Talk:Hair (musical)/Archive 1

Early Productions
I just checked p. 12 of Jonathan Johson's "Good Hair Days" which lists the cast of the original Off-Bway Joe Papp Hair and Kenny Seymour is not listed .. I'm pretty sure he was in the original Bway run so I'm going to move him over there -- Mblaxill 22:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just changed the number of performances for the original Bway run to 1,750 .. i checked IBDB and noticed that thier number was different then what wiki stated (also didn't see a citation) - then i checked this Hair article - http://www.michaelbutler.com/hair/holding/articles/HairArticles/NYT5-17-72.html - and it seems to agree with the IBDB number so i went ahead and made the change -- Mblaxill 20:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The 1750 number seems right to me. Don't remember where I saw it -- probably in some list of longest-running musicals.  I thought that 1800s number looked wrong.  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  17:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the reference to Diane Keaton NOT doing the nude scene - I don't think it's really necessary to say this (i suspect it got put in there by her publicist). It's off topic, non sequitur-like (imho) - Thoughts? -- Mblaxill 18:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nudity not an issue
The theatre arts department of Castleton State College put on its production of Hair this weekend. From what I heard before I saw itFriday night, the issue of nudity and its impact on those who saw it was akin to tearing a single page out of War and Peace: it barely made a dent. There wasn't any nudity during the Act I finale, like the article says. However, there was nudity some time into Act II, but it was dark towards the rear of the stage so I could just about make it out. JB82 22:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"[edit] Players The original New York "tribe" (i.e., cast) included James Rado, Gerome Ragni, Shelley Plimpton, Kim Milford, Melba Moore, Paul Jabara, Sally Eaton, and Diane Keaton. ****Keaton did not appear nude in the musical's first act finale.*** The Los Angeles tribe included James Rado, Ben Vereen, Gerome Ragni, Ted Neeley, Dolores Hall, Meat Loaf, Jobriath Salisbury, Jennifer Warren (Warnes), Dobie Gray, Susan Morse, Abigail Haines, Willie Weatherly, Tata Vega, and Jerry Combs. *** Did Meatloaf appear nude in the first act finale?*** The original London tribe included Sonja Kristina, Paul Nicholas, Richard O'Brien, Melba Moore, Elaine Paige, Paul Korda, Tim Curry, Marsha Hunt, and Alex Harvey. *** Did Tim Curry appear nude in the first act finale? (How d'ya do, I see you've met my...")*** The original Sydney tribe included Marcia Hines, Sharon Redd, Reg Livermore, Keith Glass and John Waters. The Melbourne tribe included Chuck McKinney and Michael Caton. *** Did John Waters appear nude in the first act finale? Is that the same guy who did "Pink Flamingoes?" *** The original Berlin tribe included Donna Summer. ***Nude?*** A special benefit performance of the show was performed at the New Amsterdam Theater in New York City on September 20, 2004. The tribe included: Shoshana Bean, JM J. Bullock, Liz Callaway, Gavin Creel, Harvey Fierstein, Ana Gasteyer, Annie Golden, Jennifer Hudson, Jai Rodriguez, RuPaul, Michael McKean, and others. ***Did RuPAUL appear nude???? Any interesting views?**** The off-Broadway production also included Kenny Seymour of Little Anthony and The Imperials *** My GOD, even Little Anthony and the Imperials might have been nude***

"Eatin' together, sleepin' together, SHAMEFUL!!!" ---Farmer's Daughter TV

Themes?
I think there should be a section exploring the musical's themes and how different parts of the story play into the political and social atmospheres and realms of the time it was written and the different themes examined in the musical itself. (Ibaranoff24 00:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC))

