was part of the synopsis when i first started to suggest edits to the page - to me "balancing ... the sexual revolution" has a quirky logic to it - Mblaxill (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree.

How do you feel about mentioning the parents? To me, I think it makes them sound like angsty teens, and I don't think that their rebellion was necessarily against their parents as parents. Rather, I think their rebellion against them is just part of their rebellion against society. Mentioning the parents, in my opinion, gives it undue weight. — MusicMaker5376 03:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[left] I am sorry to disagree (again). It seems to me that it is partly about rebellion of teenagers against their parents. The parents are also representatives of society, but the youthful rebellion against parents seems to me to be quite important to the story line. Mb, what do you think? By the way, as I read the whole article this week and consider copy edits, I'll think about all these points and see if the referenced sections change my perceptions. Nice work on the music sections thus far. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a few "vignetttes" (haha!) with parents - ACT I where they berate Claude and the trip sequence when they talk to the uniform on a hangar .. although the parents aren't a predominant theme they do rate for more than a passing reference in the story - so i think in the context of reacting against "conservative impulses" we should mention them, yes - Mblaxill (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I was only remembering when they were talking to the uniform, which didn't seem notable enough to mention. I'll defer to your superior knowledge of the show. — MusicMaker5376 18:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Actor successes

[Copying from above: Plimpton] -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure re: Vereen, but as ibdb has him listed as Hud's understudy then replacement, it's safe to assume that he wasn't.... — MusicMaker5376 17:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Vereen got famous after Jesus Christ Superstar but his Hud in LA and later NYC is what put him on the map .. in fact it was Tom O Horgan who cast him both in Hair and JCS and Vereen has often paid tribute to O Horgan .. Melba Moore, Diane Keaton too - Hair didn't cast any stars (except maybe Barry McGuire) so any names you recognize it definitely "helped launch" their careers - Mblaxill (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

actually, Vereen's Hud was so good in LA that he played Berger too, starting a trend where Berger and Sheila were sometimes played by African American actors .. Melba M played Sheila on Bway .. in DC at one point the the whole cast was African American - Mblaxill (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know who Bert Sommers is? I've never heard of him. — MusicMaker5376 18:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Bert Sommer - here you go

I saw that. Still don't know who he is. I'm just saying that maybe we shouldn't bother mentioning him, as whomever cared enough about him to write his article couldn't come up with more than 4 sentences. AND, apparently his name's been spelled wrong for god knows how long and no one noticed.... -- MM 19:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

agreed - Mblaxill (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

also lets include Meat Loaf in the list w Keaton, Vereen and Moore .. he did the show in LA and Detroit and I'm pretty sure on Bway at some point too - he got his first record deal with the act "Stoney and Meatloaf" .. Stoney was the Detroit Sheila, Shaun Murphy .. later of Little Feat - Mblaxill (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Source? -- MM 19:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

source for Meat in LA is the Jonathan Johnson book .. Detroit is the original Playbill which i own .. also just checked IBDB and he's on that too for Bway .. not sure if this site is official enough but its got a lot of Stoney and Meatloaf info - http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/stoneymeat/history.htm -- Mblaxill (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Just for fun, the story about Diane Keaton is that Woody Allen came to see Hair and the night or week before they'd fired the original Sheila, Lynn Kellogg (i forget why) and Keaton was her understudy .. Woody saw Diane, was blown away, and the rest is history - this is word of mouth so i don't think there's an official source .. she doesn't really give any props to Hair - Mblaxill (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've heard this story, too, and was just thinking about it. I'm trying to remember where I heard it.... I wonder if she had an E Hollywood Story or something less tacky that I might have seen.... — MusicMaker5376 19:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It may have been that Letterman interview where she was talking about the good doctor.... — MusicMaker5376 19:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Guys, can we come up with an efficient citation for the proposition that the show "launched the careers of such performers as Shelley Plimpton, Diane Keaton, Meat Loaf, Ben Vereen, Joe Mantegna, Melba Moore, Elaine Paige, Donna Summer and Tim Curry"? (mention Treat Williams for film?) I'd like to have just one cite for the whole sentence, instead of cites for each name, if possible. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Best i can think is Johnson's book which lists cast members of each major production, except Detroit (which is why we cite the Playbill for that) .. don't have it with me but i can check and see how many of those names are included .. i know Montegna is, not sure about the brits - Mblaxill (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Great! Maybe two cites for the whole sentence? See if you can track down the page numbers later. No rush. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This mentions Keith Carradine, it's the site for a documentary we're using as a ref. Perhaps there are more mentioned in the documentary? — MusicMaker5376 21:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Beverly D'Angelo and Annie Golden for the movie? — MusicMaker5376 21:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think that Hair launched D'Angelo's career; she seems to have done some notable films (and Ophelia in Rockabye Hamlet) earlier. I do agree that it launched Golden's career, but Golden is not, I think, as big a star as the folks on the list above. Keep brainstorming - I may have missed someone, but in a sentence like that one above, I think we should keep the list short and mention only the big stars that everybody has heard of (or who have won multiple Tonys, etc.) All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

