text:
Talk:2000–2001 California electricity crisis

Awful Article
This is one of the worst, most biased, most poorly cited articles I've ever encountered on wikipedia. It is a bit of a disgrace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkbroiler1981 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have time for this
To sit and read through hundreds of lines of text. Can someone please put together a more succinct introductory paragraph? I know there was a crisis, etc, but I do not have a month to sift through this article. Please write a clear introduction, though the chronology is very helpful, thank you for that at least. -- ZP in Phoenix, Ariz68.109.156.229 (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Added content from other articles
During my revisions of several other articles, I have found additional information about the California electricity crisis that I have added to this article. Some of the information is duplicate information or simply phrasing of what has already been stated. I've tried to reduce the repeat information and I will keep trying but I would greatly appeciate any help from other editors in this effort. Thanks! calbear22 03:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I took out the bit about President Bush, because the crisis started in 2000 and Bush didn't become President until January, 2001. The FERC inaction spanned two administrations. --Gangster Octopus 16:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a first time commenter here, so patience please. I read the part about sigining my name but am not even sure I have that right. I work in energy policy for the State of CA and enjoyed the article. There is much good and correct info here. I can understand not wanting to cater to unfounded conspiracy theories about the Republican admin, but as it is written now, it is far too lenient. Besides, factual things can be pointed too. Before getting the Bush administration, I take exception to a nonpartisanship approach based on the point that the problem started in the Clinton administration. Go ahead and tag the Clinton administration for earlier failures. Bush did come aboard into a crisis -- how he handled it is in question. I can't say the exact date, but I believe it was about a week before Bush's fist inauguration. Perhaps he was still on the heals of his BS campaign motto (approximately) "I'm not a divider." So he addressed the California issue saying that the Federal government was going to help California. Then I believe his soon to be appointed energy advisor whispered in his ear and Bush, BEFORE his inauguration said approximately, "California has made this problem for themselves and they are going to have to fix it themselves." I suppose it is conspiracy theory say that that energy advisor whispered, "You can take down one of your main opponents (Governor Davis) by letting California twist in the wind on this issue." Although this seems obvious to me, it is not essential for condemnation. Of course letting California rot for your own political gain is a monumental offense. What we do have factually, among other things, when Bush said that California would have to take care of its own problem, was that Bush was, in fact, a huge divider from inception. The Wikipedia article, in the section about "Deregulation" stated that the FERC felt understaffed to deal with the issue. Whether or not this is true, this is a particularly weak excuse. The truth is that the FERC and Bush are entrusted to uphold laws and they failed to do so. This is complete dereliction of duty. Governor Davis did not have the cajones to take on Bush, but what is a Wikipedia writer scared of? LMIrwin53 (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Revamping of Jan 2005
I seriously revamped most of this article in January 2005. Also expanded it. The most serious problem before revamping was the lack of any logic and a disjointed structure. Neither the nature of the crisis nor its causes were actually explained clearly. In case anyone is upset about the loss of "their" piece, I retained most of the original text and ideas - but moved them around so much that someone familiar with the previous article might not find them. Open to discussion. Caravaca 18:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

POV Dispute of Nov 2009
This is absoutle bias through and through, there is all this rubbish about no new power plants during the crisis, what about the fact that the power shortages started during the lowest usage time? Or perhaps that de-regulation as a whole is the cause of the problem? Or possible political motivations(Davis running in 2004)? In short watch Enron:the smartest guys in the room.

I don't know what "nonsense" the previous user "blanked", but the article as of today takes the POV that:
 * California's changes to the electricity market were in no way to blame for the crisis
 * Bush should have helped, but refused for no good reason
 * Republicans were to blame

I don't think this is an objective look at the situation. Other analyses paint different pictures.

We should investigate a bit more, so we can report WHOSE IDEA it was to force utilities to "divest" themselves of their power generation plants. And WHAT BENEFITS these advocates claimed would accrue to rate-payers or others.

We should not bury the opposing POV in one short sentence at the end of the 3rd or 4th paragraph.

An alternative POV about the restructuring of California's electricity market is that:
 * it was doomed from the start, because it continued to regulate retail rates but not wholesale rates
 * it was not a case of "deregulation" at all
 * it was an experiment in socialism which failed, as in the Soviet Union where shoes and toilet paper always had low prices (but were rarely available)

This is one of the most biased articles I've ever seen at Wikipedia, and I've been here over 2 years! --Uncle Ed 19:42, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Ed, I really have no idea what you are talking about, if you read the article, it clearly lays blame for the crisis at the hands of a partial deregulation (i.e. dereg of wholesale but not retail). There were shenanigans on the part of the private sector as well, which were enabled by the partial deregulation.  To get more into WHOSE IDEA, the utilities lobbied the legislature and it passed unanimously I believe.  Steve Peace, the legislator who wrote/sponsored the law, I suppose could be blamed (coincidentally, he also brought the world Attack of the Killer Tomatoes.), but he hardly acted alone.  Bush didn't bail them out, isn't that a good thing? dml 04:26, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Ed, the blame for the crisis lies with the failure of the legislators to deregulate, or rather re-regulate, the electricity market properly, the utilities for cutting a high risk deal to preserve their postion on stranded assets, the problems associated with environmental approvals for new transmission and generating plant, the rise in the price of gas, the drought in the northern catchment areas, the venal behaviour of some energy traders, the failure of the state to react properly to the crisis, the inappropriate intervention when it occurred and the lack of understanding by most of the parties as to the risks they were running in going ahead with the reforms.

I agree with you that the crap about Republican conspiracy should be removed and I have transferred the offending paras to here as they add nothing to the sum of human knowledge about what actually happened, but may be of interest to future editors:Tiles 05:42, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"During the crisis, calls for Federal assistance were rejected by the Bush administration, and Davis was forced to agree to an enormous payout, costing the public billions. Despite the scandal's bringing of fraud indictments for a few CEO's, the energy corporations themselves were not held civilly liable for money some say was in effect stolen from the people of California.  The deal that Davis made in effect wiped out any future chance for Californians to claim compensation by legal means.

Some even go so far as to charge that the entire energy crisis was orchestrated by Republican-allied corporate interests, to strike a political blow to the nation's strongest Democratic state, pointing to the fact that many of these energy companies were based in Texas and had close ties to the Republican Party and the Bush administration, and that the exact details of the Bush administration energy policy remains private (see Larry Klayman). It is not clear how many people actually believe this. No direct link has been proven, and neither Davis nor Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante resorted to such accusations in their 2002 re-election campaigns.

Many Republicans resent the accusation that the scandal was especially tied to their party, noting that Enron collapsed very early on in Bush's presidency, so that the majority of the fraud occurred under the Clinton administration. Furthermore, they point to the many corporate ties to the Democrats. For instance, the liberal Paul Krugman once sat on Enron's advisory board"

 * Trying to shift the blame solely to the Democrats is just as disingenuous as placing the blame solely on the Republicans in the first place. Both parties deserved blame: Gore defender in Bush v. Gore, David Boies, actually represented Fastow in November 2003 and George W. Bush's largest campaign contributor in 2000 was Enron c/o Ken Lay, so there's plenty of blame to go around. However, the California energy crisis was bigger than the typical age-old red vs. blue, donkeys vs. elephants, right vs. left, liberal vs. conservative debate. It was about greedy, opportunistic CEOs and a herd of obedient, equally greedy and opportunistic jackals and underlings, RAPED the richest, most prosperous state in the Union, just because they COULD, all in the pretext of "deregulation". The whole episode was a window into the ugly side of greed, indifference and ignorance. Ericster08 (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of crisis, rolling blackouts, etc.
I took a quick look at these articles:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2001/03/20/national1227EST0568.DTL http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/03/19/california.blackout.02/ http://www.iasa.ca/ED_news_LosAngelesTimes/LAtimes09.html http://news.com.com/Rolling+power+blackouts+darken+California/2100-1017_3-251091.html

..and added the dates I saw for rolling blackouts. There may have been other dates. Certainly, there were other important events in the crisis that should be added to the timeline. Please feel free to do so.

These URLs might also be added as external links, though some of them may represent copyright violations, so perhaps there are better sources.

--Beland 01:48, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article is all over the place and very confusing. Hopefully I can clean it up.--Gangster Octopus 20:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Role of Governor Davis
Did he really say that he "inherited" the problem? I thought he advocated the bill which he signed - the one which restructured the electicrity generation industry in such a way that retail prices were capped (the article says "regulated", but this is vague) while wholesale prices were allowed to soar (the article says "deregulated").

I don't see any point more important than the disconnect between capping 'retail' prices while allowing wholesale prices to exceed them! How could Davis not know this would happen? Didn't he read the bill before signing it?

