Talk:Vaudeville

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Pronunciation

Could someone show how this is to be pronounced in English? easytiger 11:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Pronounced "VAW-duh-vil" by most of the folks during it's reign. Now usually pronounced "VAWD-vil".

It is more properly "VAW-deh-vill" but "VAWD-ville" is not incorrect. In the documentary "Vaudeville", the performers interviewed pronounce the middle syllable, but trip over it very lightly. JoKing 23:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. (See my note immediately preceding your own.) My point was not how it was pronounced (correctly, I believe) by its largely deceased base of performers, nor how civilians pronounced it at the time of the genre's dominance, but what it's common current pronunciation is: VAWD-ville. I don't think I've heard the "correct" (but lamentably antiquated) pronunciation even once at any academic conference on theatre history or popular entertainment. --Patchyreynolds 11:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that vaud-ville is THE common pronunciation. I hear it as vaud-deh-ville more often than not. However, I work in the theatre so that may account for it. 74.106.252.74 00:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[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 13:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Where is variety? Variety is a disambiguation page, and the only related thing I see is Variety show, which only talks about the television genre. Rigadoun 18:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Note to self, come back and add some British content. --bodnotbod 14:48, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

What about the Marx Brothers? Dwarf Kirlston 13:55, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, what about them? They're mentioned and have their article linked to here. What's your question? -- Infrogmation 18:56, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion between "variety" and "vaudeville"

Yes, the articles might be helpful. The quick answer is that the distinctions largely address era, audience and industry. First, variety preceded vaudeville, finding it's greatest success in NYC during and after the Civil War up through the late 1870s. Second, variety had a a probably well-deserved reputation as being smokey, booze-ridden environments in which many Victorian women might be uncomfortable. (And even if they weren't, the era suggested, they Italic textshouldItalic text have been...) Finally, mature vaudeville made great use of cicuits, large (often regional, infrequently national) chains of allied theatres that might sometimes have the same owner but would, by definition, share and order bookings of acts (very important to know that the same performer hadn't agreed to be in Milwaukee and Chicago on the same week), as well as help monitor performers to make sure the women wore tights, no references to homosexuality was on stage, little swearing, etc. The biggest confusion lies in various employments of the word "variety". Really, any theatre that presents several different performers in an evening's entertainment is "variety theatre." But the word came to be used to specifically refer to the previously described type of American theatre in a definitional sense. Thus, even though mid-nineteenth century melodrama, by virtue of having other acts as adjuncts to the central play, could properly be referred to as being "variety theatre", using the term in this way confuses people. It gets even tricker when vaude comes into the picture, because the only way to distinguish it from legitimate theatre (e.g., a production of Italic textHamletItalic text) is to note its "variety" nature, something which then muddies the distinction between it and its predecessor, variety. Music hall was the British analogue to the American forms.

[edit] What's with this paragraph?

The last paragraph of 1.4, beginning "Vaudeville finally died", seems POV, irrelevant, and unencyclopedic. I'm on the point of deleting it, unless someone can either explain why it should be there or restructure it to fix the problems. SFT 04:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Word usage

