Talk:The Music Man

Glossary

Resolved

– Wikipedia policy forbids copyright violations.

Regrettably, the Glossary of terms and names used in "The Music Man", apart from the introductory paragraph, appears to have been copied directly from http://www.doggedresearch.com/wilson/glossary.htm . I've deleted it. Please don't reinsert it.

Yes, per WP:COPYRIGHT since doing so is copyvio, and per WP:RS because random blogs are not reliable sources to begin with. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time Period

Resolved

– Glossary deleted as a copyvio.

In the glossary, it lists some cultural references from the period of the play's setting, but also includes Chaucer, who is hardly from the early 1900's. Show it be removed, or is there some other reason it's mentioned?

Moot issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well in case you're still curious, Chaucer, Rabelais, and Balzac are the three authors the town's ladies mentionen when stating that Marion advocates "dirty books". 75.185.161.15 (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actors

I think it would be prudent to include a list of noteworthy actors who have played the lead roles on Broadway as many other musical listings do. CrashCart9 21:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need more song articles

We need more song sub-articles; there are only four, and "Trouble" positively screams for its own article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC) i think that too[reply]

Expanded Plot Summary

I think the plot summary could be expanded, especially regarding song placement. I'll edit and expand it as necessary unless anyone has any significant objections.MarianKroy (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That would be great! Please break it into acts like so:
Act I
Act II

Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits are done. Unfortunately, I forgot to log in again, so it's under my URL. I hope it's not too long. I realized while writing this summary that The Music Man is my favorite musical.MarianKroy (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. You need to click on "remember me" when you log-in. Yes, it's 'way too long. Can you slim it down by about 50%? Sorry! We usually shoot for a maximum of about 1,000 words. The other ones you worked on are a perfect length. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super! That does the trick! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement

The article needs more background: How did the show come to be conceived and written, and what happened during the genesis. Also, needs more critical reception and more description of the major productions. Good work so far! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more background information about the show's development.MarianKroy (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, but it needs a refernce. See WP:V. Can you add a citation? See WP:CITE for how to cite references in Wikipedia. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added three citations today for the information I added yesterday.MarianKroy (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is super! You should add the ISBN numbers if available. Take a look at the minor edits that I did to your cites. Start your cite right after the punctuation, with no space, and you can just say p. or pp. Putting in great citations like this makes your additions to Wikipedia extremely valuable, because a well-referenced, well-balanced, comprehensive encyclopedia is the goal. (But you don't need citations to plot summaries, since they're just a summary of the libretto). You're doing a great job already, and I'm so glad you're here! I suggest that you check out WP:MUSICALS and join the project. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to take on a dirty job next, try to reorganize and rewrite the "In Popular culture" section into narrative paragraphs that explain how these disparate items are significant to the musical and show that the musical is important in our culture. This is a difficult job. If you want to see an example of how I have done it in the past (in this case, there was so much of it that I made a separate article of it), see: Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan. Also, don't be afraid to delete something if you think it just isn't notable and does not add to the article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. If you can add any references, that would be even better. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also the article still needs a critical reception section describing the reactions of the critics and audiences in the Broadway production and other major productions (if available), and contaning a couple of quotes from reviews, as well as citations. If an article is on the internet, you can cite it like this: <ref>[http://www.doggedresearch.com/wilson/index.htm "A Brief History of ''The Music Man''"]</ref>

I tried to turn the popular culture section into a better paragraph. I deleted some things and moved others to the movie article. It's not great, so I'll probably return to working on it later.24.16.111.20 (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarianKroy (talk • contribs) 22:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) 17:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References in Family Guy

There are at least *two* major "Music Man" references in Family Guy, which should be included in the popular references section. I don't remember which episodes, but there's one where Lois and Brian do a spot-on parody of the piano lesson song, and there's another where Peter joins the New England Patriots, and, after scoring a touchdown, as a touchdown celebration, does a *complete* version of Shipoopi, complete with all the choreography and everything (it was amazing!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.111.20 (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find out what episodes you mean, find the link to them on wikipedia and then add the information to the article. There's no rush. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independence Day

The festivities taking place in the gym really do occur on Independence Day. In the original script, Mayor Shinn announces, "As Mayor of River City I welcome you River Citizians to the Fourth of July exercises set up for the indoors here in Madison Gymnasium...". MarianKroy (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, for example, this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Character List

I don't mean to completely bash the character list, but I would like to rewrite some of the character descriptions. I think they are somewhat inaccurate, both factually and to the spirit of the show. I'm very familiar with the show; I'd like to create some better descriptions if no one objects. MarianKroy (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Just remember that plot info should be in the Synopsis, while the character descriptions should be as short as possible, just to quickly give the relationships among the characters. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a comment under Hill's description noted that his real name might be Gregory. I am not sure on how to word corectly, but when Marcellus calls him Greg throughout the show.JDDJS (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to insult the user who did this, but someone shorten all of the chracter descriptions. While some of them, espeacially the mayor's, needed to be shorten, all of them should not have been shorten as much as they were. They should have at least metioned in the talk page first.--JDDJS (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think she did a super job, as she always does. Also, she DID mention it here first. See above. Note that plot information should not be in these character descriptions; it should be in the plot summary (but I think the two changes you made today are fine). We need to make sure that WP:Fancruft does not creep into musicals articles, as it is wont to do. People tend to keep adding and adding trivia until the articles are unreadable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C-class Rationale

I have moved this article up to C-class. My rationale for moving it up to C-class was: there is a fair amount of background information, fairly substantial information about various productions and awards, a good synopsis, and an accurate song list. These seem to be the strongest points of the article, and I hope to improve the rest of it to warrant a B-class rating eventually. MarianKroy (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suppose it's just about a C. But, the intro is too short. It should give an overview of the whole article. See WP:LEAD. There's no Critical reception section, and there's that ugly list of unreferenced TV shows at the bottom. Information about a show's cultural importance should not just be a list of TV shows that refer to the show. However, I applaud you for jumping in to be an early adapter of the new "C-Class"! :) -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to admit I'm not to pleased with the TV show list either. I'll work on the lead section, and hopefully I can find some critical reception stuff. MarianKroy (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now the article is my definition of a "C-Class" article. It has nearly all the important sections in it, but some of them need expansion/better referencing to become a B. I suppose that a B-class article would also have some textual and musical analysis. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh...The Quartet and the pick-a-little ladies are NOT main characters...sorry. And Charlie Cowell is the anti-hero-- it automatically makes him among the supporting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.189.8.125 (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Allusions in The Music Man