I'm not advocating anything here, but I wish this article would shed light on these questions. Uncle Ed 03:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

 * You absolutly are advocating something here, [redacted] 205.188.116.14 04:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The deregulation legislation was passed prior to Davis' election by the Democratic Legislature and Republican Governor Wilson — a bipartisan created mess. Since it predated Davis' authority, the phrase "inherited" is correct. -- Cjensen

End of crisis
This article really needs a desciption of why the crisis ended. Note that the crisis peaked during spring, prior to the peak summer electricity usage -- a fact that an adequate explaination needs to address. Paul Krugman's described one possible reason here. I assume there are other views that need to be described also. -- Cjensen 00:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

 * One source says that Enron's bankruptcy ended the problem. In fact, when Enron went bankrupt and "suddenly" and "coincidentally" prices got back to normal, first suspicions about Enron began to circulate. This factoid needs more confirmation, however. Caravaca 18:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Not many serious economists think price controls lead to long term solutions. Especially in this case, since price controls may have actually caused this crisis. Enron was simply responding the the incentives created by government regulations. BTW, Krugman did not win the Nobel prize in price controls, or energy trading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.61.178 (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Regulation and Deregulation
The last paragraph in this section seems to just repeat several points made in the preceding paragraphs without adding or expanding on anything. This might be better deleted. Sdpurdy 03:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Power Markets
I think a lot of people are unclear as to how power markets actually work. An article or series of articles describing how power is generated and procured would help a lot. I believe there are twelve regions in North America under NERC.

I added more concise explanation in "Causes" section. In nutshell, price regulation created shortage of supply which provided ample opportunity of market manipulation. Vapour —Preceding comment was added at 12:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain it a better, because it is not clear how price regulation "forced" suppliers to ration power.--Gangster Octopus 16:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Enron Logo.svg
The image Image:Enron Logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --12:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Year
Does the title need some year? Has there really only been one? I know I've heard about blackouts in CA multiple times.

PSE&G
Isn't NJ's PSE&G tightly affiliated with the culprits?

Meaning of deregulation
I'd like to clarify the who and what of the so-called deregulation.

Who called the new rules "deregulation"?

What parts of California's electricity industry were released from government control, and what parts came under greater government control?

Is there any public dispute over whether the new regulations increased or decreased government control? (By "public" I mean outside of this talk page, of course! :-)

And has there been any public dispute or controversy over whether the new regulations were a good idea? If so, we should report this discussion. For example:
 * British economist Rob Inhood predicted the new laws would make electricity more plentiful and affordable for the average Californian resident.
 * Kiep Itfrei, of the Danish Society, said the requirements were self-contradictory and would lead to economic disaster.

Note that I made up some funny names so no one would google for them. We need real sources; I'm just making suggestions of form. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

 * The demand side of the electricity market, however, actually became more regulated during “deregulation.”

Can I use the above source? Also, the Center for Media and Democracy blamed the California crisis on the deregulation advocacy of the Heritage Foundation, but a superficial glance at the CMD analysis and what HF said seems to show some differences. HF called for "open access" that would open markets to competition, and they specifically opposed "the exclusive state franchising of electric company monopolies".

I'd like to see a point by point comparison (somewhere in Wikipedia, if not in the present article) between the principles advocated by the Heritage Foundation and the plan adopted by California. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Another quote from the same man:
 * California’s ill-fated idea of hampering the creation of new generation stations and then deregulating the supply side without deregulating the demand side is a bad idea. Deregulation itself is not a bad idea.

I think this leaves us with a controversy or dispute over whether "deregulation" is a good idea, especially as applied to the electricity market. Our readers will be well served by explaining carefully which aspects of the electricity market were and were not deregulated. We don't want to endorse or oppose deregulation. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Be that as it may, the changes in the rules were widely depicted as deregulaiton, including by its proponents. While it's valid to point out that regulations still existed, and that the degree of deregulation is debatable, deleting the word "deregulation" from the article entirely would be incorrect.   Will Beback    talk    18:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Father of deregulation"

 * For many critics of the bill, the focus frequently returns to Peace, who played a significant role in the 1996 legislation deregulating California's electric utilities. "So now the father of deregulation has an even better idea. He's going to save our San Diego air system," the [San Diego Unified Port District]'s [Peter] JanopaulJanopaul said. "It's bad enough that deregulation failed." Peace has insisted repeatedly he was not the driving force behind deregulation.
 * Port steps up fight against legislation for airport authority; [1,2,3 Edition] Ronald W. Powell and Philip J. LaVelle. The San Diego Union - Tribune. San Diego, Calif.: Sep 9, 2001. pg. A

 * [Peace] oversaw hundreds of hours of negotiations on energy deregulation now etched in Capitol lore as the "Steve Peace Death March."
 * NEWSMAKER PROFILE / Steve Peace / Davis' finance chief skilled at raising hell / Brash ex-senator a bold pick; [FINAL Edition] Mark Martin. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: Dec 22, 2002. pg. A.1

 *  And state Sen. Steve Peace, the El Cajon Democrat, the architect of deregulation, was getting the kilowatts beaten out of him. People phoned his office to gripe. They shouted at him in airports. He gave up the idea of running for secretary of state; in his own town they said he couldn't get elected dog catcher.
 * INSIDE POLITICS; More Psychic Than Miss Cleo--at Least on Enron; [Home Edition] PATT MORRISON. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Feb 11, 2002. pg. B.2

 * Yes, you read that right: Steve Peace, author of the 1996 deregulation bill. Peace approached energy deregulation with such passion and command of the details that his marathon negotiating sessions became known as the "Steve Peace Death March." The bill eventually breezed through both houses without a dissenting vote. Peace contends that the deregulation scheme is not to blame for the debacle that is costing the state many billions of dollars. UPSHOT: By all accounts, Steve Peace is a policy wonk who has few peers when it comes to mastery of budget matters. Still, does Davis really think the father of energy deregulation is the one to lead the state out of a $35 billion budget mess?.
 * POLITICAL WATCH / WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?; [FINAL Edition] San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: Dec 24, 2002. pg. A.14

 * As a politician who has made a career out of rushing in where others fear to tread, state Sen. Steve Peace (D-Chula Vista) took the lead in shaping the state's effort to deregulate the electricity industry. Now the plan is a fiasco, and Peace's political future is in doubt... But Alpert and Davis were only bit players in deregulation, compared to Peace, considered the father of the 1996 bill, someone that his colleagues looked to for expertise about the complexities of the energy business.
 * California and the West; POWER PLAYERS: Key figures in California's energy crisis; Prospects Dark for Deregulation Architect; Power crisis: Sen. Steve Peace had considered a run for secretary of state. But some experts say his political career is all but over.; [Home Edition] TONY PERRY. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Jan 3, 2001. pg. A.3

 * Sen. Steve Peace (D-El Cajon), who led the Legislature's 1996 drive to deregulate electricity, ...
 * California and the West; Lawmakers Contending With Power Crisis Have Holdings in Electric Firms; [Home Edition] RONE TEMPEST, MIGUEL BUSTILLO. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Jan 8, 2001. pg. A.3

 * The outcome has all but ended the political career of another legislator, Sen. Steve Peace of San Diego County. Peace, who was chairman of the Assembly-Senate conference committee that crafted the bill, has become known as the architect of electricity deregulation. He has dropped plans to run for statewide office and is hardly involved, at least in public, as the Legislature grapples with the crisis.
 * Deregulation bill author unscathed; [HOME Edition] Daniel Weintraub. Daily Breeze. Torrance, Calif.: Feb 1, 2001. pg. B.5

 * Peace, of course, is best known as the father of California electricity deregulation.
 * Big Hang-Up With BofA; [FINAL Edition] Adam T. Saracevic. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: Mar 4, 2001. pg. B.2

 * As late as 1999, Freeman wrote to state Sen. Steve Peace, D-La Mesa, the father of deregulation, and spoke of his "good faith effort to (have the DWP) join the ISO," which is the acronym for the California Independent System Operator, one of the two entities created in energy deregulation.
 * DWP'S FREEMAN SHOULD REMEMBER HIS DUTY TO L.A.; [VALLEY Edition] Nate Holden. Daily News. Los Angeles, Calif.: Apr 2, 2001. pg. N.11

 * Fair or not, Sen. Steve Peace has become known as the "father" of California's electricity deregulation law. For that he has had to endure unending heat from colleagues, consumers and constituents.
 * Grillings are common fare for bureaucrats Series: howard.0513; [1 Edition] John Howard. Orange County Register. Santa Ana, Calif.: May 13, 2001. pg. Cal

 * Peace eventually worked his way back into Brown's good graces, and won election to the Senate, where he worked on what would become California's disastrous deregulation plan....Peace, frequently and wrongly identified as the originator of deregulation, was ridiculed by San Diegans, whose utility bills doubled....
 * The State; State Crisis Will Test Finance Chief's Theory; Steve Peace has written that a budget emergency would be a great chance to reform government.; [HOME EDITION] Nancy Vogel. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Dec 22, 2002. pg. A.1

So Peace has often been called the "father" or "architect" of California's deregulation bill, even though defenders say he was just trying to make it a better bill.  Will Beback   talk    18:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is wrong from the very first sentence. It has a faulty premise.
This article is a horrific distortion of the truth. There was never, ever a "shortage" of electricity. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I am reluctant to mess with this article until I understand the process better, but when the premise of an article is wrong it is hard to remain silent, and this is just WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. The electric shortages were intentionally created and highly profitable. For a more balanced view see http://www.newsbatch.com/electric.htm Glen Slaylarch (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Um no, the article is accurate in its portrayal. There WERE actual shortages of electricity supply. However the causes for these shortages were completely artificial, as there was certainly enough capacity to produce sufficient power. By deliberately limiting the production of power, Enron was able to create shortages and subsequently manipulate the spot price.59.101.22.163 (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 * You are both right that there was no real shortage. I changed the first paragraph to "... artificial shortage ...", and supported that by cited changes in subsequent paragraph (both went as one edit). But some people keep reverting my changes. Can you help?