The phrase 'dumb act' is used in this article to indicate an act with no dialogue. This is not a very politically correct way of putting it. If there is a reason it should remain like this, e.g. it is a phrase that was used at the time, can it please be put in inverted commas. Otherwise I suggest 'mute' in the place of 'dumb', or similar. Pipedreambomb 14:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be placed in quotes, but not changed as this is the proper way to describe such a skit.
*Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Gany is absolutely right. If and when "mute act" becomes common usage, we should use it. Politically correctness is a PoV, we don't take a PoV, whether or not it's the best one. The only way to optimally further accessibility of knowledge is NPoV, so right or wrong, WP will be last to adopt such a change of usage.
--Jerzy•t 22:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there shouldn't be quotation marks around "dumb" when used in this context as the primary (and quite proper) definition of the word is "lacking the power of speech." It's the more colloquial (though still correct) use of the word to denote a lack of intelligence that promotes disrespect toward those who cannot speak. Political correctness--and here I applaud Jerzy's warning about PC's pernicious effects on NPoV--would in fact mandate using the term only to refer to those who cannot speak. And "mute" doesn't much solve the problem. First, as with other performance terms ("blackface" springs to mind) "dumb" has specific historical and performance connotations that exceed its literal definition. Second, there is a connotative difference between mute--a category that would include those who might have taken a vow of silence and therfore choose not to speak--and dumb; the latter does not usually refer to a volitional lack of speech. (Phraseology often has one "struck" dumb, for example.) Finally, neither of the terms, in their literal definitions, do a very good job of defining the relative silence of a dumb act in vaudeville. Italian acrobats--be they Italian or "Italian" (lots of Sicilian vaude acrobats with last names such as "Goldberg" or "McClusky")--a frequent opening act, often enjoined the meandering, restive audience to applaud, pay careful attention, etc. What made them a dumb act was the presumption that one need not necessarily listen to or be able to hear them to appreciate the act. So unless we're moving toward "the-act-ya-didn't-have-to-listen-to-to-enjoy"... --Patchyreynolds 21:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

i want to translate this to portugese? can i?

[edit] bad article

just wanted to say this is the worst article i have read on Wikipedia.......... :(

[edit] Taking our revue information and correcting inaccuracies

Explaining my changes (actually, reverts) to a few things:

-Vaudeville was not primarily a phenomenon of the "rural and lower class audiences." Though a national form, it flowered most fully in urban areas, and both marketed itself to and succeeded in attracting the emerging middle class. In terms of it's economic structure, after abou 1906 it fell in between the higher priced legitimate theatre and revues and the lower priced cinema.

-The new addition on revues (a different subject) shouldn't even be here, but is already properly included as a link to a related article.

-I'm a bit confused by the vague and misleading comparisons to revues. Precisely what made revues "more polished"? Vaudevillians often spent great sums of money on sets, supporting casts, scripts, etc., and certainly often honed individual routines for years. As well, many vaudeville acts continually integrated new material into their routines, often on a weekly basis and quite frequently in response to current events, fads, or the location of the theatre. I don't know of any scholar who argues that revues would be more "up-to-date" than vaudeville.

-As was already addressed on the this page, vaudeville was not a British form of entertainment, but one found in the United States (and to a lesser extent, Canada). For the Brit version, look at music halls. Though both are variety entertainments and sometimes employed each other's performers, the differences in their corporate structures, performance base, etc. were so great so as to frustrate any attempt to assign the distinction between them to simple nomenclatural difference. The were instead different genres of entertainment. --Patchyreynolds 16:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to change the vaudeville page that's fine but I have never heard anyone call a revue a low-class affair. Most of the items offered on revues would have not been appreciated by conservative rural or low class/uneducated audiences. To put it in perspective, George Bush would probably frequent vaudeville types of entertainment but he would probably have been offended or shocked if he attended a revue.AllTalking 19:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In terms of your last point, the president swears in public and around aides with a fair degree of frequency, and was a president of a Yale fraternity known for its partying. Also, vaudeville had a fair amount of classical music, Shakespeare, high srt poses, etc., none of which jives with President Bush's pattern of entertainment attendance while in office. I can't even hazard a guess as to what he'd make of either genre.--Patchyreynolds 22:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Music hall began as a largely working class entertainment. Even at the height of their popularity the Music halls' true centre of gravity continued to rest with the lower middle class. A look at early filmed versions of Music Hall acts shows at once their low class origins. The majority of the upper classes and educated urban society would view these acts as a quaint old-fashioned form of entertainment.AllTalking 20:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

