Talk:The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical)

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AIHTNY.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 11:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Old comment

Below text moved from

Erik The Phantom of the Opera by consensus at Talk:Erik The Phantom of the Opera
to be merged with this article. Please merge whatever is useful:

In

Christine Daae
, the beautiful young singer whom he so desparately wants to marry. Erik appears an insane monster, filling the Opera with his maniacal laughter whenever he wishes to frighten the Opera goers and remind them of his power. Through all this, the Phantom is still able to cry at Christine's feet and beg for her love, as humble as ever. His character is an ever changing one that reflects his many years underneath the Opera as a man simply deprived of a normal human life.

--

Graham ☺ | Talk
21:56, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To whoever moved the "I Remember.../Stranger Than You Dreamt It" to after Magical Lasso, you are thinking of the movie and not the stage version.

Chris Glew 20:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Most stagings, including that of Hal Prince..." Is there any staging of ALW's Phantom that hasn't been directed by Prince?

Malfourmed 02:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"they are often collectively known as the greatest musicals in history". While the success of the CamMack "poperettas" is inarguable and while I personally do agree that one of these shows is indeed the greatest musical in history I've removed this statement for NPOV reasons. Rodgers & Hammerstein, Stephen Sondheim and others have claims at least equally as valid to such a title.

Malfourmed 07:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who thinks that all the info on songs should be removed? The original edit was awful (but re-inserted after I'd removed it) so I decided to re-write it and fix the errors and grammar in it and get feedback here. I think the info should go, really.

Chris Glew 14:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for each song to have a page telling everyone what it's about. The idea of Wikipedia isn't to provide information on each song within a musical. If nobody posts here then I'll put each article on the Votes for Deletion page in a few days.

ChrisGlew 12:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's also no reason for Wikipedia NOT to have information regarding each individual song. There'd be no benefit in the individual pages nonexistence, so why even campaign for it? --Nevah Entitar 19:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there's going to be a description of the circumstances surrounding each song (which, unless there is an unusual 'fun fact' involved, seems tedious), the same should be done for everything from Hairspray to Mamma Mia, and that seems kind of silly. Polyhymnia 07:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exactly. The official policy is that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". We don't need info on each song and it's not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. ChrisGlew 14:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that as they are right now, a lot of those pages are simply copied bits of the libretto, which is a copyvio. Mademoiselle Sabina 17:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

longest running show in Broadway

You should add that info on the page:

http://www.phantomgala.com/

ZeroJanvier 00:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC) (I'm on the french wikipédia, my english is very bad)[reply]

Article in need of attention

This article is in dire need of attention. Not only are the song descriptions totally unnecessary (and not what Wikipedia is for), the list of notable actors is far too long and half of them aren't notable. Unless there are any objections I shall remove all the un-needed stuff from it. ChrisGlew 16:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, um, agree. I think perhaps a list of songs and characters would be fine, but what's there is far too long. I have tried to fix up the text, in the meantime. Mademoiselle Sabina 21:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drastic measures

(edit), OK, I have tried to fix this article up. Here's what I have done, and why.

  • Everything in the article now has a citation from a reputable source. self-explanatory.
  • All of the actors are GONE. Why? 1) the information for both Broadway and West End actors are available off-site at the links (RUG, POTO official site). 2) There's no prescendent for this in other Wiki musical articles. 3) It was way too long and too subjective. "Notable" actors became every actor; and there was no way to omit one without ruffling feathers from their fans ("why did you remove Actor X but keep Actor Z; Actor X is better and more notable, etc..."). Crawford and Brightman are still there because they're the originals.
  • Infobox. I was only able to find a template for a Broadway box. I wasn't trying to exclude the West End folks, but I couldn't find an infobox for that. If there's a combination box or another one for the West End that can be added, go for it. I've left it out for now.
  • Songs. Since every song has a page of its own, it was not necessary to give them each individual descriptions here.
  • Some links are gone. Why? A) Wikipedia is not a link farm. Links must contribute to the article in some way. b) Links from fan sites, no matter how nice they might be, are not considered verifiable sources on Wiki and therefore can't contribute. c) Ditto for message boards.

