Talk:Les Misérables (musical)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Les Misérables (musical) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 8, 2007 and October 8, 2008.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CWmuhlenberg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Hall

The link that Katie hall has does not link to the correct Katie Hall. 38.107.128.2 (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great Sentence

On October 8, 2006, the show celebrated its 21st anniversary and became the longest-running West End musical in history the following performance, and is still running (though it has changed venues).

Classic Wiki.

Production history

This section should be chronological and should contain either (a) every professional production there has ever been, which is an absurd amount to list or better yet (b) notable productions. Off the top of my head 1981 Palais De Sport, 1985 Barbican Theatre, 1985 Palace Theatre, 1987 Broadway Première, 1991 New French Production, 1995 Tenth Anniversary Convert, 2006 Broadway Revival, 2008 Hollywood Bowl Concert. I'm not sure if the 1991 French production really should be included but as the musical is originally French, that would kind of make sense to include it. Milady (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eponine

Can someone please go through and remove all the uses of "Éponine" from this article? The character in the musical is referred to as "Eponine" without the accent in every version (including the French 1991 version!). There are reasons that the writers chose to remove the accent from the name for the musical, which I'm sure can be cited in the article if need be. The correct spelling of the name as used in the musical should be the one used in this article. Milady (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. In French, the accent is not used on capital letters, merely understood.

But on the French Wikipedia, it is always spelled "Éponine" as far as I can tell (see for example: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89ponine_(Les_Mis%C3%A9rables). Also, according to this page, accents are considered optional on capital letters, but the Académie Française recommends their use. I understand the French don't always agree with the Académie, but I really think the spelling with the accent is preferable here. Symphonic Spenguin (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other Adaptations

Is Cameron Mackintosh's adaptation the most current one so far? Or is it only done in a certain state/country? I'm researching this as a school project on the french revolution. -Xer0X

I'm not sure what you mean by "most current" - as far as I know, it's the only one. --Paul A 03:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, if you check Les Misérables, you'll see a great many adaptations. DS 11:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is the only stage adaptation, however. --Paul A 01:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly true. In 1863, one year after the novel was published, Hugo's son Charles and Paul Meurice adapted the novel for the stage. I believe it was performed. Here's a Translation Gavroche42 14:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is irrelevent to a project on the Revolution, as it's about the June Rebellion.... 66.232.240.121 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

statistics

There's a great deal of information at Alain Boublil that probably belongs here, if anywhere. It's a lot of statistics about various productions of Les Miz around the world. It appears to have been placed on the Boublil page by an anon editor, and it's not sourced, so I don't know how accurate or up-to-date it is; but I thought that people who have this article on their watchlist might be interested in sorting it out. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Film adaptations

I'm not sure that many film adaptations of the musical have been made. Remember it's the musical we're talking about by default here, not the book. I won't make a change to it though, can anyone provide details of film adaptations of the musical? Dane Jude 21:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think there are any Saccerzd 21:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, there are no film adaptations of the musical at this time. There is a making-of special called Les Mis: Stage My Stage, and the 10th Anniversary Concert was broadcast on television (and is still available on DVD), but I'm fairly certain that's it.--Kelson 06:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MTI has not allowed for any films of the musical per se to be made, however, the concert version with an international cast and the Royal Philharmonic at the Alber Hall, has been filmed and is avaidible at many Libraries, even in San Antonio. Pelegius 22:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am waiting on confirmation, but have heard a rumour that the film adaptation is going to be by Jerry Bruckheimer, like Phantom. If you find this confirmed, please put it up. JaymzSpyhunter 07:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that as of now all Cameron MacIntosh has said is that they are looking at making a movie, and that several big names want to be involved, but that there is no garauntee that the movie will go to a famous director. They are looking for someone who will work closely with the creators of the musical, and who will offer a fresh viewing experience. MikeNM 03:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Maguire

who is Michael Maguire? Marius, Enjolras or a lesser known character? It needs more specificness [sic] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.157.70 (talk • contribs)

Michael Maguire played Enjolras in the original Broadway production, for which I believe he got a Tony Award. --Tachikoma 13:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

In the Playbill for the musical, in the MTI student edition score, and in the novel, the police inspector general's name is spelled "Javert." I corrected it from however it was previously spelled.MikeNM 20:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

Shouldn't the article say anything about the plot? All it talks about is it's success. loulou 00:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a plot subsection is probably necessary. It might take me a week or two to get to it, but if noone else wants to take over, I can write up a brief plot subsection. MikeNM 20:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I aded a brief plot. Its a lotta choppy so if anyone wants to edit it that would be great. Steel87 14:27, 16 June 2006

I've made the plot more complete, but there still may be things missing. Bsonrisa 17:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, the plots rather complete by now. Is there isn't anything else missing, I think the clean-up tag can be removed now. Jonathan Gr 09:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in the plot? I'll let someone else change this, in case I'm wrong, but shouldn't this sentence end with the word "them" instead of the phrase "the government troops"? Javert was spying on the rebels for the government, wasn't he?, not spying on the government. Here's the sentence: As the students build a barricade to serve as their rally point, Javert, disguised as a rebel, volunteers to "spy" on the government troops.

73.8.106.145 (talk)ChicagoLarry

It's because he's a double agent. He's spying on the students, and then in that role, he says that he will go and spy on the government . He goes out and then when he comes back ("I have over heard their plans..." Gavroche calls him out. As the article is written is correct. CaptainPedge | Talk 21:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

I'm not sure how to set up a redirect on Wikipedia, but I think that some should be set up to this article, at least one from "Les Miserables Musical." MikeNM 20:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rock opera

Why is this categorized as a rock opera? It certainly is not one. Maybe it could be changed to Broadway operas. Lbark 14:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is because the musical writer stole much of the music from multiple rock songs . I do not have them all figured out yet but throughout the play if you just changed a few notes and lyrics you have some very famous rock songs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.114.42 (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think the production qualifies as an opera - a proper grand opera - rather than as a musical, and I'd like to know why nobody else seems to think so. Sussmanbern (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I personally agree, but we're bound to follow how the reliable sources categorize it. If you can find some RS referring it to as an opera (slash rock opera slash Broadway opera), we could probably at least note that there's a difference of opinion. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 06:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it a "musical" puts it in the same category as South Pacific or Grease. But the London production claimed to have a cast plus orchestra of more than 500 people, which puts it in a group with Aida, and nearly all the dialogue is sung or chanted. To my tiny mind, that makes it a grand opera. Sussmanbern (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twentieth anniversary special

In the 10th Anniversary video, they mention doing a 20th anniversary special. Did this actually happen and if it did we should add it to this page. [[Walters1 20:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

The 20th anniversary of the West End production was not celebrated as such -- it did include a special finale where the cast was joined by children from school editions, as well as some of the original cast members, singing a special version of "One Day More" entitled "A Decade More". --Faenuala 12:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School Edition POV

The section "Les Miserables School Edition" is not NPOV at all--since when is saying "sadly, Valjean and Javert lose their thrilling duet" etc. neutral? I'll rewrite it if I have time.Lbark 06:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first school with rites to the play may have been in Sydney Australia, however I attended Holy Trinity Diocesan High School in Hicksville, NY and I believe it was the first school to do a production of Les Miz in the US. It was done my senior year in May 2001,(I am a member of the class of 2001), The production was done under the advisement of Cameron Mackintosh himself. So I believe that precedes the 2002 productions done in both Nebraska and Califoria.