No, I'm not discussing the Simpsons and Family Guy. I'm in a production of The Music Man right now, and our director enjoys explaining various terms mentioned in The Music Man that are unfamiliar to us today. I thought I could possibly either add some of that to the song pages or the main page, possibly as part of textual analysis or something. Maybe I could create the Trouble page and include information about Dan-Patch, Beevo, Captain Billy's Whiz-Bang, and such. Is this ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarianKroy (talk • contribs) 13:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first activity in Wikipedia, hope I am doing this in the right place, etc. The Cultural References section mentions invoking turn of the 19th century at Disneyland. I think 20th century was intended, no?

Slputian2000 (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Yes, this is the right place to discuss the article. I think you are misreading it. It's saying that Disney is trying to invoke the historical feeling of that era by using the show. Feel free to discuss further. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. When the article says "To evoke turn of the 19th century Main Street USA " that would suggest the year 1800, the turn of the 19th century. The musical is supposed to be set in the early 1900's, which is the turn of the 20th century. So, my suggestion is to simply replace 19th with 20th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slputian2000 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issue of pre-payment of instruments

In the plot description I have replaced sentences which described Harold Hill's scam as involving his collection of prepayment for the instruments and then skipping town without delivering. In both the original movie and the 1958 book of the play (more salient to this article), Hill does not collect full payment until the instruments and uniforms are delivered. (He does, however, take a deposit, in one case $7, which was probably worth something at the time!) His intent, and what he is accused of by Charlie the anvil salesman, is to skip town after the instruments arrive but without forming the band (though as things play out, he sticks around). This distinction is of some significance, because the play doesn't revolve around whether Hill rips off the townsfolk over material goods, but rather around the merits (or otherwise) of his social and psychological impact on the town. Gwideman (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Setting

I think the second paragraph of the "Setting" section would be better described as anachronisms or mistakes, but I wanted to get consensus before I changed anything. Also, I'm reasonably sure the telegram from Hector Berlioz was not a mistake, but a deliberate inclusion by Meredith Willson (remember, Harold Hill didn't really know as much about music as he claimed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigFish (talk • contribs) 20:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Musical numbers

IP 173.2.226.91 has changed the Musical numbers several times; I have reverted and today asked for references, and pointed out some of my concerns, on the IP's talk page. Generally, I think that the Musical numbers should be referenced per the policies and guidelines in WP:VERIFY and WP:RS, although the list need not have a specific in-line citation. (Thus, where requested, an editor should supply references,particularly when editing a long-standing, stable list.) The reference I have used for the list is the Internet Broadway Database listing; while not perfect (I suppose the actual score would be the ultimate perfect source)I used the acual score to change it and the you reverted it, it is, I believe, considered an acceptable WP:RS for Musical theatre articles.

Specifics of the key IP changes I question: (1) I have found, in several sources, an alternate title for "Pickalittle", which includes, in parenthesis (one source) the "Talk-a-Little" and have so included. (2) I find no reference for including the "Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean" in the song list, except for one source that describes the July 4 pageant (Act 2) where Mrs. Shinn sings the song (although I think it is not the entire song). Even if it is not the entire song it nshould be in the song list (3) I find no reference that shows that Amaryllis is NOT in the "Piano Lesson" song but IS in "Goodnight, My Someone". Have you ever seen the show? (4) I find no reason to delete the song "Gary, Indiana" from the Synopsis, I think it is in the right place and sung by the right character. No "Gary Indiana" is not sung untill Act 2 yet it was put in Act 1. JeanColumbia (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the WP:3RR rule and will no longer edit this article. Also, to answer the IP's question, I have seen the The Music Man 3 times, all on Broadway--the original twice (in approximately November-December 1960) and the revival (about in the Spring of 2000) once. (Thank you for your courtesy in replying -- and for your interest in my theatre-going).JeanColumbia (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have seen the show so many times you should know that Amaryllis only sings in Goodnight my someone and that Gary Indiana is not untill ACT 2. Also i was changing the song list to better match the Libretto Vocal book. My changes have made them match much better. I am unsure how to cite it but my offical Vocal Book is my refference which i feel is a pretty reliable source. If you tell me how I will gladly cite my liberto book. Feel free to edit the page to help clean up my mistakes just don't reverse everything i do (putting thhings like if u dont mind my saying so in parenthesies are good ideas) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.226.91 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP editor. I have reverted your changes for now. If you convince Jean that they are OK, I will follow her lead, but I regard her as an expert. Please establish an account. See WP:WHY. To learn about citation format, see WP:CITE. See also WP:RS. Let's discuss this with Jean tomorrow, but you will be more successful if you state your reasons for changes before reverting other editors. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confidence in me, but I think it's best if I no longer edit this article, I am not interested in the drama. (I prefer my drama on stage :D) Proceed, smart editors, without me, but do remember my golden words: verify WP:VERIFY, source WP:RS, and yes, be WP:CIVIL. Best, JeanColumbia (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This music list is obvoiously flawed. you have Lida Rose Reprise listed but not the regular Lida Rose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.226.91 (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP editor: Since "Gary Indiana" is in the Act II song list, and is mentioned in the Synopsis in Act II, I agree that it should be removed from the Act I synopsis. Thanks for pointing this out. The song list now shows the original song list from the 1957 production and you should not change it, unless you can show us WP:Reliable sources that prove it is wrong. If you have a recent script or score with changes, it probably means that the editor has cut material and/or included new material that was not in the 1961 production. We could describe in the Notes under the song list changes that were made for the long-running 2000 Broadway production, if you wish. Check the IBDB song list for that production and propose a concise note here if you wish to do that research. If you wish to make any other changes, please explain here why you wish to do so, giving us links to WP:Reliable sources. I also strongly recommend that you establish an account. See WP:WHY. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked on IBDB and none of the productions matched my vocal book. The 2000 revival however had two versions of "Gary, Indiana" sang it, one in Act one, which explains the issue with it before.173.2.226.91 (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Thanks for the note. Well done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I will like to point is that since "Goodnight Ladies" is sung in the middle of "Pickalittle" as well as "Will I Ever Tell You" is sung in "Lida Rose" and "76 Trombones" (Reprise) in "Goodnight my Someone (Reprise)" those songs should listed together in order for them to have the proper place.173.2.226.91 (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't make that change to the song list, because we do not have a good reference for it. Frankly, I am not exactly clear about what you are saying, but if you can suggest a note to add to the notes to explain this, perhaps we can agree on a concise note. But remember that this article is only intended to describe the most important points - we should not distract the reader's attention by describing relatively minor details. I'm happy to work with you further, however, to improve the article. I'm going to leave you some helpful tips on your talk page. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually 173.2.226.91 is correct that those musical numbers overlap in the show. For example, the women perform "Pickalittle". Then the quartet/Harold Hill sings "Goodnight Ladies". But then the two songs are sung together overlapping each other. Overlapping is also done in the other numbers he/she mentioned. I've done this show several times in professional productions in Tulsa, Philadelphia, Seattle, and Miami in various roles. I've probably given about 150 performances of the show so I pretty much have every song and line memorized. lol The funny thing is I can't remember how the programs annotate the song lists off hand. Whatever the traditional program annotation/sources provides is probably what we should present here. I would look at my recordings but I bought them on i-tunes so I don't have the benefit of a flip jacket.4meter4 (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: We need to list WP:reliable sources. The song list now conforms to the IBDB listing. Of course we can add a footnote explaining the overlapping, and how the songs vary from the IBDB listing, as soon as you can cite a WP:Reliable source that contains the information. A theatre program is not good enough, because all that proves is that some production did it (unless it's the original Broadway production). I imagine that one of the standard theatre books, or some newspaper article, explains it. WP:V is one of the most important principles of Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New account