I hope this is OK with everyone. I'm eager to see this article in shape, so I've been bold. Mademoiselle Sabina 08:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Good job. This page was teetering the brink into fandom. I've been wondering why each song has its own page; "
here, get most of those pages removed, and incorporate their information into this article in some sort of synopsis. Some of them are dangerously close to copyvio as they contain a major portion of the lyrics, and they are, on the whole, unnecessary. -- MusicMaker5376 00:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you! I was honestly afraid to touch this article because I didn't know what kind of backlash there would be from the fans. I agree with you, though, looking at those song pages, they have to go. They're copied sections of the libretto. I'd say that perhaps a rewritten "Music of the Night" and "All I ask of you" could stay, but the rest aren't really necessary and should be put up for deletion. I'll work on trying to draw up a synopsis that would incorporate the material. This article will get in shape yet. :) Mademoiselle Sabina 08:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur in spades. "Music of the Night", "All I Ask of You" and perhaps "Think of Me" deserve pages -- they've been recorded by several artists outside of the context of the show. Those articles are all unnecessarily descriptive of the action onstage. They should mention that they're from POTO, note who sang them in the original company, and note their subsequent recordings. Anything more is unencyclopedic persiflage. Once you've got the synopsis done, I'll be happy to mark them for deletion.
The synopsis should be short -- one act could take up the entire page of one of those articles. If you need a little guidance, check out the synopsis of Godspell. (I think it's good, but I wrote it, so you shouldn't really go by me....) It's much longer than would be necessary here; a lot more happens in Gspell. But it integrates things nicely....
And don't hesitate to hit up my talk page if you run into any dead ends or need any help along the way.
-- MusicMaker5376 18:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I just read your userpage. You won't need my help.... -- MusicMaker5376 18:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! But many of those song pages refer to the Phantom as "Erik". Since he's never called that in the musical (nor, I believe, in Leroux's novel) he shouldn't be named here, either. (I don't know where that came about....) -- MusicMaker5376 18:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, good job. You're right, the synopsis is quite long, but I don't think it superfluously so. The link for the Masque of the Red Death goes to some Dungeons and Dragons page, and I'm sure that's not what you intended, so I'll fix that. I'm also going to slightly change the characterization of the Phantom: I don't believe it's ever established in the musical that he's an architect, nor do I think it's confirmed that he was disfigured from birth. I'll take your word for it that he's named Erik in the original novel -- I haven't read it in many, many years. I don't think anything from the Kay novel should be here, either. Since it was written after the musical and WELL after the orignal novel, it can be considered apochryphal. -- MusicMaker5376 04:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! The one thing I changed back was the thing about being disfigured from birth--in the musical there's a line about how a mask was the first piece of clothing he ever had, and Madame Giry also mentions that he was born disfigured. There's a persistent myth that the Phantom was disfigured by acid; so I thought it was important to mention that wasn't the case. Thanks for redirecting the Masque of the Red Death link, too--no, I didn't have the D&D Masque in mind, but the Poe one!
ITA about the Kay novel. I don't hold much stock in it myself, but a lot of fans seem to consider it the final work on the Phantom story and characters. Mademoiselle Sabina 05:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"A mask, my first unfeeling scrap of clothing...." Of course! Brain fart.... -- MusicMaker5376 05:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! And working on the AfDs for the songs. -- MusicMaker5376 05:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Song articles AfD

The AfD for the various songs can be found here. -- MusicMaker5376 18:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Pre-recorded lyrics

In the trivia section it states that pre-recorded lyrics are used during the title song due to the physical demands of the staging. I have heard the recorded music by itself and it only contains drums, organ, and 'choir' noise.

Body doubles are used during part of the scene (not difficult since the figures are cloaked and sillowetted) so the main actors are able to stand in the wings and sing easily.

The actors are not in the wings singing. They do use body doubles during certain sections, but that's so the actors have time to ascend the travelator and run around to the boat. The supplemental music and the vocal tracks are separate, and are mixed during the show (makes sense, since the Phantoms and Christines change). Mademoiselle Sabina 19:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the Phantom's name

I noticed that the following was deleted from the article: Although the Phantom's given name in the original Leroux novel is Erik, the character is neither referred to by this name nor listed as such at any point in the musical.

I'm putting it back, because it's an issue that has arisen before. before the article was cleaned up, the Phantom was referred to as Erik-this and Erik-that; I thought it was therefore important to clarify that he actually doesn't have this name officially in the show, and that is why it has not been used in this article. Mademoiselle Sabina 02:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1986 musical)

Why is this page at

The Phantom of the Opera (musical) is simply a redirect to this page. Pimlottc 05:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, look
The Phantom of the Opera (musical) probably should redirect here as it is the most well known, but refering to it specifically as the 1986 musical allows pages for the others. —  MusicMaker 06:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Clone

"With one exception, these productions have all been "clones," i.e., they use the original staging, direction, sets and costume concepts"

This is actually not entirly true. There are two notable differences in the "clones".

The first, and more important one is during "Wandering Child". In the London production this song is actually sung as a tripplet. Roul is already on stage at the beginning of the song, hiding from Christine and the Phantom. (He has his own lyrics, something about how Christine lets herself fool by the Phantom etc.) In all the other productions the tripplett is reduced to a duet and Rouls lines are cut.