Song lists
The lengthy song lists detract from this article, they take up a lot of space and are difficult to read. I suggest they are made into comma seperated lists or a table. Lumos3 16:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree somewhat, but the use of tables in this instance is discouraged. See How to use tables. Clarkbhm 16:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Mblaxill 00:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Notable past productions
This section could become a list of every amateur production ever performed. I suggest we keep it to past profesional productions which are Notable. Lumos3 00:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we really care what reviews the South African tour got? If you're going to include a bad review at least put a positive in for npov -mblaxill <22:04, August 26, 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you look through the history, you'd see that the South African production was one of the most well-covered in the article. It was a little ridiculous, and another editor suggested I cut it down, and it was at that level when you got to it.  I thought I had left it well-balanced, but you're welcome to check the history and balance it however you see fit.  In response to the question in your edit summary, no, I would not suggest removing the entire paragraph.  There's no sense in denying that the production existed.  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  23:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks .. Agree about not removing whole paragraph .. other notable ones opening soon are an NYC production by a Neighborhood Playhouse affiliated group opening this weekend that Rado is promoting on his website (and may be helping with.. not sure)...details here http://www.hairthemusical.com/en00555journal.html - and a Michael Butler-produced Hair in LA that opens at the Met Theater on Sept 9th - details here http://www.plays411.com/newsite/show/play_info.asp?show_id=1104 Mblaxill 00:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

How about including the (unsuccessful) '77 Bway revival? Mblaxill 00:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we can't use the word "unsuccessful" without anything to back it up. We can say that it had a short run, that it was panned by critics, that it lost money, etc., but we have to back up the claim that it was unsuccessful with some sort of fact.  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  02:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * had a short run is ok - thanks! -- Mblaxill 03:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I edited out some of the unclarified content for the '92 Australian and '93 London revivals - not sure what the sources were for these. I thought some of the extras weren't really important enough to state (or over-state). I'd be glad to put them back in if anyone has objections - Mblaxill (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's the right approach. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Source: Conversation with Rado by editor?
Er, doesn't this violate the Wikipedia standard of no original research?

Is "current productions" encyclopedic?
Anyone have a problem if I deleted it?Jarfingle 21:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Editor who talked to Rado
Mr. Rado asked me to explain the situation, that he no longer supported the show. When someone added to the article that they were not sure why because it was a hit, I felt I should add an explanation and explain my source before they accused me of supposition. Sorry if I went outside the lines.

This article needs so much work
Way too much information about the history (with stilted writing) up front without any context. Kind of a hodge-podge elsewhere. The real sense of the production is lost. Moncrief 15:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why whine about it? Fix it!  I did what I could.  -- Ssilvers 18:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Plot?
I seriously thought about changing Thescene, where he says, "If I was invisible, I could do anything!"

to

Warning: extremely long description of plot here. Thescene, where he says, "If I was invisible, I could do anything!"

No, but seriously, what is the musical even about--other than just 'hair.'

Wondering what the source is for the plot description - I have a few questions..

- Why are you describing Woof as a "bisexual" when the everyone's sexuality is pretty ambiguous. Woof actually denies he's gay at one point and at another point goes nuts over a Mick Jagger poster. I guess it's technically right but there are other bisexuals in the cast as well.. like Claude and Berger!! They both live with Shiela in a three way type deal and at one point when they're talking about Claude's penis, Sheila says to Berger - "you had it last!"

- Not sure if Hud is an official Black Panther (is that from the latest script?) - he's definitely militant - I've seen the show a bunch of times but I don't remember a specific reference to his being a Panther

- the "gift of sex" at the end wasn't in the original script I don't think. The official TAMS script has been updated a few times and Rado tried more updates in a recent Toronto CanStage production. While this may be in the current script, it's a minor plot point imho and something that may be changed in future revisions. I recommend deleting it

-also recommend deleting "the Tribe releases him" (re Claude at the end) - not sure where that comes from. The end of the show is very non-linear .. Claude goes offstage, jump ahead to protest with snow falling, tribe wonders where Claude is (where's Claude?), Claude enters in military uniform saying "they got me" - they sing Flesh Failures/ Let the Sunshine In, the end of which Claude is lying down in a symbolic coffin

There's contact info for Rado on his website. Maybe run the plot by him and have him sign off on it. Hope this helps! -- Mblaxill 00:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

With questions like this, it sure does need work!
If you are looking for sophisticated character development and a multi-layered plot, read Pushkin, Dostoevsky or Pasternak, not a "Tribal Love-Rock Musical"!

I question whether anyone could ascertain the plot without having seen it performed. Like all good theatre, (Ancient Greek Playwrights and Shakespeare are my favourites), reading it is a very poor substitute for the performance experience. I doubt if the nude scene means anything more than sensationalism when taken out of context, yet seen during the play, it makes perfect sense.

