Talk:List of musicals: A to L

Untitled

Could we be specific about the meaning of "Broadway musical"? Does it mean any musical that has ever appeared on Broadway, or only those that made their debut on Broadway? Deb 18:12, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think we should move this to List of musicals and then consider splitting it out later. Generalised list more useful, surely? Morwen 18:24, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree. I actually hadn't even noticed that it was Broadway musicals. Let's start by being all-inclusive... we can always categorize later. Offhand I'd say the list is only about 20% complete at this point, anyway...

By the way... do Gilbert and Sullivan count as "musicals?" (I just realized that "The Jazz Mikado" and "The Hot Mikado" do qualify, even as Broadway musicals) Dpbsmith 20:50, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Musical is short for Musical Play and implies that, although music plays a big part in the show, the plot is mostly moved ahead by non-musical scenes as opposed to opera which uses purely musical plot scenes and operetta which uses both. G & S is in an awkward position because it is generally thought of as operetta but, as far as I recall, is also acknowledged to have had a formative influence on the early musicals. -- Derek Ross—Preceding undated comment added by Derek Ross (talk • contribs) 21:18, 24 November 2003 (UTC)

Notable songs and other notes

Someone, without any discussion here and without noting it in the edit summary, has removed all the short notes, particularly about notable songs.

• There should have been a discussion here before this was done.
• The fact that this was done should have definitely been noted in the edit summary, as it is a major change.

I have restored this information.

Most of these musicals do not have full articles of their own. It is unlikely that anybody is going to do full-scale articles for all or most of the musicals in the near future. Similarly, it is unlikely that many of these songs will ever receive full articles. Many of them are all but forgotten by all experts apart from having given rise to a familiar song.

To a modern reader, is there any fact about the obscure musical "Oh, Boy" that is more important than that it was the origin of "Till the Clouds Roll By?" Is there anything about "Knickerbocker Holiday" more important than that it was source of "September Song?"

If we had articles about each of these musicals and the articles listed the songs, you could make out a case for not duplicating them in the list. Most of these short notes about relevant songs and, in some cases, other identifying features of these musicals are not yet easily found elsewhere in Wikipedia.

Although specifying which songs are notable will, in reality, be based on the basis of the judgement of the person writing the entry, rather than say, researching reviews or Billboard lists, most of these judgements are noncontroversial. This is particularly true in the cases of the "obscure musical with one notable song." Obviously, if you were to for a list of the notable songs in "Oklahoma!" rank in order of notability, different people would include different songs and rank them in different orders. Even here, though, I can't imagine anyone saying that "Oh! what a Beautiful Morning" should be omitted—or that "It's a Scandal! It's an Outrage!" should be included. Dpbsmith 13:06, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

stage musicals/films

This article is now a mammoth. Anyone feel like separating out the movies into an article called List of movie musicals? AJD 10:50, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would prefer to have an integrated list. The size can be dealt with by creating pages for letters of the alphabet as has been done with List of songs. Splitting the list would make it more difficult to determine which theatre musicals became films and vice versa. JohnRogers—Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRogers (talk • contribs) 06:14, 18 July 2004 (UTC)

Missing Musical

Les Miserables needs to be added to the list -Ary Sudarmana (21 March, 2006)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.176.133 (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Many musicals are missing. Why is a list preferred to a category in this instance? -Jodi (26 August 2006)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.98.102 (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Most film musicals seem to be missing, i.e. all the Golddigger movies, Astair and Rogers, Busby Berkley. 15.251.169.69 (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Paul B.

Years?

With years on the list of musicals, should we be linking to pages like 1972 in music? Or pages like 1972? A consenus needs to be reached and then the page needs to be edited accordingly. ClarineteBajo 22:28, 19 Jul 2006

Contents broken

Someone needs to fix the contents. Everything M and under is in another entry, but the transcluded contents template links to this article. --24.115.80.11 20:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

definition of a musical

I wondered if there is a definition of what qualifies as a "Musical"?

• I was first directed here since someone placed Lady and the Tramp as a musical theatre project, it does not have many songs-but it is true that on the feature on the DVD Disney Backstage that they consider it a musical.
• Assuming this is so, there are many more missing, and some that should show up more than one time. Examples Beauty and the Beast, Lion King - became Broadway Musicals - that have additional songs and variations.
• Animation - some are missing, assume likely true since Lady and the Tramp was just added. Oliver & Company version of the story Oliver as a animated musical an example not yet listed.
• Direct to DVD - would be a somewhat questionable if qualifies as film - though some I have The Fox and the Hound 2 have more songs than Lady and the Tramp. And contrary to what may be thought they had well known composers and artists performing for a direct to DVD film - it was promoted with the CMT cable network.Kidsheaven 00:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetically/Chronologically

I for one find this alphabetical ordering of the musicals very confusing. I think it would be a lot more useful and navagation-friendly if it was ordered by year it was released, then alphabetically after. An example of what i mean is List of musical films by year.--Coin945 (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Grinch

I am a bit unsure of what is considered a musical. Is How the Grinch stole Christmas! a musical? Rozzychan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC).