 * Vinnie (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

my recent "clarify" edit
The heading for that section says that power generation in California failed to keep up with demand but the paragraph below it implies that instate power supply per capita went up, since population increased by 13% and supply went up 30%. One can argue demand per capita went up, or that California failed to conserve energy. So I see this as confusing.Rich (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I have removed the sentence (and thus your clarify tag) as I found the sentence contradicted the rest of the paragraph. If someone can explain it that would be good.

 * Here is the sentence I removed: In-state power output failed to keep up with demand.  I removed it from the beginning of this section: California_electricity_crisis. 59.101.22.163 (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

PG&E bankruptcy
I have read that PG&E's holding company made record profits while PGE went into chapter 11. In fact I thought I tried to put it int this article a year or more ago, but I can't find it in the history, so maybe I didn't.Rich (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a very good point. Please include it in the article with citations.
 * Vinnie (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

POV dispute
I read through the discussion page looking for the POV dispute that was tagged in Aug of 09. All I could find was this unsigned paragraph:

"This is absoutle bias through and through, there is all this rubbish about no new power plants during the crisis, what about the fact that the power shortages started during the lowest usage time? Or perhaps that de-regulation as a whole is the cause of the problem? Or possible political motivations(Davis running in 2004)? In short watch Enron:the smartest guys in the room."

All of the issues raised by this anon poster seem to have been adequately addressed so I am removing the POV tag. The market manipulation aspect is well covered, as is the topic of how the partial deregulation directly contributed to the crisis.

If a POV dispute still remains by all mean reapply the tag and give your reasons below. 59.101.22.163 (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally agree the article is biased. I tried fixing things for which I had the citations and time. But some people keep reverting my changes. We all need to contribute our two cents to fix the POV.

 * Vinnie (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The opening premise of this article blames the blackouts on everybody but California, and then proceeds to provide "facts" to support this POV. The bulk of the article focuses on Enron and out of state power companies for California's troubles. While Governor Gray Davis' standing might be of some peripheral interest, it should be in a section perhaps titled "Political Solutions and Results".

"The California electricity crisis, also known as the Western U.S. Energy Crisis of 2000 and 2001, was a situation in which the United States state of California had a shortage of electricity supply caused by market manipulations, illegal[5] shutdowns of pipelines by the Texas energy consortium Enron, and capped retail electricity prices.[6] The state suffered from multiple large-scale blackouts, one of the state's largest energy companies collapsed, and the economic fall-out greatly harmed Governor Gray Davis' standing."

The first fallacy that jumped out at me was the numbers for generating capacity and demand. As you can see from this chart, overall yearly demand was over 47GW, not 28GW. The gross capacity was 51GW. A second state of California report has the capacity at 55GW. Either way, the demand and the capacity are very close. Any spikes would result in more demand than capacity. At that point California would buy power from other states, which is where the large costs were incurred.

"California had an installed generating capacity of 45GW. At the time of the blackouts, demand was 28GW. A demand supply gap was created by energy companies, mainly Enron, to create an artificial shortage."

The bulk of the article content focuses on the out of state purchases. Virtually no information is provided on the decisions that led to California whether it be shutting down coal plants, or not building new generation facilities. The "deregulation" is not well explained. An article by CATO clearly explains the major components of the "deregulation", which in fact was greater state control. The article does mention the "capped retail electrical prices", but there are numerous conclusions without citations to misinterpret why power was not being generated such as incentives to create scarcity, instead of the cost of generating the electricity, specifically the purchase of fuel, exceeding the sale price.

There is so much opinionated content without citations, it might be best to rename this article "Blaming Enron for all of California's Energy Problems", and start a new article from scratch. However, barring that, perhaps we could restructure the article. IMHO, the Enron component is more an effect or result of the crisis and how California chose to deal with it. It should be relegated to a section at the end of the article and not be peppered throughout. Most Wikipedia articles have an introduction or background, as well as a History section. Starting with a "Causes" section screams opinion. So, we start with an outline and reorganize the content. We look for citations where they are missing, but if the facts are wrong, we correct them, and if they can't be found, we remove them. Some of the content might be better as separate articles, such as "Deregulation of California Energy Sector". There should also be a section on how the crisis increased prices for the consumers in the surroundings states as California demanded power, a point raised in this article by the Electric Power Research Institute.

As an aside, please bear with me, as while my wife and I have donated to Wikipedia for years, I just created this account. This is my first entry anywhere on Wikipedia, so my understanding of how to work with the other contributors is nonexistant. --rolloutq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolloutq (talk • contribs) 22:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Role of Governor Pete Wilson
Since greed fueled by deregulation was the only cause of financial crisis related to energy crisis, so there should be a detailed paragraph on the role of Republican Governor Pete Wilson's deregulation policy. Also there is no mention of Davis turned down by Bush when he requested federal help. Vinnie (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Tapes
POV, OR, tone, ref-improve.

Enron Trader Tapes
The 2004 release of transcripts of taped conversations among Enron electricity traders in the summer of 2001 revealed that company insiders not only knew they were stealing from California and other states, but gloated about it. The release of thousands of hours of tapes was a powerful indictment of the energy companies that looted California and Washington of close to $11 billion.

At a time when streets in Northern California were lit only by head lights, factories shut down and families were trapped in elevators, Enron energy traders laughed: "'Just cut 'em off. They're so fucked. They should just bring back fucking horses and carriages, fucking lamps, fucking kerosene lamps.'"

In another tape a trader laughed when describing his reaction when a business owner complained about high energy prices: "“I just looked at him. I said, ‘Move.’ (laughter) The guy was like horrified. I go, ‘Look, don’t take it the wrong way. Move. It isn’t getting fixed anytime soon.”"

When a forest fire shut down a major power line into California, cutting down power supplies and raising prices, Enron energy traders were heard laughing and celebrating, singing ‘burn, baby, burn.’

During the winter of 2000, electricity loads were drastically lower than summer due to, among other things, the lack of need for air conditioning. The capacity for energy production in California was nearly four times what was actually used. Still, the rolling blackouts continued. Traders became very creative in finding ways to cut the supply of electricity (generally during peak usage hours or when assistance of maintenance was unavailable), such as in the following conversation at Enron (between traders Rich and Bill): Bill: "This is gonna be a word of mouth kinda thing, tonight, when you finish your normal queue, when you get ready for tomorrow, I want you guys to get a little creative and come up with a reason to go down [referring to shutting down the turbines].

Rich: "Ok"

Bill: "Is there anything you want to do over there?"

Rich: "Um yeah, there is some stuff we could be doing tonight"

Bill: "Thats good"

Rich: "Um, we need to come down and inspect this switch on the steam turbine, um this one switch on the induction steam valve has been failing us, we need to be down to pull the switch and adjust it"

Bill: "No shit"

Rich: "yeah, and our electrician has to be on shift today so that works out real good"

Regularly, phone calls were made directly to the power plants asking the supervisors to shut down during peak use hours, as in the following conversation: Trader: “If you took down the steamer [from a generating unit], how long would it take to get it back up?”

Supervisor: “Oh, it’s not something you want to just be turning on and off every hour. Let’s put it that way,” another says.

Trader: “Well, why don’t you just go ahead and shut her down.”

Soon afterward, the following conversation took place by another two Enron traders. It appears to acknowledge that Enron executives were involved in the trading, were aware of the illegality of it, and were involved in covering it up. Trader 3: "This guy from the Wall Street Journal calls me up a little bit ago..."

Trader 4: "I wouldn't do it, because first of all you'd have to tell 'em a lot of lies because if you told the truth..."

Trader 3: "I'd get in trouble."

Trader 4: "You'd get in trouble."

Another conversation went as such: Trader 1: “They’re fucking taking all the money back from you guys? All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?”

Trader 2: "Yeah, Grandma Millie man. But she’s the one who couldn’t figure out how to fucking vote on the butterfly ballot."