The second difference: Length of the prolog before the Overture. The original production has three items beeing sold: 1. a skull and pistol, 2. Hannibal Poster, 3. Chandelier. Most productions (including the movie) cut the skull and pistol and start with the Hannibal Poster. FreddyE 07:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The key word is concepts. All the productions ARE clones because in spite of some subtle differences and deletions, they keep the same direction, the same costumes, the same sets, etc. The Hungarian production is the only one that has been allowed to take an entirely new directiorial and visual concept, as confirmed by the producers.
Also this page is about the stage show...what happens in the film is irrelevant here.

Other productions

Actually there are 2 german language versions. One is from Vienna (this is the older one), and one from Hamburg. The two versions differ greatly in their lyrics. (the only song completly the same in both versions is "The Phantom of the Opera"). The lyrics of the Vienna-Version stick more closely to the english lyrics. Today, only the Hamburg version is used. (the Vienna-Version hasn´t been used since the show closed in Vienna). FreddyE 07:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Premiere date contradiction

Am I just being stupid, or does it says in the intro that the musical opened in 1988, whereas in the main text it claims a 1986 premiere? Which is correct?

Both are correct. The show opened in London in 1986; it opened in 1988 in New York.

Phantom!: The Las Vegas Spectacular

Not sure where to cite it, so I didn't change it, but the statement that all of the songs were left in and in tact is not true. I just saw the Las Vegas production at The Venetian last week and "Magical Lasso" was notably missing. So, unless they just left it out on the performance of the night of November 20, 2006 (which I highly doubt), then it should be noted that it the song was left out. (DirtySocks85 04:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I attended the performance at the Venetian as well back in July, and I noticed the same thing. The show was definitely condensed. However, according to its official website (http://www.phantomlasvegas.com): "Phantom at The Venetian reunites Andrew Lloyd Webber, director Hal Prince, choreographer Gillian Lynne and others from the show's original creative team, who together reconceived their show into a 95-minute spectacular, including each and every song from the original production." In its list of musical numbers, "Magical Lasso" is also not listed. Is there a possibility the original production did not include this song either? I've never seen the original, so I wouldn't know. Lulu288 22:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly an interesting point of contention, I guess that it should be left alone for now and hopefully people will look at the talk page and notice the discrepancy. The only other suggestion I have on the matter would be to add it as sort of a side note but refer back to the quote from the official website. (DirtySocks85 04:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The Show's Orchestra

Should this be included? I removed it because it doesn't seem necessary... Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!)

Why would you think information about the show's orchestra is unnecessary? - Nunh-huh 01:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too much information. The whole article really goes a bit too in depth, this is supposed to be a general encyclopaedia, not an encyclopaedia of Phantom. It's aimed at the general reader and that level of detail and information would be fairly off putting. ChrisGlew 03:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia. Information is what we traffic in. People don't have to be protected from information, that's what they come to us for. - Nunh-huh 03:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there's no precedent for it in any other well-maintained musical theatre article on Wikipedia, nor is it mentioned in the guidelines. It's specialist informtation and overly-detailed, that can easily be found on an external website, it needs to go and stay gone for the sake of the article. 92.29.90.160 (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - I was wondering how the depth of scoring was handled and this provided the answer, depth of orchestra. However, these days, multivoxing can probably cover some of the parts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.19.178 (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Should we put a section in for stuff like the Terry Pratchett book which is a paradox of the movie, the fact that the music is supposedly stolen from Echoes by Pink Floyd etc?

Paradox or parody?
I agree about the Pink Floyd bit... 195.157.52.65 12:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information you indicate might fit in the article, but please try to integrate it into the prose instead of making a trivia section, per
WP:TRIV. W 06:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
A while ago I copied the section for plagiarism from the Echoes article, I figured such an accusation was serious enough to merit it's own heading. Since then I've Roger Waters was misquoted originally and fixed both quotes. Also, someone has censored profanity from the quote. I'm restoring it in it's entirety to the accurate version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.205.125 (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the wish to make a point about possible plagiarism, but it is not necessary to have violent and profanic quotes on this site. Remove the quotes please. (Silverbow5 (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The quote is what it is. The only questions should be: 1) is it accurate, and 2) is it relevant to the article. If both are true, then it is necessary. Wikipedia cannot be censored to meet the individual standards of every reader.--Edgewise (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom in Australia

"Phantom" has been performed in Australia before (c. 1990) at the Princess Theathre while it was in Melbourne, but also performed in other states too. This info is also mentioned in the Wiki for Anthony Warlow.203.46.95.243 01:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good point. I saw Phantom in 1996 in Sydney starring Rob Guest and Marina Prior - I think perhaps both the 90's run of the show and the current run be listed together, with the former stars listed alongside the current. At the moment it appears as though Warlow is the only one to ever portray the Phantom in Australia. Tinkstar1985 02:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel criticism I removed the sentence reading