Seriously, I think this whole School Edition needs to be cut out. I think it's kind of too trivial to list who got the rights to do this musical, you know? Maybe listing the differences between the original and the school edition might actually provide some interesting information instead of reading about some people trying to brag about the fact that they got to perform first...

If we are going to talk about which schools peformed it first, I thing it would be worthwhile noting Dauntsey's School- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2882255.stm 80.177.205.228 (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestral Requirements

This section seems incredibly biased, but I'm too lazy to fix it myself. Can someone else do it?

I rewrote it. Better?Robertwalton 18:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The orchestration paragraph is quite detailed now, but did the Kurzweil K2600 keyboard even exist back in 1985?Robertwalton 14:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed original research section.

I removed the section titled "Music Theory," which appears to be original research. This was an interpretation of the meaning of various chord structures and leitmotifs in the show. However, the only citation given for the interpretation was a presentation at a religious (rather than musical theory) conference - in other words, not a reliable source. Since it's original research, not encyclopedic material, I've removed it. Let me know if you have questions or disagree. Thanks. --TheOther Bob 04:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Robertwalton 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree, and have un-deleted the music theory section. While I do believe there were parts of this section that pushed the line (and have suspended their un-deletion accordingly), I felt that the majority of this section was under no direct violation of Wikipedia’s policy. Here's why:

I do not believe that viewing something analytically should qualify as "Original Research." Original research would be looking at quotes from the composer relating to the work, or excerpts from the composer's diary. If I were to write an article on Wikipedia about a movie I had seen, would I need to cite a source in order to say that the main character was wearing a yellow shirt? Absolutely not, it was just something I noticed, and I believed it to be an observation of sufficient significance to write about in my article. I feel that observation would be better labeled as “universal research” than “original research.”

Let’s look at a music example: Would I need a source in order to say what key a piece is in? Good heavens, no! This can be deduced easily, especially for people with perfect-pitch, so long as they have some education in music. Same thing with stating the various themes and leitmotifs in a piece; it’s fair play. To attach a meaning to a theme can sometimes be tricky, but I feel that with Les Mis, the composer was sufficiently obvious with the meaning that it would be fool-hardy to cry OR when someone writes about it without citing a source.

I have, however, not included the section dealing with the "journey of the perfect fourth" as was originally in the section, because it did seem like original research to me, or at least hearsay of original research that would need its own cited source to be within compliance. -- Scorpio3002

I agree with Scorpio, the section is not so much original research as something that is fairly self-evident from analysis of the score. However, I will state for the record that the section feels clumsily written, from a purely language standpoint. I will do a rewrite when I get the time, but if anyone else wants to, feel free.Elmorell 02:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a long time for a response, but I disagree with the above. Scorpio is describing original research through synthesis, which is against WP policy. Here is the current text of the first paragraph:

The recurrent themes in the score add an interesting depth to the story, as different characters sing different songs to the same music through the course of the show. For example, the music sung by Fantine as she dies foreshadows Éponine's more famous version, "On My Own". The two characters share a second melody: Fantine's "I Dreamed a Dream" is sung at the end of the first act in the stirring medley "One Day More".

I couldn't disagree more with the idea that this is merely observation. If we saw the movie Scorpio references, and wrote that the character wears a yellow shirt...great. The problem is if we wrote "the character wears a yellow shirt, which is interesting because it shows that although he is full of false bravado, he is secretly a coward." Although that statement may appear fairly evident to that particular viewer, it's also just their opinion and may be wrong -- maybe the character wore yellow because the costumer was out of red. We could never meet the verifiability requirements because (although we can prove the yellow shirt), we cannot prove the meaning of it without a reliable source.

There are plenty of other examples:

"Javert's fall from grace and Valjean's rise from despair -- one of the plot's central themes -- is explored in complementary music."

How do we know that this is the central theme? Are you sure that Javert falls from grace, and doesn't instead achieve it? Does Valjean ever really escape despair? Most importantly, who says?

"These examples approach true leitmotif and are among the deepest re-uses of music in the show, but for the most part these reprises tend toward contrafactum, meaning that the same tune often recurs verbatim, untransformed, mostly with the same accompaniment, yet without any apparent connection between the two or more recurrences."

Does it "approach true leitmotif..."? Maybe I don't think so -- or I think that it does achieve true leitmotif, not just approach it. Similarly, maybe I think they're some of the shallowest re-uses of music in the show. (I don't, but you get the point.) Without a reliable source, we're left opining.

I somewhat agree with Elmorell that the language is part of the problem -- it sounds like a college or high school paper analyzing the play. But I don't think we can save it. To go back to the yellow shirt example, we could note that the character wears a yellow shirt without more, but would it just look odd to just note the yellow shirt without explaining why the person who noticed it thought it was worth mentioning? If we can't analyze the overlap of melodies or the keys that particular songs are in, then maybe those facts don't add anything on their own. So I would cut this section in its entirety.--TheOther Bob 04:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are 100% justified in removing the section. I think this article needs a section like it, but something sourced and cited -- not just something one editor has noticed. — Music Maker 5376 19:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Its lush and beautiful Tony award-winning score offers such classic songs as..." - that's advertorial at best, isn't it? 86.136.252.181 02:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd have to agree - plus I think that part just sounds a little clumsy. Care to give that a re-write? --TheOther Bob 02:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed darkestnight link

I've removed the DarkestNight link from this and other Les Mis pages. The site appears to be suspended, with no indication of whether it'll return. -- Hongooi 13:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Proper French pronunciation"

The pronunciation given in the first para is a) not in IPA and b) not correct: the pronunciation 'Lay Misayrahb' indicated here is the pretentious anglophone's version. The 'l' of 'misérables' is most definitely audible in French. Can someone who knows IPA (I'm afraid I don't) please fix this? Ajcounter 18:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth is the pronunciation given without the l sound? The l in the "-able" suffix is pronounced in both English and French, so why would anyone make it silent? --Timtranslates (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most Famous French Musical

Beyond defining fame -- which is somewhat opinion, how are we defining "French Musical". The original musical was French, by Boubil and Schonberg, but there is no discussion in this entry about the Original French Cast. It focuses on the London and Broadway casts. The English language version, which was created by Boubil, Schonberg, and Kretzmer, so it's a combined French-English production.