[Laughing from both sides]

Trader 1: "Yeah, now she wants her fucking money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her ass for fucking $250 a megawatt hour."

[Harder Laughing]

In an Aug. 4, 2000, conversation, Enron trading executives John Lavorato and Tim Belden discussed a dispute involving traders who worked for Lavorato. The two Enron executives appeared to acknowledge the illegality of the trading. Lavorato: “I’m just, ah fuck, I’m just trying to be an honest camper, so I only go to jail once.”

Belden: “Well, there you go. At least in only one country. (Laughs.)”

Lavorato: “Yeah, [unknown] this isn’t a joke” --ends--
 * Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC).

No mention of the Bush administration?!
The article is in the category of "George W. Bush administration controversies" but there is not one mention of the Bush Administration in the article except indirectly. There needs to be more direct info on the administration response to the crisis including their statements regarding the crisis, their response to Gov. Davis' request for assistance from the administration, and so fourth. If your going to have an article listed under the category of "George W. Bush administration controversies" then I should be able to search the page for Bush and have at least one use of the word come up in the main body of the article. The Clinton administration is mentioned in the article so why is the Bush administration absent? It seems almost as if the article is trying to whitewash the controversy over the Bush Administration's handling of the crisis. --Cab88 (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on California electricity crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080206194211/http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2001/05/08/lookhow.DTL to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2001/05/08/lookhow.DTL
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111016005719/http://geoffmetcalf.com/davis_20010525.html to http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/davis_20010525.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060814133208/http://www.projectcensored.org:80/publications/2005/13.html to http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/13.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on California electricity crisis. 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/20100620171610/http://counterpunch.org/leopold08182003.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold08182003.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040528122435/http://www.commondreams.org:80/headlines04/0518-05.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0518-05.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040610164615/http://www.commondreams.org:80/headlines02/0507-02.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0507-02.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on California electricity crisis. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fgate%2Farchive%2F2001%2F05%2F08%2Flookhow.DTL
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221160025/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/recall/20030902-9999_1n2power.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/recall/20030902-9999_1n2power.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0518-05.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0507-02.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

WHO started this situation in the first place?
I was watching Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room documentary, and I cannot recall who started this epidemic. Was it Enron, California authorities, etc.??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.216.220.101 (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California electricity crisis. 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://archive.is/20120729140131/http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/01/01-03keeley-speech.html to http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/01/01-03keeley-speech.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Enron Section
This section needs significant re-write. It is largely unsourced and has pretty clear POV issues. The quote offered initially does not appear anywhere in the cited link, even in paraphrase. I'll take a stab at a coherent re-write, but might need to parse out the info into other sections and delete this section if there isn't enough to warrant it by itself. Squatch347 (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this is one of the worst articles I've seen on Wikipedia. I've contributed a few edits in the Supply and Demand section with government sources, but think that a far more substantial overhaul is needed. FarmageddonNow (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Music hall

Untitled
Shouldn't this be called Music hall? There was a popular TV miniseries in Quebec called "Music Hall" that should be here, however. -- stewacide 21:56 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * People who write about such things tend to use capitals: "Music Hall", "Vaudeville", "Burlesque", but expecially for "Music Hall" to indicate they're talking about the musical style rather than a building. It's like the difference between Romantic music and romantic music. The mini-series could be Music Hall if it needs to be distinguised. -- Someone else 22:16 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I wonder if the anonymous editor didn't mean to add the link as iooiooyuyuSongwriters. (See MIDI timecode.) Irritated. Branden 09:20 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Music Hall and the first world war
I am researching at the moment into Music Hall and the first world war. Indeed music hall artists, likemost sections of society (political parties, suffragette groups etc) enthusiastically worked at recruiting for the army. But I have nowhere found the suggestion that the Music Hall lost popularity after the war because of this - does anybody have a reference for this idea ?

I think it was more the radio and the gramophone which killed the golden age of music hall, as well as, a little later, the talking movie.

Music Hall, Vaudeville, Variety
Could someone explain the differences if any between Vaudeville, Variety, and Music Hall? If any? My own knowledge is extremely sketchy....

But I have taken the liberty of adding "see also" links from Vaudeville to Music Hall and vice versa, and a link from Variety to both... Dpbsmith 13:35, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Killigrew and Davenant patent"
The royal patents granted at the Restoration were/are absolutely not known as "the Killigrew and Davenant patent", I've never even heard the phrase. I'm fixing up the Restoration bit a little altogether.--[[User:Bishonen|Bish (Bosh)]] 18:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm Henery the Eighth, I am
I think I succeeded in rescuing this from Votes for Deletion but I'm not a music hall expert and additions to the article would be welcome. By the way, what are Harry Champion's dates? I thought I could find them online in seconds, but I wasn't able to. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kevin - an anonymous user!
Hi. I have added a paragraph on "Existent Music Halls in London". I hope this meets with your approval, and some survives the rigorous editing process. I think I've identified what remains, but there may well be more (they often have small frontages on the street, but large halls on the cheaper land behind). There are a lot of cinemas on Leicester Sq, which started their lives as Music Halls, but the original architecture and purpose are lost behind modern facades and interiors. I hesitated over quoting the "Black Variety Nights" programme, this is what it is called by the local community (and they are very popular). I hope it will not cause offence in places where different modes of political correctness hold sway. Where possible information has been abstracted from each organisation's own website.

References?
Just wondering why there are no references for this entry? Or a guide to further reading? Maybe this could be rectified? Colin4C 16:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Tin Pan Alley
I have never heard of Tin Pan Alley receiving the name from people actually pounding on pans; and such a statement is not backed by the Tin Pan Alley entry which states: The name "Tin Pan Alley" was originally derogatory, a reference to the sound made by many pianos all playing different tunes in this small urban area, producing a cacophony comparable to banging on tin pans.

I would suggest that the statement in this article be revised. 207.69.137.6 03:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)lasalle202

British?
"a form of British theatrical entertainment" it says, but Folies Bergère says it's a Music Hall, so one of both is wrong --euyyn 22:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * British music hall derived from peculiar circumstances in the UK. There were only two patent theatres licensed for performance - Drury Lane and Covent Garden; it was illegal to perform theatrical entertainments anywhere else.
 * That created great demand, and people saw a gap in the market. By performing acts (usually with low, or without admission) and serving 'supper' and 'drinks' they were able to get around the act. They were licensed premises (and the entertainments were peripheral to their principal business).
 * In British (and Colin, who I'm having a difference of opinion with at the moment) terms, the Folies wouldn't count as music hall because they're performing operetta, which would come within the scope of the Patent Theatres Act - therefore, they're a theatre not a music hall!
 * Now in the UK Music Hall began about 1850, by the 1890's it had begun to evolve into broader entertainments, including operetta and plays - what we would begin to identify as variety. The Folies is beginning performance around 1890, so that's the period (in the UK) when we move from supper-style music hall to variety acts in more formal theatres. I would think both London and Paris are beginning to 'interchange ideas' in variety at this time, so it is not unreasonable to suppose that the Parisians were gagging to see the latest entertainments from London - and vice versa ... So, I'd want to see a reference for the folies being called a music hall - and would probably call it more properly a variety theatre

 * So, in one sense it is a music hall, in another, not; and it is true to say that music hall is a peculiarly British entertainment, due to the particular laws that brought it about. I would also not that the Lord Chamberlain's office strictly forbade nudity in the UK, so you could say the Folies Bergère was just a cheap clip joint! 8^) Kbthompson 00:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The British music halls evolved from the variety acts put on at the Pleasure Gardens such as Vauxhall and at saloon bars (aka 'song and supper bars'). Such variety turns had never been illegal under any law: they just changed their venue from the Outdoor pleasure gardens to indoor venues. What was illegal was performing plays outside the two designated patent theatres of Covent Garden. That was a seperate issue entirely leading to the 1843 legislation. However, even before that law plays were played illegally at Penny Gaffs and at certain East End Theatres (starting with the Pavilion, Whitechapel in 1828). And even before that there was an 18th century theatre illegaly performing plays down Wellclose Square way. Such theatres and such play-performances were a seperate issue from music-halls. I repeat: music-hall acts were never illegal. Colin4C 11:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Never said they were, but they (and the entertainments they provided) were regulated under the licensing laws for the sale of alcohol - no alcoholic profits, no performance. This was overseen by the local 'watch committees' and those locations where specifically theatrical entertainments occurred (against the Patent law) must have had particularly understanding (bribeable?), or inactive watch committees. Kbthompson 14:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

 * As far as I'm aware entertainment was regulated by local magistrates up till the local gov re-organisation of 1888, after which local authorities (councils) took hold of controlling and (often) curtailing people's amusements, erecting a raft of increasingly complicated and arcane bureacratic regulations, which continues to this day to make life difficult for creative artists...Colin4C 20:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

