Talk:Music hall
Music hall was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
[edit]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)
Music Hall and the first world war
[edit]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.
Music Hall, Vaudeville, Variety
[edit]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)
"Killigrew and Davenant patent"
[edit]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)
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)
Kevin - an anonymous user!
[edit]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.
References?
[edit]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)
Tin Pan Alley
[edit]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
British?
[edit]"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)
Good Article nomination
[edit]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)
GA review
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- 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)
- 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)
Fair use rationale for Image:1867 NationalStandardTheatre.jpg
[edit]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)
Influence of music hall on later music
[edit]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)
I inserted my McCartney comment under "Cultural Influences." 70.18.198.249 (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Larry Siegel
- That's fine, probably that can eventually be spun off as a separate prose article. Music Hall, in some way, influenced most of modern entertainment - so, it's really going to be difficult to know when to stop. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The artist who created this painting died in 1942. As a result, his work will not enter public domain until 2112. Paintings and other works of visual art may be used for critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school. It may not be used for general illustrative purposes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
talk about benny hill
[edit]do so now
- OK - just done so for ten minutes. Can I get back to editing now? Grutness...wha? 07:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Abraham Thomas Ball
[edit]Should Abraham Thomas Ball (father of former British Prime Minister John Major be included in the list of Music Hall performers? I don't know how well-known or popular he was other than via his connection to his son.
Peteinterpol (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Grammatical convention
[edit]The titles of individual numbers (songs) should be quotated. The titles of entire shows/programmes should be italicized. As other editors have done tremendous amounts of work on this article and I have not, I would like for them to like to be the ones to do so or at least assent to this, but it needs to be done nonetheless. 75.216.136.125 (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
hall versus Hall
[edit]The article name is "Music hall", but the first section is all over the map. "Music Hall", "music hall", and even "Music hall" (mid sentence). I'm just trying to improve a link to here from elsewhere. Huw Powell (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- For now I am just going to try to decap all the ms and hs so it matches the title. Huw Powell (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Huw. I would be in favour of non-caps when speaking generally eg; "people enjoyed music hall humour in the 1880s", with caps being used if its within a hall's actual title e.g Britanica Music Hall, or Gatti's Music Hall. I could be wrong though. -- CassiantoTalk 04:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- The genre is music hall, which takes place in music halls. The only time you should use an initial cap is when you are using the name of a particular music hall, in which case it is a proper noun. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Adding unsourced information
[edit]Please stop adding rogue information to this article. All information needs to be sourced. --CassiantoTalk 17:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Provincial music halls
[edit]Hi - I came here to look up information on provincial music halls, and I was very surprised to find that nearly all of the article concerns London and its suburbs. I was familiar with Balmbra's Music Hall which began in 1848 and which was immortalised in the Geordie anthem Blaydon Races; despite this having its own Wikipedia article, there is no mention of it or any other provincial music halls in the history section. Is there someone knowledgeable who could rectify this? Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think the problem is is that the history section within this article is specifically about how the music hall evolved. Music hall entertainment was founded in London and then spread to the provencies. We could have a line or two about the expansion to the provencies, but to name individual theatres, unless particularly notable, would be irrelevant here. CassiantoTalk 12:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I think a history shouldn't simply show the origins, but show the development - which includes how its popularity spread. However, Balmbra's origins and growth are contemporary with many of the other music halls listed in the history section. Granted, it's a small venue, but it's definitely notable; the mention in Blaydon Races means that many Geordies in 2015 have still heard of the place, and that's also why it has its own article. But personally I'd be interested to find out how the music hall spread to Bristol, Manchester, Glasgow, etc., and what were the important venues in those places that affected popular culture. You wouldn't want an article on the 80s-90s acid house/rave scene to only describe the Manchester scene (where it started) and ignore other places - and I think the same applies here. Anyway - I'd be grateful if you can find anything! Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 05:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Anyone interested in Pantomime may wish to comment on the open threads at the Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified (February 2018)
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Music hall. 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://archive.is/20120723024600/http://www.craxford-family.co.uk/crauart1.php to http://www.craxford-family.co.uk/crauart1.php
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706015934/http://www.arthurlloyd.co.uk/Archive/January2005/PageTwo.htm to http://www.arthurlloyd.co.uk/Archive/January2005/PageTwo.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928011040/http://www.goh.co.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=44 to http://www.goh.co.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=44
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) 04:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Sanford and Lyons
[edit]Reaching out to those with experience with editing, approving articles relating to Music Hall artists and history for the following draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sanford_and_Lyons
Thankyou so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriana2022 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Inconsistent dating with respect to stylistic origins
[edit]The dating of the origins of music hall, with respect to the stylistic origins listed in the infobox, is very problematic. This article's body (unproblematically, I think) suggests that music hall traces it origins to 1830s British pubs and lounge (saloon) bars, becoming popular in the 1850s. Yet that would preclude the possibility that musical hall has origins in the considerably *later* genres of variety show and vaudeville (according to the dating used by those very articles). On top of this, vaudeville is portrayed as being of French origin, subsequently spreading to the US, and variety show with origins in both music hall and vaudeville. Altogether quite contradictory, as I read it. AW Regueiro (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delisted good articles
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Arts
- B-Class vital articles in Arts
- B-Class music genre articles
- Music genres task force articles
- B-Class Comedy articles
- Mid-importance Comedy articles
- WikiProject Comedy articles
- B-Class Theatre articles
- High-importance Theatre articles
- WikiProject Theatre articles