Talk:The Mystery of Edwin Drood (musical)

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

Jasper is NOT schizophrenic![edit]

There should be a correction of an uninformed diagnosis in the article, calling John Jasper "schizophrenic." Jasper does apparently have multiple personalities, but, contrary to popular belief, that is NOT called "schizophrenia." The name for this condition is either "multiple personality disorder" or "disassociative identity disorder." (Two different diagnoses for the same condition.) PatrickLMT 22:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text in the article on the novel[edit]

The article on the novel contained only an unclear link to this article. Perhaps as a result it accumulated details which should probably appear here and perhaps not there. I copy them here in the hope that a better writer than I can integrate them into this article:

“It was first produced by the New York Shakespeare Festival.”
“It has since played successfully in regional and many amateur productions.”
“Holmes wrote brief alternate endings for every possible voting outcome, even the most unlikely.”
“In the tradition of English pantomime farce, in which the "principal boy" role is played by an attractive female in male costume, the role of Edwin Drood was played by an actress.”
“All of these [Jasper, Rosa, Neville and Helena], along with the Reverend Crisparkle (with whom Neville Landless lives), a mysterious opium dealer called only the Princess Puffer, and a Mister Bazzard, are all treated as possible suspects for the murder of Drood.”
“The musical omits several of the novel's clues that Jasper is the killer and introduces clues which do not appear in the novel pointing at other suspects. Unlike the novel the musical portrays Jasper as having a split personality. In the musical Bazzard is Crisparkle's assistant, whereas in the novel he is employed by Rosa's guardian, Mr. Grewgious.”

--teb728 04:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I incorporated most of that stuff into this article. I will then set to work removing some of it from the other. Thanks for the effort! ChrisStansfield Contribs 10:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename consensus request[edit]

Halfway through the show's Broadway run, the title was changed from The Mystery of Edwin Drood to simply, Drood. This is the way the show has remained titled ever since, as can be seen on Rupert Holmes's site, the Tams Witmark site (Tams Witmark licenses the show), and the IBDB. I suggest the page be renamed to reflect that. Agreed? ChrisStansfield Contribs 05:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the lead sentence gives both titles, I have no objection to renaming the article. The original title continues to be used for some productions, for example here. And Tams Witmark gives both titles. --teb728 08:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those people are wrong <jk>. Maybe it should be renamed "Drood (The Mystery of Edwin Drood)" as Tams Witmark has it? Or is that making things too unwieldy. I have to check the edit history to see how many other people actually care about this article before I go ahead and make the change. If not many, I guess two people is a reasonable consensus. ChrisStansfield Contribs 10:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've done a great job with the article, but I wouldn't bother renaming it - seems like unnecessary work to move all the links.... Most people looking for it will know the original title, and I've added redirects, so that if anyone is looking for the new title, they'll find it easily. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 2012 Broadway revival has (with Holmes' approval, presumedly, given that he was heavily involved with the rehearsal process), gone back to the original title. Should the article title be changed as well Ringkichardthethird, 9:38 24 October 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CEFE:5250:223:6CFF:FE88:302D (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major revisions and I need help with the citations[edit]

Well I've done a lot of work on this article- incorporated a lot more info on the history of the production (including references), added a synopsis, etc. I'm pretty proud of myself, but I can't for the life of me figure out what I'm doing wrong with the citation templates- I'm filling in the URL info, but the citations still don't link to the copies of the articles I found on the web. if anyone can fix that, please do (and then tell me here or on my talk page what I was doing wrong in the first place. Thanks! ChrisStansfield Contribs 10:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You needed titles to provide text on which to attach the links and also fragment identifiers to identify articles within the page. --teb728 06:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks- I wasn't sure those were the actual titles of the articles (rather than ones created by the website owner), so I was reluctant to use them. For future reference, isn't there a way of citing articles that don't have a clear title? ChrisStansfield Contribs 09:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you don't have to use the citation templates. WP:CITE suggest several alternative methods. Again, congratulations on a very nice job here. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original reviews[edit]