Not many people have criticized him for this however, saying that he has not lost his creativity. [citation needed]

as I cannot find a source for this fact. I can find criticisms of the book, but not anyone criticising ALW for making a sequel. If anyone finds a source, go ahead and add it back in (without the irony please) with a cite. W 06:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well... if you mosey on down to the Andrew Lloyd Webber IMDb message boards you'll find plenty of people criticising him for making a sequel! That said I agree in the removal of the sentence, it is entirely unencyclopaedic. 92.29.90.160 (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted whoever put the show received "mostly negative" reviews from critics, that is incorrect. I found several references from the news and journals saying the sequel has "mixed" reviews, and it was not generally negative or generally positive. If you read a negative review, you have to tally in how many positive and neutral reviews the show received, because the show has mixed critical reception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.86.15 (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction Badly In Need of Cleaning

The current introduction is far too long. If someone gets a chance, please trim it down to at least 50% of its current size. A lot of the information there belongs somewhere in the body.

Russia/Poland

Could we put more information on the production in Poland. Also, where is there any evidence of a Russian production for 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.137.217.216 (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Her Majesty's Theatre

Phantom has been running for over 21 years at

Her Majesty's Theatre in London. Please vote as you think proper at this FA review: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Her Majesty's Theatre. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

France

Has there really never been a production of this musical in France? That seems unbelievable, given that it's based on a French novel. If that is true, is there some kind of legal barrier preventing it from being performed there? Funnyhat (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole musical has been translated to French and, to my knowledge, there are two recorded versions. Apart from the recordings there has never been an official French production. I don't think there's a legal barrier, someone could just pay for the rights, it's probably because the French are not that into musical theatre.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 22:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nous aimons le théâtre musical, mais il prend un peu de temps pour certains salons à venir ici. Si jamais il est venu ici, il jouera à Paris. Il est seulement un français langue d'enregistrement. La bande sonore française du film.
Whoever you are, please do not use the pronoun "nous" when referring to the French, since you clearly are not. Your French is not even as good as the pathetic automatic Google translations. En revanche, moi je suis Français, vrai de vrai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.147.83 (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We like musical theatre, but it takes a long time for some shows to come here. If it ever came here, it would come to Paris. There is only one French-language recording. The French soundtrack of the movie.

Non, il y en a plusieurs enregistrements, celle-ci de 1992 et un autre plus récent mais je le trouve pas sur internet et je me rappelle plus qui ce qui chante. T'est francais?--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 08:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


My understanding is that Broadway-style musicals never really do very well in France (at least in Paris). Didn't Les Misérables close after only 7 months there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linguosyntactico (talk • contribs) 16:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, the French are developing a major school of this of their own - Romeo and Juliet for example, reverses rock opera into opera with overtones of the Puy de Fou and Cirque du Soleil. Mozart is the latest target. It's just they're being typically chauvinistic about it, which is not necesarily a bad thing as competition sharpens the style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.19.178 (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Upgrade - Wikipedia-Worthy?

Many other shows have upgraded their sound, and it is not a big deal. It should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistoffeleescats1981 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Song articles

I've moved several articles about the songs from this musical to the Phantom of the Opera Wiki. If anyone is interested in adding information about those songs, the pages in question can be found here, here and here.

--Tiria (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal ranges

Are you sure Michael Crawford was a Tenor/Baritone in Phantom? I can remember sixteen years earlier when he did Hello, Dolly! his range wasn't much different, and I doubt Cornelius Hackl was a tenor/baritone. I can't find refs citing this, so I don't know what to do with it.

Thanks in advance, —

Hello! 22:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC).[reply
]

The character has been played by baritones. Timothy Nolan is one example. Gerald Butler is another. Although he's usually played by tenors, he never really goes that high, only up to an A-flat. He just tends to linger around the upper part of the staff. Also, he goes down alot lower than most tenor roles. He has a number of low A-flats in Music of the Night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.162.205 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom of the Opera vs. Judas Iscariot

Rick Wakeman wrote his Judas Iscariot 9 years before The Phantom of the Opera, the track can be found on Wakeman's Criminal Record, which unfortunately is out of stock. There are some similarities with Wakeman's Judas Iscariot and some of the pieces written by Webber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.174.34 (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

One of the footnotes concerning the Lloyd-Webber/Echoes plagiarism controversy has been vandalized with "who the heck does Roger Waters think he is?" or somesuch. I've not time right now to look for the correct version; so I'm letting those who edit this article know. --216.99.203.216 (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not vandalism. It's a reprint of a 1992 article from
Q magazine about Waters. It would be nice if someone can find out the author's name, but it seems legit. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Article improvement

