Talk:Buddy: The Buddy Holly Story

Synopsis[edit]

The plot synopsis included with this article when it was created was copied verbatim from the musical's official website. I edited it to avoid any question of copyright violations. It was expanded, making it once again too similar to the synopsis on the website. As it stands now, it serves its purpose without risking copyright violation. I suggest it remain as is. Thank you. SFTVLGUY2 21:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre was created by people who abandoned the project long ago. With new blood comes new ideas and new ways of doing things. There is nothing to be gained by either clinging to the past or making unnecessary changes to articles just for the sake of doing so. A plot summary belongs at the beginning of an article, not buried at the end, and it's not supposed to be a near copy from another source. SFTVLGUY2 21:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Wikipedia is not for "teasers". There needs to be a serious treatment of the plot for musicals. You are deleting useful information from articles. Please stop. -- Ssilvers 02:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated twice, your version comes dangerously close to copyright violation, a fact you continue to ignore. It also sounds like a mini-bio of Holly rather than a synopsis of the musical's plot. SFTVLGUY2 13:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facts are not copyrightable. This description is nothing close to a copyright problem. However, if you wish to edit it in a way that does not delete important information, that would be great. -- Ssilvers 15:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with "facts" and everything to do with your blithlely ignoring that your synopsis is a near-copy of the one on the musical's official website, which constitutes a copyright violation. SFTVLGUY2 17:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE stop referring to my removal of your copyright-violating synopsis as "vandalism." Your childish games are becoming tiresome. SFTVLGUY2 17:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a game. I am completely serious. You are destroying valuable information on Wikipedia. Please stop. There is no copyrighted info in this plot summary. -- Ssilvers 18:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your claims to the contrary, it is very similar to the synopsis on the musical's official website. I'm destroying nothing, and to be accused of such by someone who whiles away his hours editing the work of others, while I have created nearly 400 original articles, most of them theatre-oriented, doesn't disturb me in the least. SFTVLGUY2 19:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both points valid...[edit]

It does seem like quite a few of the sentences in the article read almost exactly like the official website. Perhaps you two could take a look at particular sentences and rewrite them? That way the copyvio material would be rewritten, while the article can keep the important information. Just a suggestion... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SatyrTN has a point, you both do a lot of work for wikipedia. I would hope that you could find a compromise, rather than reversing each other's work. While one would hope to respect copyright, there must be some summary of the copyright material that is acceptable and remains factually accurate. Kbthompson 23:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also ask those involved to not tread on WP:CANVAS and similar guidelines in asking for outside opinions. If things escalate, an admin should be asked to comment. María: (habla conmigo) 23:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I have added another reference and revised the plot summary to, I hope, avoid any lingering copyright issues. Please feel free to contribute, everyone. Note that the attribution of Why Do Fools Fall in Love (song) partly to Morris Levy is controversial. Should we list it as Frankie Lymon & the Teenagers? -- Ssilvers 00:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be a johnny-come-lately...but I'll just add that SatyrTN pretty much says it all. Look for those places where the wording exactly matches the website and rewrite them. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 02:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on copyright (or indeed on Buddy Holly) but the page as it stands seems to my lay eye quite different from the show's website, and I should be very surprised if any objection were made to it on grounds of copyright. Tim Riley 07:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not look like a copyright violation to me. But then again, I'm no expert. --Savant13 11:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the person who created this article copied the synopsis from the website verbatim. I removed it and rewrote it based on my own recollections of the show. Since I subscribe to the belief that less is better when discussing plotlines, it was concise but clear and certainly gave a good indication of the subject matter. Personally, I feel due to all the extraneous facts that now have been added to make this less similar to the musical's website, the plot synopsis reads more like a bio of Buddy Holly and/or a history of the American music scene in the late-1950s than it does a summary of the show. For example, that the Crickets may have inspired the Beatles could be true, but this show ends long before the Beatles came on the music scene, so any mention of them in the plot summary is invalid.