If we're talking about musicals based on French novels...Les Miserables may win...but it may have competition from Phantom. Gavroche42 04:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cast Lists

Would a seperate Les Misérables cast line be acceptable, given the possibility of further cast changes to the Broadway Revival and London Production? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icedblue11 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I would ask are cast list appropiate at all other than for notable events/peformances e.g. Original London/10th aniversary. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 12:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should add the later cast changes to the Broadway Revival. 70.156.89.149 (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can the 2012 film cast be added? I'd do it myself, but I'm no good at coding tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.136.249 (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why were the casts from the 10th Anniversary Concert, Complete Symphonic Recording, and 25th Anniversary Concert removed? I found those very useful for comparison purposes with the Original London and Original Broadway casts , and was very confused and annoyed to find them gone. I would also like to see a table with the 2012 movie cast as well. Is there a more suitable place for such a table? Glassneko (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flim Adaptations revisited

Too short on time to read the full discussion, but the article says no movie has been made of it. My sister however claimed that she remembered seeing it. And she was right: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119683/

Why isn't this mentioned in the article though? - Twile 02:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This film is not an adaptation of the musical. It has no singing :-D. Instead, it's an adaptation of the novel. It is listed on that page along with the many other film adaptations. --omtay 38 02:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and it was about 1/3 of the story.... and baaaad..... — Music Maker 03:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters section redundant?

In reading the article, it looks like the Character section reiterates the plot of the musical so much that it's redundant. I think it would be better to limit the character list to some basic traits/background info of the characters and eliminate describing their entire story arcs once again.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.28.82 (talk • contribs)

I agree wholeheartedly. — Music Maker 5376 19:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal ranges

I'm thinking that we need to source the vocal ranges for the various characters. As in, a published source says "Cosette is a Mezzo", not using the vocal score and judgment. Or, we need to get rid of them entirely. To my knowledge, this is the only article that gives them. — Music Maker 5376 15:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The opera articles all give vocal ranges, and many of the musicals that are on the opera/operetta line give vocal ranges. I agree that it would be better if one could say that the vocal range info comes from a particular published source, but I don't see what harm they are doing in this article. I think that what is currently given in the article is pretty close to right, although Marius is usually played by a tenor, and Eponine is probably a mezzo rather than an alto (there aren't many true altos in musical theatre - especially not young characters). Does Ganzl give the vocal ranges for this show? Does the score itself specify? Sometimes the "audition" websites specify vocal ranges, so it may be available online. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 23:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying I think they should be removed, but MT ranges aren't as cut-and-dried as opera ranges. If you go through the recent edits, you'll see that an alarming percentage of them are regarding the voice parts. (As in, "I'm an Alto, I sing 'I Dreamed a Dream', ergo Eponine is an Alto.") I'm not sure about Ganzl, and I wouldn't think that the score would specify (in my experience as an MD, few of them do...). It might, but I don't think we could access the actual score as opposed to the Student version. I think the audition websites would be someone's opinion, as well. MTI gives the actual ranges (i.e. C-sharp to A-flat). Maybe we should use them? But, really, they only apply to the Student version. I think (at least) "Bring Him Home" is transposed for the student version. Shouldn't these ranges be for the actual show? — Music Maker 5376 23:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a source for the vocal ranges. It's not the best source, but it's the same one used on Wicked, a GA. Please do not change the vocal ranges without a valid citation; they will be reverted. — Music Maker 5376 13:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what, if anything, would be a good source, but the one currently cited certainly isn't. It is utter nonsense to call Marius a tenor and Enjolras a baritone; the latter's singing lies considerably higher than the former. Eponine and Fantine are both altos: they generally sing low and both have to sing a very audible low F, a low note even for an alto. I quite understand that I can't put this in without a decent citation, but if, as seems very likely, there isn't one, shouldn't we just get rid of the range bit altogether? Ou tis (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appologise, as in my haste I slightly edited the vocal ranges without finding a source to back me up. Change if you feel it's necessary, but I would like for it to be noted that while it's common for the role of Marius Pontmercy to be played by a tenor, it should also be noted that Michael Ball, who played the part in the original london cast, is in fact a baritone. Marius does have a fairly high range, but it's nothing beyond the abilities of a baritone. The same could be said of Enjolras. I appologise for any offence taken and I hope you will consider my editorial when I find a source to back it up. My reguards, --jpg0901 11:37, 10 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpg0901 (talk • contribs)

I appologise yet again, as in my haste I forgot to sign for my own post. This is my first time editing and I'm not entirely used to it yet. I just found Marius and Enjolras listed as baritenor roles on the baritenor page on this sight. my reguards again,--jpg0901 11:47 10 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpg0901 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I always thought Fantine was the alto and Eponine was the mezzo. I saw it last summer and there was no way Eponine was an alto. I could be wrong, but I think both those roles can be played by either altos or mezzos. Lea Salonga was AMAZING, by the way. Sailorknightwing (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of Thenardier classified as a tenor. Only as a baritone. Heck, I've seen him played by a bass (granted, this was the student edition).

Okay, someone put actual notes on the ranges. On Jean Valjean it says "Ab2-Bb4." This is wrong. Valjean goes up to a B at the end of "Who Am I." You can tell this by holding a tuner up to any of the recordings. The vocal selections book is not a valid source, as the makers often put the songs in different keys. Also, Marius' part has been changed from tenor to baritone. While the song "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" is rather low, and more suitable to a baritone than a tenor, I think it's safe to say that he is cast as a tenor more than as a baritone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.189.93 (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Valjean, "Tenor or Baritone?" What? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.189.93 (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original French Concept Album

should there be a larger mention of this as it was the first form the musical took-as in a cast list, and certain differences between English and French versions, more than just the addition of the prologue. The OFCA is simply amazing I know I want to know more about it --GunshotGlitter 12:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More removals??

I'm not sure I understand another removal of my material from this page. I added information about the world renowned return of Colm Wilkinson who returned to the role of Valjean after a decade. The information was removed because it wasn't "neutral". I don't see how that makes any sense. I never said he was the best or worst. Whether you prefer Wilkinson in the role or not, it was a big deal to many Les Miz fans, and was a milestone for the show and the man who originated the role in London and on Broadway. It is a further research fact for those looking for information on the evolution of the show. People came from all over the world and sold out tickets in ten minutes. How is that not worth mentioning?