I have decided to take your advise and make an acount JDDJS (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I think you will find it much more convenient to edit using your own account, and everyone else will be more comfortable communicating with you. Please note that an important point of Wikipedia ettiquette is not to edit another user's user page. You should talk on their talk page, but everyone manages their own user pages. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Trivial References in Pop Culture Section

FYI, I will be removing what I consider to be trivial pop culture references. As there is a banner above the Pop Culture section suggesting that this be done, I think I have reasonable prerogative to do this. I admit that it's a little subjective, but it really needs to be done. MarianKroy (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good choices; now the section needs refs to WP:Reliable sources that verify that the stated references are made in the shows, films, etc. mentioned. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject, is Keith Olbermann referring to Glenn Beck as "Harold Hill" really that noteworthy, and do we really need to include that here? I'm not coming to the defense of one or the other, but the entry seems unnecessary.TheBigFish (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It probably wouldn't be noteworthy if he did it once, although the gun control one has been commented on alot in the blogosphere. But if he does it repeatedly, I think it's more likely encyclopedic. The ref that Marian added today shows that he did it once. Is this a WP:RS? This guy says Olbermann uses it "quite often". See also this. Other people are calling Beck Harold Hill: see this. YouTube satric videos are using the sobriquet. Well, it's a close call, but we should add another reliable source to show that he did it more than once. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like all of these are blogs, which are generally not considered reliable sources, with the exception of the Slate Magazine blog (even though it's a blog, it's published by what is considered a reliable source; the policy page linked above explains it pretty well). However, it is clear this has happened more than once, which does lend it notability. Another source would be a good idea, as you mentioned.TheBigFish (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's notable: it shows that the The Music Man is so thoroughly integrated into modern culture that a popular newscaster can make a direct allusion to the show and expect millions of viewers to understand him. It almost makes Harold Hill an archetype; I think it's impressive that a character from an original musical less than 60 years old can be that much a part of popular culture. I'll try to find some more legitimate references. MarianKroy (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added two more references. Both are transcripts of Countdown from the MSNBC website in which Olbermann refers to Beck as Harold Hill. There are now three references, all sourced directly from show transcripts. MarianKroy (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link to Italian Wikipedia

Huh? For some reason the Italian link of the page points to 'Capobanda' - a 1962 film having nothing to do with The Music Man. But I am a newcomer, don't know what to do to correct the problem. Any help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.216.121.44 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When was the real band playing at the end added to the musical?

In the article about The Music Man 1957 play, it concluded with Harold Hill and Marian Paroo in each other's arms, [after the children play their instruments (not very well)]. In The Music Man (1962 film), after the kids play their instruments and Harold and Marian embrace, the kids are transformed into a real high school marching band, led by Professor Hill in uniform. I have seen a few stage productions of the play, and the end usually features a real (local school) band playing musical instruments very well. When did they decide to add the real (local) band to the conclusion of the stage play? Was that during it's original 1957 Broadway run, or after the 1962 movie was released?204.80.61.110 (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Bennett Turk The movie has boys playing their instruments at the end. In my current production, the "boy's" band is mostly girls of approximately junior high age and some of them are able to play both pieces to a readily recognizable extent. They do play and the stage (pit) orchestra takes over during the curtain calls when the band kids return to vocal. The parents are most proud of their children in both the movie version (maybe the one from the early 2000 period) for participating and what they had learned thus far. I consider it a very nice touch, and using a "real" high school band instead seems out of place to me at least (schooling in the early 1900's did not really go past like eighth grade and in the REAL Harold Hill's haunts of Texas at that time we started playing before the fifth grade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBillR (talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My White Knight ghostwritten by Frank Loesser?

