Talk:Minstrel show/Archive 1

message: I uploaded :Image:minstrelsLondonc.1880.jpg, but do not know how to make it an appropriate size for this article.  Can someone fix it? Tuf-Kat 04:21, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)
:Yup, done and included. Lupo 18:28, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

message: I find it somewhat puzzling that this article claims that "The minstrel show had all but disappeared by 1900" (I was under the impression that this crap survived into the 20's, but what do I know), but then shows a postcard at the top dated 1906.  --Bletch 14:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, question the date. As a child during the late 1940s or early 1950s, I remember seeing at least one amateur minstrel show, complete with interlocutor and end men. Lou Sander 00:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that line is no longer in the article. — BrianSmithson 00:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, sorry! But it DOES say "largely faded out by the turn of the century." I'm thinking that a 1940s or later sighting makes that statement a little strong. Lou Sander 01:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at the revised version. Minstrel shows still pop up from time to time, but I think the important point is that they were nowhere near as influential in the 20th century as they had been in the 19th. — BrianSmithson 16:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work! (And I think you've got the important point correct.) I found just one Google reference to 20th century minstrel shows, and it talked about college and high school shows persisting into the 1950s. None of the other references mentioned this. I'm thinking that what happened is they were no longer commercially important in the 20th, but amateurs kept doing them (probably no royalties to be paid). If this is right, I think it's worthy of mention, but at this point I'm not real satisfied that it's right. If I can find an authoritative reference, I'll put it in. Lou Sander 17:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your hypothesis sounds perfectly plausible. Please do add it if you can find the source to back you. — BrianSmithson 17:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it! Lou Sander 19:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I added a note to the "legacy" section, as well. — BrianSmithson 19:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All but disappeared by 1900? 

message: The Juba Dance may have had "origins on the plantations of the South" (or, more likely, in Africa), but there is no citation given for the claim. I would expect that it owed more to Master Juba (William Henry Lane), a free black man from Rhode Island. The only thing that stops me from asserting this with complete confidence is that Juba was a moderately common name among blacks at this time. Barring citation, does anyone object to my changing this sentence to mention Lane, and northern black origins? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
:I googled "Juba dance" and got a few sites that partially support both claims. That is, both assertions are correct to an extent: The dance is ultimately derived from West African dances. Slaves brought these with them and altered it, then Master Juba popularized it. Info from here, here, and here. (Incidentally, I wrote the earliest version of this article and probably added that Juba assertion. Unfortunately, I had yet to grasp the concept of "Cite your sources", and now I can't remember what they were!) BrianSmithson 03:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Juba

message: I've written up some notes at Talk:Blackface/Lott. This is one of the articles where some of this might be incorporated. I'd be interested in User:BrianSmithson's or others' remarks on whether they see any of that material as potentially useful here. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:17, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
:I've merged much of what you posted there into the minstrel show article. Look over it and see what you think. It's getting late and I didn't have a chance to give it one last readthrough, so there may be some errors . . . . BrianSmithson 03:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some possibly useful notes

message: I just stumbled onto this article and it is fantastic! Has anyone considered nominating it to FA? Ganymead 04:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you like the article. As it sits right now, though, it's not comprehensive; there's just a lot more that needs to be said, particularly on the subjects of racist stereotypes in the show, black minstrelsy, and minstrelsy after the war. I've got pages of notes from three respected sources (Cockrell, Toll, and Watkins) that I'll soon be adding to the article, so I hope you'll come back and take another look in a week or so. BrianSmithson 11:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your quick response! Your work on the article is quite admirable. I look forward to seeing the improved article. Ganymead 17:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I have an original photograph in my vintage theatre memorabilia collection of a community minstrel show, 1910. The photograph depicts the participants sitting in the typical circle with 6 blackfaced minstrels (Tambo and Bones?) standing next to them. It might be useful to show the traditional seating arrangement. I would be more than happy to scan this and upload it for the article. The photograph is original and I presume I own the rights to it (no photographer's name appears on it). In addition I have an original piece of sheet music for a song Lew Dockstader made famous. The cover has a picture of him in blackface. Let me know if you'd like me to scan and upload these for the article. Ganymead 17:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, both of those images (the photo and the sheet music cover) would be great additions, if not for this article then for a related one like Blackface or List of blackface minstrel troupes. Their age should put them in the public domain in the U.S., so there shouldn't be any copyright issues to worry about. I'd recommend scanning them at a fairly large size and uploading them to Wikmedia Commons; then they'll be accessible to users of any Wikimedia project. I plan to scan a good deal of photos and artwork from the minstrel books I'm using and to categorize everything in the (not-yet-existent) category Category:Blackface minstrelsy on Commons. Thanks! BrianSmithson 21:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article

