Talk:Philharmonia Orchestra

Comments

I have removed the clause about "annual" appearances in Paris since the Philharmonia do not play there every year.--S.Camus 12:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The footnote referring to Lebrecht is incorrect. Lebrecht does not mention the incident at all. --dunnhaupt 20:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Now, my reason for moving this page to a page that redirects to it (moving the "Philharmonia" page to the "Philharmonia Orchestra" page) is because only the title of the page referred to it as the Philharmonia when introdcing it. The opening paragraph and the title on the infobox, however, refer to it as the Philharmonia Orchestra (with the infobox referring to the name "Philharmonia" as a secondary name instead of a primary name), and therefore made me think that's what the article should be called, too. So if you object to this edit I have made, then please feel free to reverse it. --Kschwerdt514 21:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

...and in so doing, you completely wiped out the edit history. before moving a page you MUST bring the topic up for discussion BEFORE it is moved. --emerson7 | Talk 01:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how these things are usually discussed (I've seen entire discussions archived and such), so I'll ask here.

Requesting page move to "Philharmonia Orchestra", but preferably not in a manner that destroys edit history.

Reason being that there are apparently 511 pages on Wikipedia containing the word Philharmonia, and the first 12 refer to musical groups that have the word in their name. I'm not seeing why the London one is so special, apart from probably being the first ones to use the word on its own, and thus having the privilege of usually being the group being referred to when the word is used on its own.

The reason about namespace and infobox being different is also valid.

Failing a move, a disambiguation page/link would be nice. 211.30.131.83 (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I work for the Philharmonia and was wondering whether this page could be updated to make note of our new Principal Conductor and Artistic Advisor, Esa-Pekka Salonen? He is now in his new role; Christoph von Dohnanyi has become Honorary Conductor for Life. (I tried to make the edit myself, but when I went to 'Edit this page' it looked as though the changes had already been made - but they're not showing through on the page itself...) Thank you in advance 85.158.137.195 (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Henry V

How can an orchestra formed in 1945 have performed the soundtrack for a film released in 1944? MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 14:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

they play very fast. 209.172.25.248 (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Move?

OK. Now, my reason for moving this page to a page that redirects to it (moving the "Philharmonia" page to the "Philharmonia Orchestra" page) is because only the title of the page referred to it as the Philharmonia when introdcing it. The opening paragraph and the title on the infobox, however, refer to it as the Philharmonia Orchestra (with the infobox referring to the name "Philharmonia" as a secondary name instead of a primary name), and therefore made me think that's what the article should be called, too. So if you object to this edit I have made, then please feel free to reverse it. --Kschwerdt514 21:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Article title

Suggest moving this article to the title "Philharmonia Orchestra" since that seems to be the group's official name (see logo in infobox and the group's webpage) and has been since its founding, and so-called on many hundreds of recordings. (Exception being the period it was known as the New Philharmonia, of course.) Philharmonia, is at best an alternate or unofficial abbreviated name. Since the page "Philharmonia Orchestra" already exists as a redirect, a request for the move would need to be made on the Wikipedia:Requested moves page. If there is no controversy, the editors of that page would likely complete the move in one or two days.‎ Thoughts? Markhh (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection or discussion I have requested the change. Markhh (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Questions left open

Two questions so far left open in the very fine revised version of this article:

1. It’s stated that the early Philharmonia was assembled on an ad hoc basis, as needed. When did the orchestra form a permanent ensemble with a full time personnel list?

2. When Legge attempted to disband the orchestra, it reorganized under a new name, The New Philharmonia. When and how did the orchestra return to its original name?

Thanks! And thanks for the excellent new article. Markhh (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

And thank you for your encouraging comments, Markhh. I've dealt briefly with the second point, and will find somewhere to address the first. [Later: now done]. Legge's Philharmonia was always, legally speaking, composed of freelances. They were never on a salary, although Legge eventually had to pay them a retainer to ensure that he had first call on their services. As soon as the NPO was set up, and ever since, the players have been employees of the company of which they are all shareholders (on much the same basis as those of the LSO, LPO and RPO). I don't propose to go into detail about the Byzantine history of the ownership of the title "Philharmonia". I'm not even sure I fully understand it. I think Legge sold the title to EMI with his shares in the original holding company, and EMI licensed at least two ensembles to use it before the New Philharmonia negotiated to get it back. I've just said that after negotiations they got it back in 1977. (I remember it well. It was thrilling for a young music lover in London in the 1970s to be able to go to a "Philharmonia" concert.)

Have you any material on the later years of the Sinopoli regime and the whole of Dohnányi's? I'm scratching round rather for verifiable material on those years of the orchestra's history.