SSilvers IMHO properly removed this material on the grounds that blogspot isn't a reliable source. But I'm reproducing it here for discussion because I think it's a very interesting tidbit if it can ever be properly sourced. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

“

It has long been rumored that the song "My White Knight" was actually written by Frank Loesser, one of the show's producers and Meredith Wilson's mentor. Ghostwriting was a common practice (it is generally accepted that Loesser wrote several songs for an earlier hit the Pajama Game, which he produced)) and the song is musically very similar to music in Loesser's The Most Happy Fella. In the 1962 film version, Wilson replaced "My White Knight" with a ballad called "Being in Love." ^[1]

”

^ http://zvbxrpl.blogspot.com/2011/05/ghosts-on-broadway.html

If you can find a reliable source, then feel free to add it, but SSilvers is right about the blogspot being unreliable. JDDJS (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem with this material is that it makes numerous assertions, each of which needs to be referenced, and some of which are, frankly, dubious:

Loesser wrote the song;
He was Wilson's mentor and a producer of the show;
This sort of ghostwriting was common
Loesser wrote songs for The Pajama Game
The song is musically similar to music in The Most Happy Fella (good luck finding a ref for this one!);
Info re: film version.

I think you'd need to find a lot of refs to get all this in, even assuming it's all true. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Award tables

Someone has put the info in tables, which is fine, but they have put the Tony Awards last, and of course the Tony Awards should go first in each table. Can someone fix this please? If not, I'm going to remove the table format, as it makes it too hard for some editors to work with this info. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Theatre World Awards are not mentioned or referenced in the text, so they should either be removed from the tables (they are of less importance than the Tonys anyhow) or they must be referenced in the tables. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2022 TheaterWorld award was given to the 21 debut performers in, The Music Man, including Benjamin Pajak, in the role of Winthrop Paroo. Kpajak1 (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Arena Stage production

Better to either wait until the production is open and then add information about the production from a review, or you can add information before hand, if the production is previewed in a publication. See WP:CRYSTAL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it should be included anyway--it looks like a professional but regional production, and if we include every regional production of a musical, especially one as frequently performed as The Music Man, the majority of the article could be taken over by regional productions. I'm not saying there aren't cases when they should be included--i.e., when a musical starts out regionally and transfers to Broadway, or when a notable musical never makes it to Broadway(like The Baker's Wife, or when a significantly reconceived regional production determines the form of the musical for all subsequent productions (like Good News). However, I don't think there's anything about this particular production of The Music Man that makes it notable for inclusion. MarianWilde (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but editors have been aggressive in adding links about it. It does have two Broadway stars in the lead roles and a reasonably long engagement. I'm inclined to leave it here until it's old news, or until it is crowded out by a major new production. But if you feel pretty strongly, delete it, and I'll back you up. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess maybe we should just wait it out. It looks rather self-promoting (one is even called Arena Stage Mead Center, the venue where the production will take place), but I'll leave it for now. MarianWilde (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Iowa Stubborn

Song article has no references, fails WP:SONG, has no evidence of notability independent of the musical, and has only a few sentences of content.p b p 23:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article is only a stub, the song is notable. It is sung with great frequency by choirs. See this and this and this and this and this and this and this. The fact that an article is a stub is not a reason for deletion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the solution is to expand this article rather than merge it with Music man to be frank. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumentation

We normally do not include an instrumentation section for musicals articles, because most musicals have a similar pit orchestra, and the information is too detailed for an encyclopedia article. The exception has usually been for rock musicals that employ a small combo instead of a pit orchestra. If we are going to include this section here, on the basis that this orchestration is unusual, we need to support the assertion with a WP:Reliable source. We also need to list the source for the "licensed version". If no reference is provided for the assertion that the orchestration here is unusual, I recommend that we delete the section in its entirety. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had similar thoughts myself - we really DO need a source. On the other hand this musical DOES have an unusually "windy" orchestra, and this is not just "unusual" but relevant, since the subject of the musical is the "brass band movement" (for which we don't even have an article (shame on us!)). A bit preoccupied at the moment to find a WP:Reliable source myself but I'm quite sure there are plenty out there. Hate to see this aspect of "The Music Man" just vanish from the article because no one had the time to hunt up a reference or two. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice you have been bold and simply wiped this! My concerns remain - note list of instrumentation at http://guidetomusicaltheatre.com/shows_m/music_man.htm. If this is typical instrumentation for a musical then I am a little girl from Tonga!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact - in the absence of any intimation you intend to fight this (I will never try arguing with you again on principle) I will just reinsert it, with the "Guide to the Musical Theatre" citation as a reference. It ought to be a good source on this aspect, at least. Unless even now we need a reference on what the usual instrumentation for a "pit band" is? Or have you something against the fact that in instrumentation, as well as subject, this is notoriously the "brass band" musical. Why do we need a reference for what anyone not cursed with complete tone-deafness can hear for him/her self just by playing the CD!!!!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I actually forgot about this discussion. You can put the material in if you give a reference -- without a reference it is certainly WP:OR. I would really recommend that you just put in basically what was the first sentence at the end of the "Musical numbers" section, listing what is different from normal, rather than listing all the instruments. Maybe this would be a better ref than the "Guide to the Musical Theatre"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the differences from the regular Broadway pit band are that it has an extra bass trombone, a piano in the pit, an extra reed, and maybe an extra trumpet. I know that the more recent musicals often have fewer instruments (including some electrical ones), but the older musicals often had as many as 28 pieces in the pit. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is in the balance of wind and stringed instruments, as the instrumentation lists on both sites make very clear indeed - NOT necessarily the size of the band - since obviously some musicals (especially older ones) have larger "orchestras" with (for instance) a strong force of strings. But this one, which is essentially a celebration of the Brass Band Movement, goes well out of its way to sound as "brass band-ish" as it well can. Two or three stringed instruments only - a reed and brass section larger than a symphony orchestra's, and a very comprehensive percussion section? (Or, to put it another way - a full brass band in the pit!) And this isn't notable? I do agree that we only need one short sentence. Will do so later. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that it's of interest. I would just suggest that it is not a big enough deal to need its own section and can go nicely in the Musical Numbers section; then, if anyone ever adds a musical analysis section to this musical, it can be transferred there. Someone who had the right reference books could write a nice musical analysis section for this musical, talking about how the score celebrates band music and such Americana as the barbershop quartet and swing music, and also includes patter songs, ballads in 3/4, etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion and misinformation about the instrumentation for the orchestra for The Music Man. I've played close to a dozen different productions over the last 35 years, and they have all used the original Broadway orchestration. First of all, the instrumentation listing in The Guide To Musical Theatre is for the alternate orchestration, which is reduced in size and requires a synthesizer to fill in the missing parts. In the Standard (Original Broadway) Orchestration there are 5 woodwind parts, or books, with a lot of doubles, which was pretty typical for the era. There are 3 trumpet books, as noted, but there are also 3 trombone books (2 tenor, 1 bass). Both of these are also typical for the era. As for the string section, there are 3 violin parts (A,B and C), cello and bass, also typical. There is only one percussion book, which was intended to covered by one player. In fact, except for the violin and cello books, all these books are to be played by one player. The violin and cello books most likely had 3 players on a part. So, if we total everything up we have 5 woodwinds, 6 brass, 1 percussion, 1 bass, 1 piano, 9 violins and 3 celli. That would be a total of 26 players, which is, once again typical for that era. I think the source of the confusion is in the woodwind books, because unless you're familiar with pit orchestras, you could get the impression from the instrument list that there would be 16 woodwind players in the pit. Also, people sometimes will listen to the movie soundtrack and assume that it is the same as the Broadway orchestration, which it definitely is not. MinnGuy (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please state concisely what needs to be changed in the article, and give us a link to a definitive source for the information? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The MTIShows site IS the definitive source. The problem is in its interpretation by both the wiki author AND, with all due respect, the author of the article cited from "The Guide To Musical Theatre".

