Talk:The Last Five Years

Is 7/8 really considered "challenging" these days? Bonalaw 09:36, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No. I'm removing a lot of the POV here, and correcting the grammar (WAY too much passive voice) --C-squared 09:42, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know anything about the apparent upcoming London production?
 * I know of two in CA that JRB is involved in but I haven't heard of anything in London. Cmouse 03:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * : Apparantly a West End premiere will occur in 2006 MikeyB! 17:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The West End production's closed now. Shame. ~

Synopsis
The synopsis section contributed by 161.253.29.138 is overlong for an encyclopedia entry (although it would be appropriate for a press kit or production booklet). It should be cut down here. --C-squared 07:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've gotten through part of the synopsis—I made it through the first half of the show, right before "The Next Ten Minutes"—and cleaned up a few things. Unfortunately, some of my attempts to shorten it failed miserably, and it actually got longer in some places (clarifying ambiguities, for example). I think I did succeed in removing some of the production-specific points in the synopsis (e.g., "the lights come up on _____", "the curtain falls/rises", etc.), but there's still a lot of work to be done.
 * I'm going to try first to clean up the writing with the rest of the synopsis, then tackle cutting it down. --C-squared 16:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, after several months of putting it off, and looking over the thing again now... I just want to delete the entire synopsis. I really don't believe something this detailed belongs in an encyclopedia entry. This section should be two paragraphs at most, and really, the musical's not even that long. One might argue that trudging through this synopsis takes longer than the actual show. Please discuss. --C-squared 10:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, after several months of putting it off, and looking over the thing again now... I just want to delete the entire synopsis. I really don't believe something this detailed belongs in an encyclopedia entry. This section should be two paragraphs at most, and really, the musical's not even that long. One might argue that trudging through this synopsis takes longer than the actual show. Please discuss. --C-squared 10:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, after several months of putting it off, and looking over the thing again now... I just want to delete the entire synopsis. I really don't believe something this detailed belongs in an encyclopedia entry. This section should be two paragraphs at most, and really, the musical's not even that long. One might argue that trudging through this synopsis takes longer than the actual show. Please discuss. --C-squared 10:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A synopis of any musical showing how the songs fit in is essential for folks who listen to the music but haven't seen it, such as I!! Make it shorter if you want, but don't delete it again. GCW50 01:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The chalice of any wikipedia article is to become featured isn't it? The synopsis, the whole article, is shorter than it would need to be for that purpose. Articles are eventually supposed to be fleshy, no matter what they are on. This article is only 2 pages long, so it should be longer; What more linear way could it be lengthened then giving a less cursory synopsis? A general idea of what the musical is about is provided for in the introductory paragraphs. Unless there are guidelines contradicting me here, I think the synopsis should be longer.-Jared Croft —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.80.42 (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * While I would say that it is true that the goal of any article is to someday reach featured article status, I don't believe that length necessarily equates quality. If you look at WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure you'll see that they suggest "a 900 word maximum," although "a complex plot could require slightly more." I just copied the current Synopsis section into Microsoft Word, and it came up as being 1,023 words in length. Personally, I think this is adequate for this show (while a bit over 900 words, the non-linear plot creates a need for somewhat deeper need for explanation), although the section could probably use a bit of revision in a few places. If you would like to add to the article however, there are other sections that could use a bit more meat to them. The production section could be expanded (especially with the more notable productions), including more details on the theatre, set, casting, opening/closing dates, etc. A Response section could also be created, discussing any awards the show might have received or been nominated for, critical responses, box office business, and any applicable cultural impact. The article could also use a short Recordings section, discussing any pertinent information about the Original Off-Broadway Recording. — MearsMan  talk  01:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Lyrical References
Should there perhaps be a section devoted to this topic? I mean JRB uses lots of Jewish words which I didn't understand and had to look up. Also there are lots of references to the publishing world (Random House, Sonny Mehta) as well as references to Cathy's work (Backstage magazine, for example). MikeyB! 11:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"Nobody Needs to Know"
An interesting edit suggested that the song "Nobody Needs to Know" could be about Jamie sleeping with a man rather than a woman (because he calls the person "kid" rather than specifying gender). That is an interesting idea, but I think it is probably original research rather than anything that's specified in the show. First, the person in the song is almost certainly Elise. Beyond that, Jamie sings about dating lots of Jewish women, and about being constantly tempted by women that he's "always wanted to sleep with." Nothing in the show hints at him secretly also dating, or being tempted by, men. And, of course, the show is largely autobiographical and Jason Robert Brown is apparently not gay (he's married to a woman). So it's interesting, but I think it's someone's idea for a re-working rather than a description of the show, and hence not encyclopedic. However, it's good to see a new editor contributing, and I hope they'll keep on doing so.--TheOtherBob 03:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

song cycle
I am interested in discussing whether this piece is actually a song cycle. In all the refences that I have read thus far, it is referred to as a one-act musical. That appears to be the case. There is a plot, and the songs are related to each other. In a song cycle, that is not really the case. --Broadwaygal 17:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good question. It may be that the Category:Song Cycle designation should be removed.  Comments?  -- Ssilvers 18:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Category. In the introduction to the article, the piece is described as a "one act musical". I believe that to be true. --Broadwaygal 13:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Productions
The productions list is getting too long. Cited or not, amateur and semipro productions aren't notable. This should be cut down to national premieres and major professional productions. 90.220.155.43 (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)