Talk:Porgy and Bess

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Porgy and Bess article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Porgy and Bess is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 20, 2005.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 23, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
July 18, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
July 28, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
February 15, 2008	Featured article review	Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

Opera

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera articles

Musical Theatre

Porgy and Bess is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Musical TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject Musical TheatreTemplate:WikiProject Musical TheatreMusical Theatre articles

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

"the times are here to debunk Gershwin's lampblack Negroisms."[edit]

According to a book by Howard Pollack, as found on Google, this quote came from an Edward Morrow interview for New Theatre which may have taken Ellington's words beyond what he actually said. While I think the quote should stay because of the ensuing fallout,it might be necessary to reflect who was saying that Ellington had said that> At the least, there wouldn't be the total flip-flop that the article currently claims.MMetro (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Porgy and Bess. 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) 15:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Porgy and Bess. 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) 17:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Porgy and Bess. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051214125934/http://ilperetz.org/graduates/adam_benaroya.htm to http://www.ilperetz.org/graduates/adam_benaroya.htm

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) 00:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the reference to the 2-12 production starring Audra MacDonald, Norm Lewis and Phillip Boykin?[edit]

I was surprised to find no mention of this version which was shortened for sure but authorized by the Gershwin Estate and highly acclaimed by the critics and public allike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.204.240.162 (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you didn't find the section § 2011 The Gershwins' Porgy and Bess (Paulus adaptation). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need to fix this error[edit]

The Roles box says that Jim is a cotton picker. The Synopsis says he is a stevedore. Which is it? Softlavender (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.liveabout.com/porgy-and-bess-synopsis-724282 describes this early scene as "Men from around town trickle in to join the craps game, including fisherman Mingo and Jim, who works down at the docks loading and unloading cargo from the ships. Jim expresses that he has grown tired of his job and decides to try and make a living by joining Jake and Mingo as a fisherman." In the libretto, Jim and Jake have this dialogue: Jim: "I'm done with cotton." Jake: "Better come along with me on the Sea Gull. I got room for another fisherman." Jim: "That suit me. This cotton hook done swing its las' bale of cotton. Here, who wants a cotton hook?" This suggests to me that he's working on the docks loading cotton bales. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another synopsis: [1]. It sounds like the truth is somewhere between "stevedore" and "cotton picker": Jim hauls cotton, he doesn't pick it. I adjusted the wiki article to that effect. The city of Charleston wouldn't have cotton to "pick", anyway. Softlavender (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the wiki article on stevedore says:

In present-day American waterfront usage, a stevedore is usually a person or a company who manages the operation of loading or unloading a ship. In the early 19th century, the word was usually applied to black laborers or slaves who loaded and unloaded bales of cotton and other freight on and off of riverboats.

(Emphasis mine.) Softlavender (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019-20 revival[edit]

I opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#Porgy_and_Bess regarding whether the version that I saw on PBS on Friday night should be discussed in a subsection of performance history.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been advised at that discussion of the following. There is a current element of encyclopedic content for this revival at Porgy and Bess#Subsequent productions, which is deemed as a currently unsatisfactory hodge-podge. I am not really equipped to tackle that hodge-podge to make it useful encyclopedic content. However, I am able to demsonstrate why it is not a very good presentation and not a good location for the content regarding this "run". I stated my problems with the current presentation over there as follows:
1. Anyone looking for 2018-2020 content in the TOC is not even going to see it because it seems to be chronoligically presented.
2. One ref for 2018-2020 content is dead and the other fails to link this production in a way that makes it a clear whether it is a revival or a newly-tweaked production bearing the same name.
3. It makes it seem as if the London production just transferred to the Met when it was recast twice before getting to the Met and some of the later encore performances at the Met had new casts or at least significant stand ins.
4. The current presentation never mentions the Dutch production and its only live source mentions a Washington National Opera run (in May), that was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. It is not clear how many more stops were on the schedule.
5. It seems to me that a separate subsection should address this shared/toured production.
I would encourage a reworking of the entire Subsequent productions content.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second graf[edit]

The second paragraph states that it was not until the Houston revival of 1976 that P&G became widely acclaimed. However further on the text (properly) clarifies that the 1942 revival and particularly the touring production of 1952-53 were instrumental in cementing this show's renown.

I leave it to other editors to make any adjustments in the text since my own edits are invariably reversed the next day. Salut ConradArchguy (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Porgy (play)[edit]

I noticed a page called Porgy (play) which is a stub article of an early version of this play which has most of the same content. Maybe it should be combined into this article? I see no real reason to have them separate. Any thoughts? Buger677 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]