I am in the midst of a licensed production of this show, and we are using the automated orchestration (OrchExtra) to "fill out" our pit. As the OrchExtra "player", I have access to the full score (original and alternate) in digital form. The digital instruments are even broken out by book (there are separate controls for the flute part played by Reed 1, separate from the flute part played by Reed 2, etc.).

Everything that MinnGuy stated about instrumentation is accurate. I assure you that there are three distinct violin parts, even in the alternate orchestration (as referenced by the now-obsolete designations of "A-B-C" on the MTI site, but omitted from the other reference). The three parts form chords that are meant to be heard together (listen to any of the ballads, dance production numbers, etc.). One violinist can't do that.

While Music Man's arrangements were cleverly written to give the impression of a traditional brass band at certain points, it's arguably not at the expense of the string section except in the Overture/Entr'acte, "76 Trombones", and "The Wells Fargo Wagon". To suggest that strings are drastically scaled back across the entire musical is misleading, if not factually incorrect.

If I don't receive feedback on this discussion in the next month or so, I will likely take it upon myself to edit the article. -- PScooter63 (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Of course the article should be accurate, so let's discuss what really ought to be said. The instrumentation should not be listed out in full detail. Anything that is *unusual* about the instrumentation, compared to the standard Broadway pit band, however should be stated *very concisely* in the footnote under the musical numbers listing, or if there are sources discussing the reasons, there can be a separate musical analysis section that discusses and *analyzes* the show's music, including the unusual instrumentation. Since this is an encyclopedia, we include only the most important information. If you look at the highest quality articles in Wikipedia about musicals, you will not see a full listing of instruments in the pit. See, for example, The King and I and Carousel. But when the instrumentation is unusual, you may see a discussion of it. For example, in Hair. MTI is of limited value as a reference, because, while it lists the instruments, it does not provide analysis. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I agree with the placement of the footnote. My "beef" is with its content: the string section comment is incorrect, based upon a faulty secondary source... in this case the only non-primary source available. What does Wikipedia do in this case? Should a faulty secondaary source (and the conclusions drawn from it) be allowed to stand, when careful (albeit first-person) analysis of the primary source contradicts it? Really, what does one do? PScooter63 (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with citing MTI for the mere proposition of what instruments were used, and in fact MTI is cited. I've simplified the statements, as the above comments suggest that the orchestration is not that different from typical pit bands for musicals of the era. Are there any other changes that you would propose? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Leach and Harold Hill?

DrBillR, thanks for the information that you added to this article, but the references you included do not adequately verify the assertions that you made. I have done a Google search and see no connection between Mr. Leach and The Music Man. Please quote your source here so that we can verify your assertion that Harold Hill was based on this person. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested addition to the background section (which has been removed TWICE by someone(s):

The title character, Harold Hill, was inspired by a traveling musical instrument salesman by the name of RV (Bob) Leach [6],[5] who had (with his brother Gordon) formed the first high school band in the United States in Ackley, Iowa in 1909 [4]. Bob was well known among music teachers around Texas [6] where he had moved in 1937[5]. He walked with a distinctive limp because of a club foot [6] and (unlike his fictional character) "was and is an honest man" according to his longtime friend Meredith Willson [5].

Continuously deleting interesting and true information (with firm proof even) from Wikipedia might be considered vandalism...

While the information told personally to me by Fred Baetge last year (reference 5) was certainly more than suggestive, the final paragraph of this newspaper article (reference 6) from the REAL Harold Hill's home state while both Bob and Meredith were alive is definitive proof, other direct-from-the-horse's-mouth evidence being the only possible realistic countervailing evidence. The article's text suggests strongly (with the use of "says") that Mr. Willson made that statement during 1971 to the author of the article (who made a common spelling mistake in Meredith's last name).

Text from (Texas) The Corpus Christi Caller-Times 8 Oct 1971, Fri

Bands Will Honor School Band Pioneer - The combined Carroll and King High School bands will present a tribute to R. V. (Bob) Leach, pioneer of bands in the United States, in a show about 1 p.m. tomorrow, preceding the game at 7:30 p.m. between the two schools at Buccaneer Stadium.