D'Angelo did some notable films, but I'm not sure if they were leads. Golden had a question mark for me. I love her, so it's difficult for me to judge. I just saw her in something random the other day.... -- MM 02:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's what i got .. Johnson p. 19, Bway .. Keaton + Moore; p. 25, London .. Paige + Curry; p. 34, LA .. Meat Loaf + Vereen; p. 88, Chicago .. Mantegna. Donna Summer is here - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0838595/bio. Keith Carradine is here http://www.ibdb.com/person.php?id=34645 although he came from a famous acting family so not sure if Hair was his "big break". Also since the article is about the original Bway production i don't think actors from the movie and 1977 revival should factor in - Mblaxill (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the show as a whole. We center on the orig prod because, without it, there probably wouldn't have been any others. However, if we don't have a simple source that names them, then we can leave them out. — MusicMaker5376 02:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Links in quotes

What's the current consensus on wikilinks in quotations? I thought that they were frowned upon, but I'm noticing a few that I might have added. — MusicMaker5376 06:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would wikilinks be frowned upon in quotations? I never heard of that, and I am sure I have done it in all my FA articles. I am pretty sure that links are OK and should be used in quotations. Unless I am misunderstanding what you are asking. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the quotation didn't have the wikilink. Maybe it was just me who thought that. No matter; I'll use 'em. Or am I thinking of block quotes? — MusicMaker5376 16:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's OK to use links in blockquotes too. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Just came across this in the MOS: "Unless there is a good reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." I'm not really invested in the matter either way, but thought I'd let you know what the Manual of Style (currently) says. —MearsMan ^talk 00:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds familiar! Of course, "a good reason to do so" seems to be the basis of WP:OVERLINK.... Perhaps we should keep them to names and places? — MusicMaker5376 02:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Changed ---> Revised

Just checking: Did he completely rewrite the music (changed), or did he merely revise what he had first written? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

From the ref:

The only number he actually struggled with was "Aquarius," which he'd initially envisioned as an artsy space jam but rewrote into a joyful anthem on the second pass.

I've changed "revised" to "rewrote", the word the source uses. — MusicMaker5376 14:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Song snippets

Any desire to replace one or two of them with snippets from the new revival recording, keeping the same cuts? I haven't had the chance, yet, to listen to it with a critical ear, but I think much of the instrumentation is the same, and, in my opinion, some of the voices are stronger. Technically, the new recording is much crisper, as well. — MusicMaker5376 15:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't heard the new recording but the spirit of the original is hard to beat imho - Mblaxill (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but see argument below. — MusicMaker5376 16:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The new cast has very good singers, but the original recording is a classic, so I'd keep the original recording at least for its historical value, I think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear that I'm not advocating using one over the other -- I'm thinking of using maybe Aquarius and Hair from the original and WDIG and Sun Shine from the revival. I'm just thinking that using both recordings will help emphasize the "timelessness" aspect of the music, as well as give the revival a little more exposure in the article. I think it needs a little more, only because it is currently playing, and, by most accounts, as good as the original. — MusicMaker5376 16:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

i vote to keep it all from the original cast album - Mblaxill (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just talked myself out of this: the synopsis and the song list are both from the original prod., so the recording should be, too. — MusicMaker5376 18:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me that we could include a sound file from the 2009 cast recording to illustrate the 2009 revival section, if you like. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I'll give the soundtrack another listen and see what might work the best. — MusicMaker5376 18:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Away through August 16

Hello. I'll be away from August 1 to August 16, with very little internet access. Have a nice couple of weeks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Have a good time! We've had a death in the family, so I'm not going to be around much over the next week or so, either. — MusicMaker5376 14:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and my sympathies to you. Take some time to relax and grieve. BTW, having thought about it since you mentioned it a couple weeks ago, I think a peer review is a *very* good idea prior to an FA nomination. No rush. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. My uncle was killed by a hit-and-run driver. It's been a little chaotic here, but once things cool off, I'll be back. — MusicMaker5376 21:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Subitle in lede and infobox

