Talk:Jane Annie

Comments
I'd love to give the source that said this, but I cannot remember it. I'm sure it was in a G&S book at my local library, but they recently got rid of the entire collection, so I can't go and see which one it was in. It might have been one of the D'Oyly Carte/Savoy Theatre books; probably not Bailey or one of the more famous ones.

"I'd very much like to tell you all, You'd love to know about it. But just this point I don't recall, And as it's most material, we can't go on without it." :)

(Is this not appropriate??) Slfarrell 22:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Scott. Eventually, Wikipedia articles need to give citations (either page number references with bibliographical "references"; or external weblinks) for all factual assertions.  However, the more controversial statements need to supported most urgently.  So, when you create content on Wikipedia, try to cite your sources.  Meanwhile, this is a good start to the article.  Best regards!  -- Ssilvers 22:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Something needs to change in the descriptions of J.A. Everywhere I find it on Wiki, it is called "a flop". I know it wasn't a successful show, but damn, use a thesaurus. Call it "failure" or something else - it's not the only word that describes its initial success rate. I don't mean to be nasty about it but I'm just tired from seeing that word again and again. Slfarrell 15:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I went through the links and fixed this. -- Ssilvers 15:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't think anyone would take it seriously. Thanks Ssilvers! Slfarrell 15:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember where I saw "worst libretto ever"! It wasn't a book, but the intro page to Ian Bond's libretto. However, he does not list a source for it, so it may be just an opinion of someone he communicated with. I suppose I should ask him? Slfarrell 21:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you ever read Fallen Fairies? That's far more tedious than JA.  Despite its confusion, JA is rather amusing in many places, don't you think?  -- Ssilvers 21:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have read it. I rather liked it, but that was years ago. I saw the video by Newcastle G&S (they had the first revival - should that be mentioned on the appropriate page?), which didn't do it many favours. Yeah, JA is rather amusing. But it's such a mess. And guess who gets to revive it next October? [smiley] Slfarrell 15:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis
I read the synopsis and made a few minor copy edits, but I really could not follow it. Either it contains a lot of UK slang that I don't understand (and if so, please translate to more formal English, even if it is less humorous), or else it needs a few more clarifications. Can you please revise? Regards, -- Ssilvers 21:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that it really is this bad. I condensed as much as I could without giving away unnecessary details and gags. The plot is a theatrical nightmare. "Plot unsystematic/And very erratic" best describes it. Sorry - there's really nothing to revise. Slfarrell 22:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The G&S archive page has an introduction from which you can get more background info for the article if you have time. Best regards! -- Ssilvers 22:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've straightened out Act I a little, but Act II opens with "Caddie is discovered giving Bab, who is now his prisoner, an airing." - What. The. Hell? Adam Cuerden talk 04:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Likewise "She deflates their joy when she adds that the girls may assume the character of men." Otherwise, though, I think you've done a fairly good job at clarifying what's clearly a bizarre plot. Adam Cuerden talk 04:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've taken a bold guess as to the end of Act I. Check that's right? Adam Cuerden talk 15:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those changes are pretty good. Your guess at the end of Act 1 is correct. Caddie's "giving Babs an airing" is apparently an excuse to get her outdoors so she can be a part of the action. Maybe the punishment is expanded - the girls are playing golf and she isn't allowed to participate, just sit and watch. Missus Sims says the girls can pretend to be men to liven up the last day of the semester (not that they'll need any help with THAT). I just copied what was in the libretto. Slfarrell 15:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, so it's one of THOSE plays. Right. I've tweaked the first sentence: It may be very mild speculation, but it makes things make sense, which is important in such a convoluted work. Also, I was getting these views of Bab in bondage gear with the original phrasing, which probably means I watch too many B-movies. "Deflates their joy" seems to have been a mistake, so I changed it. Adam Cuerden talk 17:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Background
I assume that Adam did the background work on the opera - I was just about to do it! I also clarified that little bit about the boathouse. Slfarrell 15:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I added the background paragraph to the intro, but it certainly could be expanded if you like. Best regards,  -- Ssilvers 17:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Revivals
Based on Wikipedia guidelines, the G&S project has generally not mentioned amateur productions by name, unless they achieved sufficient notability — signified by press accounts or source references not written by the performers themselves. Accordingly, I removed the following:


 * It has been revived only twice. The first was a performance in 1984 in Britain.[1] The second was the work's North American premiere, by the Rockford Operetta Party, on 19 and October 20, 2007 in a staged concert format in Rockford, Illinois, USA.