I fell in love with the play when I saw it in San Diego in 1971. The audience was "warmed up" by a nearly nude man with a wireless mike, who flirted amongst us. The opening was complete darkness, with lighting slowly arising to the point of perception while the entire cast crawled down the aisles in slow motion to very spooky, spacey music. The closing scene was when the entire cast invited all of us to dance on-stage to the excellent band, so it was a real be-in, albeit not my first or last. I lived in Southern California and went to college there during most of the 70's, and some of my friends actually used drugs.

I acquired an LP of the *original* Off-Broadway production from the under-construction Public Theater, "New York Shakespeare Festival" production. The orchestrations are so simple, I can easily accompany all of the songs on bass, drums, guitar or keyboard, and I am by no means a professional musician.W8IMP 20:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

First sentence
Anyone else think the first sentence of the article is a little simplistic and degrading? &mdash; Music Maker  05:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? Do you object to the word hippies?  My friends who have done and love the show have read the sentence and thought that it was as good a description as they could come up with.  -- Ssilvers 05:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol -- I definitely don't object to the word "hippies". It just makes it sound like it's about drugs and flowers as opposed to a reaction to the times.  The Vietnam war isn't even mentioned for another three sections.  Granted, the whole thing isn't about the war, but it really is a pervading presence in the work.  The sentence just seems like it trivializes the entire movement.  &mdash;  Music Maker  06:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, it could probably be written a little more sociologically. I added reference to the war, but if you can think some deep thoughts, go ahead and put pen to paper, so to speak. Meanwhile, I put up a stub for Isabel's a Jezebel. -- Ssilvers 06:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sweet. &mdash; Music Maker  06:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Meh. A little POV? &mdash; Music Maker  07:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this phrase needs support: "Several of MacDermot's tunes from Hair became anthems of the peace movement" as does the pantheon sentence (or it could be deleted). -- Ssilvers 16:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Influence/Popular Culture
What distinctions are we making between these two categories? .. maybe just get rid of one of the categories and put all references (like the Seinfeld one) together -- Mblaxill 17:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This could really use some more information about the mainstreaming of hippie culture / psychedelica that Hair was at the forefront of. Also about the influence of the soundtrack, and all the "rock musicals" that were inspired by it. 151.204.215.23 04:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Liner notes
This is what original cast member Lorrie Davis says about the scene with Sheila and Claude in the liner notes:


 * "In that scene, Sheila was supposed to strip and make love to Claude onstage on a real bed. Claude sang 'Exanaplanatooch,' Sheila sang 'Climax.' Neither worked, so both were cut and 'The Bed' was added and sung by the chorus. The scene was always being taken out [during rehearsals] then put back in or rearranged. But it just never worked, and Sheila remained a virgin throughout the play." (emphasis mine)