I'm noticing that the revival doesn't use the subtitle "The American Tribal Love-Rock Musical", and I'm wondering if it needs to be in the lede or the infobox. It seems like the original prod used it, but it was more of a tag line than a subtitle. It wasn't used much afterward. Any thoughts? — MusicMaker5376 16:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not on the poster but its on the website - http://www.hairbroadway.com/ - I think it should definitely be in the Lede .. not sure about info box, your call - Mblaxill (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion about Lede; I vote to take it out of infobox. I'll be back on 16 Aug. Getting ready to play Rudolph in The Grand Duke in Buxton, England at the International Gilbert and Sullivan Festival on Aug. 12. See you soon! -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's in the lede, it should remain in the infobox. I'll leave it the way it is.

Have fun! (Though, I don't know if that's possible with Gilbert and Sullivan! [Kidding! Call off the G&S dogs....]) — MusicMaker5376 21:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Order of sections - Early prods.

Well, an argument can be made either way. I'm pretty happy with where it is now. Having read the Lead, background and synopsis, I think people probably want to hear about the original Broadway production next, but it's a toss-up. As I argued at the musicals project discussion, people can use the table of contents. Also, as I suggested before, the article is ready for peer review. I imagine that we will get comments on structure there, and if you want to bring it to people's attention, you can even mention it in the request for peer review: "We'd like feedback on the order of the sections." I did this in Pinafore, which was necessary there, as there were several open questions about article structure. However, I think it's best to let the peer review comments flow in naturally rather than push people to comment where they might otherwise feel that something works well enough. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

West End Revivals

The info box mentioned 2 "West End" revivals, one in 1993 and another in 2005. These are not really "West End" revivals. The 1993 production was at the Old Vic, and while it is a notable theatre its not West End. Sort of like an off-broadway/regional house. The 2005 production was at the Gate Theatre, a small 80 seater fringe house that really doesn't have the notability to be recognised as a substantian production in the info box, and also is not a West End theatre. Hopefully we will get a true revival next year if the rumoured transfer of the new broadway production goes ahead. I've removed these two from the infobox, although the production information is still present in the article.Mark E (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, is there a reason we're treating the Central Park prod as different from the B'way revival? Same director, designers, etc. = same prod. It just transferred from the Park to B'way.... — MusicMaker5376 16:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Most shows tend to have their out of town tryouts/off-broadway productions listed so i'd leave it in there since it was a major production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark E (talk • contribs)

No, they don't. At least, they're not supposed to. It was decided when we created the infobox that only the major productions get listed. Every tryout stop should not be listed. If there are articles where they're listed, they should be removed. The separate stops during tryouts are not separate productions.

Specifically, the Public's prod of Hair in the Park was, technically -- for the purposes of what should go in the infobox, a minor production. For example, if the Public did a 4-week run of Annie Get Your Gun, it shouldn't be in that show's infobox. Since the Bway production was substantially the same as the one in the Park, it's redundant. — MusicMaker5376 17:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

re Gate Theater .. it got a lot of attention for its modern, updating aspects that authors signed off on, innovative director, etc .. dunno what the Gate equivalent would be in NYC (off-off Bway? off Bway?) -- not sure what the Wiki rules are for the info box but in the Hair universe it was big news, possibly equal to the Public's Central Park revival - Mblaxill (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the concern is not that the production wasn't important enough for the infobox, but that it wasn't, strictly speaking, a West End production. Perhaps if we change it to "2005 London revival"? — MusicMaker5376 17:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It might have got attention, but it was still in a small off-west end house (with less than 100 seats) and ran less than a month from what I gather, and didn't transfer, making it not notable enough for the infobox (fine for main body text though). For shows by another off-west end house (Menier Chocolate Factory) only the west end transfers are listed in the infobox. If the out of town tryouts of Shrek/9 to 5 etc arn't notable for the info box (where vast changes were made between then and broadway) then this small production at the gate really isn't.Mark E (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the size of the venue is at issue -- the fact that it was a high profile director making major changes with original author's participation and doing it in London imho should place in the info box - Mblaxill (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The size of the venue is the issue. For example, whether a venue is considered a Broadway theatre has nothing to do with location: a Broadway house has over 1,000 seats, off-Broadway has between 500-1,000, off-off-Broadway has 100-500, and less than 100 isn't considered a professional theatre. (I think those numbers are right; it's been awhile since I've had to think about it.) Unless I'm mistaken, those are Actor's Equity rules -- they determine pay scale. I'm not sure how/if those numbers correlate to West End. We'd have to trust Mark, our resident Brit, on that.

