Talk:Long-running musical theatre productions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This list was moved from Musical theater. This list needs to be wikified! --Samuel Wantman 23:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion[edit]

What are the criteria for inclusion on this list? Instead of "notable", which has a pretty low bar on Wikipedia, what if we say "important"? Here's a For instance: Flower Drum Song. Sure, it's "notable", but it's not particularly important in the development or history of the musical. But it's an "also ran" compared to most other R&H musicals. It's less interesting as an "Asian" musical than, say, "Pacific Overtures" or even "M" Butterfly. I say, cut FDS. Fantasticks wasn't on the list. I added it.

What about:

  • "The Mystery of Edwin Drood"? That's an interesting musical because of the audience voting alone.
  • "Little Shop of Horrors", where stuff comes out of the ceiling at you? People were freaked out!
  • "Urinetown"? It took cajones to try to sell a musical called Urinetown.
  • Cinderella - Was supposed to be a one-off TV program, but Julie Andrews made it a big hit

Can we arrive at a consensus on what ought to be on or off the list? --Ssilvers 08:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to IBDB the musical Mamma Mia! has run for 1,998 performances (as of August 18, 2006, it's still going) which would place it at number 22. It makes me wonder how the list was compiled and if there are many others that are missing. I know IBDB.com is reliable for the number of performances, so I'll dig around on that site to try and find if they have a resource that would be helpful in verifying the current list. Lmr5069 07:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have cut down the list of longest running B'way musicals so that the cutoff is 2,500 performances, and I ADDED to it the longest running London musicals. Meanwhile, I MOVED into the list of "other" notable musicals some of the most notable ones that I removed from the longest-running list. However, I think that 1. There are many very important shows (see above) that are not on the list, and I will try to add some; 2. We need to cut some out of the list, as not being "particularly" notable, as compared with the others (I cut a few); and 3. We need to add referenced reasons to each entry to explain why it is particularly notable. -- Ssilvers 05:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not jsut make a seperate page for the West End becasue I really jsut want to see New York's performance numbers.

To see the NY numbers, just click here, which is one of the external links at the bottom of the article. That website is frequently (weekly?) updated. -- Ssilvers 02:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separation[edit]

Because Broadway and the West End are so different, shouldn't we have different pages or at least different sections or lists for Broadway and West End Shows?

Agreed. [Added by anonymous user: 218.186.8.10]

Disagree: How are they different? -- Ssilvers 15:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely separate economics between the two cities makes a direct comparison invalid. It costs more to put on a show on Broadway because of higher rents (a smudge fewer Broadway theatres and more shows that never close) and higher salaries for ensemble, stagehands and other crew members. This results in a higher "nut" (ongoing running costs) as well as initial investment, which means it's harder for a show to make money on Broadway, which leads to shorter runs before the producers give up and write off the loses. Frankly, this list is an apples and oranges situation. The separate lists are more significant. oknazevad (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you doth protest too much. But in any case, we have both the separate lists, and the combined one. Best of both worlds. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Help, Please?[edit]

We need to say something about each show (other than the ones on the longest-running list) to explain why it is particularly notable, such as listing very popular numbers, and noting if it is very frequently revived or any other items that make it notable. Also, some shows still need composer and author info. -- Ssilvers 05:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Huh...?[edit]

