Talk:Music hall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Music hall has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
November 24, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Comedy Portal
This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Shouldn't this be called Music hall? There was a popular TV miniseries in Quebec called "Music Hall" that should be here, however. -- stewacide 21:56 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

People who write about such things tend to use capitals: "Music Hall", "Vaudeville", "Burlesque", but expecially for "Music Hall" to indicate they're talking about the musical style rather than a building. It's like the difference between Romantic music and romantic music. The mini-series could be Music Hall if it needs to be distinguised. -- Someone else 22:16 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I wonder if the anonymous editor didn't mean to add the link as iooiooyuyuSongwriters. (See MIDI timecode.) Irritated. Branden 09:20 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Music Hall and the first world war

I am researching at the moment into Music Hall and the first world war. Indeed music hall artists, likemost sections of society (political parties, suffragette groups etc) enthusiastically worked at recruiting for the army. But I have nowhere found the suggestion that the Music Hall lost popularity after the war because of this - does anybody have a reference for this idea ?

I think it was more the radio and the gramophone which killed the golden age of music hall, as well as, a little later, the talking movie.


[edit] Music Hall, Vaudeville, Variety

Could someone explain the differences if any between Vaudeville, Variety, and Music Hall? If any? My own knowledge is extremely sketchy....

But I have taken the liberty of adding "see also" links from Vaudeville to Music Hall and vice versa, and a link from Variety to both... Dpbsmith 13:35, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Killigrew and Davenant patent"

The royal patents granted at the Restoration were/are absolutely not known as "the Killigrew and Davenant patent", I've never even heard the phrase. I'm fixing up the Restoration bit a little altogether.--[[User:Bishonen|Bish (Bosh)]] 18:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] I'm Henery the Eighth, I am

I think I succeeded in rescuing this from Votes for Deletion but I'm not a music hall expert and additions to the article would be welcome. By the way, what are Harry Champion's dates? I thought I could find them online in seconds, but I wasn't able to. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin - an anonymous user!

Hi. I have added a paragraph on "Existent Music Halls in London". I hope this meets with your approval, and some survives the rigorous editing process. I think I've identified what remains, but there may well be more (they often have small frontages on the street, but large halls on the cheaper land behind). There are a lot of cinemas on Leicester Sq, which started their lives as Music Halls, but the original architecture and purpose are lost behind modern facades and interiors. I hesitated over quoting the "Black Variety Nights" programme, this is what it is called by the local community (and they are very popular). I hope it will not cause offence in places where different modes of political correctness hold sway. Where possible information has been abstracted from each organisation's own website.


[edit] References?

Just wondering why there are no references for this entry? Or a guide to further reading? Maybe this could be rectified? Colin4C 16:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Tin Pan Alley

I have never heard of Tin Pan Alley receiving the name from people actually pounding on pans; and such a statement is not backed by the Tin Pan Alley entry which states: The name "Tin Pan Alley" was originally derogatory, a reference to the sound made by many pianos all playing different tunes in this small urban area, producing a cacophony comparable to banging on tin pans.

I would suggest that the statement in this article be revised. 207.69.137.6 03:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)lasalle202

[edit] British?

"a form of British theatrical entertainment" it says, but Folies Bergère says it's a Music Hall, so one of both is wrong --euyyn 22:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

British music hall derived from peculiar circumstances in the UK. There were only two patent theatres licensed for performance - Drury Lane and Covent Garden; it was illegal to perform theatrical entertainments anywhere else.
That created great demand, and people saw a gap in the market. By performing acts (usually with low, or without admission) and serving 'supper' and 'drinks' they were able to get around the act. They were licensed premises (and the entertainments were peripheral to their principal business).
In British (and Colin, who I'm having a difference of opinion with at the moment) terms, the Folies wouldn't count as music hall because they're performing operetta, which would come within the scope of the Patent Theatres Act - therefore, they're a theatre not a music hall!
Now in the UK Music Hall began about 1850, by the 1890's it had begun to evolve into broader entertainments, including operetta and plays - what we would begin to identify as variety. The Folies is beginning performance around 1890, so that's the period (in the UK) when we move from supper-style music hall to variety acts in more formal theatres. I would think both London and Paris are beginning to 'interchange ideas' in variety at this time, so it is not unreasonable to suppose that the Parisians were gagging to see the latest entertainments from London - and vice versa ... So, I'd want to see a reference for the folies being called a music hall - and would probably call it more properly a variety theatre
So, in one sense it is a music hall, in another, not; and it is true to say that music hall is a peculiarly British entertainment, due to the particular laws that brought it about. I would also not that the Lord Chamberlain's office strictly forbade nudity in the UK, so you could say the Folies Bergère was just a cheap clip joint! 8^) Kbthompson 00:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The British music halls evolved from the variety acts put on at the Pleasure Gardens such as Vauxhall and at saloon bars (aka 'song and supper bars'). Such variety turns had never been illegal under any law: they just changed their venue from the Outdoor pleasure gardens to indoor venues. What was illegal was performing plays outside the two designated patent theatres of Covent Garden. That was a seperate issue entirely leading to the 1843 legislation. However, even before that law plays were played illegally at Penny Gaffs and at certain East End Theatres (starting with the Pavilion, Whitechapel in 1828). And even before that there was an 18th century theatre illegaly performing plays down Wellclose Square way. Such theatres and such play-performances were a seperate issue from music-halls. I repeat: music-hall acts were never illegal. Colin4C 11:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Never said they were, but they (and the entertainments they provided) were regulated under the licensing laws for the sale of alcohol - no alcoholic profits, no performance. This was overseen by the local 'watch committees' and those locations where specifically theatrical entertainments occurred (against the Patent law) must have had particularly understanding (bribeable?), or inactive watch committees. Kbthompson 14:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware entertainment was regulated by local magistrates up till the local gov re-organisation of 1888, after which local authorities (councils) took hold of controlling and (often) curtailing people's amusements, erecting a raft of increasingly complicated and arcane bureacratic regulations, which continues to this day to make life difficult for creative artists...Colin4C 20:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
... and you're not far wrong. Watch committees were the sub-committee of the Parish who were charged with licensing and law and order. Why the Parish? Well someone had to pay for it, and it certainly wasn't going to be the rate support grant. Similar sub-committees oversaw the poor-law responsibilities. The former tended to be the local magistrates, the later, the local clergy. Others, paving, sewerage, and the turnpike trusts. There were elections after 1835, but in many places, you were obliged to serve. The relevant act is for the better preventing of thefts and robberies, and for regulating places of public entertainment, and punishing persons keeping disorderly houses (1752 25 Geo II, c xxxvi, and C.xix).
Illegitimate Theatre in London 1770-1840 (Jane Moody 2000) is a good read, and partially, supports your case about the Britannia (oh, that hertz ...). In particular variety entertainment and melodrama became exempt from the patent act. A number of ways were found to circumvent the act, including at the Haymarket, where, in 1772-3 they used puppets to present The Handsome Housemaid, an unlicensed drama. But, for this page, I digress ... Kbthompson 23:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination

The article, as stands provides a wide coverage of the subject. There are a few references at the moment, but any article could always do with more! Please feel free to add them. Please feel free to improve the article yourself, or make suggestions here. Thank you. Kbthompson 19:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

This is a very good article, but large sections don't have any explicit citing, which puts it just at the borderline. If this was fixed, it would be a clear pass, but for now - On hold.

I suspect any reviewer will pass it once that's fixed, but to speed things up, contact me on my talk page. Adam Cuerden talk 11:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Thanks for that, I've been largely offline for the past couple of days. I realised that the article was deficient in references (although, I've tried to reference 'wot I dun'); there are some sections remaining, probably more about drawing conclusions that statements of fact, I think I know where some of the points were drawn from, but it would help if the originators of the comments actually added the refs. Anyway, I added some more today, and will drop you a line shortly. Kbthompson 18:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't consider this a real GA review, as I've only briefly reviewed the article. I must say it looks rather "listy" - consider making some of the current list-like sections into normal prose, and/or move the lists to a different article, as I don't think they are beneficial here. Tuf-Kat (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually a good point. There is a linkage between some of the lists - like extant halls that could be turned into prose. Acts, performers and songs, they're so disparate that they form natural lists. Although we've managed to put a lot of examples in the prose, perhaps we could get away with spinning them off as external lists. Certainly I wouldn't expect to get an FA in that state and I would be the first to admit (and I suspect Col 2nd) that it needs more work to get it to that kind of state. Is it a show stopper for GA? I'll look at what I can do. This is a very broad topic, and ultimately a summary of a wide field. Kbthompson (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


I'm going to be honest here: I trust you. If you think the references that have been added since my review are sufficient that anyone checking them could find all or most of the information, and all of the surprising facts, I'm happy to promote to GA. Adam Cuerden talk 09:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I just read it again, and the only thing I find surprising is the Tin Pan Alley thing - and that really should be referenced (Col?). I think there are issues with the article (see list thing, above), but I don't think the references are one of them. I think this exercise has been useful, it's validated the work done already and provided some ideas and a roadmap for further improvement. Improvement is a continual process. Kbthompson (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, aye, noone's saying it's perfect, but GA isn't FA, and I think, if the referencing problem's now fixed, we can safely promote. Keep at it, and this could well be FA. Adam Cuerden talk 11:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your confidence, I've got another FA on the go at the moment, but I guess this could indeed be next on the list. Cheers and thanks for your constructive help. Kbthompson (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:1867 NationalStandardTheatre.jpg

Image:1867 NationalStandardTheatre.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

-fixed, it's pd-old (1867) Kbthompson (talk) 09:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Influence of music hall on later music

I think this article would benefit from a paragraph or two on the influence of music hall on the Beatles (especially Paul McCartney), Peter Noone, and others. Some of McCartney's songs would be indistinguishable from music hall if they had traditional instrumentation. Incidentally, Paul McCartney's father Jim McCartney led a music hall band, called Jim Mac's Jazz Band.

Would somebody like to try to write this section? -Larry Siegel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.244.228 (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt if that's a whole section - probably change 'drama, etc' to 'cultural influences' and include a note. That whole section needs to be reorganised and turned into prose. It's difficult with the modern stuff as much is pastiche rather than homage - and there's the issue of where do you stop? To get to FA we're going to need to focus this article more and probably split out some sections as more detailed articles. It's just finding the time to do it. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)