Talk:Hair (musical)/Archive 3

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Shapiro

I've seen sources that called him "Nat" and sources that called him "Mel". I used Mel Shapiro since the article on him said that he directed The Two Gentlemen of Verona, which was MacDermot's next project. — Music Maker 5376 00:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

where did you see Mel? He's referred to as Nat in all the sources i've seen (Miller, Horn and the LA Times article) - also Nat Shapiro was a jazz writer and producer, not a director - Mblaxill (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.intrafi.com/hair/holding/articles/HairArticles/ocregister.html I don't know if that's the only place I saw it -- I may have seen it elsewhere, too -- but that's the one I could find. I dunno if it was a mistake -- God knows there's no shortage of Shapiros in showbusiness! — Music Maker 5376 01:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

yeah that's strange .. It's gotta be Nat because Galt wasn't really into theater - he was a jazz musician and composer. My guess is he either misspoke on the OC Register piece or the writer got the two confused in his notes. The Horn book is very well researched and knows that it started with Blau (which in interviews the authors rarely mention) - Blau initially was going to produce but could only promise an opening night, not an extended run like Papp could. The Miller book mentions Blau ONLY as Galt conduit and doesn't mention Shapiro at all. Also here's the LA Times link that has "Nat" - http://www.michaelbutler.com/hair/holding/articles/HairArticles/LATimes6-7-01.html - Mblaxill (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. — Music Maker 5376 04:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Nat has an article now! He didn't the last time I checked.... — Music Maker 5376 15:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Music

I've worked up a section on music, and I have it posted here. I've taken a little bit from various sections of the article, so the first paragraph on that page would replace what I took from the History section. I took the era-germane things from the "Media" section, and the ones I left could be moved under "Subsequent productions" (which would have to be renamed to something more general). That would let us rename the "Political and cultural significance" section to "Themes". I'm not sure if the last paragraph in the music section should be part of that section or part of the critical reception -- I like it there cause its musicians talking about the music, whereas the critical response is critics talking about theatre. I'm also not sure where to put the music section, so that's why I'm waiting for input. — Music Maker 5376 05:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I'm not necessarily married to the image of the sheet music. — Music Maker 5376 05:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We could rename the song list "Music" and have subheadings for musical numbers and music analysis/review. Note that I added a paragraph to the "Media" section and renamed it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Music and Themes are kind of jumbled at the moment .. not sure how to make it better - maybe astrology and some song theme descriptions can be taken out of Social Change and put into a more general category. Also the list of Top 10 hits needs to be in only one category .. I'd take it out of the music section - Mblaxill (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps move the 1st two grafs under social change into the history section? That would leave the other sections as thematic sections. — Music Maker 5376 17:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That could work if we break History up into various subheds - Mblaxill (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

John Lennon

OK - I read the High Fidelity article by Gene Lees (who is Gene Lees btw?). If it's true we have to include this Lennon tidbit, BUT!!, I don't think this article is enough of a source by itself - where did Lees get this from? He doesn't quote him or reference where Lennon is supposed to have stated his opinion. The other guys (Bernstein, Rodgers, Bacharach) are well documented. We should take Lennon out until there's more evidence - Mblaxill (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Gene Lees was a writer for High Fidelity :-). Actually, it looks like he did some lyrical work back in the day. At any rate, while I agree that he mentions the Lennon thing almost in passing, I don't think anyone would consider HF an unreliable source. He was a guy close to the heartbeat of the music scene at the time (I guess), and, as an author for a major music magazine, I'm sure he had many interactions with Lennon. I don't think HF would put words into John Lennon's mouth and expect to get away with it. — Music Maker 5376 15:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

How about, "according to Gene Lees, Lennon thought..." - Mblaxill (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we don't (nor should we) say "according to Robert Berkvist, Richard Rogers said...." — Music Maker 5376 17:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

it's just that i haven't read it anywhere else and this writer seems to have an agenda - Mblaxill (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

He definitely has a POV; I won't argue that. But that doesn't mean we should discount what he says. Many of the other articles have the opposite POV -- should we discount the facts in them? — Music Maker 5376 18:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just from a fact checking perspective, I'd ask, well, what exactly did Lennon say? Some sources are better than others. Don't know if Wiki accepts The NY Post or British tabloids as source material, but they are notoriously bad sources and when I work at magazines we'd need 2nd or 3rd sources to back them up - Mblaxill (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I just took a look at Lees' article at the Canadian encyclopedia here. He's not in WP, but he probably should be. With the resume on him, if he told me that Lennon enjoyed taking High Tea with Nixon, I'd believe him. Seriously, tho, he's a Jazz-based Canadian musican. If he's coming down on the music of another Jazz-based Canadian, I don't think he'd use Lennon's name in vain.