Suggestions: The article needs a critical reception section. Also, would someone please look at the IBDB entry and fill in which characters sing which songs? I would delete the orchestration section. The pit orchestration for Phantom is not unusual for a B'way/WE show and so the orchestration is not notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1925 Silent Film

Since Gaston Leroux was mentioned, I was just wondering why nothing was mentioned about the 1925 silent film that was directed by Rupert Julian, an adaptation of the Gaston Leroux novel of the same title. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phantom_of_the_Opera_(1925_film) --KD8CMV (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help Editing - Michael Crawford awards

I am a new user, who was trying to add to the article the fact that Michael Crawford won a Tony and Olivier for this role. I used the sandbox and practiced, but when I put it in, it still came up with an error. I thought I cited the reference correctly, but I guess not. Could someone tell me what I did wrong and possibly correct it? I read the guidelines, but I must be still confused. Are we allowed to cite Wikipedia itself as a source? I have plenty of other sources for the fact, but I figured it would be the easiest to verify. Any help is appreciated.Darknightqueen (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you to use other sources to cite. It makes it more reliable. You can use the cite gadget to make citing articles easier. Go to the 'My Preferences' section on the menu tab at the top of the page. Click 'Gadgets'. Go to 'Editing gadgets'. Check 'refTools'. Save your options. A new Cite button will be added to your editing toolbar. BejinhanTalk 06:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Wikipedia is not a source, see
talk) 09:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Merger proposal

Merge in The Phantom of the Opera (current) There is little point for such a small page. It could easily be a section in the main article  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the article because the information in it is already contained in the article. In the characters sectionMark E (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have redirected the article to this one, all information was present here already so the article was pointless.Mark E (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you were somehow here again(song)

I was redirected from my Wishing you were somehow here again search to this article. I'm thinking about writing an article just for that song. What do you guys think? Should I or should I not? BejinhanTalk 06:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have something useful to add, properly referenced to an authoritative source, add it, and as discussed, as a submeme. Don't become a Greek Chorus, though: the synopsis question is tackled elsewhere here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.19.178 (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rating

Have been looking carefully at this article in the context of a request for GA nomination of

Phantom of the Opera (2004 film). It appears to me that this article provides a lot more detail than the one on the film and therefore deserves at least a class B. Ipigott (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Alan Jay Lerner Contribution

Hello, I noticed the article seems to contradict itself with regard to Lerner's contribution. It says in the intro he wrote Masquerade, then under Development it says none of his contributions remained in the show. Here and in other places I have seen him given credit for Masquerade, but he is not officially credited, only Hart and Stilgoe are listed as lyricists. If he did contribute to Masquerade, why wouldn't he be credited as one of the lyricists? It's a curious inconsistency, at least. Dagurasum (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to make the same observation, then noticed it had already been made.
My understanding is Lerner joined the project as a favor to Lloyd Webber (he was already quite sick), and did the early block-out of Masquerade, but decided he couldn't continue when he began experiencing symptoms that turned out to be due to brain mets from his lung cancer -- so he withdrew, and in so doing, relinquished any credit rights. Hart finished up the song, Stilgoe tweaked it later, and that was that. So the "Development" section should probably say something like "Lerner is not *credited* with any contributions to the show." And if I can locate a verifiable citation to confirm my recollection, I'll add it. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's over a month later with no further discussion, I'm going to make the change. And since I can't find any corroboration anywhere that Lerner gets any credit for Masquerade, I think we need to take that out too -- unless somebody has any such documentation. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is S. Simmons?

The article states (without attribution) that some of the lyrics were written by "a mysterious author known only as S. Simmons." Sez who? I can't find any corroboration of this anywhere, and there is no mention of anyone by that name on my old vinyl Original Cast album. In fact, there seems to be no mention of an "S. Simmons" anywhere, except on Web postings that have plagiarized this article verbatim. Is it possible some wise ass added it as a prank, and nobody caught it? Does/did such a person even exist? Even if he/she did, do we have any info to support a contribution to this show's creation? Unless somebody can find a credible source to validate this entry, I vote for deleting it. DoctorJoeE (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no response, I will delete this questionable content in a couple of days unless someone comes up with a credible source. DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ERIK. Again.

Now it says Michael Crawford played "Erik" in the original show. He played "The Phantom" it NEVER mentions his name being Erik in this version, so his name is NOT Erik in this version. This is about Andrew Lloyd Webber's play and he intentionally did NOT give him a name. He could have EASILY added it in (during madame Giry's back story for example) but he chose not to and therefore it should NOT be listed as the characters name under who played the part. I would remove it myself but I don't know how to keep it linked to that article while saying simply "The Phantom" but it needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsox05 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we can't simply take your word for this. Do you have a reference? DoctorJoeE (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this categorised as a Sung-Through Musical?