 * ... and you're not far wrong. Watch committees were the sub-committee of the Parish who were charged with licensing and law and order. Why the Parish? Well someone had to pay for it, and it certainly wasn't going to be the rate support grant. Similar sub-committees oversaw the poor-law responsibilities. The former tended to be the local magistrates, the later, the local clergy. Others, paving, sewerage, and the turnpike trusts. There were elections after 1835, but in many places, you were obliged to serve. The relevant act is for the better preventing of thefts and robberies, and for regulating places of public entertainment, and punishing persons keeping disorderly houses (1752 25 Geo II, c xxxvi, and C.xix).
 * Illegitimate Theatre in London 1770-1840 (Jane Moody 2000) is a good read, and partially, supports your case about the Britannia (oh, that hertz ...). In particular variety entertainment and melodrama became exempt from the patent act. A number of ways were found to circumvent the act, including at the Haymarket, where, in 1772-3 they used puppets to present The Handsome Housemaid, an unlicensed drama. But, for this page, I digress ... Kbthompson 23:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Article nomination
The article, as stands provides a wide coverage of the subject. There are a few references at the moment, but any article could always do with more! Please feel free to add them. Please feel free to improve the article yourself, or make suggestions here. Thank you. Kbthompson 19:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

GA review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

This is a very good article, but large sections don't have any explicit citing, which puts it just at the borderline. If this was fixed, it would be a clear pass, but for now - On hold.

I suspect any reviewer will pass it once that's fixed, but to speed things up, contact me on my talk page. Adam Cuerden talk 11:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for that, I've been largely offline for the past couple of days. I realised that the article was deficient in references (although, I've tried to reference 'wot I dun'); there are some sections remaining, probably more about drawing conclusions that statements of fact, I think I know where some of the points were drawn from, but it would help if the originators of the comments actually added the refs. Anyway, I added some more today, and will drop you a line shortly. Kbthompson 18:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Don't consider this a real GA review, as I've only briefly reviewed the article. I must say it looks rather "listy" - consider making some of the current list-like sections into normal prose, and/or move the lists to a different article, as I don't think they are beneficial here. Tuf-Kat (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually a good point. There is a linkage between some of the lists - like extant halls that could be turned into prose. Acts, performers and songs, they're so disparate that they form natural lists. Although we've managed to put a lot of examples in the prose, perhaps we could get away with spinning them off as external lists. Certainly I wouldn't expect to get an FA in that state and I would be the first to admit (and I suspect Col 2nd) that it needs more work to get it to that kind of state. Is it a show stopper for GA? I'll look at what I can do. This is a very broad topic, and ultimately a summary of a wide field. Kbthompson (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest here: I trust you. If you think the references that have been added since my review are sufficient that anyone checking them could find all or most of the information, and all of the surprising facts, I'm happy to promote to GA. Adam Cuerden talk 09:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I just read it again, and the only thing I find surprising is the Tin Pan Alley thing - and that really should be referenced (Col?). I think there are issues with the article (see list thing, above), but I don't think the references are one of them. I think this exercise has been useful, it's validated the work done already and provided some ideas and a roadmap for further improvement. Improvement is a continual process. Kbthompson (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, aye, noone's saying it's perfect, but GA isn't FA, and I think, if the referencing problem's now fixed, we can safely promote. Keep at it, and this could well be FA. Adam Cuerden talk 11:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your confidence, I've got another FA on the go at the moment, but I guess this could indeed be next on the list. Cheers and thanks for your constructive help. Kbthompson (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1867 NationalStandardTheatre.jpg
Image:1867 NationalStandardTheatre.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

 * -fixed, it's pd-old (1867) Kbthompson (talk) 09:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Influence of music hall on later music
I think this article would benefit from a paragraph or two on the influence of music hall on the Beatles (especially Paul McCartney), Peter Noone, and others. Some of McCartney's songs would be indistinguishable from music hall if they had traditional instrumentation. Incidentally, Paul McCartney's father Jim McCartney led a music hall band, called Jim Mac's Jazz Band.

Would somebody like to try to write this section? -Larry Siegel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.244.228 (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt if that's a whole section - probably change 'drama, etc' to 'cultural influences' and include a note. That whole section needs to be reorganised and turned into prose. It's difficult with the modern stuff as much is pastiche rather than homage - and there's the issue of where do you stop? To get to FA we're going to need to focus this article more and probably split out some sections as more detailed articles. It's just finding the time to do it. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I inserted my McCartney comment under "Cultural Influences." 70.18.198.249 (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Larry Siegel
 * That's fine, probably that can eventually be spun off as a separate prose article. Music Hall, in some way, influenced most of modern entertainment - so, it's really going to be difficult to know when to stop. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Oldbedford.jpg
The artist who created this painting died in 1942. As a result, his work will not enter public domain until 2112. Paintings and other works of visual art may be used for critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school. It may not be used for general illustrative purposes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

talk about benny hill
do so now
 * OK - just done so for ten minutes. Can I get back to editing now? Grutness...wha?  07:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Abraham Thomas Ball
Should Abraham Thomas Ball (father of former British Prime Minister John Major be included in the list of Music Hall performers? I don't know how well-known or popular he was other than via his connection to his son.

Peteinterpol (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical convention
The titles of individual numbers (songs) should be quotated. The titles of entire shows/programmes should be italicized. As other editors have done tremendous amounts of work on this article and I have not, I would like for them to like to be the ones to do so or at least assent to this, but it needs to be done nonetheless. 75.216.136.125 (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

hall versus Hall
The article name is "Music hall", but the first section is all over the map. "Music Hall", "music hall", and even "Music hall" (mid sentence). I'm just trying to improve a link to here from elsewhere. Huw Powell (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For now I am just going to try to decap all the ms and hs so it matches the title. Huw Powell (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Huw. I would be in favour of non-caps when speaking generally eg;  "people enjoyed music hall humour in the 1880s", with caps being used if its within a hall's actual title e.g Britanica Music Hall, or Gatti's Music Hall.  I could be wrong though. --   Cassianto Talk   04:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

 * The genre is music hall, which takes place in music halls. The only time you should use an initial cap is when you are using the name of a particular music hall, in which case it is a proper noun.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding unsourced information
Please stop adding rogue information to this article. All information needs to be sourced. -- Cassianto Talk   17:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Provincial music halls
Hi - I came here to look up information on provincial music halls, and I was very surprised to find that nearly all of the article concerns London and its suburbs. I was familiar with Balmbra's Music Hall which began in 1848 and which was immortalised in the Geordie anthem Blaydon Races; despite this having its own Wikipedia article, there is no mention of it or any other provincial music halls in the history section. Is there someone knowledgeable who could rectify this? Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is is that the history section within this article is specifically about how the music hall evolved. Music hall entertainment was founded in London and then spread to the provencies. We could have a line or two about the expansion to the provencies, but to name individual theatres, unless particularly notable, would be irrelevant here.   Cassianto Talk   12:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I think a history shouldn't simply show the origins, but show the development - which includes how its popularity spread.  However, Balmbra's origins and growth are contemporary with many of the other music halls listed in the history section.  Granted, it's a small venue, but it's definitely notable; the mention in Blaydon Races means that many Geordies in 2015 have still heard of the place, and that's also why it has its own article.  But personally I'd be interested to find out how the music hall spread to Bristol, Manchester, Glasgow, etc., and what were the important venues in those places that affected popular culture.  You wouldn't want an article on the 80s-90s acid house/rave scene to only describe the Manchester scene (where it started) and ignore other places - and I think the same applies here.  Anyway - I'd be grateful if you can find anything!  Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 05:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Pantomime
Anyone interested in Pantomime may wish to comment on the open threads at the Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Music hall. 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://archive.is/20120723024600/http://www.craxford-family.co.uk/crauart1.php to http://www.craxford-family.co.uk/crauart1.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706015934/http://www.arthurlloyd.co.uk/Archive/January2005/PageTwo.htm to http://www.arthurlloyd.co.uk/Archive/January2005/PageTwo.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928011040/http://www.goh.co.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=44 to http://www.goh.co.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=44

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Sanford and Lyons
Reaching out to those with experience with editing, approving articles relating to Music Hall artists and history for the following draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sanford_and_Lyons

Thankyou so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriana2022 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistent dating with respect to stylistic origins
The dating of the origins of music hall, with respect to the stylistic origins listed in the infobox, is very problematic. This article's body (unproblematically, I think) suggests that music hall traces it origins to 1830s British pubs and lounge (saloon) bars, becoming popular in the 1850s. Yet that would preclude the possibility that musical hall has origins in the considerably *later* genres of variety show and vaudeville (according to the dating used by those very articles). On top of this, vaudeville is portrayed as being of French origin, subsequently spreading to the US, and variety show with origins in both music hall and vaudeville. Altogether quite contradictory, as I read it. AW Regueiro (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Music hall


text:
Talk:Synecdoche

Synecdoche vs. metonymy
I need to do some research before I make any changes here, but I believe it is incorrect to say that Synecdoche is a form of Metonymy. Though closely related, I believe they are distinct figures of speech.