Second, references to the additional material on the London (but no subsequent) recordings written by James Fenton was deleted. Again, with the removal of factual, credible information for readers. I've read the policy and I still don't understand how this information is inadmissible. Just because administrators are unaware of these facts, doesn't mean they're untrue and any more inadmissible that the currently non-cited information such as musical numbers and plot points, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakydisco (talk • contribs) 09:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavroche

In the novel, Gavroche is the Thernadiers' son...but I think in the musical that is not said, and that his lines seem to indicate otherwise (e.g. "Watch out for old Thenardier, All of his family's on the make, Once ran a hash-house down the way, Bit of a swine and no mistake, He's got a gang, The bleeding layabout, Even his daughter does her share, That's Eponine, she knows her way about, Only a kid, but hard to scare.") I don't remember a part in the musical where he is revealed as Eponine's brother -- that's certainly true in the novel, but I don't remember it being in the musical. (She dies during the song "A Little Fall of Rain," if that helps.) So I think the edits on this issue are right as to the book...but that they maybe don't really apply to the musical. In the musical, Gavroche just seems to be an unattached street urchin. What do others think? --TheOther Bob 21:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only got halfway thru the book -- 750 pgs or so -- and don't remember even being introduced to Gavroche. However, I have no recollection of his being Eponine's brother being mentioned in the musical. — Music Maker 5376 21:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was not mentioned as a Thenadiers in the musical, but in the Playbill, it said that his parents were the Thenadiers.--Jetset59 04:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I think I'd heard that somewhere -- but I don't have any old Playbills. If that's the case, then it seems fine. --TheOther Bob 04:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio in synopsis

There have been some recent edits removing the synopsis section stating it is a copyvio from here. This appears to be true to some respect. Much of the language matches word for word, however, some has changed. Instead of deleting the section, I have tagged it encoring a rewriting and rewording of the section. Please feel encouraged to rewrite the section so it is not a copyvio. Happy editing! --omtay 38 01:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox mess

I'm thinking that the infobox is a little, erm, full. EVERY production doesn't have to be in there, as they are mentioned in the article. Thoughts? — Music Maker 5376 18:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Longest Running Musical ???

You said it was third longest running musical on Broadway however on the offical website (the link provided), it says:" LES MISÉRABLES is the third longest-running show in Broadway history and will, on October 8, pass the 21 year old record of Cats in London to become the longest-running musical ever on the West End or Broadway with 8,372 performances; a run nearly three years longer than Broadway’s record-holder The Phantom of the Opera, all three shows having been produced by Cameron Mackintosh."

It eventually did pass that record on October 8th, making it the LONGEST RUNNING SHOW ON WEST END as well as Broadway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.187.247 (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should be longest running 'musical' not 'show'. There's a difference :) 78.33.22.70 (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia, so please bear with me if the format of this entry is in any way incorrect. The second paragraph of this article states, "It is the worlds [sic] longest-running musical . . . ." A question: Isn't "The Fantasticks" the world's longest-running musical, by quite a few performances? The fact that it did not run in the West End or on Broadway does not, in my opinion, make it any less deserving of that title. 173.57.44.228 (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not mentioned in the first paragraph that it is the longest running musical in London. Surely this is more important than it being the 3rd longest on Broadway since it's an Anglo/French musical. Too many articles on musicals on wikipedia are from a 'Broadway' viewpoint, often neglecting Olivier Awards in favour of Tony's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.103.86 (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why deleted? if its becouse of wrong enlish, please make it good, and not delete?

Hi, a few day's ago i saw this great musical, its was the very first playing of the new musical in The Netherlands. There are made new compositions, and after the playing in the netherlands, this new compositions will be used in the running shows all over the world... i think thans an important fact, so i added it, but its deleted. Why? if it becouse of bad english of me: could someone maybe make it good english, instead of completely delete it? :S Bart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.104.228.99 (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there was a commend when my part was deleted that it was un citated or so.. so i have an article from an dutch journal: http://www.ad.nl/cultuur/2187232/Schnberg_bij_tryout_van_Les_Misrables.html the article published the morning of the 1st try out where i have been, roughly translated every part in italic:

Schönberg bij try-out van Les Misérables

Schönberg at try-out of les mis.

HOORN - De wereldberoemde Franse zanger en componist Claude-Michel Schönberg (63) is vanavond in Hoorn aanwezig bij de eerste try-out van de nieuwe Nederlandse versie van ‘zijn’ succesvolle musical Les Misérables. In deze Nederlandse productie zijn namelijk de muzikale arrangementen nieuw, die volgens Joop van den Ende Theaterproducties na Nederland in alle Les Misérables-producties over de hele wereld gebruikt zullen worden.

Hoorn- the world famaus french singer and composer Claude-Michel Schönberg (63) would be at the 1st try-out of the new duch version of 'his' sucess musical les mis. This is becouse of the new arrangements, wich, according to the words of Joop van den Ende (dutch producer), would be used in all les mis productions all over the world.

Schönberg wil de nieuwe arrangementen, gemaakt door Stephen Metcalfe in Hoorn persoonlijk horen.

Schönberg would like to hear the new arrangements, made by Stephen Metcalfe, personaly at Hoorn.

De première van Les Misérables is op 20 april in het Nieuwe Luxor in Rotterdam. Het is voor de tweede keer in de theatergeschiedenis dat de musical in Nederland te zien is. Eerder was dat in 1991.

the premiere of les mis is on april the 20th in "the new luxor theater" at rotterdam. its the 2nd time in the theater history that les mis could be seen in the netherlands. In the history it was in 1991 (also from Joop van dn Ende)

De cast van Les Misérables bestaat uit 37 personen, onder wie de bekende namen van René van Kooten, Wim van den Driessche, Jamai Loman, Suzan Seegers, Céline Purcell, Nurlaila Karim, Freek Bartels, Marjolein Algera en Carlo Bosz- hard.

the cast of les mis are 37 persons, some famous names are: René van Kooten, Wim van den Driessche, Jamai Loman, Suzan Seegers, Céline Purcell, Nurlaila Karim, Freek Bartels, Marjolein Algera en Carlo Boszhard

Les Misérables, naar het beroemde boek van Victor Hugo, is een beproefd recept. De productie metde muziek van Schönberg ontving wereldwijd meer dan 55 miljoen bezoekers en was sinds 1985 in 261 steden te zien.

les mis, made of the book of hugo, is an famous concept. the producion with the music of schonberg got over 55.000.000 visitors worldwide, is had been seen in 261 citys since 1985

I'm trying to understand if these are whole new songs or new versions of old songs. This sounds as if it may be new orchestrations, but it could just be because of the translation. If they are adding new songs to the show, yes, that would warrant inclusion. If they are re-arranging the old ones, that might not be. I'll happily make it sound good, if it is new songs. — Music Maker 5376 01:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If my grasp of Dutch is correct (which, admittedly, stems from one, erm, interesting trip to Amsterdam....), I think this is saying that they are new arrangements of the old songs -- in fact, it says that Schoenberg heard them for the first time during the production. The edit in question, if memory serves, said that they were new songs, which isn't true. The Dutch producer saying that they will be used in "all Les Mis productions over the world" should probably be taken with a grain of salt. I seriously doubt that any current productions will change what they're doing and adopt new orchestrations. Future productions will, no doubt, have the option of using these orchestrations, but I think we would need more verification of that fact before it gets in the article. In the meantime:

A production opening April 20, 2008 at the Luxor theatre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, will feature all-new orchestrations. This is the first time in 17 years that Les Miserables has been performed in the Netherlands.