I know some productions today restore the sex scene, but clearly the original Broadway version and most subsequent productions lacked it. -- Mwalcoff 03:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All of the productions that I have ever seen, including the one in which I played Sheila, have included the sex scene at the end.  In addition, berger makes numerous references to sleeping with Sheila throughout the show, and at the opening of Act II Berger explicitly asks her to sleep with Claude as a going away present.  I will consult the Libretto, but I have to disagree.  Thanks --Broadwaygal 13:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Broadwaygal, please do not be offended if I suggest having to consult your libretto in order to remember whether or not you stripped and had sex on-stage speaks to your professionalism.--W8IMP 02:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't offended at all.  I didn't strip.  It's not porn. It's very easy to hint that something is happening without actually stripping naked and simulating sex.  --Broadwaygal 13:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Assessment
I upgraded the assessment to "B-class", since the article is fairly comprehensive and has been improved lately, although the productions/revivals information is kind of rambling. Can any of those little paragraphs be combined? Do we need to list all those regional US productions? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 17:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Do we need to list all those regional US productions?" .. revival or early?.. I think the early regional productions are important because that's where a lot of the cultural impact too place (deep south, bomb threats, etc..) and also because of the notable performers (Philip Michael Thomas!); the regionals were really integral to the whole phenomenon and where lots of people saw the show for the first time. For revivals my adds were predicated on major actors/companies and involvement of the original creative team.  Hope that's OK.  Thanks! -- Mblaxill 20:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * also gave a shot at combining revival info ... may need some more tweaking, possibly categories for US and Foreign, 90's, 00's, Recent, etc -- Mblaxill 20:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I added some subheadings. All the "early" productions seem definitely notable to me. My question was really about whether we need all the regional revival productions, but the above explanation makes sense. I suppose the article could use more background/history explanation about how the work came to be written, but I would try to reference it from a website other than the authors'. I think the article relies a bit too heavily on statements by authors/producers/sleeve notes, all of which are hardly unbiased sources, and needs more input from historians and well-researched sources. I don't know if this is possible, but I suspect much has been written about this important musical. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 21:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Background/history
Re-"the article could use more background/history explanation about how the work came to be written...needs more input from historians and well-researched sources" ... here's a few other sources that might be helpful: 1)Let the Sun Shine In by Scott Miller (ISBN-10: 0325005567). I just bought this today - it's by a theater company owner .. not sure how unbiased he is - will report back; 2) Good Hair Days by Jonathan Johnson (ISBN-10: 0595312977). This is by the cast member who's family died in the Cleveland fire - I have this one; 3) June 17, 2001 LA Times article on the history of Hair by Patrick Pacheco avail online here I can also get a copy from Lexis Nexis. I'll see what I can find about the background/history and take a stab at some adds. There's also a new documentary by Pola Rappaport that recently played in France - it hasn't been released in the US yet, though I went to a screening the other day and could get a copy.  What's the policy on film ducumentaries?  Thanks!! -- Mblaxill 15:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good. I look forward to seeing what you can find.  It is hard to cite to a documentary and should probably be avoided, but if an important point was made, I suppose you could drop a cite with producer info, etc. that says that the information is given about ____ minutes into the film.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers 17:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * just took a whack... let the edits begin -- Mblaxill 16:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved your text around, with most of it higher up, but one paragraph in the production section under the Off-Broadway discussion. Now, you need to go through and add the page numbers like this: or add the LA Times cite. Let me know when you're done, and I'll show you how to prettify it in the footnote list if you need help. -- Ssilvers 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good progress. Just a few cites still needed.  -- Ssilvers 22:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that the LA Times reference is a good enough source for the major assertion that "Hair became the first off-Broadway musical to successfully make the transition to the Broadway stage". Can you find anything more authoritative source (perhaps one of the others we already cite) that can confirm this?  -- Ssilvers 23:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure - might take me a few days. I also want to add more info on Viet Rock from the Miller book (first attempt was pretty lame). Also, do we really need a citation for the other shows that went from Off-Bway to on?.. Rent and Chorus Line were NYTW, Urinetown Fringe Fest, and Spring Awakening was at the Atlantic theater - isn't all this pretty common knowlege? Thanks! -- Mblaxill 02:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a link to the PBS website - it's a Broadway timeline...scroll down to 1968 re first off-Bway to Bway show factoid - http://www.pbs.org/wnet/broadway/print/p-1960-1979.html -- Mblaxill 21:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good. I added this cite to the article.  -- Ssilvers 04:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt the cites, but I would note that I looked through a bunch of the articles on the Michael Butler site, and not one contemporaneous article notes that Hair was the first to move Off to On-Broadway, which is what the PBS cite says, which I find surprising. And the specific article from the NY Times that first mentions the transfer does not say it was the first show to move. We have two cites (although 1 could easily be based on the other), so the article is OK as is, but I'm going to go through the NY Times archives to see if there's a better contemporaneous reference either way. Simon12 23:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the article states "Hair became the first off-Broadway musical to successfully make the transition to the Broadway stage.". The PBS cite states: "Hair moves its controversial production -- rock music, nudity, and all -- to Broadway, the first Off-Broadway show to do so.". However, the PBS web site is wrong. From the NY Times, April 26, 1961, the musical Young Abe Lincoln moved from Off-Broadway to Broadway. Note that it then moved back to Off-Broadway 3 weeks later, so it was clearly not successful, so Hair may very well be the first successful transfer, although the term successful is subjective. But the PBS cite does not support the claim, so I will delete it. Which means Ssilvers request for a more authoritative cite still holds. Simon12 23:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. First, the LA Times cite also needs to be removed. The LA times article claims that Hair was the first production to move from Off-Broadway to Broadway, which we now know to be false. Second, nowhere in the LA Times article does it say that Hair was the first successful musical to transfer. So the LA Times cite does not support the claim. However, I did find a much better cite for the claim. A NY Times article from January 14, 1979 gives an overview of the history of transferring plays and musicals from other places (Off-Broadway, regional theater, English theater, etc.) to Broadway. In this NY Times article, we have the information we're looking for: "The first successful transfer from Off Broadway was "Hair", which opened on Broadway in 1968...". I will add the new cite to the article. Simon12 23:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted the statement about the other shows. The fact that Hair was first means that there were others, so the unsourced information did not add anything.  If you strongly disagree, maybe you could just give one or two examples that you can source.  Best regards,  -- Ssilvers 03:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure - good call on that. I just put in some more info on Viet Rock and Galt. Not having any luck finding out where all the info on the Ragni page came from but will stay on that. Thanks and all the best! -- Mblaxill 21:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Simon and Mblaxill. -- Ssilvers 03:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Next steps
Also, please look at the bio for Gerome Ragni that has a lot of info about Hair background. We need to reconcile the two. The Hair article should be more detailed than the background in the Ragni article, not the other way around. If you can't find backup for the additional information in the Ragni article, I suggest that we remove that information from the Ragni article's description of hair down so that the Hair article is the main source of info about the background of Hair, while Ragni's bio only contains the information necessary for his bio, with a cross reference to the more complete Hair article. :-) -- Ssilvers 22:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When you're done with that, I think the article will be getting close to Good Article quality. You might want to get a Peer review first, though, if you are interested in elevating the article up to GA class.  Good job, so far!  -- Ssilvers 22:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be great! Maybe after I get a chance to investigate Ragni more fully -- Mblaxill 00:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait a little longer to see if you can find anything. -- Ssilvers 01:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references
Should the 5th Dimension reference move down to Cultural Influence? -- Mblaxill 02:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, not only that, but the article is accumulating a lot of WP:TRIVIA and WP:LISTCRUFT.  Can you weed it out, or organize it into a narrative, or at least group togther somewhat related items?  Maybe Broadwaygal can help?  Best regards,  -- Ssilvers 01:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