This list doesn't make any sense at all. If the production is notable, then it's in Wikipedia, and this list is redundant. If it is remarkable for some other reason, that reason is mentioned on the specific article. If someone wants to know specifics about long-running musicals, there are sources for that elsewhere. This list is "hey, put the show you like on this list!" I'll probably nominate this for deletion. —  MusicMaker 03:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you wouldn't. I find this list very useful. It is a list of historically important musicals. I constantly refer to it for a whole variety of purposes. If you look at WP:LIST, this satisfies all three purposes for lists. It is an *informative* annotated list; it helps me *navigate* by giving me a list of super important musicals when I am looking for examples from important musicals, or tony-award winners, or Olivier award winners, or long-runners - it's just incredibly useful; and it helps me *develop* articles, when I am looking to work on, or start with the most significant musicals. -- Ssilvers 03:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Super important? And who makes the determination of what qualifies as super important? This entire list is POV. —  MusicMaker 05:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If each production had an explanation of what it was notable for, with a citation saying as much, this could solve the POV problem. As it is now, the list is uncited, and I will tag it as such. I don't think it should be deleted, it can be fixed. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 05:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'll work on this. Note however, that most of the entries on the (bottom half of the) list are justified by the criteria of having won the Tony Award for Best Musical or the Olivier Award for Outstanding New Musical. I don't think we need multiple cites to the Tony Awards and Olivier Awards websites. If anyone wants to help, by the way, I would welcome the help. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 05:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, then, a little organization is in order. The top of the list is ranked, but it doesn't seem to me to be ranked in any objective manner -- why should Les Mis be above Phantom? One is the longest-running in London, the other in New York. Les Mis has a handful more performances than Phantom, but Phantom's aggregate number is higher and still growing on both sides of the Atlantic. If the aggregate number is used, then Cats should be above Les Mis.... If we use the total, then we run into a problem with Chorus Line, which had only modest success in London. See my point?
It's very simple: It is the longest run on EITHER B'way or West End. It is in order by the longest runs, period on either major venue. If you really want to separate it by NY/London, we can do it, but see below. -- Ssilvers 06:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But doing that artificially inflates the reputations of some shows. Blood Brothers, when compared to the London run, was a complete flop in New York. Maybe we can average the two numbers? And why is The Fantasticks not on the list at all? It wasn't on Broadway, but, the fact that it ran for 30 years is HUGE -- if we're talking about "notable musical theatre productions" it should be at the top of the list as the longest-running musical in theater history. Anywhere. See what I mean by this entire endeavor being completely subjective? —  MusicMaker 09:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then, perhaps it would be a good idea to organize the other shows chronologically under headings like "Tony Award for Best Musical Winners and Nominees" or Olivier awards or whatnot. -- MusicMaker
Why split things up geographically? Shows play in various venues, so by mixing the US and Brit shows (and in some cases a US show had a longer run in the West End, or vice versa), it gives a more worldwide perspective. I think, from your comments, you seem to be buying into the rivalry between NY and London, and I am trying to minimize it. -- Ssilvers 06:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely not buying into rivalry, indeed, across WP, I'm trying to minimize it. But, the only way to do that is to look at the show AS A WHOLE rather than any specific production. The suggestion of splitting things up by Tony, etc. is just a way to organize them. —  MusicMaker 09:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the list is good as a resource (I had no idea PDQ Bach wrote Oh! Calcutta!), but without any actual reasons to include or disinclude certain things, it just becomes listcruft. —  MusicMaker 06:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there are very good reasons why every member of the list is there, but I agree that they need to be stated clearly. It's just a lot of work, and I am asking you to be patient, or help me, or both. I certainly have been trying to be helpful to you guys with your new projects here. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 06:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't nominate it as long as we start getting it to something... you know... good. And I'll certainly help. But, frankly, your entire argument amounts to "it needs some work, but this is the best it can be". If that's true, this thing has to go. I think, if we're gonna keep it, we need to do a little thinking outside of the box as to how we're going to do it. I'm going to leave it alone for now, as there are a couple other WPMT-related tasks I want to get through (orphaning infobox 2, going thru the categories, afding a lotta crap thats out there...) Once I'm done with all that, if you have some organizational system to implement, I'll help, and I'll be happy to give imput along the way.
Maybe a table would help. We could just alphabetize the articles, number of shows for each production on either side of the Atlantic, it's rank, etc.... I know markup scares you, but hit my talk page with a list of columns you'd want to see represented, and I'll see what we can do. —  MusicMaker 09:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this list is important and we should work on finding a way so format it that everyone agrees on. It's an interesting overview on the development of musical theatre. The genre has gone through many changes over the last hundred years in a way, illustrates that. I think it would be good to discuss specific criteria for inclusion/exclusion. That's my two cents. --Broadwaygal 14:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non Broadway/West End; Title of entry[edit]

Surely Broadway and the West End are not the only places on the planet that produce musicals? Has no-one ever performed a musical in Paris or Berlin or Las Vegas? What is the longest running musical outside of NY/London? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.13.140 (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i agree. Can't the title and/or the introduction be changed to reflect the content (or the content be changed to reflect the title)? Kdammers (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction does reflect the content. As for the title, Broadway and the West End are the two biggest musical theatre markets in the world, by a long way, so, practically speaking, the title is accurate enough. But if lots of editors want to add "on Broadway and in the West End" we could do so. I vote to leave the title as is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction does in a sense reflect the content but not the title. I know it's kind of like comparing apples to orangutans, but The World Encyclopedia of Contemporary Theatre: Europe gives 28 million attendees to theatre in Germany in the '90s and the West End itself only gives 15 million for last year (http://www.westendframe.com/2014/01/society-of-london-theatre-reports.html) and 22 million for all of London (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2711356/More-theatres-London-ALL-Premier-League-games.html). OK, Bw & WE might be the behemoths, but Berlin, Seoul, LV, LA and other cities are theatrical presences. So let's change the title or the content. Kdammers (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. BTW, does The World Encyclopedia of Contemporary Theatre: Europe tell us what the most popular and/or long-running musicals have been on continental Europe? If so, could you beef up the third paragraph of this discussion? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that someone has moved it back to the previous name. I have no objection. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Long-running musical theatre productions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Long-running_musical_theatre_productions&oldid=1198850095"