Would that be an acceptable addition? — Music Maker 5376 19:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i'm the person who started this discussion a time ago. i did not read your comments yet. i understand that you not know for sure if i mean new orchestrations, or new songs. the fact is that it was big news here at the time of the try outs that there would be used new orchestrations for the first time, wich would be used in ALL shows all over the world. thats whats told here, i dont think thats a marketing trick and not true, becouse the people who know more about it would critisise it if its not true. for what ive heard is the most important change, that in the old one was not such an "full body". in the new one there are more real strings and such in stead of synthesiser. so its just an better version of the old songs. i hope you could change the text so that there are made new orchestrations in the netherlands wich would be used all over the world after the duch play's.... for questions: info@volgensbartjes.nl ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by VolgensBartjes (talk • contribs) 09:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of August, 2009, the London and Japanese productions still use the original orchestration by John Cameron, the Dutch production has played its final engagement at the Carre Theatre, and there have been no official changes to the orchestral score issued by MTI to regional and student productions. Therefore, saying the Rotterdam orchestrations will become the standard in future productions is inaccurate. I'm guessing Claude-Michel did not like the new orchestration and opted to continue using the originals instead (and with good reason as the new ones are terrible in comparison, in my humble opinion). M. Myriel (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Setting: Digne or Toulon?

I'm confused. Does the play and/or book start in Digne, or Toulon? The synopsis of this article, about the musical, says it starts in Digne. The article on Digne-les-Bains says the novel begins in Digne. But the article on the book says the story beings in Toulon, and even cites the prison where the story begins. The article for that prison, the Bagne of Toulon, references the setting of the novel as Toulon repeatedly. What's more, this copy of the libretto of the musical gives the setting as Toulon. So, either the novel starts in Toulon/Digne and the opening setting was changed to Digne/Toulon for the musical, or a lot of people have made one mistake repeatedly in several different articles. I'm fairly certain Digne and Toulon are two different cities, so I think my confusion is valid and my inquisition is justified. Please help. VolatileChemical (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not terribly familiar with the libretto that you linked us to. It seems a little different from what I saw onstage and have on my Orig. London recording. BUT, yes the jail is in Toulon, the Bishop is in Digne. In my Vocal Selections (if memory serves), the whole prologue is given the heading "Digne, 1815". I haven't read the novel in about 15 years, so I can't be any help there. I think that, while the novel/show technically begin in Toulon, the story of Valjean's redemption begins in Digne. That whole section is referred to as "The Bishop's Candles". I've heard that, due to the fact that the novel is a bazillion pages long, the section is sometimes abridged out. It might not make much sense, but in the 140 years since the novel was published, Digne has probably claimed itself as the start of the story.

My guess is that you're wading into a sesquecentennially-old rivalry. You are correct, and, if you'd like to fix things, go right ahead. — Music Maker 5376 16:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I think as long as we're using the phrase "Les Misérables begins at a prison", we should refer to the town as Toulon. I might try to correct similar mistakes in other articles. Also: hey, aren't you the same guy who was talking to me about Sweeney Todd being through-sung? VolatileChemical (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.

And, yes, I am. Les Mis is also considered through-sung, though there is still some dialogue interspersed. — Music Maker 5376 14:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The most famous songs"

Somewhere near the start of this article, a paragraph reads like this:

Among the most famous songs of this Tony Award-winning musical are "Castle On A Cloud", "I Dreamed a Dream", "One Day More", "A Heart Full of Love", "Stars", "Bring Him Home", "Do You Hear the People Sing?", "Empty Chairs and Empty Tables", "Master of the House", "Little People", "A Little Fall of Rain", and "On My Own".

This looks more like the entire cast recording than a small summary of the "most famous" songs. Either close to ALL the songs are famous, and this paragraph should be therefore deleted, or someone needs to bite the bullet and trim this list down a bit? And what exactly makes these particular songs "famous"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.208.101.215 (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those are most of the big songs. There are a lot of other small songs that don't appear in that sentence. I think we should keep it. --Simeon24601 (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References in popular culture section

"As of April 26, 2009, it is currently the 36th most watched video of all time on YouTube, and still gaining viewership. Due to Boyle's popular rendition, the "Original London Cast" recording reached the #11 spot on iTunes Top 100 Albums." - Is there a source for this? Or is it just cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Are we sure the two events are causally related? 78.33.22.70 (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a mess...

...random facts and tidbits strewn about everywhere, information is often repeated, grammar and spelling is very poor, titles and headers not capitalized--just one big jumble of information, really. I will perform minor edits and will inform you all if I plan on making any major ones. M. Myriel (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any contributions you can make to better this article are welcomed. Thanks B.s.n. (R.N.) 08:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planned Edits

I made some minor edits earlier this week, mostly adding information on the original French production. I realized, after looking it over, that this only made the article longer. I will edit out some of the detailed info I previously added and try to make it as succinct as possible.

I am currently working on a major edit of the international productions section. That section, as it stands now, is a pain to read in all its disjointedness. I am listing productions by year and including theater the show played in, opening/closing dates, and any notable points related to the production. I will incorporate some of the info already there into this section as well. It will (hopefully) be a much neater, easier to read, comprehensive listing of worldwide productions.

Also, I see a great deal of space is taken up by one element that I feel is unnecessary--casting information. Lists of the original London/Broadway casts is one thing but must we list their replacements? The section about the Broadway revival reads more like a detailed cast list rather than production history. I will delete cast members who were not part of the original revival cast, with the exception of Lea Salonga and any other notable performers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M. Myriel (talk • contribs) 17:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the new international productions section. I don't have much info on productions that opened within the last 7 years or so. So I leave it up to anyone who might know to keep it up to date and to fill in the blanks. Please leave cast info out of this. It will only stretch and clutter everything up.

Any concerns or ideas on how this section could be further improved are always welcome.M. Myriel (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edit

Somebody listed a 2002 Mexican cast album in the official cast recordings section. Problem is, there is no such official recording. There are several soundboards but those don't count, obviously. Unless proof of an official, commercially available Mexican cast album can be produced, such erroneous information shall be deleted. M. Myriel (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characters section...

I decided to add to the character's section since it seems rather scattered (they mention Jean Prouvaire but not Joly? ???) but if anyone wants to take away the ones I added, feel free. Just take away the ones that aren't needed as well, because if we don't need Bamatabois, we don't need Factory Girl 5, etc. ;) Ones I added: Joly Lesgles Courfeyrac Combeferre Babet Brujon Claquesous Montparnasse Fauchelevant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Greenstone (talk • contribs) 05:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North American regional productions

Why does the article have such a long section on regional productions in the US? There are regional productions of Les Misérables everywhere in the world (particularly in those countries that have state-subsidised theatres and opera houses). The North American productions are neither more nor less important than regional productions in any other country. This section should either be deleted or rewritten to cover all major regional productions in the world and characterise the different directorial approaches. 129.67.91.81 (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historical context

What about a short section giving the historical context (e.g., was the student involvement based on a real event? what were the economic conditions that led to this? the Napoleonic wars?) Nothing huge or elaborate, just a short paragraph putting it in context? (I'd do it but I don't know enough!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.97.115 (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The 1832 insurgency (when the student body of Paris tried to depose the July Monarchy) is probably the most famous revolution in history NEVER to have succeeded - this page should pay reference to this!!! - <Tra> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.59.0 (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cast list edit war

As requested by another editor: A place to discuss what the cast list or major casts section should or should not contain. To start, my two cents:

Because the article is about the musical, significant productions of the musical should be listed. Concert versions don't belong - especially where they have their own article in Wikipedia ( Dream Cast). This means that the 25th Anniversary Concert should probably get its own article.