As for the London prod, it did produce a successful recording of the show, was a professional production, and was generally considered notable. The docs for the infobox say to include "Notable professional productions" as part of the list on what to include in the prods section. While it only ran a short time in what would be considered an unprofessional house, the production was professional and notable.

HOWEVER: I do think that the productions section of the infobox is unnecessarily long. — MusicMaker5376 18:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not against it being there, just over here i really wouldn't call it a proper revival. More like regional theatre etc. Shows by the Menier Chocolate Factory, probably the most notable example of an off-west end house, doesn't have the productions listed in the infobox for their mega hits la cage, sunday etc, only the west end/broadway transfers of these productions. Maybe it should be looked at in broader detail what should be included in the infoboxes on the WP:MT page. I hate the word "Notable" as it can mean any number of things to different people.

As far as west end houses the west end is contained to the theatres in the West End theatre article. Its Mostly down to location and not the size of the house (I think the figures are actually 1-99=off-off broadway, 100-499 off-broadway and 500+ broadway). The Donmar and National arn't considered as west end houses (even though the donmar is in the west end. Trafalgar Studios are considered West End even though one of the stages only holds 100 or so people.Mark E (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: my understanding is also that 1-99=off-off broadway, 100-499 off-broadway and 500+ broadway. The Helen Hayes is the smallest B'way house at just over 500. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with taking it out of the infobox. We should keep the infobox as short as practicable. All the information is in the body of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1st integrated black musical?

Hair was actually not the first integrated musical - unsigned

Horn may of been referring to how the characters related to one another (i.e. not slave/master, maid/family, etc) .. Which musical are you thinking? Showboat? - Mblaxill (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hair is NOT the first musical with a racially-integrated cast. South Pacific had characters of different ethnicities, treated as equals. On The Town had black actors and Japanese actors onstage with white actors.

-unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.124.60 (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Racial integration

This seems to be a contentious point in the lede. Is there a better way of phrasing it to imply that it wasn't only integrated, but that there were both blacks and whites as leads? I think that's the point that many of our sources are attempting to impart, and I think the lede is making people think that we're saying that it was the first integrated musical. Thoughts? — MusicMaker5376 03:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Were the african american cast in South Pacific army or islanders? The point in Hair is that AA cast are equals and yes there should be a way to say that better in the lede than "broke new ground" re race - Mblaxill (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I vote to either leave it as is or take it out of the Lead altogether. It's explained later, and we don't want to add material to the Lead unless there is a benefit to doing so. We say that the show broke new ground in several ways. One of them had to do with racial integration of the cast. That's true enough and should be fully explored later in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a benefit for doing so -- the past few editors who aren't one of the three of us to leave a message on the talk have done so in reaction to that phrase. Apparently, that's a flaw in the article. How about after the phrase "using a racially-integrated cast" we add the phrase "portrayed as equals"? — MusicMaker5376 19:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that will convey any useful info to the general reader - IMO, it's too subtle a concept to explain in three words. If you really think it's a problem, I'd say take it out. As we've discussed before, it wasn't really that groundbreaking in theatre by 1968, although it had not been done that much in Broadway musicals. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Or, perhaps we could add a hidden comment, to preempt such objections, that says "This was groundbreaking because there had been few musicals on Broadway, up to that time, where Blacks and whites had been cast side by side in principal roles in a story that was not specifically a story about African Americans. See fuller description below under the heading ..." -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that someone who objects to the statement in the lede is necessarily going to edit the page and see the comment. If we take it out, I think it leaves the sentence unbalanced. — MusicMaker5376 21:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

1977 revival in lede

If the success of the current revival is presented (as it is) of the enduring quality of the show, then the 1977 failed revival is relevant, as it indicates there was a time when the zeitgesit wasn't open to the play's message. Mentioning the 77 revival adds about a half dozen words to the lede (the rest of the additioal characters are in the ref), hardly a case of bloat. It should be restored, as providing balancing information. Sach (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it really shouldn't be mentioned. Mentioning the revival's failure in the lede gives it undue weight. The current revival is mentioned because it is currently happening. The '77 debacle is mentioned in the body; that's enough.