But again, this has nothing to do with the vaudeville article. Also, I never made any argument about music halls aside from the fact that they were a separate form on entertainemnt than vaudeville (not to mention being located on a different continent). Finally, it's a bit problematic to base any conclusion about revues, vaudeville, or music halls on early cinematic archiving of performances. After all, "early" films of the performances aren't films of "early" (or even classic) performances. (It's somehwhat like writing a history of the automobile based on its appearance in television.) In addition, what we have remaining of these early shows lacks sound, color, and was often slightly (or greatly) re-staged, hardly an inarguable record. We're much better off looking at the texts of the routines, the ticket prices, programs, diaries of performers, managerial accounts, locations of the theatres, etc. --Patchyreynolds 22:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


I frankly don't know why you are trying to rewrite history and why you are dismissing the facts. In case you didn't know there have always been uneducated conservative people out there and they have always attended different types of entertainment from those who are educated and liberal. I suggest you read some newspapers and magazines from the 1920's to see what people really thought of your beloved vaudeville. The fact that you actually wasted your time editing an article on Jerry Falwell explains a lot though...there is no use providing facts to conservative/religious people as they believe just what they want to believe.AllTalking 04:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


AllTalking's comment from 04:59, 31 July 2006 was double posted on the Revue talk page. Please see that page for my response. --Patchyreynolds 14:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film and Vaudeville

I changed a couple of sentences, but the current article's references to inclusion of film with in the body of the bill is not well phrased, and is, in fact, a bit misleading. Vaudeville (an traditional bill that might include stand-alone films), vaudefilm (a show that combined the two media but leant more heavily on cinema as attraction), and cinema houses (which often employed live performers--many of them vaudevillians--as stage acts before and between the films, but was almost wholly geared around cinema presentation) are three quite different phenomena. Right now, the article makes it appear that a cinema house that employed vaudevillians might be considered late-era vaudeville.--Patchyreynolds 11:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Noted" vaudevillians

This page is beginning to drown in "noted" vaudevillians. Increasingly, however, the persons being added were not noted for being vaudevillians, but noted for other fields: film, television, legitimate theatre, etc. Film actor George Raft, for example, was certainly a person of note who (briefly) performed in vaudeville, but he was not noted FOR vaudeville. His inclusion on this page is akin to including Fidel Castor or George H.W. Bush on the baseball page as "noted baseball players." As thousands of folks performed in vaudeville, the list could grow to absurd proportions if it sought to include anyone who held time on a vaudeville stage but later became known in another field. I believe this list should be pared down to those important for vaudeville. At the least, a separate list should be created for those who fall into the problematic category. Objections? Thoughts? --Patchyreynolds 17:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Here only performers particularly noted for their apperances on Vaudeville should be included. (For a more comprehensive listing of people article worthy people who appeared on Vaudeville, we have "Category:Vaudeville performers".) -- Infrogmation 01:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I have taken the initiative of moving the list to a separate article (List of vaudeville performers). However, I disagree with only including those who were famous as vaudevillians. While I realize that listing every vaudeville performer is nearly impossible and I believe the list should be comprehensive, I think leaving performers out who achieved fame elsewhere is ridiculous. Seeing these names in one place (even those who were briefly in vaude) can give a good idea of how big vaudeville actually was. The only people I am including are those who either already have articles or those inidividuals who should have articles. There are many performers out there for whom little information is available and they are being left out. I have also included basic biographical information on the individuals as well. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History/etymology

I think that there is room for some expansion, both the origins of the form and the previous uses of the name.

I found myself at this article today for an odd reason: the finale of Mozart's Entführung aus dem Serail (Vienna 1782) is marked in the score as a "vaudeville," just as other numbers are marked aria, duet, chorus, whatever. This made me wonder if it was a standard term (meaning what? I don't know) in 18th century singspiels. The singspiel troupes did various plays, parodies, whatevers, that looked sort of like music hall / variety shows later did. There is at least a common thread of, for lack of a better name, non-highbrow comic theatre, going back a very long way.