Anyone know of any (free) online sources for the original theater reviews from the major papers of the day (The Times, The Post, etc.)? I'm not far from the Lincoln Center Library and can probably find them there, but as I have no laptop to take with me, an online source would be easier. I think all this article really needs at this point to make it a good article or A-level article candidate is a Critical Response section. The article is already pretty detailed (and citation-heavy) compared to most WP:MUSICALS articles. ChrisStansfield Contribs 09:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I only see one free one from 1985: NY Times review 1985 - Free, just needs registration. -- Ssilvers 15:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dickens adaptations tag?[edit]

It just occurred to me to wonder whether there's any kind of tag to identify this specifically as a Dickens-based musical. There are a bunch out there- Oliver! most notably, but several Christmas Carols and derivatives, Copperfield, Pickwick, a couple Tale of Two Cities versions, and more on Broadway, the West End, and in films.... ChrisStansfield Contribs 09:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does have the Charles Dickens category on it, which ought to alert anyone interested in Dickens that the musical is here. -- Ssilvers 15:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprecedented?[edit]

Just wondering at the correction of Holmes's assertion that he was was the first to have a B'way musical entirely written (book, lyrics, music, orchestrations) by one person. Whom do we know of that did it first? ChrisStansfield Contribs 20:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for instance, I just ran into Adolf Philipp.[1] I suspect that this used to be fairly common, but perhaps not since WWII. In any case, the article only says that HOLMES states that "as far as I know" this is historic, whereas the assertion made, and repeated in the intro was without qualification. I find it dubious, and I also don't think it is significant that he wrote the orchestrations. I don't think that would separate him from any earlier creator who wrote book, lyrics and music. No really good references on the subject are cited, and Holmes's own conclusion about the matter should be taken with a grain of salt unless you have better references for the statement. -- Ssilvers 21:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfectly reasonable regarding book, lyrics, and music, especially since more and more people seem to be attempting the triple threat. That said, it geuninely is unusual for a Broadway composer to write his own orchestrations. I'll wait until I can find a better source. ChrisStansfield Contribs 21:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I think, probably, more composers wrote their own orchestrations in the earlier years of the century and in the 19th century. I just ran into another example of book, lyrics and music: Rick Besoyan wrote all three for Little Mary Sunshine. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 21:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Caught you! Little Mary Sunshine wasn't a B'way musical. ;) In all seriousness, though, there have definitely been sole music/lyric/book writers previous to Holmes. However, upon checking the Tony lists, Holmes is definitely the only sole composer/lyricist/author of a musical to win Tonys in those respective categories (Meredith Willson came awfully close in 1958 for The Music Man, but, alas, he had a co-author for the book. So, notable enough to go in the lead, I think? ChrisStansfield Contribs 08:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do think that is worth mentioning (Best book, score, musical). In fact, I seem to remember that this is what the article used to say about a year ago? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 13:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually only Willson has book credit for The Music Man; though he shared story credit. I think Holmes got some story help from Dickens. --teb728 09:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. According to InfoPlease, the award for "Best Authors- Musical" (the name of the award before it became "best book") was shared by Willson and Franklin Lacey. Is that inaccurate, then? I'm getting confused over here. Either way, though, what I said still stands- Holmes is the only person to win "Best Score" and "Best Book" solely in Tony history, since those categories have existed. Whether Dickens had anything to do with it at all, (and really, who is this Dickens guy, anyway? Did he write seminal songs about cannibalism? Nooooo) he wasn't credited on the award.ChrisStansfield Contribs 09:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, interesting. The Music Man and MTI's Music Man page credit “Book by Meredith Willson; Music by Meredith Willson; Lyrics by Meredith Willson; Story by Meredith Willson, Franklin Lacey,” but Tony Award for Best Musical credits “Book by Meredith Willson and Franklin Lacey, music and lyrics by Meredith Willson.” --teb728 09:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Adolf Philipp's IBDB entry

Productions[edit]

There was as early production at the Shubert in New Haven with Clive Revill. My young sons attended with my ex-wife, who's been a fan of Revill. Dadofsam (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warehouse Theatre production[edit]