Best wishes, Tim riley talk 14:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Philharmonia Orchestra/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 08:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Pleased to undertake this. Should require less than the standard seven days. KJP1 (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
   • 
2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
   • 
3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
   • 
4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
   • 
5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
   • 

Articles passes quick-fail assessment. Main review to follow. KJP1 (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Main review

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose):

The prose standard is high and it easily Passes. Just a few suggestions below:

Lead

• "...of the Philharmonia's younger conductors," - does this actually mean younger in age, or later, or more recent? I see with Strauss, etc. it could actually mean shorter in the tooth, though Klemperer was actually older than Furtwängler.

• I'd prefer to stick with this. It does refer to the next generation. (Klemperer came on the scene later.) Tim riley talk 17:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Background

• "Augmented to a septet" - was this temporary, as it's still being referred to as a quartet later in its history?

• Clarified. Tim riley talk 17:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• "the quartet continued to play in concert and on record during the Second World War" - forgive my musical ignorance but is this the same as "to make recordings"?

• Clarified. Tim riley talk 17:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• "their personnel and standards had been badly affected by war-time conditions" - not quite sure what this means. Their personnel had been depleted, or shell-shocked, or what?

• That, certainly (London lost many more players in WW2 than in WW1) and the withdrawal of private sponsorship was also a major blow, as was the bombing of the capital's only decent concert hall, the Queen's Hall, leaving them semi-nomadic. I've redrawn. Tim riley talk 17:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

1950s: Karajan and Toscanini

• "Legge realised that Furtwängler was in declining health and that sooner or later Karajan would succeed him as chief conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic and Salzburg Festival and be lost to the Philharmonia. Legge began to seek out suitable successors." - I wonder if this could run as one sentence, losing the double Legge; "Realising that Furtwängler was in declining health and that sooner or later Karajan would succeed him as chief conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic and the Salzburg Festival and be lost to the Philharmonia, Legge began to seek out suitable successors".

• I'll ponder this, if I may. I think the combined sentence might be too long for convenient absorption by the reader. Tim riley talk 17:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Late 20th century

• "Dohnányi's conducting was regarded as reliable and musicianly, although sometimes rather cool" - again, forgive my ignorance, but I didn't know what it meant. Even after having looked it up, I'm not certain?

• I'm trying to avoid saying that he could be a bit dull. Tweaked. Tim riley talk 17:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

21st century

• "Since 2000 the orchestra has established up further residencies" - I think the "up" is a hangover from an earlier version?

• Amended. Tim riley talk 17:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Recordings

• "the Philharmonia played on a set of Purcell's Dido and Aeneas" - the set? Or in a as per the next sentence? Could just be my ignorance again.

• Tweaked. Tim riley talk 17:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

b (MoS):

Just one MoS suggestion below, but nothing to preclude Passing:

Background

• "He later set out his guiding principles" - are the bullets that follow a direct quote? If so, should they be in quotes, or in a quote box? You know MoS better than I.

• Good! I wasn't happy with how this looked on the page, and I have followed your suggestion, and it looks much better. Thank you! Tim riley talk 17:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references)

References look impeccable, even if in that arcane, non-sfn, style!

b (citations to reliable sources):

Sources all good.

c (OR):

No indication of OR.

d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations):

Earwig is happy and so, therefore, am I.

3. It is broad in its scope

a (major aspects)

Music is not my area of specialism, but the history is covered in detail, decade by decade, and nothing major seems missed. The Recordings section appears similarly detailed.

b (focused):

It focusses clearly on the orchestra and there are no digressions.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy

Content is Neutral with triumphs and tribulations fairly and fully described.

5. It is stable

Article is stable with no indications of edit-warring.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

The images all look fine. Given he founded it, doesn't Legge warrant one? I see his article has an image, although not that good a one.

I can't find a free image of Legge, and I doubt if a non-free image can be justified as Fair Use here. Tim riley talk 17:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

b (appropriate use with suitable captions)

Captions all fine. Alt text, if you're planning an FAC?

7. Overall:

Neither the limited Prose suggestions, nor the one MoS query, stand in the way of Acceptance. Shall therefore Pass.