Leach, who lives in Houston, will be presented on the field and will receive a remembrance from the bands, Ferris Arnold, Carroll band director, and Loren Hall, King band director, have announced. Leach organized and directed the nation's first high school band in 1909 at Ackley, Iowa. He estimates that he has more 8.000 bands as a clinician and is responsible for starting 12,000 students on band and orchestra instruments.

Leach formerly was in circus work and vaudeville before he began organizing bands. He was passing through Texas in 1937 when he decided to remain in the state and start organising bands in small towns as well as the big cities. Semi-retired now, he still organizes and conducts bands.

Meredith Wilson says Leach was his model for the hero of his musical comedy, "Music Man," except that "the real Harold Hill (Bob Leach) was and is an honest man." The bands are rehearsing to form the letters "Bob" and "U.S.A." and play selections from "Music Man," Arnold and Hall said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBillR (talk • contribs) 16:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this information. We cannot accept as a reference something that someone told you. We can only accept published sources, as described here in our guideline: WP:RS. The Corpus Christi Caller is a published source, and I see that this appears on p. 44. Who is the author of the article? You quote the article as saying the Willson "says that Leach was his model", but when or where did Willson say that, and to whom? At most, all we could say about this, is that the Corpus Christi Caller stated that Willson is supposed to have said this. The newspaper article does not say that Willson and Leach were friends. Here is something about Leach. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Who is "We"? Is there some editorial board of Wikipedia that determines what "we" can and cannot accept? I thought Wikipedia was a consensus user-defined community of brilliant scholars (such as myself), not some autocratic oligarchy. The published article from a newspaper contemporaneous to two long-gone people is the only realistic published source- MAYBE. Someone should check in Willson's three autobiographies to see if he says anything in his (own?) hand about Harold Hill. In the meantime, interesting and verified information should not be removed by "we".

(2) When one reads the text of the final paragraph from the Corpus Christi news article, its apparent meaning is that the person who wrote the article spoke with Meredith Willson, although it is also possible that the quotation marks refer to something which Meredith had written (like in his autobiographies?). The fact that there is no authorship attributed to the article means that the newspaper itself is making the statements, and the (unknown) author is providing what he/she had gleaned from a level of “research” which may not measure up to the elevated standards of say the New York Times. Looking at another article from Victoria (which is actually fairly close to Corpus Christi), one does not see authorship in news articles there either. The fact that the author of the Corpus Christi article is not attributed does not mean that the information is unreliable- just not fully documented to the extent some pedantic “we” seems to require for his/her own personal reasons.

(3) The idea that a direct quote from someone familiar with the overall scene- who knew well one of the parties in a transaction- cannot be considered as a reference defeats the notion of an oral history. Given that the various events occurred some 40-60 years ago, and little may have been written about it at that time, means that some other sources may be necessary. Since there is a written, published document from 1971 that agrees with the oral history of a renowned music person (Fred) who knew one of them (Bob) well, this should certainly be sufficient to allow for a discussion that can be accessed by interested parties. In fact, Fred also and directly told me that Meredith and Bob were friends, dating all the way back to their childhoods in (I thought it was Kansas but perhaps he did say) Iowa. The two of them were clearly friends for at least 60 years which is a really long time, and to “require” proof of a friendship which would stem from their proximity early on and their shared interests, seems a truly massive insistence- they were friends, and you need to get over the fact that it is claimed even by Meredith that they knew each other and really were friends.

(4) Censoring information on Wikipedia cannot have been the intent. If a factual claim cannot be supported adequately by the somewhat arcane rules of "we", then its presentation as an interesting assertion which DOES, after all, have substantial documentation and other forms of validation (the from-childhood association of Meredith and Bob, Bob's clear friendship and association with the third of the early twentieth-century Iowa band triumvirate - Karl King, and the ability to find all these connections by myself) means that it clearly should be presented to all the world to evaluate and discuss rather than suppressing information that has so much support on every possible front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBillR (talk • contribs) 17:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the citation and quotation of the long-deceased Meredith Willson's claim, apparently does NOT require that the actual author of a news article in a published paper be given. It is perhaps unfortunate that the article is somewhat vague about who said (or wrote) what to whom, but the fact that the statement includes both the fairly clear word, "says" and includes later in that sentence, quotation marks which newspeople surely understand to mean a DIRECT quote (as opposed to a paraphrase) of the words of the person who "says" them, tells any reasonable person that the information presented in that news article is about as reliable as such old information is likely to be. It is in NO sense an inadequately supported statement that Meredith Willson "says" that Harold Hill was inspired by Willson's CLEAR acquaintance Bob Leach. By obviously SAYing (that is a clearly verified fact) that Bob Leach "was and is" an honest man, Meredith Willson was clearly SAYing that he knew and respected Bob Leach- not necessarily the kind of thing you would take special effort to say about someone whom you know (well) and don't respect like a friend. The whole notion of unsupported printed documentation that is being presented is being done only because of a personal agenda that contains opposition to the facts (and yes- they ARE facts) being proposed, to be presented to the community of scholars who deserve to have this information available to them when they are interested in The Music Man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBillR (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can indeed edit Wikipedia, but everyone must abide by the rules and quote sources that satisfy the encyclopaedia's requirements for WP:RS and WP:V, with which I recommend you familiarise yourself. Any other editor may challenge a cited source as not meeting those criteria. Ssilvers has done so, and in my judgement he is absolutely right. Your published source, the record notes, says nothing about Hill or The Music Man and is therefore irrelevant, and your oral source is uncheckable hearsay. Not good enough by a mile for Wikipedia, I'm afraid. – Tim riley talk 04:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of text to reply to, DrBillR. Could you try and be a bit more concise in your replies so your points can be dept with properly. To cover the points you raise in order:

1. Yes, his biographies should be checked, but I'm not sure any of us have access to them. Do you?

2. Are there any other reliable sources that also carry the information, but with more detail? The paper may or may not be right, but often these local papers can be springboards for further research into more reliable no credible sources which reinforce that they say.