Clearly a revival on Broadway or the West End or a production in a major regional theatre would merit mention in this article. But doubting the notability of a production in a 100-seat Croydon theatre, I inquired at Reference desk/Miscellaneous for an assessment from someone familiar with London; and my doubts were confirmed. Knowing now that the Warehouse Theatre is a dinner theatre convinces me even more that this production has only local importance. --teb728 21:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the musical theatre talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musical_Theatre#The_Mystery_of_Edwin_Drood_.28musical.29
The Warehouse Theatre, although small, seems to be fairly prestigious, and the production is a two-month long run. It's not as if we are listing lots and lots of professional productions of this show - this appears to be the most prestigious production in recent memory. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of some recent/upcoming productions of Drood. Can we figure out which are the most notable? It seems that we should list a couple of the most notable ones. http://www.rupertholmes.com/theatre/drood.html#UpcomingDrood#anchor -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any productions in that list that look at all notable (including the Warehouse Theatre production). A notable production would be a revival on Broadway or the West End or a production at a major regional theatre (like the Guthrie Theater) or at a theatre (like the Geffen Playhouse) where well-known actors frequently perform.
You seem to be looking the least insignificant productions. I agree that the Warehouse Theatre production is the least insignificant current production, but we should not go looking for productions just to have something to list. In my opinion that is just backwards.
If what you want is to provide readers with the location of current productions, I would agree to a prominent link to the rupertholmes.com list. --teb728 t c 22:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the subject up at WP:MUSICALS, and the regulars there thought that the production is notable enough to name. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musical_Theatre#The_Mystery_of_Edwin_Drood_.28musical.29 It may be that after a few years, if there are lots of notable productions, then it will be appropriate to remove this one at that time. --Ssilvers (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinner theatre, the 'eating opportunity' is to order food for the interval. Should we rewrite most of the UK theatre listings on this basis? Sorry, rant over. I thought Dinner theatre was slobbering over your chops in the auditorium while Hamlet corpses ...
Many of these small outer London theatres provide the canon fodder for West End transfers of productions. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. I'd certainly list Broadway and West End productions - but then I'd also list them if they were at the Old Vic, the Barbican or the National Theatre - none of which are in the West End. I think I'd list this production, but not give it undue prominence. Marking it a chamber or studio piece seems reasonable, and the single sentence in the article at the moment seems adequate (the second will disappear at the end of Feb). Anyway, merry yesterday. Kbthompson (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in Tams-Witmark version[edit]

Recent changes in the article note that the book as currently licensed by Tams-Witmark is somewhat different from the synopsis and list of musical numbers in the article. It seems to me that it might be better for the synopsis and song list to be based on the current book. What do other editors think? The changes are:

  • "Ceylon" is replaced by "A British Subject."
Synopsis: Neville and Helena complain about British imperialism.
Sung by Neville, Helena, Rosa, Crisparkle, Drood, Townspeople.
  • Act II now (optionally) begins with an anthem to empire and bad weather ("England Reigns" (Chairman and Company)).
  • "Settling Up the Score" is replaced by "A Private Investigation."
Other than changing the title the current synopsis and song list suffice.
  • "The Name of Love/Moonfall" and "Off to the Races" exchange places.
Other than moving text, the current synopsis and song list suffice for these two songs. The change of order, however, changes the synopsis for "Don't Quit While You're Ahead" to “Puffer tells Durdles that she has discovered an important clue, but she will continue her investigation until she has solved the mystery.”
  • During the vote tally, the reprise of "Settling Up The Score" is replaced by a reprise of "Don't Quit While You're Ahead."

I don’t know whether this reflects a change in the book, but for the current book at least, the synopsis for "Never the Luck" would be better stated as, “At this point the Chairman allows the actor playing the bit part of Bazzard a solo in which he dreams of playing a larger part.” --teb728 18:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, we describe the book as played in the major original production (in this case Broadway), and then note major changes introduced in other productions, but really only the major ones that stick. -- Ssilvers 20:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you you refer me to articles where changes like these are handled well? --teb728 21:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in Porgy and Bess, a Featured Article, the changes over the years (and from musical versions to opera versions) are described in connection with the various productions. -- Ssilvers 21:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice....[edit]

There's been quite a bit of good work done here since I last saw the article! Congrats! —  MusicMaker5376 04:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response section[edit]

The article is still lacking a critical response section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drood award templates[edit]

It seems strange to put the Drama Desk template above the Tonys (and why do we need these templates in addition to the list of awards above?), but even if the placement must be alphabetical (is there a guideline that indicates that?) I don't think that Emerson did put the three Tony awards in alpha order. Comments? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Drood. 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) 04:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Drood. 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) 05:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Mystery_of_Edwin_Drood_(musical)&oldid=1202411043"