Furthermore, refs in this article are plaintext, not templates. (For the most part. There are a couple of paragraphs toward the end that still need to be converted.) Also, the ibdb template is not a reference template. It's meant to be used in the external links section. — MusicMaker5376 20:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - mentioning a successful revival without mentioning a failed revival, that's undue weight. Mentioning the 1977 production (which I saw, and which was good), adds balance. Anyway, enjoy your ownership. Sach (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Sach. The current revival is not only of current interest, but it is, and will always be, a major development in the history of the show because of its unusual success, Tony Award, etc. Therefore, it must be mentioned in the lede per WP:LEAD. The 1977 revival was far less important and does not qualify for mention under the "overview" provision of WP:LEAD. There have been many productions of the show of more importance than the 1977 Broadway production, and we cannot and should not discuss all of them in the lede. Note that the details about the 1977 revival are given in the body of the article. If you can improve the discussion of that revival in the body, by all means please do so. The point you make above, about society's openness to the show's message in 1977, may be something that should be better discussed in the body of the article if you have appropriate references to reliable sources that support the argument. Note, however, that successful productions of the show continued in various places through the various decades, so you'd have to explain that as part of the discussion. In any case, I don't think that, considering the referenced information currently found in the body of the article, there is an argument to be made for mentioning the 1977 revival in the lede. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Factoid

I would delete the statement about this being "the first time an entire cast has made the trip across the Atlantic". It's obviously false on its face. Many shows have transferred back and forth from London to New York, and it was very common in Edwardian musical comedy. Even if you assume that what they mean is "in recent memory", I am not sure that the reporter who reported this checked this fact very carefully. Hope y'all are doing well. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, while leads making the trip to London from B'way and vice versa is not unheard of, I think this is referring to the fact that the ENTIRE TRIBE is making the transfer, not just a handful of the actors. Since the advent of actor's unions, that's unheard of (to the best of my knowledge). I will have to take your word for it that they did it frequently in the turn of the century, but, again, that was before actor's unions. Perhaps it should be qualified with "according to the production's press release" or some such verbiage. — MusicMaker5376 00:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

i'm good with qualifying it - we may learn more about the claim in time - Mblaxill (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Aquarius

So "Ron", who we have as singing Aquarius, isn't really a character in the play, its just that Ronnie Dyson was the first person to sing it on Broadway, is the one singing it on the record, etc. In subsequent casts it would often be sung by the Dionne character, but not always - typically its sung by an African American tribe member with one of the best voices in the cast (which is often Dionne, but Ronnie Dyson didn't play Dionne - its a female role and Ronnie was a male with a high tenor) - sometimes a caucasian (or asian, hispanic etc) tribe member will sing it (Meat Loaf in Detroit for example). Anyway, not really sure whats correct to say - Dionne is singing it in the present revival - Mblaxill (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I was too quick to undo. I didn't really notice what had been changed; I just thought it was someone changing something to how it is in the current revival. Maybe the most correct thing would be to say "Tribe member and Tribe"? — MusicMaker5376 03:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Tribe and soloist (often Dionne)"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

works for me - Mblaxill (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Puerta Rico

I added the PR prod to the correct section after someone put it in the info box .. tho just found out its only a 2 week run .. not sure its notable enough - Mblaxill (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What happened to poster image?

it suddenly disappeared .. not sure why - Mblaxill (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It must have been the subject of a deletion nomination, and we missed it. You need to get an administrator involved if you want to try to retrieve it. Otherwise, we need to substitute another image. I have not had any luck in getting Nina to send me any images with copyright permission. If you can get a free image or get an image with creative commons permission, we'll be on much firmer ground. Maybe Music Maker can help, as he is much better technically than I am. Sigh. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Broadway cast update

Is there an update available for this sentence at the end of the 2009 Broadway production section?: "With the Broadway cast temporarily transferring to London for the 2010 revival there, a mostly new tribe was announced to take over on March 9, 2010, which is scheduled to include American Idol alumni Ace Young as Berger and Diana DeGarmo as Sheila. Also, Kyle Riabko will assume the role of Claude, and Annaleigh Ashford will play Jeanie." -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

yah that needs updating .. i'll give a shot - Mblaxill (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian nude scene