I am puzzled by the comment "Note that the attribution of Why Do Fools Fall in Love (song) partly to Morris Levy is controversial. Should we list it as Frankie Lymon & the Teenagers?" I am assuming that Ssilvers is referring to the writing credit next to the title in the song list. This credit is as it appears in the program and on the cast recording. Why would it be appropriate to change it? If there was any "controversy" about the song's authorship in real life, it was not mentioned in this production and therefore should not be discussed here. This article is about a musical about Buddy Holly, not Holly himself, and as such I believe it should stick to the content of the production and not introduce subject matter that was not part of the show. Discussion about any controversy re: the creators of the song should be limited to the song's article or articles about the people in question. Thank you. SFTVLGUY2 14:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your first point, and I will remove the reference to The Beatles. But I am not sure I agree about the credit for the song. If the song was NOT written by Morris Levy, I don't think we should credit him, even if the show's program contained an error. Is it stated in the script of the play that Levy was a co-writer of the song? If not, why shouldn't we correct the songlist? -- Ssilvers 15:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EMI Music Publishing indicates the song was written by Frankie Lymon and Morris Levy [1]. SFTVLGUY2 16:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't see any mention of a blizzard in any of the sources about the show. There was no blizzard on the night, historically. Is a blizzard mentioned in the script? -- Ssilvers 17:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to [2], "A cold N.E wind immediately gave way to a snow which drastically reduced visibility," and photos at [3] show the ground covered with snow. SFTVLGUY2 20:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. -- Ssilvers 20:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Yes - the storm is described as a "blizzard" by one of the characters in the script. I beleive it is the Clearlake MC in the backstage scene with Buddy. Smatprt 04:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decca and local producers[edit]

The plot summary currently omits any mention of the scenes from the play in which Buddy and the Crickets have difficulties with Texas and Nashville, where producers won't accept their rock and roll music instead of C&W. I suggest something like: "They struggle for a time in Texas and then in Nashville, where producers want the group to record country and western music, but Buddy and The Crickets want to play rock and roll." My sentence from the plot summary along these lines was deleted. Do you have a better way to describe this part of the show's plot? Regards, -- Ssilvers 20:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your wording was confusing. After stating Holly began "as a teenage country music singer in Texas with The Crickets," you added "They struggle for a time in Texas, where the fans and producers are more receptive to country and western music than to the group's rock and roll sound," leaving the reader to wonder why a "country music singer" had a "rock and roll sound." In any event, it again becomes a question of how much is too much. We differ greatly in our approach to summarizing a plot. You prefer an excessive length revealing every detail, while I favor sticking to a more concise synopsis that offers a good understanding of the subject without all the "then he said, then she responded, then he crossed stage left" minutiae. Unfortunately, as I mentioned previously, in this case all the added info is making the article sound more like a Holly bio than a musical theatre article. I personally feel it's sufficient as is. Respectfully, SFTVLGUY2 14:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. I have added the necessary sentence, since it is wrong to leave out a description of these scenes from the musical. I would be happy to get a Request for Comment on the article if you cannot live with my recent addition, but that would likely result in the article being reorganized with proper headings, etc. so you may wish to leave it alone now. -- Ssilvers 14:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

recent changes[edit]

Among other additions, I've made a number of recent changes to the synopsis. I'm sorry to say this, but it is simply full of little mistakes. I am familiar with the show and have a script in hand. I will make more corrections over the next few days.Smatprt 05:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, 'cause I don't have the script. But in the Synopsis section, just tell what happens in the script. Don't say "The play begins....", just describe the action. If you want to explain something *about* the show, do it in the discussion above. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 07:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for expansion[edit]

It would be great if someone who was up on Buddy Holy (the man, not the show) were to add a section comparing the show to events in real life - or perhaps explaining where the show differed from life. That way the info about Waylon Jennings, etc. would have a place in the article (just not the synopsis).Smatprt 13:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Nicely done on the headings and format work. Nice compromise on the awards issue. I'm all for incorporating lists into prose wherever possible. Smatprt 16:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks. I agree with your suggestion above, but I don't have the info. Maybe if you leave a message on the Buddy Holly talk page? But maybe you should wait until you finish refining the synopsis. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 17:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be added that this musical is at the moment being performed in Reykjavik, Icleand. (Opening october 7th 2010.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.138.44 (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Buddy – The Buddy Holly Story. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 08:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]