However, if you think it should be removed, go ahead. The Burt Bacharat quote can go in. — Music Maker 5376 19:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

One last thing and I'll leave it alone (although I did tweak it a bit), Lennon was a peace activist and I highly doubt he would criticize something that was having the kind of impact that Hair was - Mblaxill (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. However, calling it "dull" doesn't necessarily reflect his feelings on the message. One can support the message of something and still find it dull. — Music Maker 5376 20:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

History Subhed?

I'm thinking the History section could be broken up into subheds since it's gotten pretty long - Authors, Composer, Director etc - whaddya think? - Mblaxill (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Right now, I have no opinion on this, leaning toward leaving out the subheads. I don't think the section is cumbersomely large. Adding the two social change grafs might affect that. However, I don't think it would aid in either navigation or understanding, and I think having mini-sections of varying length would look bad. Like I said, tho, no current opinion. — Music Maker 5376 18:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I put in a couple of subheadings before I read MM's response. Take 'em out if you don't like 'em, but they might help.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol -- no.... If you think they help, then leave them. However, I think it a little strange to have subheads like "Off Broadway" in the "History" and in the "Productions". — Music Maker 5376 18:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed...

...for the fact that there was no nudity till O'Horgan. I thought we had that cited? — Music Maker 5376 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

yeah who put in the citation needed? I added a ref from Horn. It's probably not in the right format - Mblaxill (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. We had used the cite to say that this was the first B'way show with nudity, but I didn't know that the cite also stated that the off-B'way versions did NOT have nudity. Thanks for nailing it down. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Off B-way

Do we need the small section on Off-Bway under Early Productions, since it is described in detail under History? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow -- I should really start reading everything before I respond.... I'd think we can integrate the little that's in "Productions" into the history. — Music Maker 5376 18:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Albums

Had we decided to take out the "Albums" section? Could a narrative paragraph about important recordings go in instead? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That quote that we can't seem to find a place for would be best served in a section on the recording. — Music Maker 5376 19:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Social Change

I feel strongly that this does not belong in the History section, but in the themes section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Or, if you don't like it in the Themes section, then in the After the 60s section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

i don't mind it in History, but we should give the first section under Themes a subhed - Mblaxill (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be in its own section? There's definitely a lot more that could be said. — Music Maker 5376 19:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the 1st subhed under Themes needs to be more general. There's a lot more themes mentioned (drugs, anti-war etc). How about "Controversial issues"? also this section could be expanded a lot - Mblaxill (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to come back to this article http://www.michaelbutler.com/hair/holding/articles/HairArticles/scottmiller.html and make sure we have picked up all of its main points. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That article is basically a mini-version of the Miller book that's been cited. I recently picked up a copy from my local library. — Music Maker 5376 22:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lyrics box

The reason that I'd removed the "Why don't my mother love me?" lyric was because it's already used in the clip from the song. I don't think it makes much sense to have it twice. I can always put together a different cut, but it's a lot easier just to choose a different lyric. — Music Maker 5376 13:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I edited the box to reduce the overlap, but I think that the remaining lyrics give the best illustration of the meaning of the song and explain the connection between the name of the show and naturism that is mentioned in the accompanying text. They also point towards the Jesus imagery, which I think we need to discuss more clearly somewhere in the article. I don't think it's a problem that the lyric in the box overlaps a little with the sound file - they're different media, and there is nothing wrong with using the title song of the show as an illustration in two different parts of the article. Given that we don't have enough images in the article, I wouldn't mind another text box somewhere if you can think of an iconic lyric that makes a point that could help illustrate the discussion. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Walking In Space: "How dare they try to end this beauty ... Walking in space we find the purpose of peace/the beauty of life you can no longer hide/Our eyes are open, our eyes are open ... wide, wide, wide" OR Flesh Failures: "We starve look at one another, short of breath walking proudly in our winter coats, wearing smells from laboratories - facing a dying nation" OR Aquarius: "Harmony and understanding, sympathy and trust abounding/No more falsehoods or derisions, golden living dreams of visions/ Mystic crystal revelation, and the minds true liberation - Aquarius" OR Three Five zero Zero: "Ripped open by metal explosion - Caught in barbed wire, fireball, bullet shock/ Bayonet electricity, shrapnelled throbbing meat/Electronic data processing, black uniforms, bare feet, carbines/ Mail order rifles shoot the muscles/ 256 Vietcong captured" - Mblaxill (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I added one for "Aquarius", but "Walking in Space" might be nice too? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm crazy busy but when i get a chance i want to expand the Themes section .. off the top of my head we need more stuff on religion and drugs, probably other stuff I'm leaving out - Mblaxill (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There's quite a bit that can be said in reference to religion and the music -- something I've been meaning to write. Also was the 3rd anniversary celebration mass at St. John Divine including songs from the show and McDermot's Mass in F. There was an article at michaelbutler.com having to do with rock musicals and religion, too. — Music Maker 5376 18:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Cite templates