It does have spoken dialogue. The opening parts aren't even sung.

talk) 04:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

"You are my hiding place"

Any way to mention that this song closely resembles the title song a lot too? ("In sleep he sang to me...") ironmagma (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless you have a citable source; otherwise it's
WP:OR. DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
This has been noted on at least one other site so that could potentially be cross-referenced. The first two lines are virtually identical and the Christian song is a few years earlier. 2A00:23C4:CF49:8400:9838:115B:83F4:E99B (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The comment above was by me, I hadn't realised I wasn't logged in. Hyperman 42 (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A real Daaé?

There are one or two details which suggest Leroux might have had some real singers of the 1890s in mind - Emma Calvet, in particular, who as a soubrette was nothing remarkable until she spent 6 months trainig at the hands of Domenico Mustafà, the last of the Vatican Castrati. Her roles are very close to those portrayed, moreover - Marguerite from Gounod's Faust and David's Lalla-Roukh are relevant in The Phantom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.19.178 (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

25th Anniversary

I'm concerned about the section on the 25th anniversary performance in October, for several reasons:

  • It's unsourced (as someone has already pointed out).
  • It hasn't happened yet -- doesn't that violate
    WP:CRYSTALBALL
    ?
  • It reads like an advertisement, which violates all sorts of rules.

I don't think it belongs in the article until after it happens (and perhaps not even then) -- and I suggest we remove it. DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really CRYSTAL, because if true, it's a planned event and it's OK to talk about it (see, for instance, the 2012 and 2016 Olympics articles). But it is unsourced and it's full of PR blather with lists of roles and other things, which we don't do. If/When it does happen, we should take care to add non-PEACOCK stuff like critical reception and ticket sales, as well as special roles and appearances (maybe ALW will show up, hah). I've removed it completely for the bime being. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So if it's true, it's okay to talk about it -- which means it could be mentioned within the "West End" section as a future event. If I can find an appropriate reliable source, I'll add it back as one sentence within that section, if nobody objects to that. DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

gentle waves falling from grace plagiarism

i believe this song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygzhz1GweN4 plagiarises phantom, but i'm having trouble finding a reliable source

anyone help --

Mongreilf (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]


Haha, I noticed that too.... they definitely have parts that sound very similar... 108.52.113.175 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vicomte de Chagny?

This isn't the most earthshaking issue in the world -- but I'd love to know if anyone has the answer:

The show, as we all know, begins at the end -- and Raoul is introduced as "the elderly Vicomte de Chagny." Why is he still a Viscount? If he is elderly, he should be the Count by now, unless his father is still alive, which seems unlikely, and no reference to his father is made anywhere in the musical, movie, or book, AFAIK.

Occam's Razor dictates that this just be written off as a plotting error -- but is there another explanation? Has this ever come up for discussion before? Just askin', DoctorJoeE (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is another explanation. It is a French noble, not a British peer! The father is a viscount, vicomte, not an earl or count. And although not very common, there are families that have been granted the right for the children to bear the same title and rank of the father, while him being alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.68.210 (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I knew somebody would come up with the answer eventually! Thanks. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 04:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone is confusing a courtesy title and a substantive title. Viscount/Vicomte is one of the five substantive ranks of the British peerage (or seven substantive titles of French nobility) and thus may be inherited from Viscount father to Viscount son, without any courtesy upgrade to Count. Of course, this would mean that Raoul's father had died before 1881 (so that Raoul wouldn't be addressed, in French or in English, by the courtesy title of Baron). Or that Raoul had been ennobled as a Vicomte himself (before 1848, when they stopped handing out such titles; this would have made Raoul at least 33 years old in 1881, even if he became Vicomte when he was a newborn). And equally of course, Vicomte and all other French hereditary titles were abolished in 1870 with the fall of the Second Empire. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GIven the time period and setting (1880-1905, France), we don't need to worry about British Peerage tradition, but rather French law. The feudal system of titles was abolished in the Revolution, on 4 August 1789, and titles of nobility were abolished 23 June 1790. But they were brought back by Napoleon in 1808 and continued to be created until 1870, when France became a Republic. Titles were not abolished at the time, though on 10 May 1875 the President of the Republic decided not to confer or confirm them. In subsequent (French) court decisions, titles are considered part of one's legal name, and are protected in French civil and criminal courts. Regulation of titles is carried out by a bureau of the Ministry of Justice. - Nunh-huh 18:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism section

Frankly, I find the sources given for the sentence "In 1987, the heirs of Giacomo Puccini charged in a lawsuit that the climactic phrase in "Music of the Night" closely resembled a similar phrase in the sequence "Quello che tacete" from Puccini's opera Girl of the Golden West.[40] The litigation was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.[41][42]" completely unconvincing.