I have no idea, myself, if some older French word got borrowed by both German and English in different senses; if the term moved first to German singspiel and THEN to England later; or what. But if any contributors to wikipedia do know ... just wanted to let you know I turned up here looking for an answer. It'd be a nice addition both here and to the Entführung article. TaigaBridge 23:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Further to my above question, I have pasted below the entry for "vaudeville" at etymonline.com. Our article here includes the vau de Vire possibility, but does not mention the word had been in use in English for 150 years before the 1880s:

vaudeville 1739, "light, popular song," especially one sung on the stage, from Fr. vaudeville, alteration (by influence of ville "town") of M.Fr. vaudevire, said to be from (chanson du) Vau de Vire "(song of the) valley of Vire," in the Calvados region of Normandy, first applied to the popular satirical songs of Olivier Basselin, a 15c. poet who lived in Vire. The other alternative is that vaudevire derives from M.Fr. dialectal vauder "to go" + virer "to turn." The meaning "theatrical entertainment interspersed with songs" first recorded 1827. Vaudevillian (n.) is attested from 1913.

Any thoughts on how best to incorporate that information (the word being older than the theatre form) into the main article? TaigaBridge 23:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

How come the article doesn't follow the mandatory Wikipedia policy WP:V and how-to WP:CITE? You will have to do that eventually and it is easier if you do it as you go along. Mattisse(talk) 12:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the article should stick to citation policies, I wonder if the 3 (!!) different boxes above the article really do it any good. I stopped reading after trying to figure out what each box really said. KryzMasta 17:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From Here

I've done some stylistic tweaking and adjustment, little of substance --deleted references to the emerging middle class (when has the middle class NOT been emerging? It's given as the cause for the development of just about everything in just about every age). There remains a lot of unencyclopedic overwriting, and maybe someone wants to do a section on vaudeville nostalgia and revivals, as well as a line (and link) to the separate article on burlesque, which took over so many old vaudeville houses. The references to "variety" as something really distinct from vaudeville need either finally to be removed, or to be justified by a well-developed article on the subject -- which someone who insists on the distinction would do well to write, yes? I've tried to add a couple of notes that give a little attention to vaudeville outside the urban centers and the bigtime acts (it was mostly smalltowns and smalltimers, the way the old guys tell it), as I thought these were under-represented. This is the kind of topic that makes a feature article, but it's got a ways to go. DavidOaks 22:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Considerable improvement but, as you said, it's got a ways to go. It needs more about the theater circuits, and links to the WP articles about them (and those articles need a lot of work themselves). It needs a section on the complex relationship of vaudeville to race in America, and the way in which vaudeville helped both to perpetuate and to break down stereotypes of African Americans for white audiences. Also, there should be at least a mention of Variety, the quintessential show business publication which got its start covering vaudeville (and yes, vaudeville is a species of variety entertainment.) And, most of all, the article needs citations! Whyaduck 13:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] someone do something about Post-Vaudeville

something needs to be done about the Post-Vaudeville bit it reads like a history report. im not very good at re-writhing things so im not gona try :( but someone realy should. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickecb (talk • contribs) 07:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] New Vaudeville

