Talk:Legitimate theatre

Outside of England? Suggestion
The first article listed in today's (29 Nov 2021) "Did You Know" section states "that the Lyceum Theatre is New York City's oldest continuously operating legitimate theater?" So I clicked on "legitimate theater" to understand the concept better, but this article explains legitimacy in terms of English law. How can a New York City theater be legitimate or even illegitimate? Either THIS article needs to be expanded to include other jurisdictions, or THAT article needs to use a different term. --Keeves (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Look up reliable sources that discuss "legitimate" theatre in the U.S. I think you will find it is a hippy-dippy term that variously means (i) theatres that present tragedies and other serious dramas (as opposed to comedy or musicals) (ii) theatres that are never used for film or other "non-theatrical" uses (which gets us into grey areas -- what if there was a concert on the stage?), or (iii) theatres that are traditional proscenium theatre spaces.  That is to say, there is no rigorous definition outside the U.K.  The Lyceum Theatre (Broadway) article cites three sources for the proposition that it is the "oldest continuously operating legitimate theater", which all seem to mean no more than that it is the only Broadway theatre that made it all the way through the 20th century without ever playing films or being used (even briefly) as something other than a theatre (sort of meaning number (ii) above).  A pretty relaxed, and nearly meaningless, reading of the term.  So, both this article and the Lyceum Theatre article are correct in context, though I agree that it shouldn't link to this article.  But if you can expand this article with reliable sources that give a useful definition outside the UK, go for it.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Now the Lead section and the History section describe two different definitions of legitimate theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Even worse is that the claims about non-diagetic dialogue etc, are unsourced and overly broad original interpretation. The idea that Broadway musicals are not legit theatre is junk. Seriously, in the New York theatre industry (of which I am a part) the term is used specifically to contrast with non-narrative live performances such as concerts and revues. The second source referring to "musical comedies" is actually referring to those sorts of revues perhaps with the barest of plots, which Broadway largely comprised until Showboat changed, well, everything. This isn't to say Broadway musicals are never loosely plotted revues anymore (Cats is pretty much just that), but it's rare someone wouldn't call musicals "legit theatre" in New York. oknazevad (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Haha. You just threw Jerome Kern, the Gershwins, Victor Herbert, George M. Cohan, early Rodgers and Hart, and the Princess Theatre musicals under the bus. Not all early musicals had "the barest of plots", though Show Boat was, I agree, very important. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)