Talk:Royal Festival Hall
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Royal Festival Hall article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
From this article:
- It seats 3,865 people in three auditoria
I'm only aware of one auditorium in the RFH, unless you count some more ad-hoc performance spaces like the Gamelan Room or the Ballroom. But the South Bank Centre certainly has three; besides the RFH, there is the Queen Elizabeth Hall and the Purcell Room. So I'm wondering if this is a confustication of the SBC and the RFH. -- Chris j wood 16:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- No response to this over last 15 days or so, so my guess is that whoever wrote the disputed text is no longer with us. Therefore removed pending better information. -- Chris j wood 01:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think the three auditoria would include the Queen Elizabeth Hall, The Festival Hall and the Purcell room which are all run but the South Bank Centre.
The Festival Hall itself has only one Auditoria, though the Ballroom on level 2 is often used for performances. In the Original scheme there was provision for a second auditoria but this was never carried out.--Alistairtwiname 12:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Lion Brewery
WHY do we need reference to skateboards in this article?
- I've seen the skaters around the SBC, but I think refs are needed and without them the info should be tagged with a "fact"-tag or removed.--Karljoos (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Inclusion of Meyer Sound's contribution to this article
Editor User talk:Goldie.n.locks removed only part of the following sentence, leaving it dangling after "perspective": "While musicians report improvements in their own experience of the acoustic from the stage perspective, a small number of audience members report disappointment that renovations have failed to improve the acoustics of the hall, largely due to conservation imperatives which are noted by the acoustic developers."
Then he/she added a reference to this sound system, something he/she has been doing to a variety of articles recently.
User talk:David Underdown replaced the entire section and removed the reference to Meyer Sound.
There are two problems here: the entire sentence is not based on any verfication, especially that referring to "a small number of audience members", since the link to the Kiergaard website talks about the accoustics of the original 1951 hall being poorly regarded.
Meyer Sounds is certainly a well-known worldwide company. In order to justify its inclusion in this or any article, then it is incumbant upon the editor who feels that it is important to produce a reference. A few minutes on Meyer's website produced this: http://www.meyersound.com/news/2008/royal_festival_hall/ I'm sure that refs to other Meyer projects on other articles would benefit from further research also. Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- I rather assumed that the sentence had been properly referenced before hand, and didn't actually verify the original reference against the text when I reverted, which I probably should have done. I'm far from convinced that a simple mention of who provides a sound reinforcement system in the article is particularly encyclopaedic information - it would be fair enough to say in the Meyer Sound article itself, something like "the company's equipment is used in major concert halls around the world including x, y, and z (reference)", but unless the installation is particularly notable in the context of a particular hall - i.e. there is some sort of third-party coverage of the installation - perhaps the addition of sound reinforcement was perceived as a controversial undertaking. David Underdown (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have to agree with the above comment, especially "unless the installation is particularly notable". The editor has admitted on her "talk" page that she is an employee of Meyer Sound, so there is some commercial motivation to get the company mentioned here (and elsewhere: she's added the link to other concert hall articles recently). At the very least, a link to the specific section of the Meyer company website, which references their work on the RFH and how they competed with several other companies' products, would be appropriate. Viva-Verdi (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I find this article rather dissapointing and a touch unfair, in relation to a much loved hall. Firstly Sir Simon Rattle may have said a few negative things about the old acoustic but was full of praise for the new acoustic after the Hall's £111 million refurbishment, and the hall's new acoustic received excellent reviews by virtually every music critic and across the music press, as well as being praised by acoustic experts and principal conductors of major international orchestras.