The 2012 film, if it ever is made, will not be the musical but rather a film adaptation of the musical so does not belong here. Besides, it already has its own Wikipedia article.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the consolidation of the cast section. We need to remove the concert versions and also the film adaptation, as they do not really belong here. The film adaptation has its own article and concert versions do not belong here, especially when they have their own articles. However, we should keep the original casts (i.e. Broadway, London and French casts). Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we keep the 3 original casts - that is not in dispute. But I'm grateful for support on this issue; the anon who insists on adding cast after cast is wrong, for exactly the reasons enumerated by Trappist. The applicable WP criterion is notability, and it's a rarity that any cast other than the original one is notable. Furthermore, a metastasizing cast table is a bad precedent: I recently had this same argument over the Phantom cast table -- when I removed the 25th anniversary cast, somebody squawked: "The Les Miz article has a 25th anniversary cast, why can't this one?" So again, thanks for the support. DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that in keeping with the notion that this article is about the musical and not about the film adaptation and concerts, §Concert productions should also be removed from this article. I think that means that at least one new article needs to be created Les Misérables: Concert productions. This new article would encapsulate all of §Concert productions perhaps acting as a disambiguation page.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but removing sections on the concert productions and the film adaptation from this article, is in my opinion, absolutely ludicrous. They all are various productions of the musical and it all comes back to the musical, it makes no sense to remove all mention of them. If you did that, you are basically removing them from public knowledge of existence, or that they are of any importance. Editors are going to think EVERY musical that has had a film adaptation and concert productions should have that information removed from those articles.

As for the cast table issue, I have found three other musical articles that list revivals, film, and other notable casts (How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, Cats, Rent). I'm sure there are more. I believe that this should be taken into account. I believe the revivals and anniversary concert productions are major/notable enough for inclusion as well as the film adaptation. Anything beyond that, with the exception of another revival, is not needed.

- Cartoon Boy (talk) 1:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Indents to the above post for clarity.

As far as I can tell no one is advocating that we "remove all mention" of concert productions and the film (emphasis mine). Clearly, thus far, that hasn't happened. I would draw your attention to the very top of the article, where you will find a hat note linking to the film article; and to the separate concert productions section where the two major concert productions are discussed and where there is a main-article template linking to the 10th anniversary concert article.

You note that the film and concert productions all derive from the musical theater production. I wholly agree, they derive from the musical theater production. And the musical theater production itself derives from Hugo's novel. Are you suggesting that the source material's article is the proper repository of information for all derivative works? that the novel's article must also discuss the musical, the concerts, the musical film, the non-musical films, etc?

Too much in one place. This isn't a paper encyclopedia where each word costs us money for typesetting, ink, paper, printing, binding, etc. This is the 21st century. We can have as many articles as we want or need. That is the beauty of WP. An article is becoming cluttered? Pas de problème! Create a new article and link to it. This is how all derivative works should be handled. So yes, How to Succeed..., Cats, Rent, anything that is a source for, or derives from, another work should have its own article; links back and forth and to other related topics and Bob's your uncle.

For these reasons, derivative works should be mentioned (as they are) and there should be separate articles to more fully address those works. That includes cast lists. Here, the article is about the musical theater productions. The casts of major productions are properly included here. Not a major musical theater production? No cast list. Find that in the related article about that production or type of production.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a new article stub (incomplete and in need of much work) for the 25th Anniversary Concert. Detailed information about that production goes there, not here.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Synopsis" means a brief summary

Eighteen paragraphs?! I might as well read the screenplay! It should be possible to create a one or two paragraph summary for people who are vaguely curious but not deeply interested. I don't care how many years have passed or who assumed what identity; tell me "This play is about <adjective> people who <verb>, and how they find <emotion>." (I'm not the one to do this as I've never seen it, hence wanting to read a synopsis in the first place.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.32.161 (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The synopsis is really long.RaCJ1325 (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Character differences: novel vs. musical versions

This entire section is WP:OR -- and since no one has responded to the "sources needed" tag for over 3 years, I'm going to remove it in a few days unless someone can come up with sources or a cogent reason not to remove it. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 15:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the original tag went up 3 years ago and the above plea for sources is over 3 months old with no improvment, this section has been removed. It is nothing but OR and has no place here.--RadioFan (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original French production

It's good to dispel the myth that the first French production was a flop. However "That year, in September 1980, a stage version . . . . . . with 100 performances seen by over 500,000 people." can't be accurate as the Palais de Sport apparently only has 4'500 seats (English Wikipedia) or a capacity of 2'300 to 4'600 (French Wikipedia). Sorry for being picky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaPi (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Staging, sets, turntable

Anyone feel up to write about the turntable set?

Les Miz arrives this week: 'Turning through the years' without the turntable? 26 January 2011
Revamped Les Mis dumps turntable, adds Victor Hugo's art 14 June 2011

Seems a notable aspect of the original staging. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 06:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this play famous for using a rotating stage? The section "25th anniversary tour" mentions that it did not use a revolving stage. But I can't find any mention of the stage turning elsewhere in the article. Mgnbar (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was pretty well known for its use of a turntable, which was uncommon at the time of its debut. The Imperial Theatre in New York, which was renovated to accomodate the show, still has its turntable from then.

That said, ten-year-old questions aren't usually responded to. oknazevad (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response here, but my point is that this important information should be in the article. Alternatively, if the information is not important, then we should delete the remark in "25th anniversary tour". Currently that remark is completely mysterious to readers who don't know the play. Mgnbar (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying. I think that's a deficiency of a lot of articles about musicals on Wikipedia, that the articles don't discuss much about the staging and set design of original Broadway or West End productions. In this case it's especially notable that it isn't well covered since the show literally won awards for the scenic design, with its use of a turntable being particularly noted. With that said, I don't know if specifically calling out the 25th anniversary tour for not having one is needed. The one reference mentions the new design and use of projections, but not the absence of a turntable, so I think it can be removed as being unneeded. oknazevad (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mild disagreement: I think a discussion of which productions used the turntable/revolve/rotating stage is near-critical to a discussion of Les Miz. I saw the North American traveling performance again last night and honestly the absence of it is the central animating point of my thinking about the show, although of course I knew it was absent and at this point I've probably seen the show more times without it than with it. But it's a really big deal. Some sources that may be helpful, not deeply researched, but from a quick Google search:

The ‘Les Misérables’ Revolving Stage Is Going. Fans Are in a Spin: The original London production is closing this month after a 33-year run. When it returns, a well-loved feature won’t be there. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/theater/les-miserables-london-revolving-stage-new-production.html
Les Mis isn’t Les Mis without the revolve [making the contrary case] https://musicaltheatrelivesinmesite.wordpress.com/2019/07/13/goodbye-revolve-hello-bigger-bolder-set-my-thoughts-on-les-miserables-and-its-famous-set/ (probably not encyclopedic).

