Talk:Cabaret (musical)

Unstubbed

I've unstubbed this page. It has all the basic information there, and even some more in depth info. Yeah, it would be nice if there was some more information, but all the bases are covered. If you strongly disagree, let's discuss it here. It was marked a stub back in July of 2004, and has grown a fair amount since then.-Michaelwsherman 12:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Plot

It is a little odd that the plot is never discussed. Uucp 17:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone needs to post the plot. 71.240.209.176 19:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried but I can't remember the whole thing. At least it's a start. 65.139.28.219 22:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Stage band in Cabaret

Every source I can find, including the piano score, lists the onstage band as consisting of piano, tenor sax, trombone and drums, so that's what I put down. However, listening to the recording, I'm positive I hear a banjo in there. And this is the original cast, so I know it's not a 1987 reorchestration. Anybody have any information about this? Lbark 02:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The banjo is part of the orchestra (rather than the on-stage band), in both the 1967 version and in the reorchestration. - Nunh-huh 02:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I thought only the onstage band played the entr'acte, and I also hear a banjo there. Maybe just them and the banjo. Lbark 14:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't take the soundtrack as evidence of what happens in the show. Soundtracks frequently diverge, often wildly, from the written music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.189.114 (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

2006 Rufus Norris version

Can someone with better skills than me add a little about this new version starring Sheila Hancock and James Dreyfus? Cheers, Nats — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.15.219 (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Orchestration

The orchestration information is not only out of place, it is misleading. You get the impression that there are 3 soprano saxophones playing the entire time, which is untrue. Woodwind stage books emply doubling, where a single player switch between a bunch of instruments. It's not unusal for one person to play five or more instruments. The original orchestration has 4 woodwind books for 4 players. You can't sort this information by instrument. This makes it look a lot bigger than it really is.

Strings are just opposite, but still misleading. You don't have 3 violins. There are separate Violin I and II books. When you rent, you get 3 copies of each, with the expectation that you put two people on each copy. So, you have 12 violins, 6 on Violin I and 6 on Violin II. Clear, eh?

It's probably just simpler to link to the official site (http://www.tamswitmark.com/musicals/cabaret.html), and drop this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.189.114 (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement and am removing this and the musical analysis section, which seems equally out of place. SFTVLGUY2 16:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I also have moved the section describing differences between the film adaptation and the stage production to the film article, where such a discussion is more appropriate. I have removed the reference to the Colombian production, which doesn't seem to be noteworthy, rearranged the article into a more chronological order, and added a song list and a separate section listing the Broadway awards and nominations. SFTVLGUY2 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

First Paragraph

Needs a rewrite. Makes no sense. Fosse information is outta nowhere —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.175.93.137 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

I removed it; it was unreferenced gibberish.67.21.184.95 — Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cabaret OBC.jpg

Image:Cabaret OBC.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

South African version

Does this really warrant its own sub-section? Jomunro (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this seems not relevant, delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.243.66 (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis

The entire synopsis added on Feb 8, 2009 replaced the previous synopsis. The newly added text appears to be a copy vio, from here: [Tams-Witmark]. I'll look carefully at that Tams-Witmark article and site, and should this copy vio be the case, will revert to the earlier synopsis. JeanColumbia (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Problems with synopsis

'Mein Herr' is not in the original play. I Contend it should not be in the synopsis. There are other issues as well. Dylan Hsu (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Background

The character of the prostitute Kost does appear in the Isherwood short story Sally Bowles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.37.109 (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Though in the novel she is not a nazi. There is a Bavarian nazi woman in the house, though. The nazi guy is a complete addition. I didn't change anything,perhaps some cares to rewrite this little bit. --Professolog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.167.77 (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Emcee

Is there a good reason why Emcee is written for MC throughout? 86.184.245.136 (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

"Emcee" is specifically used by playwright Joe Masteroff throughout the musical's script. -- Flask (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Some exciting TAFI news!