just gave it a shot - thoughts? -- Mblaxill 02:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Much better, but the section needs references. The TV shows are probably OK if an episode is named, but the film soundtracks should be referenced if relevant, the advertising campaigns need citations, and all the billboard references should be cited.  Also the billboard chart number mentions should be standardized.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers 04:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * did my best with the citations ... I'm assuming You Tube is not a good cite though is the best I could find for Sesame Street and 40 year old Virgin -- Mblaxill 19:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Good job. It's now much better referenced. I moved the Political/social stuff down, because I don't think we should make the reader go all the way through the article to find the plot. It may be that the production info could go further down, too. I'm not sure what to do with the Shakespeare paragraph. Do you think it should go up with History? -- Ssilvers 19:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe since 'Plot' already has Shakespeare reference you can make it a separate paragraph there. And sure, since both Rado/Ragni appeared in Shakespeare productions it can also move up to History as it jibes well with Open Theater/LaMama/African rhythyms etc (also think Rado is "Shakespeare trained" .. whatever that means - can't cite that btw). That's a tough one - i think it's ok where it is - Mblaxill 19:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, check it out. I moved the later productions and albums down, and I think that now the article balances a reasonably logical progression of the information (as per the WP:MUSICALS guidelines) with the idea of not burying the information that's most important to most readers. See what you think. -- Ssilvers 20:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Hamlet sentence in the plot definitely needs to be referenced, but I think it's in the right place, if you can find a cite. -- Ssilvers 20:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Funny you should mention the plot :) -- not sure who wrote the plot summary but I had a bunch of questions that i posted a few months ago re "gift of sex", Woof as "bisexual", and Hud as a "black panther" among other things.  One of the issues is Rado is revising the libretto every five years or so and a lot of folks get confused, which is why I suggested sticking to main plot points and staying away from minor ones that were added later and/or got changed. I don't have access to a libretto and the only sources I can cite are actor friends from early productions (plus I've seen it appx a dozen times and it's always different b/c of director's choice, etc..). Another confusing aspect is the Off-Bway version was totally different - Mblaxill 20:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a published copy of the script. Somewhere.  However, from what I can remember, it didn't seem to be... right.  If I recall correctly, "The Flesh Failures/Let the Sunshine In" isn't even in it.  I think it ends with a song called "Hollywood Ending".  It's been awhile since I've even looked at it, because I was kinda PO'd that I'd spent $40 to get an out-of-print copy that didn't seem at all like what I remember seeing onstage.  I'll see if I can find it, but I'm not sure if it will be of much help.  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  21:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you have the "paperback" version and yeah... that was some kind of early commercial publication that bears very little resemblance to the original play, D'oh! - Mblaxill 21:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I think we should basically be describing the Broadway version and dropping footnotes to describe any major differences in other identified versions. User:Broadwaygal posted that she has also seen many productions of Hair and played Sheila in a production that was directed by a friend of the creators, so she knows the script and says that it was based closely on the Broadway version. She said that she thinks the plot description is accurate, as far as describing things that were in her script. So, I would say that we should not change the description of the "facts" in the plot, unless we can find reliable, referenced info to the contrary regarding action in the Broadway production. But, if you saw different plot points in a particular production (particularly a professional production), we can drop a footnote to give the variation and state who directed it, when and where. I know the show mostly through recordings, so I can't help on plot variations among different stage versions. BTW, I'll be away for a few days, back later next week. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 21:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-prof. productions