jhawkinson (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some shows use turntables; some don't. For this musical, some productions do, some don't. Especially given the small number of articles that have focused on it and how it helps/hurts/affects the musical (out of thousands of articles about the musical), I'm not sure it's encyclopedically WP:NOTEWORTHY (see also WP:BALASP). -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean that the use of a revolve is generally notable for a musical show. But it is notable for Les Miz., because of how it was such an integral part of the staging, how beloved it was by fans of the show (not all, obviously), and how tightly integrated it was into the production (a musical number like "Turning, turning, turning through the years" has a whole different meaning on a revolve). It's also not really right to suggest that "Oh, some productions do, some don't." Every production did it from 1985 until the 2010 touring production, and then it was gone from the 2014 Broadway revival and the left London in 2019. Like someone flipped a switch. Anyhow, my opinion is that it's absolutely notable and a really important part of the show if you're going to go beyond the twin cores of the music and the narrative (although, as noted parenthetically above, it ties into those things). But I realize others can disagree, which is why I'm raising the point here. jhawkinson (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of repeating myself, you can *say* that it was more integral than it is in other musicals that have used a revolving stage (I am not so sure about that), beloved by fans, etc., but based on the actual WP:RSs that discuss these concepts in some depth, you need to address whether it satisfies WP:NOTEWORTHY and WP:BALASP. The fact that the show's producers in both B'way and WE productions abandoned the revolving stage would appear to say something about how important it was to the show. Are there WP:RSs that discuss why they abandoned the revolving stage? I know that this show has been the subject of books as well as scholarly articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't particularly clear. If you look at the New York Times article I cited, it quotes Trevor Nunn's thoughts on the removal of the revolve, both from 2010 and somewhat more cagily in 2019. That's probably as close as you're going to get to an honest opinion from the producers, but I would say you can't really draw a conclusion about the importance of an element from financially-oriented decisions made by producers 30 years after a show's debut. Even if you could conclude that in 2010, the revolve was not as important to the show as in 1985, that would not tell you that it was not notable (of course it would not tell you that it was, either!). Fundamentally, I think notability here is a matter of opinion that is hard to conclusively resolve, so a matter for editorial discretion. I'd say the NYT article is such a reliable source, but I don't have examples of books or scholarly articles, although it's not a subject I have researched or sought out.

I'm a little puzzled why you cite to WP:NOTEWORTHY, as that expands to Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists, which seems to be the opposite of what you are arguing. As for Balance, that is also hard to apply here: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources." It's not as if there is a controversy over the importance of the revolve and there are some scholarly articles alleging it is an unimportant bygone and others asserting it was the sole staging element that lead to the popularity of the musical. The question is whether a discussion of the revolve gives undue weight.

My analysis would be that this aspect of the staging is as least as, and probably more important than, the recitation of numerous actors and production crew who starred in various productions, which this article spends a lot of space on (and which would continue to take far more space than any discussion of the revolve and its removal would, at least in my conception). On par with the importance of the revolve, I'd put stuff like "Minor changes included colourful projections blended into its existing lighting design, and a proscenium that extended out into the first two boxes on either side of the stage." Although I'd say far more people care about the revolve than the proscenium extension. The digital projections probably merit some further discussion, although I don't have any sourcing on that (nor have I even considered research it), but my memory (aka original research) is that their use has substantially expanded in the US national touring production in the past five years. jhawkinson (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to read the key sentence in WP:NOTEWORTHY (and apparently did not understand the first sentence, which says that what is noteworthy is a *totally separate* question as the question of what kind of *articles* are Notable). The key sentence says: "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies." -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The latter half of the 2nd paragraph, above, and the entirety of the third paragraph both address the questions of due weight and balance that you've raised. I'm not sure if you're finding fault with my puzzlement and not addressing the merits because you think they've been satisfactorily addressed, or because you felt the process confusion was what mattered, or something else? jhawkinson (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a proposal, although I don't think you have cited enough support for your proposal. Instead, you keep WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion with WP:OR. But I am finished, and I am waiting for other editors to comment. If they agree with you, fine. If not, also fine. I have contributed here all that I have to say. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cast recording in French

A CD of the 1991 Paris cast recording is available, as part of a compliation (L'intégrale) that also includes the original concept album. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Musical?

Couldn't this production technically be called an opera or opera comique? Because pretty much every word is sung? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.151.233 (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regional productions

I think something needs to be done with the Regional productions section. Now that the performance rights are widely available, it seems like every single amateur production is being added. CaptainPedge | Talk | Guestbook 01:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. I've just removed a lot of unsourced material (most with {{cn}} tags from 2011, one from 2007).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Vandalism

I've been looking through the page, and someone potentially vandalized the general area in the beginning. If anyone can fix this, that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LKJ55 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Broadway Cast recording

Someone keeps anonymously adding that there is a 2014 official Broadway cast recording available to buy with no citation. I've removed it 3 times now because such a recording does not exist. The most recent one is the 2010 UK Tour cast (John Owen Jones as JVJ). Can anything be done to stop this? CaptainPedge | Talk | Guestbook 03:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Glums

As the lead already has a sentence dealing with colloquial titles, should The Glums be included there as well? It's in common use in England, particularly in the profession. Book references here and here. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Les Misérables (musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100423010142/http://www.lesmis.com:80/about/show-history/ to http://www.lesmis.com/about/show-history/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Les Misérables (musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Les Misérables (musical). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 19:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection requested

Due to large amount of ip-based vandalism CaptainPedge | Talk 16:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the second paragraph of the Synopsys, act 1, it says, "Unbeknownst to Valjean, the factory foreman lusts after Fantine, and when she rejects his advances, he takes it out on the other workers, who resent her for it." I believe that 'resent' should be 'resents' for grammatical purposes. Jonny Peverell (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: I believe "who" in that sentence refers to "the other workers", and as that is plural I believe "resent" is the correct conjugation. If you disagree just explain your reasoning and I'll reconsider. Pishcal (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's is the correct reading of the sentence. The resentment is from the other workers. oknazevad (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Les Misérables (musical). 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 04:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Les Misérables (musical). 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

Ir appears that the summary of the plot narrative not only should be mentioned as a spoiler-- or less narrative. To that affect, the first half of the article is just a few words keep that part from being an orphan. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia contains spoilers, and no spoiler warnings. oknazevad (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Les Misérables (musical). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140706000023/http://gotham-news.com/news/2014/01/27/young-cosette-eponine-gavroche-roles-cast-in-the-new-broadway-production-of-les-mis%C3%A9 to http://www.gotham-news.com/news/2014/01/27/young-cosette-eponine-gavroche-roles-cast-in-the-new-broadway-production-of-les-mis%C3%A9

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 13:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Les Misérables (musical). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120805004541/http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2012/01/taylor-swift-amanda-seyfried-get-les-miserables-gigs-over-lea-michele.html to http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2012/01/taylor-swift-amanda-seyfried-get-les-miserables-gigs-over-lea-michele.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Les Misérables (musical). 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 11:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emblem section--possible error?

