Talk:Oh, Kay!

Good progress

Looking forward to Act II of the synopsis! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Act One ambiguities

When Jimmy and Constance are introduced, I feel that it is not clear enough that they have just been married. I don't want to make the synopsis too long, but I feel that could use some clarification. Is it ok if I try to fix that? If someone else would like to do that, that would be fine too.MarianKroy (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I put in a couple of words of clarification, but feel free to re-do it if you can think of a better way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Thanks!MarianKroy (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Soundtrack running order

I note that the running order given for the songs is that of the 1995 reconstruction (presumably taken from the album listing?) whereas the plot synopsis is for the 1920s Broadway version, after the various cuts were made - the most obvious indication of which is that "Someone to Watch Over Me" is listed in the first act!

(In fact, the plot synopsis given for the reconstruction seems to differ in a number of places - would it be worth trying to document the changes?) -- Igenlode (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I changed the song list to show just the songs from the original production. To the extent that other changes to the article are "encyclopedic", which is kinda like "major", then they should be footnoted in the appropriate place(s). If you have the sources to cite for this information, by all means, please go ahead and add either text notes or footnotes. Or, you can put all the information here, with the source info, and I'd be happy to add it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about the sources, so I'll let you do the work(!)

I'm basing this on the article given in the CD booklet (a.k.a. sleeve notes) for the 'restored' release, which states "Gershwin manuscripts and related materials at the Library of Congress revealed that the romantic element had been significantly compromised in 1926" before discussing the cuts made and the rationale for them: the premiere ran over 3 hours in length and it was determined to cut the entire prologue, thus losing the first 4 songs plus the Act II 'Finaletto' which was rendered obsolete by the reshuffling required. The result is characterised as "not only lyrically incongruous... but structurally damaging" as it not only causes the previously mentioned problems with the lyrics of "Someone to Watch Over Me", but means that the leading lady doesn't appear until 40 minutes into the show and her motive for seeking Jimmy is lost. (Article credited to Tommy Kasker, President of Roxbury Recordings, specializes in restoring Broadway musicals of the 1920's and 30's) -- Igenlode

I added something about this to the "Background" section. Please take a look and comment if you disagree. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Reads a little disjointedly in that context; I wouldn't have phrased it that way if I'd been writing to edit that section... I'd suggest a few tweaks: "Research for a 1995 reconstruction of the original score states that the prologue scene with the first four songs was cut after the Philadelphia previews ran more than three hours, while the resulting reshuffle made the Act II "Finaletto" obsolete. This highlighted the farcical elements of the plot at the expense of the romantic, since the result is that the title character does not appear until 40 minutes into the show, and her re-encounter with Jimmy becomes a matter of pure chance." (paraphrasing same article as before) Although this is probably too much verbiage, my besetting sin.

I think it is worth making clear that this material is actually the result of serious research on the Gershwin papers (as part of the Leonore S Gershwin/Library of Congress Recording and Publishing Project by someone who specialises in the Gershwin legacy) and not just random sleeve-filler...Igenlode (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I have tried to use your new language. See if it is satisfactory now. As I understand it, you don't have a scholarly research paper to cite, so all we can cite is the sleeve notes. The 1995 recording did not make such a big splash that it should be given more ink in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

That reads much more smoothly I think; I'm not sure the statement that "[Kay's] motive for seeking Jimmy is lost" is defensible if challenged, though, which is why I changed it. So far as I can see the ``motive`` is still there in the revised book (i.e. she once saved him from drowning) -- what is lost is the actual 'seeking'! (In omitting the prologue we lose the scene in which it is established that she knows Jimmy lives in the vicinity and has come ashore to find him; instead you get a set-up in which she stumbles into his house by mere coincidence.)

No research paper I'm afraid -- just the outcome, i.e. the [recording of the] reconstructed score.Igenlode (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The differences that I've noticed in the two synopses:

• Prologue (subsequently cut altogether):
  • A chorus of moonlight bathers sing the opening number on the beach ("...you need no sunburn lotion for a lovely midnight ocean...")
  • The owners of the Finer and Better Bootlegging Company, Potter, McGee and the Duke arrive to discuss business, singing the trio "When Our Ship Comes Sailing In". The Duke is deputed to deal with Jansen, an inconvenient revenue officer in the neighbourhood, Shorty McGee makes preparations to store the incoming cargo in Jimmy's empty beach house, while Larry Potter, left behind 'on guard', makes advances to the Ruxton twins, Philippa [sic] and Dolly ("Don't Ask").
  • Shorty comes across Kay hiding from Jansen on the beach (since she has no passport); she has come ashore to search for the man she met the previous summer ("He was so nice and polite... He said 'I'm terribly sorry to bother you but I'm drowning'") having heard that a beach party was being held to welcome him home that night. After a scolding from Shorty she promises to return to the yacht, but takes a brief stroll along the beach first to reflect on the chance meeting ("Someone to Watch Over Me").
• Act I
  • "Don't Ask" was moved to here.
  • Jansen's introduction was moved to here (it looks as if he originally appears in Act I only in hot pursuit of Kay, but it's just possible that he does burst in and then leave earlier and that the CD synopsis doesn't mention it...)
  • Potter leads the minstrel song "Clap Yo' Hands" to cheer up the Duke, who is frantically worried about Kay.
• Act II
  • After her interview with Jimmy during the wedding rehearsal, Kay tells Shorty, who would love to win her affections himself but knows he has no hope, of her daydream of a simple world where she really is Jane the maid, and Jimmy is just the town policeman (Shorty:"Please don't talk to me about policemen .... and don't use that expression, 'up the river'!") in the duet "Ain't it Romantic?" (cut from final production). A fantasy Jimmy appears and he and Kay sing the second chorus in character as maid and policeman.
  • "Someone to Watch Over Me" does not originally appear here.
  • The Duke gets Dolly Ruxton to help in his continuing search for his sister, and Potter makes a move on the remaining sister, Phil, in the duet "Fidgety Feet".
• Act II Finaletto
  • Kay's plan is for Shorty to arrest Jimmy for bootlegging during the wedding ceremony so that Constance will call off the marriage and Potter can 'confiscate' their stores of alcohol from Jimmy's basement, and "the plan works like a charm... Jimmy escapes his fate, and the Finer and Better Bootlegging Company gets to keep its booze" -- this doesn't appear to be the same as the Act II summary in the current article, though less detail is given so it's hard to be sure. Notably, there is no suggestion that Jansen takes part in the scene or that anyone escapes from the cellar.
• Finale Ultimo
  • At the party at the Indian Inlet Inn, after a wordless 'dance specialty number' and the male chorus singing "Oh, Kay!", "The ever-present Jansen arrives, still determined to arrest Kay for coming ashore illegally. That is, until Jimmy arrives with proof of her citizenship -- their newly signed marriage license." Again, no sign of Jansen's identity as "a famous pirate" (in 1920s America?!) or that he believes he has stolen the liquor, but there is no way of telling whether this is due to brevity, or if the two finale scenes were heavily revised.

(Given the the aim was to shorten the show, it does strike me as unlikely that a new plot complication would have been introduced at the time of revision; however, it is possible that such a plot change might have been required in the name of morality, in a show which Kasker celebrates as portraying "criminals as heroes and moralists as fools" -- having Jansen, as the representative of the law, constantly made to look incompetent might well have resulted in a hasty rewrite being enforced to depict him as a rival lawbreaker instead. But there simply isn't enough detail given here to prove it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igenlode (talk • contribs) 17:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I've asked User:MarianKroy to join this discussion. She has more sources for the plot summary. We do not want to add anything about the cut material in the Summary. Generally speaking, Wikipedia likes to keep plot summaries as short as possible, but major plot points should be described. Let's give Marian a few days to come by - who knows, she could be on vacation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Other interesting information

Another article in the booklet, discussing the involvement of P. G. Wodehouse (by Lee Davis, author of "Bolton and Wodehouse and Kern: The Men Who Made Musical Comedy"), states that the characters of Kay and Shorty were based on 'Fainting Fanny' and 'Spike Hudgins' from an earlier Princess Theatre show Oh, Lady! Lady!!.

There is interesting discussion of the running-order changes (and Oh, Kay! in general) in "George Gershwin: His Life and Work" by Howard Pollack (can be viewed on Google Books). Notably, a further omitted number "Ding-Dong-Dell" is mentioned: see also http://www.allmusic.com/composition/oh-kay!-musical-mc0002385835

There seems to be some question as to whether 'Phil' Ruxton is a Phyllis or a Phyllida -- a quick search produces online references for both.Igenlode (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The wording on the summary of cuts/changes looks fine now to me: how about this additional material (see above)? Can we use any of it?

Most prominently, the article currently doesn't credit co-writer Howard Dietz for his contribution to the lyrics, let alone mention the circumstances under which he (rather than Wodehouse, who would have been a more obvious choice since he was already working on the show - there are varying versions as to the reason for this) came to assist with several of the songs, including "Oh, Kay!".