3. As others have said, personal knowledge is not enough: we need published, reliable sources only. (We've all had to leave out information we know to be true just because there is no published record of it.

4 Again, published reliable sources that categorically confirm the information in the article, are needed before any information is added.

I hope this clears up some of the reasons why the information was removed, and what is needed to support its future inclusion. - SchroCat (talk)

DrBillR, this is how WP:CONSENSUS works at Wikipedia. All of us, including you, are the "we" that I referred to above. As I mentioned above, I think it would be OK to say, in the article, something like the following: The Corpus Christi Caller reported that Willson said that Robert V. Leach, a high school bandleader, was Willson's model for Harold Hill." I don't think the article supports anything else of sufficient relevance to The Music Man. Also, as some people noted above, it is better to keep Talk page messages concise. See WP:TLDR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless corroborative citations can be found, I'd urge that this assertion from the local newspaper should at most be mentioned in a footnote rather than in the main text. It seems very improbable that, if the supposed connexion existed, all the published books on the American musical would fail to mention it. A citation to one or more of the recognised authorities would make it reasonable to put the mention in the main text. Tim riley talk 18:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Meredith Willson DID address the issue of the identity of the title character when “The Music Man” first came out. For quite obvious reasons, he LIED when the musical first appeared in like 1956. He said words to the effect that Professor Harold Hill was NOT based on anyone in particular (but was rather an amalgam of various people he had known in Mason City), PRECISELY BECAUSE his good friend Bob Leach was engaged in the exact same profession, but the fictional character was a charlatan and a fraud. Had Meredith Willson stated the truth, it could have affected the attitude of Texas customers towards his friend. Thus he had to lie at that time UNTIL

IN 1971 Meredith got the call from a reporter asking him if Bob was really THE Music Man. And Bob was done in his active work selling instruments- he was traveling around Texas (and even driving up to Iowa etc) doing clinics as a renowned clinician- with the sparkling enthusiasm which had already endeared his to everyone all

over. So Meredith TRIED to correct his much earlier lie (which a reporter from the Texas Gulf region likely would not have known about in a Broadway circular from years earlier), by saying quite clearly, “except the Real Professor Harold Hill was and is an honest man”.

Wikipedia’s refusal to honor the hope of Meredith Willson to correct that kindly lie (designed to protect his lifelong friend years earlier under different conditions) is actually pretty cruel. If that reporter had wanted to make Bob Leach into someone he was not, it is beyond any reasonable presumption that the reporter would have known about what Meredith Willson had written all those years ago. That claim would only, reasonably, have gone from the ”horse’s mouth”. DrBillR (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DrBillR, please read wikipedia's policy language at WP:EXCEPTIONAL where it states "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". There is a large body of published academic literature on The Music Man which contradicts the narrative provided above. The narrative also doesn't match the many interviews with Meredith Wilson in other sources. Unfortunately, while the claim being made here may be true, there is not sufficient evidence here to pass our verifiability policy which requires not only multiple sources but multiple high quality sources. That means we would need more than a single interview in a local newspaper, but would need some scholars with expertise in this area who have examined the claim and accounted for the discrepancy between sources in a publication with editorial oversight (i.e. independent fact checking, peer review, etc.). As it is, I would not even support a footnote at this point given that it contradicts the WP:BESTSOURCES and it is a singular piece of evidence from a local paper.4meter4 (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you cannot even correctly spell the best source’s name, there seems to be some credibility issue on your part. The composer of The Music Man was Meredith Willson, NOT Meredith Wilson.

I have seen/heard no interviews of Meredith Willson on the specific topic of who was that title character’s inspiration except the most reliable one which was conducted once that real-life person was no longer endangered by the truth as Meredith Willson finally felt okay about revealing the truth concerning his lifelong Iowa friend.

When Meredith Willson lied at the outset, it was quite clearly for very legitimate and noble purposes. In the later definitive interview on that specific topic, only Meredith Willson would have understood and recalled what he had falsely stated (for good cause) all those years earlier. He wanted to set the record straight, and (with some justification) would have doubtless hoped that his clear statement about his friend would be accepted by posterity.

I am somewhat unsure that there is a better scholar about the person who was the sole inspiration for the title character in The Music Man than yours truly. I have visited all of his places in Iowa and the house where he lived for the last approx. 45 years of his life in Houston, and spoken with several people who knew him while he was doing what caused Meredith Willson to use that very charismatic and talented music educator who was so inspirational to young people both in Mason City (namely Meredith Willson), other places in Iowa and all around Texas for many decades. It is my misfortune that I never crossed paths with The (real) Music Man despite our being quite close to each other for many years of my youth. DrBillR (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DrBillR Please read our policies concerning WP:No original research and WP:CIVIL. Resorting to personal attacks is not going to make your case any stronger or win you any friends. Nor is pointing out typos or spelling mistakes going to distract anyone from making content decisions based on policy, or cause anyone to dismiss well reasoned arguments based in policy language. We don't accept content based in original research. The fact that you have traveled and spoken to individuals connected to Mr. Willson is entirely irrelevant because we don't accept content based in original research. If that is the kind of content you want to add, then wikipedia is not the platform for you. Further, it's considered bad etiquette in wikipedia culture to position yourself as a subject matter expert. We have no way of checking credentials, and even if we did, we only accept content that is verified to published literature and no original content. I would suggest that if you want to write on the topic of Bob Leach and his connection to Harold Hill, that you start a blog, or write an article for Substack, or better yet try to get published in a theatre journal so that Wikipedia can add the content. Until we have better published sources, this isn't content that wikipedia can include.4meter4 (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did obtain the one autobiography (which I know about) by Meredith Willson titled, “And There I Stood With my Piccolo”, written in the late 1940’s. I found no specific reference to RV Leach in that book, although Meredith DOES mention that his first flute teacher was a cornet player (that being Bob Leach’s primary instrument MIGHT mean that Bob was his first instrumental music teacher aside from his pianist mother).