The wiki section stating that "some audience members report disappointment that renovations have failed to improve the acoustics of the hall, largely due to conservation imperatives which are noted by the acoustic developers" without any proper reference to back up this claim. The only reference being to Kirkegaard's site, which as has already been pointed out by someone else on this talk section, does not say anything of the sort, it merely talks about the halls acoustic problems prior to the £111 million refurbishment and how they were solved. Furthermore the 20th Century society did not stop acoustic improvements in the hall at all, the stage was reshaped, canopies removed and the whole hall was gutted and reshaped, new materials were used for the roof and walls and even new fabrics in terms of the decor. What resulted was a very different hall indeed. One which top international acoustic expert Larry Kirkegaard was very proud of and which Sir Simon Rattle (Prinicipal Conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic) now said was a pleasure to play in as well as a privilege. Although Rattle's negative comments prior to the refurbishment are only used in this article with no reference to his opinion regarding the hall after it's massive redevelopment and refurbishment. Renowned Russian conductor of the London Philharmonic Orchestra Vladimir Jurowski also confirmed, “the sound is much better, it is much clearer and richer than it used to be.” .
It also should be noted thar number of Hall's around the world have had acoustic issues and acoustic experts have had to be called in to many American halls such as the Avery Fisher Hall (home to the New York Philharmonic), The Kennedy Center (Washington DC), San Francisco's Louise M. Davies Hall and Chigaco's Symphony Center. Halls as famous as the Sydney Opera House have also been plagued by acoustic problems, although the wiki page with regard to the Sydney Opera House does not dwell on this issue, and a refurbishment has made the opera house a lot better than it was initially.
Perhaps a section devoted to the Royal Festival Hall's current multi million pound organ refurbishment would also be apt, with the refurbishment by the famous organ company Harrison & Harrison due for completion in 2014. Whilst the Royal Festival Hall is also home to the large Clore Ballroom.
Finally in terms of skateboaring, there is no skateboarding at the Royal Festival Hall, the skateboarding takes place at the nearby Queen Eliazabeth Hall's Undercroft, a seperate building and one which has it's own wikipedia article, which mentions the skateboarding activity. So does this really need to be mentioned here as well, especially given that the article is about the Royal Festival Hall and not the Queen Elizabeth Hall (which has it's own page) and given that Skateboarding is not permitted within the confines of the Royal Festival Hall.
Perhaps someone can clean this article up as I think it's far too negative and lacks balance, it tends to concentrate on negative aspects such as Rattles comments before the hall's refurbishment but ignores his comments after, also where is the evidence that some audience members were disappointed with the hall. It is perfectly acceptable to write such things if you have hard evidence and can cite sources but I see no credible referencing or sourcing to back up this assertion. I am generally a big fan and supporter of wikipedia and of it's editors and contributors (and their tireless unpaid contributions) and by and large I like most wiki articles. However I feel this article is just a touch too negative and tends to concentrate on what was said prior to the massive refurbishment of the building and indeed Southbank area.
- These comments refer to the previous version of this article.Frecks (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- The fact remains that on approaching his return to the UK in retirement from the Berlin Philarmoniker in 2014, Sir Simon made broad-brush comments that London does not have a single concert hall of modern international standards. This is partly why the Southbank generated plans in 2013 to connect the RFH and QEH with a glass annexe, principally to house the administrative offices remaining in the backstage areas of the RFH. This would then free those areas for dressing and rehearsal rooms (and speaking from personal experience, that is very necessary: the stairway between the stage and dressing rooms alone is a concrete monstrosity draining any sense of artistic spirit from the artist passing up or down it - I performed there exactly four hours before writing this). The corollary was the need to clear the areas adopted without authority or consultation by the skateboard fraternity. Some balanced commentary should be added, as the politics have changed since the article was last edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Gallery's are generally not accepted on Wikipedia articles, see WP:Gallery. Wikicommons is the place for image collections. The text was full of unreferenced original research, editorialising and tangential comments about Eurovision performances and skateboarders under a different building. Echoing the above comments, it's a great shame more care has not been given to the article over the years, given the importance of the building. Span (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I agree that much of what is superficial in the article can indeed be removed - skateborders aren't really about the building- and I agree that more care needs to be taken to enhance the article. Maybe sub-heads in the history section would help. However, I think that the images which appeared in the copy should remain there (or be more strategically placed) and then look carefully at the gallery images to see if any are helpful, otherwise remove them. (It is legitimate to wikilink South Bank as the article gives a more general context). Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)