Other material from the Pollack book: detailed musical analysis of the score (p383), brief comparison of "Clap Yo' Hands" with other "get-happy religious numbers from Broadway musicals" (a.k.a. Negro spirituals) (pp383-4) and possible connection with Porgy and Bess, discussion of the placement problems of some of the songs (p384), Wodehouse's complaints about Ira Gershwin's approach to fitting book and lyrics together (p384), original Broadway reviews (p385), changes for the 1927 English production (notably, Claude Hulbert cast as the Duke replacing Larry Potter as the principal dancing role) (pp385-6), plus other subsequent productions of the musical, including details of the 1960 off-Broadway revival, in which other Gershwin numbers were interpolated and both original lyrics and book were revised by Wodehouse, and the 1990 all-black version relocated to 1920s Harlem (pp 386-8). "They All Laughed"/"Heaven on Earth" was a musical by Joseph DiPietro commissioned by the Gershwin estate based on the book of "Oh, Kay!" but retaining only 3 of the original numbers and selecting freely from among the Gershwins' other output (p388). Pollack also lists three cast recordings (1957, 1960 and 1995) with brief comments (p388-9).Igenlode (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, you should use this source to improve the article. Here are my general thoughts about it, my responses to your questions, and at the end I have a suggestion on how to proceed. Generally, our task is always to discuss each musical in "encyclopedic" terms. In describing the genesis and background of a musical, we must summarize the history in a way that encyclopedia readers would expect to see in an encyclopedia. It should explain who, what, where, when and why. It must be concise and focus on the most important issues. See also WP:BALANCE and WP:UNDUE. Moreover, it should be cited to one (or, better, more than one) WP:Reliable source. We have some general advice here: WP:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure. I'll try to give an opinion on what you asked above, but it is only my opinion: 1. The fact that characters in this musical are "based on" characters in the rather obscure musical Oh, Lady! Lady! seems tangential, unless the characters are a) major characters, and b) so similar as to demand mention. That is, is the information important to an encyclopedia reader? 2. Running order changes - what can one say about them that is of interest? If it is very interesting, a short summary of what happened may be appropriate. I'd have to see what you have in mind. 3. Omitted numbers are not very important. We can say "several songs were cut because __________". 4. It seems that we should briefly explain what Howard Dietz's contribution was. 5. Detailed musical analysis of the score (p383) -- OK, as long as it is concise. If it is of unusual interest, it could have its own subsection (that is, if the score was unusually innovative and strongly influenced the course of musical theatre history. 6. Brief comparison of "Clap Yo' Hands" with other "get-happy religious numbers from Broadway musicals" (a.k.a. Negro spirituals) (pp383-4) -- OK as long as it is concise and of particular interest. 7. Possible connection with Porgy and Bess, discussion of the placement problems of some of the songs (p384) -- "Possible"? We should focus on what is most important and agreed upon by the main sources; let books speculate on what seems possible to only one expert. 8. Wodehouse's complaints about Ira Gershwin's approach to fitting book and lyrics together (p384) -- OK, but keep it concise; focus on most important points. 9. Original Broadway reviews (p385). Yes! There should be a good discussion of the reviews, giving a brief quote from the most prominent reviewers. One or two paragraphs. 10. Changes for the 1927 English production (notably, Claude Hulbert cast as the Duke replacing Larry Potter as the principal dancing role) (pp385-6) -- Yes, but again, very concise. 11. Plus other subsequent productions of the musical, including details of the 1960 off-Broadway revival, in which other Gershwin numbers were interpolated and both original lyrics and book were revised by Wodehouse, and the 1990 all-black version relocated to 1920s Harlem (pp 386-8). -- OK, again, concisely. 12. "They All Laughed"/"Heaven on Earth" was a musical by Joseph DiPietro commissioned by the Gershwin estate based on the book of "Oh, Kay!" but retaining only 3 of the original numbers and selecting freely from among the Gershwins' other output (p388). -- Yes, this sounds worth a paragraph or two under a subheading like "Adaptations", together with the brief paragraph about the film. 13. Pollack also lists three cast recordings (1957, 1960 and 1995) with brief comments (p388-9). Yes - we have a section for this already, and it can be expanded, but again, the key word is "concise". I hope this helps. My suggestion is to address one or two of these issues at a time, then I'll comment; then move on to the next ones. I will be away from my computer from July 25 to August 11, so I suggest taking a break during that period. Good luck. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained

"Oh Kay! was named for Kay Swift, and the leading male character, Jimmy, is named after her husband, Jimmy Warburg." :This item in the lede is not represented in the article. I don't understand what it means. Valetude (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I've taken out the sentence, although it might have come from The Play Pictorial source that is cited. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)