A Metonymy replaces the (dare I say) literal with something associated with the literal, vis:(this statement is close yet merly true, a metonymy substitutes a symbol for whole synechdoche in other words a part of a whole.)lets just say the idea is correct but the phrasement had been a little off.

"Can I have another cup?" When you are asking for more coffee.

"Nice mouth!" When you are retorting the cuss words used in a flame.

A Synecdoche, by contrast, replaces the (here I go again) literal with (basically) either a part of the something, or the whole class to which the something belongs. Vis:

Part put for whole: "His feet are swift to shed blood." More than his feet are at fault for his evil ways; he is.

Whole put for part: "Everyone hates her." In truth, only the speaker and perhaps the speaker's friends, from among the inhabitants of the whole earth, hate her.

user:jstanley01

 * A slightly clearer use of synechdoche is the literal sense: "All hands on deck!", etc. Without needing a lot of interpretation, etc., this makes things a bit easier to follow, I think; good way to extend it deeper, though. user:zarquan42

Ten-Four. "All hands on deck" is a great Synecdoche! It is a better example to illustrate the figure of speech too, when a part is put for the whole. A part, the crewmen's "hands" are put figuratively to represent the crewmen.

"His feet are swift to shed blood" contains at least one more figure, a type of Metonymy called Metalepsis or Double Metonymy, where "to shed blood" is put for "to kill" or "to murder." Multiple figures make the statement deeper, but too complex when trying to isolate a good example of a single figure.

Bullinger bears looking at on the subject of Synecdoche. His Figures of Speech Used in the Bible identifies 4 types: 1) Synecdoche of the genus, 2) Synecdoche of the species, 3) Synecdoche of the whole, and 4) Synecdoche of the part. user:jstanley01

I'd call the cup question an ellipsis, and the everyone indefinite. lysdexia 00:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another good example is "Lend me your ears" Calling someone to listen. "Give me a hand" also works. A whole person is needed to help, not just a hand.

Baseball bats...
Baseball bats are made of ash, not hickory. Knife handles are made of hickory.

--Kelly Martin 05:04, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Not metonymy
I agree that synecdoches should not be listed as a form of metonymy (aka similies are a form of metaphors). They are related but represent two distinct forms of reference rather than one being a superset of the other. yes its true that the synecdoche is a part of a metonymy, yet we could better say that the metonymy has a synechdohe integrated. Wikipedia is not an opinion page, OP. No one cares what you agree with.

Wait a minute.. Etymology..
So.. the 'doche' part comes from the Greek for "I accept" ... so "okey-dokey" actually means what it means? not just reduplication? or is that just a coinky-dink?

Totum pro parte
you wrote none of this is in the lede. All is unsourced. The lede says "it is a figure of speech in which a term for a part of something is used to refer to the whole (pars pro toto), or vice versa (totum pro parte)."

My edit added a subtitle to reflect this, and some bullets taken directly from our existing article Totum pro parte.

Please can you explain what you are objecting to?

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

 * None of it is sourced m saying it's in another article is not sufficient. This article is already full of unsourced examples we don't need more. Unbh (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ===Verifiability is the reason for sourcing===
 * I always thought the sourcing is needed to make verifiability principle possible, and easy, not just to enforce a policy without understanding why it is needed (and when). You were correct in most of your reply, but please, don't be preferring telling people what not to do, please prefer telling them what to do instead, and how, and why.
 * Details:
 * ====Definition is sourced in "totum pro parte" article====
 * I looked into totum pro parte article and found nothing that needed additional referencing for me to accept. The definition in the article is sourced (it might use additional sources to evade depending on single source, but I don't see another source is needed at the moment; might be useful for the future - see below).
 * ====Examples are not sourced====
 * The rest of examples listed there are common knowledge now, and as such it looks like currently not being seen to be notable (literally: not worth mentioning, discussing, researching, funding the research...) for peer reviewed publishing, so sources that shall be WP reliable to next generations too (peer reviewed...) sometimes seem to be a bit hard to find.
 * Also what is now common sense and knowledge may become obscure after our generation dies out (or even before, like for current kids divided Germany is no more common knowledge), but history that might be taught as uninteresting (or even hated) subject by a bad teacher.
 * ====When examples seem not needing sourcing====
 * An example of what might elucidate (throw light on, make clear and understandable), why sourcing any of those examples might not be needed now, would be the examples of (currently) well known mathematical operations of addition and multiplication. When you define well one of these two (and source them by current WP policy), you can give the examples without sourcing each particular example to a peer reviewed source. E.g.
 * 1+1=2
 * 1*2=2
 * when that is true (depends on context). The same might also be correctly written as 1+1=10 and 1*10=10 where notation were binary.
 * The definition - and the context (conditions when the definition is valid) - should be made clear and complete, and sourced if at all possible, but I think we can agree each example listed (as in this case) does not necessarily be sourced so.
 * But when current generations die out, and if culture of being able to do calculations (and the rest of the math) in one's head becomes obsolete and next generations get completely dependent on external (digital or newer) support, context - and sources for it - would be necessary - vital - to get provided to articles as proposed in this example. Without reliable sources such generations could possibly even deny that it was possible their (more primitive) ancestors could do such things without artificial support when they can't.
 * ====Terms and their meanings are evolving====
 * In the Name of the rose Umberto Echo nicely introduces the idea of semiotics - the idea that meanings of symbols (being heard, seen, touched - sensed in any way possible - written and spoken words are just a subset) is not static, but inherently changing.  Paraphrasing from the book (from memory...)
 * "The rose left between the pages of a book was the one that a man gave to the love of his heart, and she held it there to keep her remembering him, the moment, the vibrant colour of the rose and it's smell, the ringing beat of her heart and the rest she wanted to remember till she dies. Time passing, the rose gets dry, looses her colour and fragrance, but can still bring back much of the memory. When both of them die, descendents may have kept the book with the rose for remembering their ancestors they possibly loved, but it had brought not the same memories back to them as did to original couple, and carried a different meaning for them. They may have written the story as I have done here, and several next generation were introduced to that family traditions and understood it. But if that family lost that tradition (or died out) and enough time passed that language and culture changed enough, when somebody found that story the written word rose might in the extreme have no more meaning, but just the name left."
 * From both my direct experience and studies I know (and give examples) I can agree with Echo that meaning of symbols (in vastly different contexts) are (almost?) all changing.
 * ====Changes of meanings shall need context====
 * Because also meaning of spoken and written language symbols (from words and their families and structures, through idioms and statements on) shall (almost?) surely change, we'll need context also for the contents of Wikipedia. It's impossible (IMO - I heard/read mathematicians succeeded to prove mathematically that for chaotic processes but I didn't go through it and even can't recall the source) to predict, how language and context can change, so we can neither prevent, nor even reliably predict, the loss of meaning. But that context that can be passed would be valued, and could be significantly enhanced by sources cited. That is why sourcing may be welcome also in places where it is not currently necessary.
 * Finding WP reliably sources for a subject may even currently be not possible, because a subject set, e.g. a particular (whole or a piece of the) Universe of discourse (UD) is not seen as notable (in the literal way I mentioned above), and is not discussed and published in an accepted public reviewed way now.
 * ====Whenever we can, we should cite the sources=====
 * We should cite the sources, because they shall most probably needed, not just because it is the WP policy and the contents without could (and often should) be removed from WP.
 * In the case of totum pro parte examples are mostly common knowledge now, but authors would be well advised of possible change in that, and keep that in mind.
 * There are also things (whole articles, or just data that would be welcome/needed) that are missing in WP, but which I can't WP-legally enter, because there I can't find no WP reliable sources available (don't exist, not published, not digitized... or even intentionally destroyed). An example (paraphrased):
 * "In 1978 Fairchild Corporation (then it's parent corporation) destroyed corporate archive of Republic Aviation, les then a decade after death of the original founder and owner Fairchild died."
 * More, facts that were common knowledge and common sense, and so seeming not notable (se at the top), shall be forgotten when/if the generation(s) for which they were common knowledge die out. I can - and intend to - write at least part of what I am aware of in such a way, that can be accessible to next generation(s) to discuss and publish in a peer reviewed way (which shall be then available as WP reliable source).
 * Seeing how often people - already - discussing such things lack context to understand background of their current universe of discourse, sadly seems far from a fool-proof procedure. And I still prefer doing things to just writing about them, so I'd probably die far before much of that gets written.
 * Anyway, IMO it should be mandatory to encourage people to look for, and cite sources, and explain why, not just grumbly (or laconically, or even sardonically if it happens) criticise an article is bad (even if it is). If somebody encountered such bad articles zillion times grouchy feelings are understandable, but are a mark (symptom) of getting old (in mind even when not in body), so one shouldn't go infect younger people with that pathogen unnecessarily, and to early, if one can prevent it. If at all possible, I would much prefer getting infected by enthusiasm of young instead. Of course, that is OT (original thinking) and has no place in the articles, but I think shall be permitted on talk page. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Synecdoche