Rearrnaged 0-9

I have put a table in the 0-9 section, and I will continue to do so if looks alright. feedback is welcome. Thank You Phaeton23 (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is a Table in 0-9, there needs to be a table in everything, I am considering deleting the table. --DefyingGravityForGood (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment I see no value in tables for these articles, the material actually appears harder to read to me. See the Wikipedia article on Tables at [Tables]. If you do decide to use tables, I agree that all formatting in all of the articles (I.e. List of musicals, - through -) should be uniform. JeanColumbia (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• • I was not going to spend half my lifetime tabling them if the tables were to be deleted--this was done to see if helps (i think it is neater than just plain text). The reason for the tables was because people keep adding "notable songs" which can be found out when opening the page. It was just to make the correct info available and keep people from adding notable songs/other information.

Comment Well, we might want to add something to the introductory paragraph, like (do not need to use these exact words).

"This list of musicals does not include notable songs or other irrelevant information."

That statement alone will, I suspect, gather some thoughtful comments and so you might be able to see what else can be done here. By the way, I doubt that changing a format to discourage inappropriate material will work. And, I suppose, put these articles on your watch list. (I will not put it on my watch list as I watch too many musical theatre articles as it is!) If you decide to use tables, I will not delete, but I can not speak for any other editor. JeanColumbia (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you think though? I think it makes it look alot more organized, but I would like to hear what others say. Also, for musicals that begin with "A" (e.g. A Chorus Line), are they to be put in the A or their other respective first letter? Thank You Phaeton23 (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Tables

There should be a table for every letter like on *0-9*. If it's possible, could anyone do it on the M to Z page too, because I don't know how to make a table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanmalik01 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Who did the table and stopped at the first letter (numerals)? Ah, I see Phaeton did it but stopped when someone complained. Should it be in table format?

I can try to do the rest but I am worried that this table attempt was a spur of the moment thing that might have to be rearranged later. Is the table in the proper format for this list? Are Wikipedia lists of this size and scope often in table format?

If it's ok to tableize the rest, please reply on my talk page. Yclept:Berr (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree looking at the list, the table form seems neater and easier to read. I'd suggest contacting Phaeton at his talk page and then discussing it here to see if there is any further dissent/support or alternative ideas on lay out.Number36 (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

D

Why hasn't the D section been set up as a table yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.63.35 (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone up for helping add, like, all the recent Broadway musicals?

Just noticed that a whole lot of recent Broadway productions (e.g. most ones nominated for the 71st Tony Awards) are entirely missing from this page! Anyone up for helping add some of them. I'm working on it too. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent consistency edits in "A" section

While updating/correcting entries I noticed that the "Venue/Type" section is being used inconsistently and for differing purposes. More often than not it's a general category, eg, "Broadway," "Off-Broadway," "Film," etc., but in random places more of a descriptor has been added (eg, "revue," "jukebox musical). Since a consistent application would require all other "Broadway," etc. entries being changed to "Broadway musical," etc (a massive job), descriptions of the type of show have been moved to "notes" where they logically belong. There were also random entries with the specific theater named, which is so erratically and rarely applied that I changed those to the categories. Likewise, all entries other than foreign ones have been consistent in terms of referring to the city where the show debuted, but some were randomly categorized as languages, which I have changed to city format.

Another thing that varies a great deal at the moment is how to classify shows with multiple songwriters/songwriting teams. In some cases we have "various artists" (capitalized multiple ways), in others just "various," and in others "et al." I have changed everything to "various artists" since it is most syntactically clear regardless of where it's placed. Going by most style guides "et al" is really only appropriate if the credits are actually listed as "et al" so I have eliminated these with the caveat that there may be some shows I haven't gotten to yet where it is actually accurate.

Finally, I have removed "book" credits from anything that isn't actually a stage musical. Movies and TV shows don't have "books," they have directors and writers, and that information has been moved to notes (figuring out who wrote the "book" to a movie is largely impossible since some films are largely "authored" by the director and others by the writers or even the producer--which becomes obvious based on how random and haphazard the current "book" entries are under films and TV productions.

Since there doesn't seem to be a current style guide or discussion of style on this page (and since it's barely being touched) I did not expect any of these changes to be controversial; however, if there are arguments against these changes please let me know and I will do my best to accommodate reversions. I would prefer strongly that I not be mass-reverted since there was also substantive work that I performed. If no one objects I will continue applying these style edits as I move through the alphabet. ChrisStansfield ^Contribs 16:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

This all makes sense to me, including the listing of director & writer instead of bookwriter/s for films. -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

1896

Can someone add 1896? I'd do it myself, but I'm not experienced with this kind of thing. Working on it :) JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 21:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)