Talk:Jamaica (musical)

Could someone explain the logic of the most recent changes to this article? Keen music buffs, for instance, might know that over 500 performances used to be an exceptional run - but others may draw quite wrong conclusions, since so many modern shows don't start to pay the investors till later in the run than that! It is highly relevant that Harburg wrote this musical while under ban from the Un-American Activities Committee, although the original note about this probably did need pruning for POV reasons, the bare fact can be left to speak for itself.

It is NOT dated by its left-leaning political content - in fact "old-fashioned" ideas of freedom and equality are coming back into fashion (hopefully this time for good). It IS dated (probabaly forever) IN A MUSICAL SENSE - because the craze for calypso music (unlike periodic swings in the political pendulum) is most unlikely to repeat itself. If one can't say that, on what grounds can you even mention it is dated???

The original rewriting of this article was on the whole an improvement - I admit the article needed a bit of a "re-do" by someone with a little more experience, but a certain amount of baby was thrown out with the bathwater, and I think it should go back in!

Anyway - I'll give you a chance to answer my queries, and then put most of the last edit right back in!!!

Soundofmusicals 02:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, that Harburg wrote this musical while under ban from the Un-American Activities Committee would be relevant only if he had been forced to turn to Broadway as an alternate means of making a living because of the ban. But Harburg was an established Broadway composer before this - who is to say he would not have written another musical at this time, ban or no ban? Unfortunately, in Wikipedia "bare fact" can't "be left to speak for itself." Is there a source that specifically states Harburg wrote Jamaica because of the Hollywood ban? If so, it would be appropriate to make mention of this with the proper citation.
 * In the article for The Boys in the Band, I made mention of the 1000-performance run being unusual at that time for a production not geared to a mainstream audience. Within that context, I think the comment is appropriate. But is it really necessary to do so with every production? At what length is a run considered "so-so"? "average"? "healthy"? And who makes those determinations? I feel if a show closes during previews or on opening night, the fact it was a flop is clear. If it enjoys a run of 1000+ performances, but still failed to pay back its investors, that would be worth mentioning, because the average reader easily could assume 1000+ is a guaranteed hit. In other words, if there's a significant reason for discussing the number of performances beyond the actual amount, then I'm all for adding the info. But to say 555 was considered indifferent, good, or exceptional in general seems to be heading into a gray area that borders on POV, in my opinion.
 * I understand your point re: dating due to the decline of Calypso and will edit the article to reflect that. SFTVLGUY2 13:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Harburg is well known as a left-leaning, at times satirical lyricist. Jamaica has a bitter twist - I think it is probably his most satirical musical - although I accept that all this is a bit POV. I'll concede that my original note, which more than hinted that the rather obvious link with the fact that he had just been booted out of Hollywood, where most of the money was at the time, and where he almost certainly would otherwise have stayed, WAS a little POVish. I still think that a brief mention of the fact that this musical was written immediately after the ban took effect is interesting background, and not in itself POV. Not worth wasting any more bile over though.


 * A 500 performance plus musical used to be considered a hit. The Broadway musicals that exceeded the figure before the late fifties are quite a select band, in fact. I can't see why a brief reminder of that fact, especially in the case of such a largely forgotten show as this, is "irrelevant" - and its hardly POV in any case. On the other hand, again, I suppose it is not worth fighting over.


 * I would rather the fact that it is dated - which IS POV without some justification - either was eliminated altogether, or was clearly linked to the fact that the dating is MUSICAL rather than because of the lyrics. I don't think these are dated at all - in fact if anything they are before rather than behind the times (POV that, of course!!). I accept your new re-edit as sort of covering this, and in any case an improvement.


 * Sorry, but this is a charming little show, one of my favourites, - and I think it's rather sad that the "new" article, while in some ways more informative than my original - now misses the point a bit. POV is a difficult question. There is a grey area where an absense of any stated POV at all (especially when discussing a work of art that has a very marked POV of its own) is in fact unacceptable POV itself. NOT mentioning that a book, picture, or play has a strong left (or right) wing bias when it is VERY obvious that is has (e.g. not mntioning that Mein Kampf reeks of racism) can be a VERY powerful technique of implied endorsement of the ideas concerned. Nothing "POV neutral" about that.


 * Soundofmusicals 21:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How is this a Joseph Stein musical?


 * 207.38.192.69 02:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Daniel

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jamaica (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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061022161948/http://www.ibdb.com/show.asp?ID=4838 to http://www.ibdb.com/show.asp?ID=4838

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)