message: I just posted a greatly expanded version of the article based on research I've been doing the past couple of weeks. I have only added footnotes to direct quotes, paraphrases of another author's analysis, and potentially controversial material. Please let me know if you think something that isn't footnoted should be; I've got everything noted on my home computer. Also, the article's quite long now. We may need to prune by moving sections into new articles and summarizing here. BrianSmithson 03:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If some of what I removed was of your addition, I apologize -- I don't doubt Lott as a reference, nor your judgment. Because my sources didn't back some of the claims up (particularly the "tom show" bit), I took them out assuming they were false -- though well intentioned -- contributions from others. BrianSmithson 20:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now interspersed my remarks; I hope they are helpful. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded article 

message: I removed the following section from an anonymous contributor:
:Show dancing today, especially on Broadway, is created from many different sources. One such source is the dance traditions of blacks in America and minstrelsy. On plantations and city blocks, blacks danced to the accompaniment of drums and chants, challenging each other for pride of profit, and so began a dance tradition whose elements are visible still on Broadway. On their trip from Africa, blacks brought with them a unique form of movement that involved the entire body, with the pulsating torso as base and center for movement and extension. Along with this black dancing came minstrelsy: a simple, unsophisticated form of song, dance and comedy entertainment that dominated the public entertainment scene at that time. The source of minstrel show material was the Old South. Many troops of black-faced minstrels popped up all over the country exploiting the movement heritage of the black slave. It is during the minstrelsy era that we first encounter the names by which steps and dances still evident in modern repertory, like the cakewalk and the wing, came to be known. A perfect example of minstrelsy used later is Bob Fosse’s staging of Pippin, particularly in the number “War is a Science.” Minstrelsy is very closely related to musical comedy technique, affirming the statement: “We stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us.”
:
My reason is that the article is already overlong, and this new section adds very little that isn't already covered (look under "Music and dance" and "Legacy"). It's possible that the link between minstrel dance and modern choreography could perhaps be emphasized more under "Legacy", but I don't think the background on Broadway is particularly relevant here, nor information like "Along with black dance came minstrelsy: a simple, unsophisticated form of song, dance and comedy entertainment that dominated the public entertainment scene at the time" with its accompanying rehash of material covered elsewhere. Moreover, The background on slave dance would better fit into an article on African American dance.
In short, I hope the author of this new passage will read the article thoroughly to determine what, if anything, needs to be added from Kislan's book. BrianSmithson 17:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Brian on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minstrelsy's effect on today's choreography 

message: :Is this to say that there is none? —BrianSmithson 15:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just guessing but I would take this as a high compliment. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Something is missing here, is it not? - Kamagurka 13:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original poster simply added the title "The good stuff" with no message. So, arguably, something is missing. But perhaps the anonymous contributor simply clicked on "edit this page +" and typed his or her message where the section title was supposed to go. That should be, as Ganymead suggests, taken as a compliment, I guess. — BrianSmithson 13:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The good stuff 

message: From dictionary.com,
A thing is distinct if it is sharply distinguished from other things; a property or attribute is distinctive if it enables us to distinguish one thing from another. The warbler is not a distinct species means that the warbler is not a clearly defined type of bird. The pine warbler has a distinctive song means that the pine warbler's song enables us to distinguish it from all other birds, including other warblers.
:I can see how both might apply, but I agree that "distinct" is the better choice here. Good catch. (And don't forget to sign your comments with four ~ symbols.) — BrianSmithson 14:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Brian that both apply; I don't really care which we use. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "distinct" vs. "distinctive" 

message: I think this page should be merged with Blackface minstrelsy. Zargulon 20:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. There is a lot of overlap, but blackface is a phenomenon that both pre- and postdates the minstrel show. Blackface is a form of racial impersonation and ridicule; the minstrel show is a form of entertainment that utilizes blackface. Merging would be similar to merging electronica with rave; one's a style, the other's an event that utilizes that style. — BrianSmithson 22:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Blackface Minstrelsy