BTW, I had a conversation with SandyGeorgia on her talk page last week, where she said that she doesn't like cite templates and wishes that people didn't use them. She is the person who gives the thumbs up or down at FA reviews. I know it's a little late to tell you this, and obviously she lives with them, but that's a fact. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! - Mblaxill (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha! Oh, well.... It's not like it will hold it up at FA. — Music Maker 5376 17:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, congrats on attaining GA-class, guys! I was going to add to Awadewit's praise above, but thought I'd step in here instead. Sandy's opinion is just that: her opinion. Citation templates are numerous and differ greatly, but the fact is that Sandy is not personally the one who gives the thumbs up or down at FAC; Raul (who is actually in charge of the FA process) and Sandy can only promote or fail articles depending on consensus. In fact, they aren't even allowed to !vote during the discussion. Never have I seen consensus against using citation templates during an FAC discussion. Since they aren't part of the FA criteria, it's up to personal choice whether or not to use them. The important thing with refs is that all important aspects of the citations (author, title, original and access dates, publisher, etc) are covered and that consistency is achieved. Citation templates are useful in helping with both, which is why I believe they are frequently used. Formatting nitpickers rear their heads if different citation templates are mixed, if dates are not linked properly or publisher information is missing... templates help bypass all of that. The refs look fine with the templates and do not seem to be causing any problems. Just my opinion. María (habla conmigo) 18:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Maria. I agree with all you say - the templates can be a useful checklist, and some editors find them helpful. Of course, we are using them in this article. I don't like the templates because they force the citation format and punctuation in ways that I don't like, and they make it harder to edit references (especially for newbies) and to edit the text around the templates. Some editors even believe that they are requred, so I think it is important to point out that they are not. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Maria! You were of a great help getting us to this point. It's really great to see so much outside enthusiasm for the article.

As for the cite templates, personally, I like them. (Obviously.) I don't really care how things are formatted, as long as they're consistent -- and the templates help with that quite a bit. With them or without them, the citations still make editing a little difficult, but, this way, things are consistent in the article AND across WP.

Again, thanks for everything! — Music Maker 5376 18:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Hippie Life"/'95 Revival

"Hippie Life" was one of the songs tagged onto the end of the song list with the note "added to the 1995 revival". Does anyone know of a citation for this? I'm not even sure what 1995 revival it was talking about -- there was a '93 London revival, but I'm not sure what '95 was. I've seen one other reference to this song, but can't remember where. — Music Maker 5376 17:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This post from Rado's website has more info on that, although I couldn't find any other article or book mention of the 1995 Europe prods that he cites - Mblaxill (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This source lists a 1995 tour: http://www.mindspring.com/~holleman1/recs-foreign.htm -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

To do list

I'm just going to start a todo list. That way we know what needs to be done and we can sign up to do things so we don't end up stepping on each other's toes. — Music Maker 5376 18:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If any of you guys want to start out on these pls don't wait for me - the Miller book that Ssilvers has gets into the religious and drug themes pretty extensively, as well as all the others (race, pacifism, Shakespeare). Hopefully I'll have time to contribute at some point - Mblaxill (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. MM has the book, not me. MM, I'm keeping an open mind on "Dramatics", but from your "to do" items on it, it sounds more like info for a book than encyclopedia info. Usually, we put this type of info, in very summary form, into the productions section. I thought, for instance, that how the Chicago discussion of Wicked finally turned out looks like a good model for how to describe the dramatics/critical reaction info for subsequent important productions. But, I'm happy to see a new and different model, if you think you can improve on that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we do a fair amount of discussion on "improvisational techniques", but we don't say anything about what they were or how they were used. I think that if it's encyclopedic enough to mention, its encyclopedic enough for a bit of detail. There's a bit in the article about how the music was new to B-way, but there's not much about how the structure of the show itself was revolutionary, as well. Hair put the nails in the coffin for the Broadway of Rogers and Hammerstein and Lerner and Loewe, but the article doesn't make that clear.