I have no problem with the Keaton change, although I thought it was interesting when I first read it. But the information about the Bishop O'Dowd production seems non-notable to me and invites all kinds of cruft into the article. I strongly recommend deleting it. -- Ssilvers 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll delete it - someone else put it up earlier (one editor thought it was vandlism), and I put in the right context and added the citations. I thought the Catholic aspect was interesting -- Mblaxill 20:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I took another look at the amateur productions paragraph and realized that it was completly misleading. I had thought that we were referring to productions actually performed by Native American tribes but realize we were just referring to the cutsey names that the "tribe" had named itself in various productions. Also, I searched for a while and was completely unable to verify the quote by Butler. Other than mirror sites, it showed up only on one blog by cast members. I left the Mountain Play production, because it was at a really, really big venue and played over a two-month period. But the link had changed, so I substituted the San Francisco Examiner review of the production. I imagine that it is possible to come up with a couple of other really notable examples, but I suggest that we be very careful. See WP:MUS for a guideline. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 21:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I took out "since the original" from the first sentence and added a citation to the current productions page on the Butler site - also added the well known Peter Jennings ABC special at the Boulder HS (at the citation page scroll down to 2002 for "In Seach of America: The Stage") - Mblaxill 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That's MUCH better! Well done. I think that this article is not far from GA-class. You might ask for a peer review before putting it up for GA promotion. Do you have any other projects that you want to do to it before asking for GA promotion? The only things I can see are, first, that more images are needed; and second, that the article could use more book cites so that it does not rely so heavily on web references, particularly references to the creators' websites. I suspect that there has been much written about this musical that a library visit would easily turn up. But for GA, it's probably darn close if it isn't there already. -- Ssilvers 22:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I added one more community prod - the citation is a Myspace site...i know that isn't the best source but if you scroll down there's a picture of Butler and Rado with the cast - and I know the "I was there" citation is a no no but, um, i WAS there with Butler, Rado and Co and can vouch for the quote that director Anthony D'Amato cites underneath the photo :) Before GA status I'd like to change the plot section using the Miller and Johnson books as sources (I don't own the Horn book). I should be able to get to that soon (and I haven't heard back from Broadwaygal in regards to it which is why I'm taking my time) - Mblaxill 22:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, noticed we put the citation needed tag back here - we went through this before (see above comment from 11/07) .. not sure if MusicMaker saw my original note. -- Mblaxill (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that Broadwaygal no longer has a copy of the script, so I wouldn't wait for her. As I said, I think you ought to describe the B'way production as closely as possible and then footnote common plot variations (but don't sweat the small stuff). -- Ssilvers 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that describing the B'way production is the way to go as far as the plot synopsis is concerned. I do have a piano conductor score, but it's a fairly recent version I think and it doesn't really have a lot of dialogue. Thanks and sorry for taking so long to make a comment --Broadwaygal 15:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Songlist
The songlist states that "Yes I's Finished" was added to the '93 London production, but, if memory serves, my Orig Broadway recording has it (and "Abie Baby" and "Three-Five-Zero-Zero") as part of "Walking in Space". Or, perhaps, the three are followed by a reprise of "Walking in Space". Either way, I don't think it was an added tune -- it existed prior to '93. &mdash;  Music  Maker  5376  03:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I think that's right.  It's all part of the "trip scene".  I know that it was included on the film soundtrack, which was definitely released before 1993. Thanks--Broadwaygal 15:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot Overhaul
Just posted a new plot overhaul w/citations. Also moved some stuff around (moved Shakespeare and grouped it with a Ginsberg reference... it seems a bit out of place in history .. not sure it's found a home yet). Anyhoo.. let the edits begin - Mblaxill (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, basically good, but I moved the political connections of the songs paragraph to the politics section below. I don't think it goes in the plot section, but see if you want to massage it more.  Also, I added back the last sentence about Claude's return as a ghost.  What do you think?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it! And yes, Claude is a definitely a ghost when he appears in uniform (he says "Berger, they got me") - Mblaxill (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think more details of incidents in the script need to be added to the plot summary. It's OK for a B-class article, but for a GA article on this subject, a more fulsome description of the plot seems to be called for. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK - I might be able to get an original Bway script - Mblaxill (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories with unsourced statements?
Can we delete this from the catgory list at the end? Pretty well sourced at this point imho -- Mblaxill 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as there is a tag in the article, it goes into that category.  The only way to get it out of the category is to remove the tags, which probably shouldn't be done unless we have a citation.  It benefits us to leave it -- someone who's working on sourcing may see it and find the cite we need....  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  17:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

