Talk:Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Technicolor

I'm not sure what (if any) relationship there is to Technicolor, the film color process. Was it simply used to add spark to the title? This article is linked at the top of Technicolor, so it would be good to describe the relationship, even if it was simply a naming choice. --Jeffrey Sharkey 03:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's just a reference to the colours.~~Lazyguy~~I r needing userboxes plz! 11:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Synoptic

This article should be more SYNOPTIC, and far less biographical! It needs to be cleaned up.172.191.10.230 06:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Attempted fratricide and selling people into slavery is not what I would call "family-friendly". Or is that merely used as codeword for "biblically inspired" ?

There is no sex, drugs, alcohol, or violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.93.110 (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Spoken Dialogue

The article states that there is no spoken dialogue. This is not true - there are a few lines spoken by Joseph. They could be cut completely, yes, but they are there nonetheless.76.179.235.134 21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition, Potiphar and Potiphar's wife have several spoken lines in the scene Potiphar. I propose that we change the line "there is no spoken dialogue" to "there is little spoken dialogue." Stronghold1245 02:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stronghold1245 (talk • contribs)

Musical Requirement

Do you think it is necessary to put in a section regarding the musical requirements of performing the musical, such as the musical theory, types and numbers of instruments in the ocehstra pit etc.? I've seen a section of stuff like that on the Les Miresables musical article. Just a thought. --- Jedd the Jedi 05:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

no mention of the characters

because they do play a good part

OK, whoever you are, I've added a character section to the article. Softlavender (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Travolta"

The attempt to add "Rikki Lee Travolta" to this article is going to need more than the link to broadwayworld, because that is only quoting gueststarcasting.com. gueststarcasting.com does not appear to be a reliable source, as they do not provide any information as to how they are deriving their numbers, and their front page touts the Joseph information as just about the only thing they are talking about. Corvus cornix 22:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I will continue to remove the link which claims that "Travolta" is a celebrity until such time as someone provides proof that gueststarcasting.com is a reliable source. The link still calls "Travolta" a member of a famous celebrity family, which is blatantly false, and has been proven repeatedly to be false. Corvus cornix 18:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons: Parody?

The Simpsons version has Ned Flanders singing the part naming the myriad of colours in the coat. While the scene continues for, I'm guessing, at least forty seconds, I don't think it's a parody; listening to "Joseph's Coat" shows that they do name over thirty colours, and even repeat them. This should be looked into I suppose. Andrei Iosifovich (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Colors

I'm not trying to be defensive or anything, but could someone possibly give me a reason as to why having the colors of the coat in the article is bad? 69.124.137.249 (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Because they are the lyrics to a song and, thus, under copyright. — Music Maker 5376 19:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Sorry. 69.124.137.249 (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Could something be put in that according to the song the colors are (even if put in another order....) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.46.82 (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"two professional productions in New York" (1970s; uncited)

I have a feeling this refers to the two BAM productions in 1976 and 1977, now mentioned at the end of that section. Should we just delete this phrase? Softlavender (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Softlavender (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks! (Had to leave the computer for a while, just returned).JeanColumbia (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The timeline and structuring of the article has become a bit of a mess

The timeline and structuring of the article has become a bit of a mess, with important information missing from the body text even though it is in the lede. I don't have time at the moment to fix this, so I'm making a note here. Softlavender (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

1993?

Every source I've seen lists this as 1993 LA recording. Besides which, if it were a NYC recording, I'd think the proper billing would be 1993 Broadway? anyone have any reason to believe this isn't LA? I'm reverting it in the meantime TheHYPO 08:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Recordings section?