But the documented fact that the Corpus Christi paper had a policy of not including bylines for its reporters (a failing of that paper’s editorial policy which was later rectified following complaints and negotiations, as discussed in a personal email to me from one of their editors) would suggest the wisdom, for the sake of Wikipedia’s completeness about a matter that might be of general interest to readers, of making a mild exception concerning the rules of Wikipedia for newspaper publications when what was becoming standard practice in the journalism profession during that period had not yet reached the Gulf region of Texas. Newspapers of antiquity probably rarely followed practices which have become standards by today, and how much would be lost if more ancient historical records were rejected because they did not follow contemporary standards of authentication?

My discussion about how unlikely it would have been for a small-town paper reporter to have known about Meredith Willson’s history concerning the fraudulent and musically incompetent capacities of his fictional version of Bob Leach as presented in “The Music Man” has logical merit, I believe.

A friend of mine told me some 30 years ago that I am exactly like a fellow he had known as a child walking around the sidewalks of Princeton, NJ. “You talk like him; you act like him; you think like him.” That long-ago acquaintance was named Albert Einstein, who very possibly also had Asperger’s. “Aspies” are generally considered to lack “common sense”, and I would concede that I lack THAT (according to “normal” people) but that does NOT mean that I lack sense. I thus apologize that my sometimes highly sensitized and unusual ways of thinking (and writing) should be rejected by Wikipedia. I believe that the rejection of my excellent and exhaustive interpretation of many many sources should not be discarded by Wikipedia because of the messenger. I believe the denial of my access (for years) to Wikipedia editing allowance has been discriminatory, not just against someone with a disability, but against someone who has unique and extremely valuable information to share with the community. I have performed the part in The Music Man which its composer wrote “for himself” (me being a highly valued flute and piccoloflute player in my Princeton-area musical community) during four (community theatre) “runs” of that musical. My understanding of Meredith Willson is beyond academic- I am (in addition to being a modern version of Albert Einstein) Willson’s artistic soulmate.

I would NEVER wish to create anything which distorts what Meredith Willson wanted to do with his music, and his life matters greatly to me. If I had academic (or other institutional) backing I could spend the funds to do a truly thorough research, but my Asperger’s prevents me from being able to do those things. My life has been a struggle between my desire to accomplish the goals I set for myself, and the extremist honesty which is further enhanced by my mental “differences” from “normal” people who do not want to deal with extreme truth. DrBillR (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DrBillR, you are obviously very passionate about this subject, and I do think you should channel that passion into writing. I just don't think wikipedia is the platform for this content. You really should try to pursue publication. If that isn't something that you are wanting to do, there are many online platforms where you can create a blog. In that blog you could document your travels and interviews and evidence and insights. As stated previously, wikipedia is limited in the content that we can include based upon our policies at WP:Verifiability. With only one source that lacks an attributed author, and which makes claims that contradict many other sources on The Music Man our policies are clear that we can not include that content per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. At this point we are now repeating ourselves, which is a sign that the conversation has reached an impasse. We have a suggested guideline for situations like this. WP:DROPTHESTICK; it is time to find a place of acceptance and to let this conversation go and move on.4meter4 (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Left]. It is very simple. You must cite WP:Reliable sources of the kind that User:4meter4 and others have explained to you patiently. If you are a "scholar" of this subject, you should have high-quality sources to hand. Do not keep rerepeating yourself. Also note that typos on talk pages are not important -- Talk pages are a forum for discussion of the editorial progress of the article and to build WP:CONSENSUS for the best ways to improve the article. So don't be a jerk. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Music Man. 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/20110122042616/http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame to http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame
Corrected formatting/usage for http://thecommunityplayers.com/tcpshows/musicman12/TheCommunityPlayer2012.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 03:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Music Man. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 17:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Occupations of Quartet

Jacey Squires (high tenor): livery stable owner Ewart Dunlop (lead tenor): grocer Oliver Hix (baritone): banker Olin Britt (bass): newspaper publisher p b p 15:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fun fact about these minor characters, but, in addition to its being unreferenced (See WP:V), it is probably too detailed for an encyclopedia article (See WP:BALASP), unless there are sources that explain its importance. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cast Table Debate

Hello. Today, Ssilvers reached out to me and told me that they reverted my edits on the cast table. I was under the impression that most (if not all) productions listed under "Productions" would be listed in both the infobox and cast table. This is just because I have seen it written that way on several articles about theatrical productions. However, I realize that this may be false so I wanted to hear ideas from other editors. I apologize if this sounds like a dumb question to ask others but I wanted to know a correct answer when editing in the future. Thanks, Fiscus Brady!! (talk) October 4, 2020 19:54 (UTC)

There have been many discussions about this at the Musical Theatre project and elsewhere. For popular musicals that have hundreds and thousands of productions, obviously you cannot include every production in the cast table. In my opinion, the cast table should include only long-running Broadway and West End productions, plus if there was a long-running original production elsewhere (for example Little Shop of Horrors or Hair) then list that original production, or if the musical has never played on Broadway or in the West End, then the most important, long-running productions can be included in the table. So, in this case, the very limited runs off Broadway and at the Chichester Festival should not be listed in the table. These productions were important enough, however, to be listed in the Productions section, and there the notable (blue-linked) principals should be mentioned. And, of course, all casts mentioned must be referenced. Tables should never list a cast without a reference. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you for explaining it. (Fiscus Brady!! (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Music Man Ad Jan 1960.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre World Awards 2022

Music Man was awarded the TheaterWorld award, for all 21 debuts in the cast, including Benjamin Pajak appearing as Winthrop Paroo. User:Kpajak1

That is not exactly correct. They received a group honorary award for "Outstanding Ensemble". See this. I've noted it in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://zvbxrpl.blogspot.com/2011/05/ghosts-on-broadway.html

[1]