text:
Talk:Antonio Stradivari

2 Sides to Every Story
What a great scientific explanation; "...This has also been proved false by simply examining Stradivari's instruments and noticing that many of them had very thick rings in the wood." How about RELATIVITY to specific trees? How about that is a WIKIPEDIA site where people like you can give out false information? Weasel words? I wrote it in the least biased way possible, not to mention that scientifically it makes sense! I mean, we can walk on the moon, fit thousands of songs into tiny computers, but we can't reproduce a violin. If that is true, how can you tell me it isn't because of nature, something out of our control? The bottom line is, whether you agree with me or not, you shouldn't be removing the information from the website when it is a disputed subject! People need to hear two sides of the story, not one opinion based on pseudoscience to make sure some famous violin maker holds credibility. Take a look at this:  or this  Clearly, you cannot just look at an instrument and make such a presumption that disqualifies any scientific explanation. And we are talking about wood density, and not just the space between tree rings, but the thickness or lack thereof of the tree rings themselves. You have demonstrated the fundamental flaw of this website, and the fact that u flagged the page is completely ridiculous. - "spin move"

Slight ambiguity in a statement in Marrriage and Early Carrier
There is this sentence relating to Stradivari's wife and her late husband: "Francesca was the young widow of the burgher Giacomo Capra, with whom she had two children, and who had been shot by Francesca's brother on the Piazza Garibaldi (formerly the Piazza Santa Agata)." The sentence doesn't make it clear as to whether Francesca or Capra was the one who was shot. I'm assuming it was Capra who was shot, but I don't have the book used as the source so I can't check this. If it was Capra who was shot, the removal of "and" in " and who had been shot by Francesca's brother...". Similarly, the sentence also suggests to me that Capra died because of this, but isn't clear in saying so and therefore I think a more definitive statement on this fact. Any help in clarifying this would be greatly appreciated.IrishStephen (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone clarify this sentence, please? Birth interval? Him and his wife? "It is to be noted that an age difference of four to nine years was uncommon between wedded couples at the time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenif (talk • contribs) 19:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The article currently comments on the difference in their ages, without explicitly stating who was older. If Francesca was older she was still young enough to bear half a dozen children...  Geo Swan (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

top painting
The painting at the top of the page should be identified as a romantic painting, created long after his death, or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B124:7FEF:7462:15D1:42C0:1644 (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Playing old violins...
About a decade ago I started our article on Andrea Amati, grandfather of the Amati who may have been Stadivari's mentor. I wrote that some of his violins can still be played.

I think this is an important question that all of the articles on the old respected luthier should link to... What kind of maintenance is required to keep fine old instruments playable? Is it true that fine old instruments need to be played, periodically, to remain playable? Of course strings wear out, but over the course of centuries don't every other part wear out, doesn't the varnish wear off? If an old violin has to have its backplate replaced can it still be considered a stradivarius?

If a previously fine old instrument is found, that is too fragile to play, can it be restored? If the restoration is extensive, will it sound like a stradivarius? If it does not sound like a stradivarius, would it remain more valuable as an unrestored artifact?

I am going to keep my eyes peeled for RS that address these questions, and I request other interested parties do so as well.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Fit as a Fiddle: The Remarkable Lives of Cremonese Violins archived

title: Talk:Antonio Stradivari


text:
Mary Hopkin

Mary Hopkin (born 3 May 1950), credited on some recordings as Mary Visconti from her marriage to Tony Visconti, is a Welsh singer best known for her 1968 UK number 1 single "Those Were the Days". She was one of the first artists to be signed to the Beatles' Apple label.

Early singing career
Hopkin was born into a Welsh-speaking family in Pontardawe, Wales. She took weekly singing lessons as a child and began her musical career as a folk singer with a local group called the Selby Set and Mary. She released an EP of Welsh-language songs for a local record label called Cambrian, based in her hometown, before signing to Apple Records, owned by the Beatles, one of the first artists to do so. The model Twiggy saw her winning the ITV television talent show Opportunity Knocks and recommended her to Paul McCartney. Her debut single, "Those Were the Days", produced by McCartney, was released in the UK on 30 August 1968. Despite competition from well-established star Sandie Shaw, whose own single version of the song was also released that year, Hopkin's version became a number 1 hit on the UK Singles Chart. It reached number 2 on the US Billboard Hot 100, where for three weeks it was held out of the top spot by the Beatles' "Hey Jude", and spent two weeks at number 1 on Canada's RPM singles chart. It sold over 1,500,000 copies in the United States alone, and was awarded a gold disc by the RIAA. Global sales topped 8,000,000.

On 2 October 1968, Hopkin appeared at St Paul's Cathedral in London for the Pop Experience, where she sang "Morning of My Life", "Turn Turn Turn" and "Plaisir d'amour". In December that year, the NME music magazine reported that Hopkin was considering a lead acting role in Stanley Baker's planned film Rape of the Fair Country, which was to be based on Alexander Cordell's book of the same name. That particular project did not materialise but Hopkin did sing the title songs to two of Baker's films, Where's Jack? and Kidnapped.

On 21 February 1969, Hopkin's debut album, Post Card, again produced by McCartney, was released. It included covers of three songs from Donovan, who also played on the album, and one song each from George Martin and Harry Nilsson. It reached number 3 on the UK Albums Chart, although it proved to be her solitary success in that chart. In the United States, Post Card reached number 28 on the Billboard albums chart.

The next single was "Goodbye", written by McCartney (credited to Lennon–McCartney), and released on 26 March 1969. It reached number 2 on the UK Singles Chart, number 13 on the Billboard Hot 100 and number 15 on the RPM chart in Canada. Hopkin said she interpreted "Goodbye" as McCartney pledging to stop "micromanaging" her career, since she was uncomfortable with his positioning of her as a pop chanteuse. She also expressed dissatisfaction with her manager at this time, Terry Doran.

Hopkin's third single, "Temma Harbour", was a re-arrangement of a Philamore Lincoln song. Her first single not to be produced by McCartney, it was released on 16 January 1970 and peaked at number 6 in the UK and number 42 in Canada. In the US, "Temma Harbour" reached number 39 on the Billboard Hot 100 and number 4 on the magazine's Easy Listening chart. Along with Donovan and Billy Preston, Hopkin was one of the chorus singers on the Radha Krishna Temple's 1970 hit single "Govinda", produced by George Harrison for Apple Records.

Eurovision
In March 1970, Hopkin represented the United Kingdom in the 1970 Eurovision Song Contest, achieving second place with "Knock, Knock Who's There?" Despite being the pre-contest favourite, Hopkin lost to "All Kinds of Everything", performed by Irish singer Dana. Produced by Mickie Most, "Knock, Knock Who's There?" was released as a single on 23 March 1970 and peaked at number 2 in the UK. It was a worldwide hit, selling over a million.

Hopkin's final big hit was "Think About Your Children", released in October 1970, which reached number 19 in the UK. Hopkin has expressed dissatisfaction with the material produced by Most, who had taken over as her producer with "Temma Harbour". After appearing in Eurovision, Hopkin wanted to return to her folk-music roots.

After Eurovision
At McCartney's insistence, Hopkin had recorded a cover of "Que Sera, Sera" in August 1969. Hopkin had no wish to record the song and refused to have the single released in Britain. Initially issued in France in September 1969, it was released in North America in June 1970. The single peaked at number 77 on the Billboard Hot 100 and number 47 in Canada, and was also a hit in Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Rhodesia (present-day Zimbabwe).

The last single to hit the British charts was "Let My Name Be Sorrow", which reached number 46 in July 1971. It was produced by Tony Visconti, whom Hopkin had met earlier for a Welsh recording of "Sparrow". "Let My Name Be Sorrow" was a hit in Poland in January 1972.

Hopkin's second album, Earth Song/Ocean Song, was released by Apple on 1 October 1971. The album was produced by Visconti and included cover versions of songs written by Cat Stevens, Gallagher and Lyle and Ralph McTell, as well as the two title tracks by Liz Thorsen. Hopkin felt it was the album she had always wanted to make, so, coinciding with her marriage to Visconti and with little left to prove, she left the music scene. The album's single, "Water, Paper and Clay", missed the Billboard Hot 100. It was Hopkin's last single for Apple Records, which she left in March 1972.

After Hopkin's departure from Apple, a compilation album titled Those Were the Days was released in the latter part of 1972. The album featured all of Hopkin's hits but failed to chart. "Knock Knock, Who's There?" was released as a single in the United States and Canada, both countries having been excluded from the first release of that record in 1970. The single reached number 92 on the Billboard Hot 100 and number 11 on the Easy Listening chart in December 1972, giving Hopkin her last US hit.