LA and Canada have barely enough info to need a header. I was going to consolodate that section into a bulleted list, but I don't really understand the Hong Kong section. The sections seem to be giving info not only on the recordings but also on the revivals themselves which shouldn't be under the recording header. TheHYPO 21:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I too was confused by the Hong Kong "recording". I think it should be removed as it doesn't state an "official" recording, only a revival show (in which case, I could list two that I've been to this year!) JGXenite 00:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Novello Pop Cantatas"

Should a side note be added somewhere to say that Joseph was first published by Novello in a series that included titles (of similar style but obviously of less general popularity) such The Daniel Jazz, Swingin' Samson, Adam-in-Eden, Noah and His Floating Zoo etc...? Where should this go? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jchurch1 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Musical Numbers

I Don't Think I'm Wanted Back At Home Anymore (cut following 1973 London run) I was sort of excited when I read this, thinking maybe I could find a version of it somewhere on the internet, or the sheet music or something, but... this page is the only page on the entire internet that mentions Joseph having a song cut from it, much less the title or any portion of the title on a webpage. Did someone just make this up? Should it be removed from the article considering this article is the only place that it can be found (besides answers.com which is an exact copy of the article)?EgyptianSushi 18:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Another song that was cut from the score during development was "Jacob's Journey," which was towards the beginning of the show. I've never heard of "I Don't Think I'm Wanted Back at Home Anymore." Whether it exists or not, I've edited it out because it's distracting. Most musicals have songs cut from them during the course of development, and we would be cluttering every article about a musical if we were to include all the songs that are no longer a part of it.--Cassmus 11:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there's good grounds for keeping in the reference to "I Don't Think I'm Wanted Back At Home," since although doesn't appear on soundtrack releases, it does show up from time to time in touring productions. However, it seems from Rice's online CV (http://www.timrice.co.uk/cv.html) that it was actually written for another show called "Jacob's Journey", which was originally intended as a prologue to Joseph but was cut (details here: http://www.reallyuseful.com/rug/shows/joseph/inspiration.htm). David Brider 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

London Recordings?

The article mentions two London recordings but doesn't mention and significant way to distinguish them. Is there a different star than Donovan in the second recording? is the art different? that would be a good point to include, as I can't easily find any recording other than the 1991 Donovan one with the cover that was then standardized like the LA and (white) Canadian albums. TheHYPO 21:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK there was only one London soundtrack release off the back of the 1991 revival. I've amended that section accordingly. David Brider 05:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Intermissions

While the original production didn't contain an intermission and the production existed as a one-act musical until the late 70s, it is now almost always performed with an intermission. There is one indicated in the materials in the American leasing company (MTI), which, for the most part, contains the show as it was performed on Bway in 1982. (At least it did. Ten years ago. Damn, I'm old.) If they've updated it with the '91 revival version, that one still had an intermission. Anyway, I'm just asking to leave the plot and the songs separated into acts. Whether or not your production contained an intermission, this is how they are considered by the authors. Or, at least, the producers. — Music Maker 09:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

1980 tour

Does anyone remember the tour of Joseph in the 1980s? I went to see the show at Sadlers Wells in about 1982 and saw Jess Conrad as Joseph. However, I cannot find any mention of this production anywhere, either on The Really Useful website or Sadlers Wells. It was very good and I loved the way they displayed the Dreamcoat at the end with the brothers unrolling the panels until they filled the stage. Oyster24 08:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Saw a tour in late 1990s that starred John Travolta's nephew Rikki Lee Travolta. It was pretty good. I thought Sam Harris and Donny Osmond split most Joseph touring duties in the 1980s. I'm not familiar with Jess Conrad. GreenGobott (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Amateur productions policy

Can we figure out some kind of policy about whether amateur productions (e.g. schools) should go in? People keep adding their school's production and it keeps getting deleted. Marnanel 17:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any justification for it, really. There've been...I've no idea how many amateur productions of Joseph, certainly thousands. We can't list all of them, so how should we choose which ones to list and which ones to exclude? Better to just list major professional productions, IMO. As it is, the section under which people seem to be listing amateur productions is the section for recordings, so information on performances per se doesn't really belong there anyway... David Brider 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason, I deleted this paragraph: "David Dixon toured with the show for a 12 week run in Singapore (ending 12 April 1998), New Zealand, and Hong Kong (summer of 1998)." It's not even mentioned in his own article, assuming that's the same person. We can't possibly list every road show of the musical -- there have been hundreds of them. Softlavender (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Haymarket, Leicester; re-org of Lead