Thank you, KJP, for this review. I hope my two nolle prosequis, above, are acceptable, for the reasons I've set out. Tim riley talk 17:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Tim - of course - they were only suggestions. It was easily GA. Are you planning an FAC? KJP1 (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

No. This is the last of the five articles on the five London orchestras that I've taken to GA. I don't feel any of them need taking to FAC. They'll do as GAs, I think, although if anyone develops any or all for FAC I'll be an enthusiastic supporter. Tim riley talk 19:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Accusation of edit-warring

If anyone wants to explain why WP:NOPIPE ought not to apply to this article, then they are quite welcome. Otherwise, I will continue making the useful changes I began with a few days ago. (I see one recent edit has taken my wording into account, when previously my edit of that sentence was flatly reverted - so at least a little progress has been made.) Harfarhs (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

If you actually read no WP:NOPIPE you will see that it is specifically not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines: that is why, in your words, it "ought not to apply to this article." I have explained on your talk page, hoping to spare you the more public embarrassment here, why your changes were not, as you think, "useful" – see. e.g. quotation from Fowler on your "uneducated or facetious" use of "unbeknownst". You might with advantage also see Fowler on "first/secondly" etc. Tim riley talk 07:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not embarrassed in the slightest—I have read WP:NOPIPE (like, duh) and it's you who are ignoring WP's "norms and practices". Interestingly, you've made it quite plain here that you're not willing to engage with me on any level, but want to have all your own edits all your own way. You might with advantage be warned that you're riding for a fall, but clearly anyone who communicates with you in any way other than a congratulatory one is wasting their effort. Still, honestly-don't you think the language has moved on since Fowler? (That's a rhetorical question.) Harfarhs (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The latest revision of Fowler was published in 2015. Recommended. As to the idea I might be agin any improvements to this article, pray let your eyes drift up to the last sentence of the immediately preceding section: "if anyone develops any or all [of this article] for FAC I'll be an enthusiastic supporter". Not, some might think, the wording of someone hostile to improvements to the article. If your changes had been improvements I'd have been delighted to see them. Unfortunately they weren't. I realise you think you can write well, of course, and wish you well in the endeavour. Tim riley talk 11:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with your making your original edit, Harfarhs, but once another editor reverted it, your reinstating it was WP:EDITWARring. Instead, you should have opened a Talk page discussion at that time to discuss any particular changes that you felt were helpful, rather than just substituting your preferred terms for those use in the article, like "during" for the more efficient "in". Anyone who thinks that edit-warring is permitted and who also declares that they will continue to edit against consensus should not be participating in the Wikipedia project. "Unbeknownst" is an archaic usage and should not be used in this encyclopedia. While "firstly" is an acceptable alternate usage, it is twee and should not be substituted for the better, more concise "first". I urge you to find another hobby. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

LOL. "During" and "in" are different words with different usages—hence, I was not "just substituting my preferred terms", I was improving the article. Still, thank you for adding extra weight to what I said above about the serious WP:OWN problem existing with this article.

"I urge you to find another hobby."

I'm not quitting any time soon, mate (as we say in England) - there's an encyclopaedia to be improved. Watch and learn. Harfarhs (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Date of first concert

Someone who works for the Philharmonia has kindly pointed out that the date given in our article for the orchestra's first concert was wrong. Although the date given by Walter Legge in his memoirs was 25 October 1945, the correct date was 27 October, a fact confirmed by reference to the archives of The Times, where the review printed on Monday 29 October stated that the concert had been given on Saturday 27. The Manchester Guardian review of the concert, also printed on 29 Oct (p. 3), further confirms the date. I have changed the date and cited The Times. Tim riley talk 14:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

What if Bruno Walter conducts the Philharmonia Orchestra

Luigi Cherubini: Symphony in D Major

1. Largo. Allegro
2. Larghetto cantabile
3. Minuetto: Allegro non tanto
4. Finale: Allegro assai

Philharmonia Orchestra, Bruno Walter

I don't know whether Walter conducted this work in the US, but as far as I can ascertain he never conducted the Philharmonia in it or anything else. He is not mentioned as doing so in either the Legge/Schwarzkopf or the Pettitt books. Tim riley talk 17:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

=== Bruno Walter: Symphony in D Minor (1907) ===

1. Moderato
2. Adagio
3. Allegro con brio
4. Agitato

Philharmonia Orchestra, Bruno Walter 62.170.109.230 (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be going round in circles. Please explain whether you are talking about a concert or a recording. As stated above, as far as I can ascertain Walter never conducted the Philharmonia. Tim riley talk 20:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

What if Giuseppe Sinopoli recorded Ponchielli's La Gioconda on October 1985

1985: Giuseppe Sinopoli (conductor), Philharmonia Orchestra, Ambrosian Opera Chorus – Mirella Freni (Gioconda); José Carreras (Enzo); Renato Bruson (Barnaba); Brigitte Fassbaender (Laura); José van Dam (Alvise); Lucia Valentini Terrani (La Cieca); (Deutsche Grammophon) 37.77.115.23 (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)