No. 40 (http://sfist.com/2010/06/25/hear_the_opera_andrew_lloyd_webber.php) is a link to a blog post that notes the similarities between the melody of one section of Music of the Night with one section of the melody of Puccinni's Quello Che Tacete from The Girl of the Golden West. The only source it gives is a news article which has long since disappeared from the web but appears to have merely been publicity for a local production of Girl of the Golden West. The information likely came from this Wikipedia page!

No. 41 (http://www.opera-australia.org.au/scripts/nc.dll?OPRA:STANDARD:0:pc=PC_90885) is a dead link - perhaps to program notes at the Opera Australia website? Whatever it was, it was far from a primary source.

No 42 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/theater/bckgrnd/lloydwebber.htm) is merely from a rather dismissive introduction to an interview with Lloyd Webber. The only thing relevant is the sentence "He is, they huff, just a pint-size Puccini, and not above borrowing the occasional Puccini tune, either.". This is certainly any source for the sentence in this article.

So where did the 1987 date come from? Where did the information that it was settled out of court come from? I believe that this is all rumour, one that has persisted in this article long enough. It is doubtful and harmful so I have removed it. Registeringjusttoconcealmyip (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please read relevant info about removing longstanding content; you need to gain consensus before doing so. The Puccini court case is a matter of public record, and there *was* a direct link to it in the references at one time. I have no idea who removed it, but thanks for pointing it out; I'll track it down and put it back in when I get a bit of time. As for the heading change to "alleged plagiarism", that is a fair point; I doubt anyone will object to it. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a copy right claim by Rick Wakeman according to the German Wikipedia page on him (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Wakeman). It says that the epic opening has been taken from his song Judas Iscariot which does sound very similar indead. I recommend that the editors of this article have a closer look at these claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.192.25.13 (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Albert Hall production

Hi,

I'm new to EN, not to WP, though. I did change a fact on the front page, gave some information on it, and where I found the information. It got reverted stating this:

Undid revision 465157344 by T3rminat0r (talk): If you wish to contest this change, please do so on the talk page.

And yea, I'd like to contest that, reverting without any proper reason is plain rude, spam and vandalism aside. Anyone mind giving any REASON for that revert? --T3rminat0r (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did the change again, this time with a source other than imdb ... --T3rminat0r (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operetta or Opera?

I question whether the lead line about Phantom of the Opera being an Operetta is correct, to use ourselves as a source, "Operetta is a genre of light opera, light in terms both of music and subject matter. It is also closely related, in English-language works, to forms of musical theatre". As anyone who has seen any adaptation knows, Phantom far better fits the definition of Opera than Operetta. I think that the line should be changed to say that Phantom of the Opera is an Opera but didn't want to act unilaterally. Cat-five - talk 08:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you didn't because that would constitute
WP:OR. You need a reliable source classifying it as opera. I don't know of any, but if you can find one, you can certainly make the argument. However, as we've discussed before, Phantom is not sung through -- that is, the plot-driven dialogue is spoken, not sung, as it would be in an opera; and the songs cannot really be classified as arias, because time does not always "stop" during them -- both of which, by most definitions, take it out of the opera category. Frankly, I prefer to use the term Lloyd Webber uses -- musical -- but it's just not an important enough point for me. If it is for you, by all means, make your case if you can back it with an RS or two. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 18:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
No more than calling it an Opera without sourcing it (as is currently the case in the article) is
WP:OR. If the plot is spoken that would make it a musical, not an Opera. The link already pointed to musical theater where Phantom was on the list of musicals in that article, I just changed the label from operetta to musical on this article. I'll also add a [citation needed] tag since it probably should be backed up by a source outside of WP. Cat-five - talk 00:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Prologue years

The text in the article (under Synopsis, Prologue) says the prologue takes place in 1911. The year even has a non-web citation: "Jacqueline Martin (1995) "Understanding theatre: performance analysis in theory and practice". p.143. Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995"

This citation doesn't exist (at least I can't find it) and was edited in on 8/17/11 to replace a dead link by MusoForde, who was a sock puppet of LisaSandford who has been blocked indefinitely. I normally would have inserted a query on MusoForde's talk page, inquiring about her reference. In this case, I can't.

I noticed that in the 25th anniversery concert the prologue occurs in 1905. I looked and have found several sources that also say it took place in 1905 in the original play. (The prologue does occur in 1911 in the Las Vegas production and 1919 in the film. Maybe RUG uses the year to track different versions of Phantom.) I therefore have changed it to 1905, replacing the citation. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Opéra?