Hello, I'm Rebestalic.

The "Emblem" section of the article states that "It appeared in several of the novel's earliest French-language editions." I believe the word "novel" might be a mistake; is it supposed to be "musical"?

Thank you, Rebestalic (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. as I read the section, the emblem is based on a sketch (shown there next to the text), and the sketch appeared in the early editions of the novel. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP policy/guideline violations

...are rampant here. How is it thought that the concert recordings section does not need sources? Is this all WP:OR, or are we now imdb, where we ask readers to take our word for things, rather than to trust our sources? 2601:246:C700:2DB2:980D:B6C:AF04:95CB (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Credits

Infobox credits should be consistent with original London production.'Productions' and 'Awards' in the Infobox are for the English speaking production, not the original French, and the credits should reflect this.

Include Herbert Kretzmer (Lyricist), and update Alain Boublil (Original French Lyrics), Jean-Marc Natel (Original Text). These are the official production credits.

Premiere should be updated to include 28th September 1985: Barbican Theatre (Original English Production)

(AbbeyRoad1994 (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

I disagree. The credits for the infobox should only include credits for the original production, not for the translation of the original production. Other credits are already included in the lead where more context can be given. The extra parenthetical descriptors are an indication that we are trying to put too much detail into the infobox. BOVINEBOY2008 09:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The English Language production was not a translation, it was a complete complete re-write and expansion of the short original Paris production.

This expanded English-language version is the production that received the awards nominations and the 'multiple productions worldwide'.

Herbert Kretzmer received billing as 'Lyricist' for all these awards and productions referenced in the infobox, and to not mention him in the infobox is inaccurate and misleading.

(AbbeyRoad1994 (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Grantaire

Why is Grantaire included in the concert cast lists but not in any of the original cast lists? Isn't he a minor character, and thus should not be included in any of the cast lists? RaCJ1325 (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal Range of Valjean

This keeps getting changed from the correct A2-B4 (A5 optional) to A2-B4 (D5 optional). Yes, some amateur productions move Bring Him Home down an octave, but professional performances almost always use the original A5.

Valjean Vocal Range keeps being reverted.

This keeps getting changed from the correct A2-B4 (A5 optional) to A2-B4 (D5 optional). Yes, some productions move Bring Him Home down an octave if they don't have anyone who can do it. Professional performances though almost always use the original A5. I have provided multiple sources and listened to a number of recordings. I'm not really sure what to do about this. Could someone at least post a source if I'm incorrect? Whoever is changing it isn't providing any sources. Andrew4815 (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the musicals project discussed long ago, vocal ranges for musical theatre articles (other than opera) is not encyclopedic. It's specialty info that belongs in the scores and other sources whence it came, but not here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched both the book provided[1] and the "Stage Agent"[2] website in the character table. I do not see a list of vocal range provided on either. As I mentioned, the previously pg. 39 that I saw in the preview asked questions like "What are your hobbies?". Pg. 33/34 mention stuff about Les Mis, but nothing about specific vocal range. And, it's already mentioned that many productions may not strictly follow the vocal range provided, so it seems rather trivial information. I've removed it. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ssilvers - It seems to be a recurring problem for people to add vocal range to the characters of this musical, but as you said, discussion years ago deemed this irrelevant outside of opera. I have looked at many other musical-related pages and they all seem to adhere to that standard. There also appears to have been some editing war last year incited by the user who started this discussion?

It was recently added again[3] but I reverted it and added hidden comments to not add vocal range. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think even the vocal type column belongs there at all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All Star Staged Concert Cast

Earl Carpenter played the Bishop in the filmed concert but Simon Bowman originated the role pre-recording so should Bowman or Carpenter be listed in the table? Blueflash4 (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bloat and fancruft

This article is full of bloat and fancruft about concerts, tours and minor awards. Amazing and unencyclopedic. See WP:NOT. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Character voice types

They used to be on the page but got removed a few weeks ago. I’ve been trying to add them back but my edits keep being reverted. Why? CeoltoirSK (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit because you were engaging in edit warring. That edit that I reverted has also been reverted by two other editors.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This voice-type/voice-range issue seems to be a common occurrence. @Editor Ssilvers: in the edit summary for your revert, you wrote: Per WP:CONSENSUS at the Musicals WikiProjects, please do not add vocal parts to musicals. That position seems to be supported at Talk:Les Misérables (musical) § Valjean Vocal Range keeps being reverted. I think that I have found the appropriate text at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure § Major roles/characters. Your post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure § Vocal ranges has not been challenged so WP:SILENT applies. I did not bother to look for a larger discussion of vocal ranges that may have lead you to add the bit about vocal ranges. Was there a broader discussion? Perhaps when reverting these sorts of edits, a link to that WikiProject text in your edit summaries would be worthwhile. Mayhaps a specific anchor at the pseudo-heading would also be an improvement.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there was a broader discussion at some point, and I remember that several of us removed them, in 2006 or 2007 at the latest, from a number of musical theatre articles. The voice types were generally unreferenced and, as you may know, are often rather flexible in most musicals. For example, in Les Mis, Valjean was originally written for a baritone but was pushed up for Wilkinson, who was a tenor, and is now generally performed in the tenor keys. But according to the original score, it is a baritone. So which is it? Is Javert a bass or a baritone? Or a bass-baritone? Is Enjolras a baritone or a tenor? So, it is nearly meaningless (as well as not reliably sourced) to list vocal ranges. The Opera project, on the other hand, and understandably, generally does list vocal ranges in the cast lists/tables. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Katie Hall

Great Sentence

Production history

Eponine

Other Adaptations

statistics

Film adaptations

Michael Maguire

Spelling

Plot

Redirects

Rock opera

Twentieth anniversary special

School Edition POV

Orchestral Requirements

Removed original research section.

Advert?

Removed darkestnight link

"Proper French pronunciation"

Most Famous French Musical

Cast Lists

Flim Adaptations revisited

Characters section redundant?

Vocal ranges

Original French Concept Album

More removals??

Gavroche

Copyvio in synopsis

Infobox mess

Longest Running Musical ???

Why deleted? if its becouse of wrong enlish, please make it good, and not delete?

Opening Setting: Digne or Toulon?

"The most famous songs"

References in popular culture section

This page is a mess...

Planned Edits

Minor Edit

Characters section...

North American regional productions

Historical context

Cast list edit war

"Synopsis" means a brief summary

Character differences: novel vs. musical versions

Original French production

Staging, sets, turntable

Cast recording in French

Musical?

Regional productions

Recent Vandalism

2014 Broadway Cast recording

The Glums

External links modified

Some exciting TAFI news!

External links modified

External links modified

Semi-protection requested

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2017

External links modified

External links modified

Plot summary

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

Emblem section--possible error?

WP policy/guideline violations

Infobox Credits

Grantaire

Vocal Range of Valjean

Valjean Vocal Range keeps being reverted.

All Star Staged Concert Cast

Bloat and fancruft

Character voice types