Hi. The article says that this was the first production of the show in its settled form. Can you add the year when this happened? I added the 1973 production to the infobox, since that was at a West End theatre. I also did a re-org of the Lead to present the info in our usual sequence: Who wrote the show, based on what, what was it about (first paragraph); Major productions info (2nd paragraph) and "other notable info" (third paragraph). Also, we need a cite for the assertion that there have been 20,000 productions. I trimmed the paragraph, but I think it still seems a little too WP:PEACOCKy. The paragraph really could be moved to the end of the productions section, leaving just the info that it is frequently performed in the Lead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Haymarket Theatre history. I'll leave it to others as to whether this is a sufficient source; although not precise about dates, the article does give several years. "Musicals of note were:- 'Joseph And The Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat', produced several times at the Haymarket, in 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978, and 1985. This became a great favourite with audiences and was developed at the Haymarket from it's first shorter schools version into the full blown musical we know today." [[1]].JeanColumbia (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not know where the 20,000 productions comes from.JeanColumbia (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Osmond DVD has some history info

The Osmond DVD has some history of the musical. I think I have it somewhere, but if someone else does too they can look. (It's rather maddening that the very complicated history of the development of this musical is scattered piecemeal in more than a dozen different places LOL.) Softlavender (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have it after all -- must have rented it. In any case, I don't know that it has more info than the official sites (it was released in 2000). But if anyone has it it might be worth checking. The info is in a series of clickable pages of text on the DVD. Softlavender (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Reason for the order of the brothers?

Is there a reason for the order of the other eleven brothers under the list of characters? I would think they should be in order of birth. Tressif (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe it may be in the order of their significance in the musical, or in "appearance" order, or in number of "lines". It's the order I found the list in in a complete cast list/description, so I kept that order. I agree that it's a little odd. Check online or in theatre programmes and see if other cast descriptions list them differently. Softlavender (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: I just checked a theatre programme I have, and the brothers are listed exactly as they are in the article. So I'm assuming this is the standard credit order for listing them. Softlavender (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The order of the brothers' births is not really relevant to the article, nor is much of the biographical information listed next to them. The article is about the musical, not the Biblical people.

The order the brothers are presented in the musical is a lyrical choice. "Reuben was the eldest of the children of Isreal with Simeon and Levi the next in line. Napthali and Issachar with Asher and Dan, Zebulum and Gad brought the total to nine... ...Benjamin and Judah, which leaves only one..." Listing them in birth order would be necessary in an article about their lineage in the Bible, but not a character listing for a show. However, it hurts nothing to do so here too. I am merely pointing out why the birth order was probably not followed initially.

Beyond that, the information next to each brother is largely extraneous (albeit interesting) because much of what is given is not depicted in the show. Reuben doesn't show the kindness to Joseph in the script, Levi didn't solely accompany Jacob to Egypt, Judah doesn't plead with Joseph alone and his ancestry to Jesus is not mentioned, Zebulum's sons are never mentioned, and none of their mothers are named in the show.

With the lead-in stating "they each have their own personalities, talents, and flaws..." implies that the descriptions given later match their characterizations in the show - this is misleading. While an individual director's interpretation might take such into account, the script calls for very little. The brothers, including Benjamin and Reuben, all plot to kill, then sell Joseph together, they all lie to Jacob about Joseph's fate together, they all (sans Benjamin) beg for Benjamin's freedom together, and none of them necessarily accompany Jacob to Egypt specifically - as written in the script.

Sure, that may be inaccurate for the narrative from Genesis, but the article is supposed to be accurate to the subject, which is the musical. Again, it's interesting to note those factoids about the people the characters are written about, but perhaps it's better to keep that trivia to their individual articles instead of seemingly padding the word count here.

Similarly, "Three Ladies" doesn't match the script of the show and is also inaccurate. A production, or even several, may have highlighted three actresses in expanded chorus roles, but that is another example of a production decision, not a script or show design. I'd put a notation perhaps saying "in some productions" to keep it more on point.

I just think we should refocus the article to be more in-line with its subject matter. I'm just not goig to do an unannounced, mass edit out of the blue either.

Medleystudios72 (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)