The removal is consistent with the way the other operas have been treated. The article on His Excellency, for instance, does not mention a staged concert performance several years ago that several Wikipedians participated in. (It was not a Wikipedia event—I just happen to know that some people reading this are aware of it.) Many of the non-G&S Savoy Operas have had such performances, and the articles do not mention them. Marc Shepherd (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Marc, but your reason sucks. My performance was a North American premiere, and therefore is significant. We had a press account, and it can easily be inserted. The performance that you cited, however, was just a performance that was not a premiere nor was it unique enough to mention. Reason it's not included on the His Excellency page is simple: Do you count every performance of The Mikado? Of course not. Regardless of the assumed quality of the performance or who was associated it with it, it's still apples and oranges. It's going back up. Edit: I just saw the link at the bottom and after re-reading the guidelines, I will not repost it. But I do not withdraw my reasoning.
 * PS - if you've got time to argue about my inclusions, you got time to answer my emails. Slfarrell (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I would support putting it back in. If there were only two performances in modern times, I think they are worth mentioning briefly, especially if there have never been any modern professional peformances. I would also distinguish the performance that Marc refers to on the ground that it was a free concert for the G&S Society of NY, whereas, I assume the Rockford event was before a paying audience? Also, it seems like it had some semblance of costumes, etc, while the G&S Society concerts are pretty bare bones, even though we had some fine singers. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ssilvers. Yeah, it was before a paying audience (and shock of shockers, many of them came back for the second night. Never had that before!) How do I cite the newspaper appearances that we had? Neither one was a review, just advertisements and story and photos. I'm not even sure that there would be anything else worth including. What do you think? Slfarrell (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cite like this: -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

His Excellency has had about the same number of modern productions as Jane Annie. Amateur productions generally are not notable. There are a whole bunch of seldom-performed GWOS and SWOG operas that have had amateur readings at venues like the G&S Society, Sullivan Festivals, the International G&S Festival, and so forth. Some of those have charged admission. Amateur theatricals simply don't satisfy notability requirements in most cases, unless there are reliable sources not under the control of the producer. The person who produced the amateur show usually isn't in position to assess its importance. Marc Shepherd (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If a work has never had a professional production since the 19th century, I think it is worth noting whether or not it has had any amateur performances. I know that Leon's professional His Excellency did not use the original score, while the G&S Society's did.  Was there no modern professional performance of the original score?  If not, then I do not see the harm in mentioning a modern amateur performance, especially if there is a verifiable source to cite confirming the date of the performance.  On the other hand, if a work has had a modern professional performance, then I would mention that and also note whether amateur performances are rare or not so rare.  That seems to be information of interest to readers, don't you think?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be of interest, but perhaps unnecessary to say who produced it. You can just say "it has been revived twice by amateur companies" with source listings at the bottom of the article. Or something of that sort of thing. I retained both of our press releases which appeared in legitimate newspapers and as I said before, they can be easily referenced and inserted into the article. I'm not selling anything or doing self-promoting, just pointing out that it was significant. Slfarrell (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It may well have been significant—then again, maybe not. I wasn't there. I am only suggesting that in Wikipedia terms significance is measured by what reliable sources have to say about it. Editors' perceptions of significance runs contrary to verifiability and no original research. In other venues, such as Savoynet, one is free to make such claims. Not here. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine. I just don't care anymore. Slfarrell (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * With respect, whatever we do with the amateur performances, I don't think we can safely say it was only two revivals, unless some source specifically says that. I'd also suggest that we need somewhat better sourcing for them, as, if challenged (as Marc has here), it's very hard to defend, under Wikipedia policy, a Geocities site. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So it's because of the website that we cannot source it? That shouldn't matter. We're not a professional company and not funded enough to afford a decent website. I don't understand why this is such a major issue.

The article in "The Gaiety" newsletter almost verifies that theirs was the first revival. It's such an unpopular opera that the newsletter is unlikely to be wrong. Regardless of that, mine was the first performance in North America. Isn't that significant? We had articles in at least two newspapers, which proves the fact. But they are not kept on the papers' websites for very long; no information is kept for very long. A month, tops. If it's not significant to deserve a mention, under Wiki guidelines, fine. I won't press the issue. Having the link at the bottom of the page of the article is enough for me. But as I said before, this isn't about my company or me. Slfarrell (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

New review
I added a NYTimes article quoting a London review. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)