In the synopsis, the play's setting is referred to as the

Paris Opéra. This is wrong. In the first place, the Paris Opéra is the company that stages the operas, not the building (Palais Garnier
) in which they are staged. More important, the play always refers to its setting as the Opera Populaire. (Perhaps Lloyd Webber wanted to avoid any copyright problems with the Paris Opéra.) Also this theatre (from what we can tell) specializes in light opera or operettas ("popular operas"?), not classical opera. Even the book by Leroux refers to the locale as simply "the Opéra".

Shouldn't we substitute something like "the fictionalized Opera Populaire" or "the fictionalized Opera Populaire (based on the Paris Opéra)", rather than simply the wikilinked Paris Opéra, both here and in the article about the film? Your comments? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major Productions?

Given that the Canadian Production ran 10 years straight, made a music video and released its on cast Album, should it be entitled to be listed as a major production under the major productions cast section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.55.182 (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception section

Needs one. Pretty much the most important part of the article to anyone not familiar with the subject matter (which is not me by the way - love this musical :D) is missing.--Coin945 (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new paragraph about the Broadway critical reception in the section Broadway. Not brave enough to create a new section though :( Hope this helps! Ethkurand (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selected anniversaries - Main page

Hi, just highlighting that if the yellow tagged issue with the lack of references in the Other productions section can be resolved, this article would be eligible for the selected anniversaries on October 9, which features on the main page. Whizz40 (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers. —

Talk to my owner:Online 04:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Some exciting
TAFI
news!

A series of articles under this topic have been nominated at

The Today's Article For Improvement project. What we do is organise collaborations between editors whereby each week we focus on bringing an article up to GA/FA. Please head over there and support (or oppose) the nominated articles.--Coin945 (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Plagiarism quote

An IP recently attempted to remove a quote from the plagiarism section. This diff shows it being restored: "Life's too long to bother with suing Andrew fucking Lloyd Webber," he said. "I think that might make me really gloomy.

The IP's reasoning was fallacious, but why is the quote there? The article is about the musical, and significant responses to it of course need to be included, but the general procedure with legal claims is to stick with the bare facts, and "He has never taken any legal action" is all that is needed. The fact that Waters made a quotable quote is not encyclopedic information relevant to this article, and the degree of prominence given to an untested claim of plagiarism should not depend on the interest factor of the wording used. I support removal. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with any edit based on the value/relevance of the quotation. The IP's stated intent was the removal of one word: "fucking" by any means at his disposal, which is a blatant breach of
Wikipedia policy IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical). 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.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical). 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.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical). 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.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Production list

Can someone remove the 2018 USA tour listed in the production section on the info box? The tour is the 25th anniversary version from 2013 and not a new one. Kay girl 97 (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been wrecked, needs to be fixed in line with other articles about musicals

Why has this page been totally butchered recently?

Needs to have a "Productions" section immediately restored with all productions (major and international) placed in one section under the synopsis and Cast.

The way it looks now is fucken terrible, everything is all over the damn place. Synopsis and musical numbers should always be top section, followed by Cast Lists, followed by Development History followed by Production history, followed by Soundtrack and Film Adaptation information, followed by everything else... This was totally wrecked. Let's fix it back up guys. 

Colliric (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable grammar right in the first sentence

The book ... "which also contributed with additional lyrics" -- what is that suppose do mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.32.131 (talk • contribs)

No idea, but I found the edit which made that change and other dubious changes and reverted it. DonIago (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Original Casts Besides Broadway and West End

I noticed this article includes the original casts from places other than Broadway and the West End. Does this mean pages for other musicals should include these? I was on another musical's talk page where someone brought up including the original Australian cast, then told no because it was not Broadway or West End. RaCJ1325 (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this question might be better directed to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre. I looked for an MoS that might address the subject but couldn't readily find one. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved The Phantom of the Opera to The Phantom of the Opera (novel) and The Phantom of the Opera (disambiguation) to The Phantom of the Opera. There is clear opposition for removing the parenthetical disambiguator from the musical, and clear support for adding the disambiguator for the novel and moving the DAB page to the undisambiguated title. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– While the novel inspired the musical and came first, it has generally around 2-to-1 page viewership compared to the novel. It seems that it is generally the

WP:PTOPIC TartarTorte 19:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose. If anything, then The Phantom of the Opera (disambiguation) suggests that there is no primary. Gonnym (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and move main to the disambiguation, the films alone bring this to a disamb. page , and if not the novel should remain primary per long-term significance. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1st, neutral on 2nd. There may well be no primary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it seems that this is hurdling towards opposition to moving the musical to
    WP:NOTBURO). TartarTorte 13:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Sure, seems good. Gonnym (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the 1986 move, that is clearly not the primary topic. Alternative move the disambiguation page to the primary location -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 07:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Phantom_of_the_Opera_(1986_musical)&oldid=1194318078"