I think New Vaudeville is a topic we should probably have some coverage of, but it should probably be spun off into a seperate article. Other thoughts, opinions? -- Infrogmation 16:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. In most ways, "new vaudeville" has almost nothing to do with classic vaudeville than sharing part of a name. I'm about to remove all the new vaude stuff from here. Objections? It really should be a totally different article. --Patchyreynolds 23:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I'm about to eliminate the "New Vaudeville" section on this page, since it has nothing to do with historical vaudeville (the focus of this article) aside from sharing a name and being a variety act. Objections? --Patchyreynolds (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I object to the deletion of any referenced information or any name, topic, etc., which has its own article. In this case, I removed anything that was unreferenced from that list quite some time ago. All the items currently on the list have their own articles, which means they met the criteria of notability and verifiability. What are your specific objections, other than your belief that they have nothing to do with "historical vaudeville"? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Because this article is about vaudeville, that variety entertainment that lasted from roughly 1881-1932. "New vaudeville" refers to a completely separate form that post-dates vaudeville proper by several decades and has no relation to the previous genre aside the aesthetic affinity that many new vaudevillians share with the roistering comedy or curiosity acts that were only one of the many acts that played vaudeville. The fact that they share a name does not mean that they belong in the same article. There is no more reason to separately list new vaudeville acts on this page than there is to mention The New Vaudeville Band and its novelty hits in the 1960s. Have you a creditable source that firmly links new vaudevillians to the historical vaudeville--and I don't know why you use scare quotes, since the article makes perfectly clear it's been dead for some time--aside from some stylistic likenesses with a few comic acts? By that rather wan linkage, everything from an opera singer to a unicyclist could be linked to the page. Vaudeville was defined by a certain business structure, audience base, mode of comportment, and era, none of which support a link to new vaudevillians such as David Shriner or Bill Irwin. In fact, even Irwin--he of Tony Award and Macarthur fellowship fame--the most celebrated new vaudevillian cannot explain what defines new vaudeville, stating, "I haven't a clue what 'new vaudevillian' means. This catch-all 'new vaudeville' term came up. 'New vaudeville' is a phrase that somebody made up, and it serves a purpose."[1] The acts on the list might be "notable" and their existence "verifiable," but the same might be said of the variety store, another article that shares a name but has no direct link to vaudeville. Truth be told, it would be far more relevant to include a section on "American Idol" or "Saturday Night Live." So aside from the nomenclatural link, I don't know why a separate list of these acts is relevant. Should "New Vaudeville" have its own page? Sure. But does the absence of that page mean that it should have a section on the vaudeville page implying (by its very presence) that the non-genre or any of these acts is actually an updating of vaudeville? No. Instead, it should be like the "concert saloon," a reference that existed within the vaudeville article and an item on the "related forms" list long before someone actually created an article.--Patchyreynolds (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theatre

I found a couple of theatres in the article and proceeded to change them to theaters. I read on and found another which I also changed. Then I found others. These theatres seemed to float happily in amongst a text that was otherwise spelt distinctly American. I thought that there must be more than meets the eye so I reverted myself. Is this one of those cases in which Americans retain the French spelling? If so, someone had better fix the caption under Ray Wollbrinck's picture. If not, why all these theaters? Jimp 04:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's one of those cases in which some Americans retain the original (French) spelling, under some circumstances, but the rule is not consistently applied. Much of the confusion is owing to the trade group called the National Association of Theatre Owners, which long ago deliberately chose to use the original spelling, in order to differentiate their business from live "theater". It did no good, as most stage houses in the U.S. also now use the original spelling (see The League of American Theatres and Producers.) Also see the WP articles on Movie theater and Broadway Theatre for some unintentional comedy. Each article claims that, in America, its own subject uses the original spelling and that the Americanized spelling is used for the other type of theatre/er. In short, it's an American pig's breakfast. Whyaduck 05:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "re" has been used in the states since before Noah Webster, attempting to "Americanize" the mother tongue, changed what he felt to be some of the more vexing inherited spellings. (We had to spell it some way, after all, before there were cinema houses from which one wished to differentiate oneself.) It often tends to be a high/middlebrow class issue or professional/community theatre issue, with more populist houses using "er." I'm a theatre professor whose budgets arrive from the business office marked "re" and whose course schedules float in from the dean's office labeled "er." (And the registrar believes we teach "Introduction to the Theatre Arts" in the "Studio Theater.") In short, there is no correct way, just preferences, making most dependent upon style guides. In terms of a vaude article, it would be more historically accurate to use "re," as almost all of these "houses of refinement" did. As the article grows and gains more specificity it would keep from having to naturally include inconsistencies. Objections?--Patchyreynolds 13:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd thought it might be something along those lines. Good ol' Webster, ay. As for inconsistancies, they're easy to iron out using [Ctrl][F] ... that is assuming we can decide what to spell how in the first place. I'm going to go and change the two or three theaters to theatres (seeing as the original (French) spelling appears to predominate in the article) ... and bemusedly I'm going to skip over the center. If it be decided in future that the Americanised version should be used throughout, that's all well and good. Jimp 23:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article, but