Television series
Following her appearance in the Eurovision contest, Hopkin had her own peak time TV series, Mary Hopkin in the Land of ..., on BBC 1. Created by Eric Merriman, each episode featured Hopkin looking at a different aspect of storytelling through music and dance. The six 30-minute programmes were broadcast in 1970 and were repeated in 1971.

After the hit singles
After marrying Visconti in 1971, Hopkin withdrew from the pop-music scene to have a family. Although reportedly unhappy with show business, she did not stop recording. She travelled to Australia with Visconti in January 1972 and performed at a large outdoor rock festival in South Australia, in addition to giving concerts in several major cities. In March, Hopkin announced her departure from Apple Records; her manager, Jo Lustig, said they were considering offers from "three major [record] companies". In June, the single "Summertime Summertime" / "Sweet and Low" was released on Bell Records under the name of Hobby Horse. The A-side was a cover of a 1958 song by the Jamies. With Visconti's assistance, she released the 1972 Christmas single "Mary Had a Baby" / "Cherry Tree Carol" on Regal Zonophone Records.

Hopkin starred in her own, one-off TV special for BBC 1 on 29 July 1972. Titled Sing Hi, Sing Lo, it was billed simply as "light entertainment starring Mary Hopkin".

Although no other singles or albums came out in her name until 1976, she sang on numerous recordings that her husband produced, such as those featuring Tom Paxton, Ralph McTell, David Bowie (Low), Bert Jansch, The Radiators from Space, Thin Lizzy, Carmen, Sarstedt Brothers, Osibisa, Sparks, Hazel O'Connor, and Elaine Paige. On all of these recordings (and also on her husband's own Inventory album) she is credited as "Mary Visconti". During this time, she also appeared on various TV shows such as Cilla Black's, and various radio programmes.

Return to recording
In 1976, she returned to recording under her birth name and released the single "If You Love Me (Really Love Me)" (originally recorded by Édith Piaf as "Hymne à l'amour"), which reached Number 32 in the UK chart. The B-side, "Tell Me Now", was an original composition by Hopkin. Her next single was "Wrap Me in Your Arms", with the B-side again written by Hopkin ("Just A Dreamer"). These singles came out on Visconti's Good Earth Records label. Several songs recorded for an album at the time have now been released under Hopkin's own label, Mary Hopkin Music.

Two members of Steeleye Span (Bob Johnson and Pete Knight) chose Hopkin to play "Princess Lirazel" on their concept album The King of Elfland's Daughter. She also appeared at the Cambridge Folk Festival with Bert Jansch. In 1976, her second child was born. Before the 1970s ended, Decca released a compilation album of Hopkin's Cambrian recordings, The Welsh World of Mary Hopkin.

1980s
Hopkin's first project in the 1980s was a well-reviewed stint playing the Virgin Mary in Rock Nativity at the Hexagon Theatre in Reading, Berkshire. After this, Mike Hurst (record producer and formerly of the Springfields) asked her to sing lead in a new group named Sundance that he had formed with Mike de Albuquerque of ELO. Their only single, "What's Love", allowed them to tour the UK with Dr. Hook but Hopkin quickly left the group, dissatisfied with the gigs. "What's Love" proved very popular in South Africa, albeit the only territory where it charted, peaking at no.10 in April 1982. In 2002, Hurst released recordings from this time on the Angel Air label.

Hopkin and Visconti divorced in 1981. The following year she provided vocals on "Rachael's Song" for the Vangelis soundtrack of Blade Runner. Around 1984, Peter Skellern asked her to join him and Julian Lloyd Webber in a group called Oasis. Their self-titled and only album, Oasis, was released on WEA along with two singles. The album reached number 23 on the UK album chart in 1984 and remained there for 14 weeks. A tour of the UK was planned but was brought to an abrupt end because Hopkin became ill. The group disbanded shortly afterwards.

During the 1980s, Hopkin appeared in several charity shows, including an appearance at the London Palladium with Ralph McTell. In 1988, she took part in George Martin's production of Dylan Thomas' Under Milk Wood. She played the character Rosie Probert and performed a piece called "Love Duet" with Freddie Jones as Captain Cat. The making of the record was filmed and made into a special edition of The South Bank Show, where Hopkin and Jones were shown rehearsing and recording "Love Duet". In 1992, the cast reunited for a performance of the play as a tribute to Thomas in the presence of Prince Charles for The Prince's Trust.

Hopkin recorded an album called Spirit in 1989. This was released on the Trax label and is a collection of light classical songs and featured the single "Ave Maria". The record was produced by Benny Gallagher, of Gallagher and Lyle, who had contributed songs to her during her days at Apple Records.

1990s
Early in 1990, Hopkin sang with The Chieftains at the London Palladium in a charity show and later joined them on a tour of the UK.

She continued to do projects of her choosing, working with people such as Julian Colbeck; she wrote the lyrics and performed a song on his CD Back to Bach. Also, there was Marc Cerrone's The Collector, a stage play/opera, for which she performed two songs on the CD and video. She worked again with old friends, the guitarist Brian Willoughby and Dave Cousins (of Strawbs) on their CD The Bridge. She also appeared on a Beatles' tribute album by RAM Pietsch.

In 1996, the Welsh label Sain bought Cambrian's back catalogue and released all of Hopkin's Welsh recordings on a CD called Y Caneuon Cynnar/The Early Recordings, which removed the overdubbed drums found on the Decca recordings.

In 1999, she again joined The Chieftains on their UK tour and, later that year, performed concerts in Scotland with Benny Gallagher and Jim Diamond. There were also three TV documentaries about her, one each for HTV (1998), BBC Television (1998) and S4C (2000).

She made a guest appearance on The Crocketts' album The Great Brain Robbery, sang the theme song for Billy Connolly's BBC TV series World Tour of England, Ireland and Wales and re-recorded "Those Were The Days" with Robin Williams rapping. She also appeared in the Sara Sugarman film Very Annie Mary.

2000s
In September 2005, she released a retrospective album on a label run by her daughter, Mary Hopkin Music, entitled Live at the Royal Festival Hall 1972. It was followed in December 2006 by a Christmas recording, "Snowed Under", released on download only.

To celebrate her 57th birthday in 2007, she released an album called Valentine on her new eponymous label. It included 12 previously unheard tracks dating from 1972 to 1980, three of which were written by Hopkin. In 2008, a new album, Recollections, was released on her own label. It included 11 tracks that were originally recorded between 1970 and 1986, alongside a CD of three Christmas songs which included "Mary Had a Baby" and "The Cherry-Tree Carol" (these tracks were first released on Regal Zonophone in 1972) and "Snowed Under", which was released in 2006 as a download only.

Her final archival CD, Now and Then, was released in May 2009. It comprises 14 tracks recorded between 1970 and 1988. She sang the song "Y 'deryn pur" ("Gentle Bird") on the album Blodeugerdd: Song of the Flowers – An Anthology of Welsh Music and Song released by Smithsonian Folkways Recordings in June 2009.

2010s
Hopkin's daughter, Jessica Lee Morgan, released her first CD, called I Am Not, on which Hopkin sings on several songs.

In October 2010, Hopkin and her son, Morgan Visconti, released You Look Familiar, a collaboration which brings together Hopkin's melodies, lyrics and vocals with her son's instrumentation and arrangements.

In 2013, Painting by Numbers was released on Mary Hopkin Music. The album includes 10 tracks written by Hopkin, two of which are co-written with friends; "Love Belongs Right Here" with Brian Willoughby and "Love, Long Distance" with Benny Gallagher.

For Christmas 2014, Hopkin recorded a single with her son and daughter. The traditional carol, "Iesu Faban" (meaning "Baby Jesus" in Welsh), was described on her website as a "close, intimate choral performance of a traditional Welsh Christmas carol".

To celebrate the 50th anniversary of the release of "Those Were the Days", on 30 August 2018 Hopkin released a new acoustic version, on an EP also featuring the live version from her 1972 "farewell" concert at the Royal Festival Hall. Also included are the versions of "Those Were the Days" and "Goodbye" released in 1977, produced by her then husband, Tony Visconti.

2020s
Hopkin released an album called Two Hearts, together with her daughter Jessica Lee Morgan. Featuring newly written material and covers from The Bangles to Dire Straits, it was released on 3 May 2023, Hopkin's 73rd birthday.

Discography

 * Post Card (1969)
 * Earth Song/Ocean Song (1971)
 * Spirit (1989)
 * Valentine (2007)
 * Recollections (2008)
 * Now and Then (2009)
 * You Look Familiar (2010), with Morgan Visconti
 * Painting by Numbers (2013)
 * Another Road (2020)
 * A Christmas Chorale (2020)
 * Pieces (2022)
 * Two Hearts (2023) with her daughter Jessica Lee Morgan

title: Mary Hopkin