Not only was the insertion unreferenced, but it was very boring. We don't need a long list of how each production dealt with the nude scene - just the most interesting ones. We could say generally, if we already haven't done so, that some productions encountered censorship issues. In any case, the sentence, if it were to go in at all, would go in much further down where we discuss worldwide reactions to the nude scene. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, yeah, there's plenty of discussion about it much further down, but there's no connection between this section, which is about the actors' reactions to the nude scene, and the lower sections, that discuss society's reactions to the nude scene. I'll add a brief statement to connect the two. BTW, is the German "censored" statement referenced? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

the German was part the Lemon '69 article, and part Horn (not sure which page) - i can check on the Horn part later - go ahead and add anything you want to make it read better - I agree the inserted stuff was a little boring - Mblaxill (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, cool. The ref got lost in the Brazilian moving around. I fixed it. See if you like the changes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Misleading Critical Reception

The current opening sentence under the "Critical Reception" section seems to specify the Broadway premiere only: "Reception to Hair upon its Broadway premiere was, with exceptions, overwhelmingly positive." The Broadway premiere was only one version of the musical. The article would be improved if the opening sentence summarized the reception of all versions of the musical, not just the Broadway premiere (although summary of reception of the Broadway premiere may still be included in the section). The phrase overwhelmingly positive would not be accurate to summarize the reception of all versions of the musical as there have been a significant number of negative reviews, which the subsequent paragraphs make clear. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It is typical, in describing musicals on Wikipedia, to discuss the reception of the original production, which is what the musical was written for. Critical reception of subsequent productions is further discussed in the sections that discuss those productions specifically. This is the best way to do it, because the question is, how was the show judged by those who saw it as the authors intended, in its original major market production. Revivals often cut corners, and the timeliness of the piece may recede. For example, in this case, the urgency of the musical's anti-war message was lost once the public already understood that we should get out of Vietnam, and the novelty and freshness of the hippie lifestyle receded. Revivals try to recreate both of those things, but obviously it is more difficult to do it convincingly than at the time of the original production. In any case, I strongly disagree that this is misleading. Indeed I feel that this is the clearest and most informative way of doing it. If you disagree with this general strategy, you should bring up the topic at WP:MUSICALS, where we talk about how articles on musicals should be written. We need to have some consistency throughout the several thousand articles about musicals on Wikipedia. By the way, it is helpful, in editing Wikipedia, to establish an account (it is free). See WP:WHY. Finally, it is not necessary to have all those cites in the Lead sections of articles. See WP:LEADCITE. The cites you requested are already in the article body. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think "overwhelmingly" is accurate .. all the local TV stations went nuts over it (which in 1968 is where most people got their theater reviews), the NYT gave it a rave, there was a major buzz around it, etc -- also we left a lot of positive reviews out to save space -- this link from Michael Butler's site has an archive of them -- Mblaxill (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

format changes

why did the reflist switch to 1 column? - Mblaxill (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Weird. Not sure. I switched it to 2 columns, and that seems to work OK. Does it look good on your system? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

yah 2 columns works - not sure why 3 didn't - Mblaxill (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Computers. They just do what they want to do. Pretty soon, they will force us to make them breakfast. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 3 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

• http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=17:579301~1~T000
• http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=17:523500
• http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=17:425330~1~T000

--CactusBot (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Extended workshop @ Public ??

Hair did not have "an extended workshop period" at the Public -- the workshop that O Horgan did was after The Public declined to co-produce the Broadway show with Butler -- it was an independent workshop that Butler financed with O Horgan and the authors as the creative center, not The Public. The Horn book never says that Hair was "workshopped" there. Hair was certainly developed a good deal at The Public during the Off Broadway opening, but again the major workshopping and crafting for Broadway was led by O Horgan. Not sure how to fix - it's in the Legacy Section - Mblaxill (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Good. No point in dwelling on the "Concept Musical". We certainly should not say more than the references say. I streamlined it even more. Since there are blue links, don't need to name the directors. Also, regarding the next paragraph and the "rock musical", I updated the section to add a footnote about "Spider-Man". I looked for a Bono quote that I had seen a while ago, where he says basically that he now understands that Broadway is just not as profitable as rock concerts for A-list rockers. I can't find it, can you? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, any interest in improving the "Rock musicals" article? It's pretty weak. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Piece of work.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Piece of work.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

shoe polish as a drug

shoe polish is included on the list in Hashish. Is it there because one could get high huffing shoe polish, or because having one's shoes shined is a power rush? Not having seen the show performed, I can only guess. The voicing on the broadway musical record seems to indicate the latter, this meaning confirmed by discussion in the article of stage antics involving shoe polishing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.64.196 (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)