Also, we haven't made a big deal about the nude scene -- nor should we have to this point. It wasn't that big a deal, and, yet, that's what the average person thinks when they hear "Hair". At this point in the article's growth, we should have at least a paragraph on the scene -- how it was executed, what it entailed, the fact that it was optional for the actors, etc. I think that by skirting around it and only talking about the controversies, we give the impression that it was bigger than it was. <humor>Which, I guess, is what you want in a nude scene....</humor>. — Music Maker 5376 22:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. I think we might also find a quote saying that people were disappointed that the nude scene was played in dim light and was brief. When I talk to people who saw the original NY and London productions, that's always the first thing they say: "It was just for a minute, and you could hardly see anything...." (or at least nothing big....) LOL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of good quotes in one of the Butler articles -- Jack Benny saying that it happened so quickly it was "hard to tell if there was a good Jewish boy onstage," things like that. There's enough written about it that we'll be able to cover it well without being sensationalistic. — Music Maker 5376 22:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

So since I have the Horn book I'll add info on dramatics and local reactions to regional and int'l prods .. don't think any other books or clips have much detail as Horn. Also Horn has the most info on O Horgan's exercises so if I can add more on that I will. Miller has a lot on the Open Theater re improvisation etc. Also some of the stuff i just put in re regionals i'm assuming will get put into different categories eventually - Mblaxill (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have Horn on order. It'll probably take about a week to get. — Music Maker 5376 00:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A heads-up....

I came across a British favourite yesterday in the article. I don't think anyone would deny that this should be in American English, and I know that I have the tendency to tune out the British spellings at this point. We should keep our eyes peeled for others, tho.... — Music Maker 5376 15:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably my fault, because of all the work I do on British musical theatre/operetta. Thanks for catching it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Damn templates

I really hate working with them. MM, would you fix note 84's date, please? Also, we should add this cite: http://www.mindspring.com/~holleman1/hsongs.htm to show the breadth of recordings. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. The dates, generally speaking, need to be entered as YYYY-MM-DD. Unless, of course, they're from before Jan 1, 1970 (or '72 -- I forget). For some reason, the templates don't recognize them, and they have to be entered normally: [[March 29]], [[1969]]. — Music Maker 5376 17:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, Thanks. I'll try to remember YYYY-MM-DD. :) -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving media to the left

Can you move the box for "Where Do I Go" to the left?" I couldn't figure out how to do it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The media box? I think they're all coded to be on the right. Or, at least, I haven't been able to figure it out, either. I'll see what I can find out. — Music Maker 5376 20:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's beautiful, man. (shedding small tear) -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

To-do not transcluding

In an effort to get a handle on all of the sources at michaelbutler.com, I'm going to start throwing sources onto the to-do list. I didn't want it to get too large for the talk page, so I stopped transcluding it. You can get to it by clicking the link in the box above. If anyone wants the old list back, I can always do the sources in my userspace and re-transclude. — Music Maker 5376 03:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Buzz Cut

Not sure how specific we can get here. There's no specific stage direction that says he has a "buzz cut" - if the actor had long hair they usually tucked it under a military hat. If the actor had short hair (gasp!) and wore a wig than i suppose you could say he had a buzz cut if they actually showed that. Maybe I'm being picky but is there a more general way to convey the cut hair? - Mblaxill (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I would just take out the phrase about the hair shorn into a military buzz-cut. We have already said that he is in a military uniform. I guess you could say "with his long hair tamed", but I think the mention of the military uniform conveys the point, and since the synopsis is rather long, no need to add things that are questionable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I got it from Miller. Like I said in my edit summary, I think it's kinda important to say that Claude's hair is cut. — Music Maker 5376 03:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

But if Miller is wrong, then we should not say it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if he tucked it under his hat, the effect is that his hair has been cut, no? — Music Maker 5376 13:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"hair shorn" works for me - Mblaxill (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)