A series of articles under this topic have been nominated at The Today's Article For Improvement project. What we do is organise collaborations between editors whereby each week we focus on bringing an article up to GA/FA. Please head over there and support (or oppose) the nominated articles.--Coin945 (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Songs section

"In every revival of Cabaret, something changes in its score. There are many songs that are cut out of the score, then brought in, then changed somehow." Can this be written less conversationally? Something like "Every revival of Cabaret has included a change in the score, with songs being changed, cut, or added from the film production." And then perhaps notes after the song titles to show when songs were first introduced (like the film ones) or notable exclusions. 208.87.234.201 (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, why not go ahead? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Changed the wording, noticed the detailed change info below the list, which seemed good. 208.87.234.201 (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Tomorrow belongs to me

Surely this song, having developed something of a life of it's own in neo nazi circles, deserves a page of it's own?Adagio67 (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Images

Since Julie Andrews didn't take part in any production her photo seems superfluous accompanying the article. Mcljlm (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Since the photo is from 1960, as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Julie_Andrews_Robert_Goulet_Richard_Burton_Camelot_1960_(cropped).JPG indicates, it's even less relevant. Mcljlm (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Does anyone disagree with deleting the photo? Mcljlm (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The captioning in groups of photos is inconsistent and not always clear:

"... Christopher Isherwood (first) and ... Jean Ross (second) ... "

"... Jill Haworth (first) ... , Joel Grey (second) ... and Lotte Lenya (third) ... "

"Sam Mendes (left) ... Alan Cumming (right) ... "

"Natasha Richardson ... and Neil Patrick Harris ... "

"Michelle Williams, Emma Stone, and Sienna Miller ...". For clarity it would be best to use at least (left) and (right), and (centre) where relevant. Mcljlm (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Julie Andrews

What's the source for "Black envisioned the musical as a star vehicle for singer Julie Andrews"? The relevant words of the The Making of Cabaret by Keith Garebian cited as the reference are "David Black ... had commissioned the show and sparked the interest of Julie Andrews" with no mention of "star vehicle". Searching a pdf version shows the phrase only appears on p.xii and p.15 without mentioning Julie Andrews.

Presumably her manager's refusal "due to the character's immorality" is a paraphrase of Garebian's "to play such a part as Sally Bowles". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcljlm (talk • contribs) 03:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

References

More concise Cast table

Per this discussion at WP:MUSICALS, we have changed the Cast table to the more compact kind used in our WP:Featured Articles such as Carousel and The King and I. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello User talk:Ssilvers! I just saw this! Can we open up the discussion again please? I have significant issues with the table the way it is now since it's not properly sourced and hard to follow. I think it might be best to have tables showcasing notable productions with dates and signifiers so viewers can get a quick at a glance look at the productions and cast not a laundry list of names with zero sourcing and zero mention of their respective productions.The One I Left (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

By all means, let's discuss. Just to correct one fact, every name in the table must be sourced in the Productions section. I support the current format is because the other format is hugely bloated and emphasizes non-notable actors. It also draws endless edits adding more and more columns, often for less WP:NOTEWORTHY productions. In the case of Cabaret, the table had gotten way out of hand, squeezing the text more and more. The whole idea of "at-a-glance" information is, to some extent, not encyclopedic -- we prefer narrative text, like the Productions section, to the proliferation of tables. This format emphasizes the original production where people created the characters on the first major-market stage, and is intended to include only those notable actors who originated the character in other major productions or portrayed the characters for at least a year as replacements. For these reasons, the current format was adopted for WP:Featured Articles, as noted above. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory or a forum for promoting non-notable people. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I really appreciate it. I would argue the current format is "hugely bloated and emphasizes non-notable actors". Its also very complicated because it's a laundry list of names with zero context as to which production or date. The chart I created only named notable productions and notable actors with sources.The One I Left (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@The One I Left I have to agree with Ssilvers here. He has made a good point that some casting tables for classic musicals like Cabaret or other notable musicals like Moulin Rouge have had very bloated casting tables. For the newer musicals like The Outsiders or Days of Wine and Roses, for example, they have had only one or two notable productions. There, the cast tables can stay in the previous type of format. It's for the shows like this that have had a long history of productions where we need to condense the tables and only recognize the notable actors who played the roles. Smitty1999 (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Man I guess thats totally subjective because to me the way the table is now looks super bloated and confusing. It's just a litany of actors who played the roles but there's no context so the reader as no idea as to which performance/production is notable from looking at that table. The table as it is now has a lot of non-notable names and the table I created condensed the names to those in notable productions with a separate section for replacements.The One I Left (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@The One I Left the names can be mentioned in the productions section. Smitty1999 (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)