Could someone who knows about Vaudeville please describe what Vaudeville was actually like. I read the entire article and I still don't know, though the article is very informative in every other sense. Something that starts with "Vaudeville performances were characterized by..." would be good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.78.72.31 (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

I hope the example of a performance bill helps matters. --Patchyreynolds 21:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Vaudeville - as in "an evening of Vaudeville" - would be characterized as a sequence of performers booked in by the theatre owner via talent booking agents. The acts on a particular evening had no central theme running thru them; you might see a singer followed by a comedian, followed by a juggler, followed by ... . Seating was theatre-style - no tables, food and drink only at intermission, and (in America, at least) no alcohol (They were trying to raise their image above the variety & burlesque shows that were largely done to sell liquor at saloons. Also, no obscenity or nudityin Vaudeville - middle calss entertainment suitable for the finest ladies). If an act did well, it was extended, so from week to week, the acts changed gradually but not totally. Acts that did really well would move on to better bookings.

So, to contrast Vaudeville with its successors/parallels. British Music Hall was essentially the same, but with (i) a Master of Ceremonies to introduce each act (called "Mr. Chairman", and who might or might not sing or tell jokes between acts), and (ii) seating at tables with beer, wine and snacks throughout the evening. In America, Vaudeville gave way (in the 20s-30s)to "Musical Theater": an entire eveing of song/dance/comedy, but with a single cast and maybe some frivolous "plot" to tie it all together (See Gershwin's "Girl Crazy" as a later example.) Musical Theatre then led to the modern Musical Play - single cast, single theme, single dramatic play with a significant plot - "Showboat" (1927) changed all the rules overnight. 128.29.43.1 21:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] capitalised?

Whenever I see "vaudeville" or "Vaudeville" on Wikipedia, it varys from being capitalised. What is correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parable1991 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC).


It's not a proper noun. Should only be capitalized to maintain original quote or if heading a sentence.--Patchyreynolds 19:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

The article seems to be frequently wandering from its focus: the variety entertainment that existed from the early 1880s to the early 1930s. Monthy Python may have vaudeville-esque elements to its spirit, but it is most decidedly not vaudeville, an entertainment with chains, theatres, traveling performers, managers, and most important, a certain historical period. The fact that entertainments as varied as "Saturday Night Live" and college a cappella bear the influence of vaudeville does not make them vaudeville nor merit their inclusion in a still woefully underdeveloped article. That rant aside--and I do plan on investing some time this summer in fleshing out this article--does anyone have time or interest in starting a "New Vaudeville" page? --Patchyreynolds 06:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Books on Vaudeville

I have read extensively on Vaudeville due to my Jewish roots. This terrible article is full of vague and total misinformation. There is absolutely no mention of who and why Vaudeville came to be. In fact most of the first performers mentioned were all Jews. They changed their names as all performers did in those days. The Jews created this form of Show to intertain themselves as they kept to themselves and were ousted from most communities. Yes there were non Jew performers but when towns tasted the small shows put on by these communities this traveling variety show became a big hit. There is no mention of the contribution of Jews to Vaudeville in this article. They literally created what our entertainment industry is today....209.193.36.109 15:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure precisely where you feel the current article (which I agree has significant room to grow) misinforms its readers with regard to the religious background of its performers or business managers. True, Jewish performers and business folks made tremendous contributions to vaudeville, though I would argue that the bulk of these amazing efforts came in mature vaudeville rather than in its infancy. As Victor Greene has argued in American Immigrant Leaders, Jewish cultural figures really rose to the fore in America near the turn of the century when their numbers swelled with third wave immigration. Pastor, clearly the most significant figure in vaudeville's early development out of variety, was the son of Italian Catholics (also a rarity in antebellum America). Keith was the Christian son of New Hampshire farmers. Albee, also a Christian, was the great-grandson of an original Minute Man. Proctor, like Keith, was also a New England Protestant. None of them changed their last name. All of this begins to change in the 1890s, of course, and by its later years many of vaudeville's luminaries were indeed Jewish; lamentably, quite a few of these folks did indeed change their names for the purposes of marketing and palatability to the United States' Christo-centric popular culture. As to your contentions about vaudeville being created by Jewish performers for the purposes of self-entertainment during migration, I'm unaware of any reputable scholarly work (or any work at all, for that case) that supports this contention. Indeed, vaudeville's "birth," as I believe the article currently states, is almost impossible to locate definitively. It developed from a host of indigenous and foreign traditions from both sacred and popular cultural forms over a series of about a decade and a half.