All Caps?
Not sure if the show title should be all caps ... "technically" it should be written as HAiR with a lower case 'i' (the infinity symbol dots the 'i' in the logo), though for Wikipedia sake not sure what the style guidelines are -- Mblaxill (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, HAiR is probably as close as we can get it, so if you want to make the change, I would support that, although the all caps is better than just Hair, I think. I don't think the style guidelines get this specific.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ibdb lists it as simply "Hair". &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  02:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure IBDB should be the final say ... as a magazine fact checker, you would go first by the official logo and then by any official copy/style rules that the publication has (i.e. Ubisoft and not UbiSoft). Since Wikipedia doesn't have a style manual as such, i think the logo wins -- Mblaxill (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's interesting; I wouldn't have thought that you'd use the logo first. The logo is usually some graphic designer's interpretation of the actual title, product, company, whatever.  With musicals especially, as logos change from production to production.
 * We usually use ibdb as the arbiter of titles -- for example, as to whether or not "the musical" actually appears as part of the title of a particular show. (It usually doesn't.)  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  16:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but at a magazines there's usually a copy editor somewhere who says "Hair" and not HAiR or HAIR -- I'm good with any of these, just though it should addressed since SkyCaptain made the change -- Mblaxill (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really care either way, either, as long as we're consistent. Personally, I think "HAIR" is a little... screamy, and I think "HAiR" is a little overly-stylistic.
 * The official site uses both all caps and the traditional capitalization. Tams, the American rights holder, uses the trad. cap., but in the description uses all caps.  BUT, they do that for every show.  So, you know, whatever -- as long as we're consistent.  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  19:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. So went ahead and changed it back to Hair. Cheers and happy holidays -- Mblaxill (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