What the article clearly lacks right now--and the topic is so huge as to perhaps require a separate article--is a thorough discussion of Yiddish vaudeville, an astoundingly rich field of performance, one with a well developed business structure, star performers, intimate theatres, and dedicated audience base. Previous comments bemoaned its absence from the page and we do need to get working on that. --Patchyreynolds 19:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

I would suggest that this article should be Vaudeville (North America) Vaudeville saw no borders and several Canadian cities were on the big-time circuits, most notably Winnipeg, which at its height was the start or end point of the Pantages circuit. (The Pantages theatre there still stands, and still hosts live performances.) Not to mention the big-time Canadian Vaudevillians like Fifi d'Orsay, Eva Tanguay, Beatrice Lillie, May Irwin, and many more. JoKing 23:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also Canadians were June Havoc and Florence Lawrence (a.k.a. Baby Flo the Wonder Whistler.) Also legendary producer John Murray Anderson, although at the time he was born Newfoundland was independant from Canada. 64.5.236.254 19:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology from Swedish?

The pronunciation seems very close to Swedish "Vad du vill" (What you want). At the end of the 19th century there was a massive emigration from Sweden and other countries into the US. So would it be out the question that it was picked up from Nordic emigrants? It seems to make sense to call a show containing a little of everything for just that. The English spelling could then have been fixed by a native without knowledge of the original meaning; just trying to imitate the sounds of the expression. What do you think? --Smallchanges 15:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting--and being of Scandinavian stock I would love for it to be true--but the term was used in American variety decades before the immigration surge you reference (and in French popular song far before that). --Patchyreynolds 17:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page move back to Vaudeville

It seems to me that, given the fact that there is a disambiguation page, that this is the longest article using the name "vaudeville," and that this is what most people looking for "vaudeville" have in mind when they search, this page should be moved back to Vaudeville. I also recommend that the disambiguation statement at the top of the article be changed to something along these lines: "This article is about the American form of variety/musical theatre. For other uses, see Vaudeville (disambiguation)." ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I am going to do just that. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Correction: This page is about the NORTH American form of Vaudeville, not just American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nora Bayes (talk • contribs) 14:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a matter of common terminology, not United States egocentrism. The form of entertainment spoken about in this article is usually referred to as "American vaudeville" as a generic marker, not as a means of establishing the geographic spread of its performances. In this sense, the common term "American vaudeville"--a nod to the form's (somewhat problematic) birth and development in the United States--was used to distinguish it from its French counterpart. Thus, "American vaudeville" (though the first word is usually not used except in cases of potential confusion) was certainly performed widely and successfully across much Canada. Like "French cuisine," however, its spread did not change the form of reference. One should note that this reference is used almost wholly on the part of post-vaudeville scholars and was never used (at least as far as I've seen in my own research) in Canada. That said, yes, I agree with the name change. --Patchyreynolds (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment, Patchyreynolds. I felt the page move was appropriate, and it was unopposed at the time. I still feel it was the right choice. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)