American Musical Category
Wondering why the administrator deleted the "American Musical" category .. seems a little odd -- Mblaxill (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The cat has been deleted. It might seem a little strange, but as the creative teams for musicals are becoming more and more globally diverse, it was becoming next to impossible to determine a show's "nationality".  When you have a French Tunisian composer, an American lyricist, a French lyricist, a British producer, with the bulk of the show taking place in Vietnam (Miss Saigon), what do you do?  Even Hair -- Galt McDermott's Canadian; what makes this an "American Musical"?  We're still trying to find ways to categorize them, and if you have any thoughts, feel free to chime in over there.  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  22:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review
I'm thinking this article is ready for a peer review. Anyone object? &mdash;  Music  Maker  5376  16:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No objection, although there are a couple of "cite needed" tags that need attention. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ok by me .. Re citations - for one of the tags, the Sesame Street one, there's a YouTube video of Bob McGrath singing Good Morning Starshine on the show but no other links i could find. For the paragraph on ads i think we should delete, including the one w/citation (Ford). Possibly also delete the extra Simpsons refs. -- Mblaxill (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I Have a Copy of Orig Bway Script
Going through the article and tweaking some things ... more later -- Mblaxill (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The plot summary is very short. Perhaps you will be able to expand it a bit with the script.  Thanks!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * i'll try to add more .. the show is kind of unique in that it's structured like a revue w/some plot points thrown in ... someone suggested to me recently that Hair was the first "concept musical" - is there another "concept musical" plot synopsis that i can compare it to? -- Mblaxill (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Company (musical). Godspell.  These two approach it like any other synopsis, which, really, you should do.  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  16:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll start a draft when i get more free time.. a few weeks, maybe sooner -- Mblaxill (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Diane Keaton on Letterman
As I'm nodding off to sleep tonight, I decide to check out Dave in case he has a guest I might find interesting. I hear him announce Diane Keaton, and I think to myself, "Oooh... I hope he asks her about 'Hair'...." And, oddly enough, he did. He brings it up, and she says how it's known for people taking their clothes off, and says that she didn't: "I saved that for later," she said. She also mentioned that a Dr. Bishop used to inject them with "vitamins" before the show to raise their energy. She didn't know quite what it was, but she referred to it as "methamphetamine" and mentioned that several members of the Tribe had gotten quite hooked and met with messy ends because of it. In all, she didn't remember too much about the experience except that she didn't quite fit in with the rest of the Tribe members, as she was an acting school alum and they were, well, not. I don't know if any of that could be worked into the article -- I think the quote is priceless, but probably more germane to her article -- and I'm not entirely sure how to cite the show, but it was The Late Show with David Letterman, 1/18/08, if anyone thinks any of it should be added. &mdash;  Music  Maker  5376  05:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * the stuff about Dr. Bishop is true, although it's a big leap to say that some cast members had "messy ends" (whatever that means) because of it - the show was physically taxing, a lot of movement, etc and Bishop i hear was a ham handed attempt to help w/the 8 times a week grind - also it was optional, not mandatory, that you take his "shots". I have no problem with including some of this although it doesn't really fit into any of the current categories. Also, the question of whether this or that famous person who was in Hair did the nude scene or not seems a bit tabloid-y -- Mblaxill (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Mblaxill, can you elaborate on what you think might be appropriate? You removed the following from the Broadway production section: "On the January 18, 2008 Late Show with David Letterman, Diane Keaton said that the original cast of Hair received "methamphetamine"-like injections before the shows and that some cast members developed an addiction."   If that is not what ought to be included, what should?  I do not have a strong opinion on whether it should be in or out, but let's at least discuss this proposed language, since MusicMaker raised the idea, and two editors already worked on it.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge, Keaton is the only member of the original original cast still working, or, I should say, that "made it". Her nudity or lack thereof is encyclopedic, but, again, perhaps more for her article than this one.  As for the shots, since we don't necessarily know what was in them, I'd say it's a little sensationalistic to take her word as gospel and call it "methamphetamine".  It seems like you have another source for those shots, Mb -- does it say what they actually were?  I don't know if it's encyclopedic -- I don't know how we might fit it in -- but, after 40 years, it was one of the few things she was able to remember about the production.  As for the part about "messy ends", that might not have been an exact quote.  She was on Letterman, after all, and she's a little, erm, "flighty" to begin with....  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  17:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * not sure how much i want to lend a hand on this. From what i hear (and this is from people who were in the show at the time) Bishop said they were B-12 shots but people suspected there were "other ingredients". I guess what she said is newsworthy but in a larger sense i don't think it adds useful information to the article. Johnson's book recounts how some cast members did the show on LSD, how cast members were harassed by the police .. i mean, there's a lot of antedotes around the show, lots of stories (like the lawsuit the producers had with the Tony Awards people after Hair was inelegible for the '68 Tony's after being assured otherwise) - not sure they should all be included in Wikipedia (so on this i agree with Musicmaker that it's not encyclopedic). Sorry i can't be more help on this -- Mblaxill (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a section on drugs and Hair? Or, better, legal issues and the production -- that Tony story is DEFINITELY encyclopedic.  &mdash;   Music  Maker  5376  18:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I added a section on the Tonys. Feel free to expand/correct, etc.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Changes to History Section
I got ahold of a copy of Horn's book and made a few changes to the History section .. regrettably my grammar is not good - perhaps someone can improve -- Mblaxill (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. I made a few minor tweaks.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)