Talk:Retrospect Ensemble

Comments

2 Retrospect Ensembles? Apologies, but I didn't know that was possible! Best wishes, David —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.106.233 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 26 April 2009

Establishing the Historical Facts

Retrospect Ensemble claims to be "The King's Consort" under a new name. In fact it is the charity (number 1079482) that is "old wine in a new bottle". The eponymous performance ensemble is a new group launched in May 2009. It cannot be other as "The King's Consort" has announced its programme for 2010. Ongaku-aikouka (talk)ongaku-aikouka —Preceding undated comment added 15:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC).

They may claim that on their website "Retrospect Ensemble is the new name for the leading early music group previously known as The King's Consort", but I didn't take that impression from the previous version of this article, although the history section could use more expansions and clarification re the past relationship between the two groups. There clearly is one. However the wording you've used now is incredibly convoluted and confusing to the reader, assumes background knowledge which is neither in this article nor The King's Consort and conflates the names of the ensembles with their charities, made worse by the ambiguous linking. Also, it appears that the current incarnation of the King's Concert ensemble is no longer a registered charity, unlike the Retrospect Ensemble [1] who have the same Charity number that used to belong to the King's Consort. The section needs to be re-written. I'm tagging it accordingly. Also I wish editors would not use wikipedia articles to fight their own personal "battle of the bands". Voceditenore (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have now cleaned up the paragraph and added extra references to make this a bit clearer. Note that User:Wisdomperson had added the following to the Repertoire and artistic direction section:

Retrospect Ensemble's published accounts show a loss of £137,212 in the year ending 31 March 2009 on income of £113,247. Fees for performances were £58,351 (compared with £703,590 for the previous year).

It is a complete non sequitur in that section and I have moved it to the previous section. I'm not really sure what is the point of any of that excessively detailed information. More "battle of the bands" I presume. Voceditenore (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Even though his new first sentence is too long and somehat convoluted, I have some sympathy with Ongaku-aikouka's assertion that the previous article, possibly unwittingly, implied that Retrospect Ensemble is simply The King's Consort under a new name. For example, it stated that Retrospect Ensemble would "continue to perform music of the 17th and 18th century" implying that it would continue "as before"; but as the new wording makes clear, it has no "before". Whether or not this was the intended implication, the new wording is now much clearer and more related to the facts. Additionally the previous article laid claim for the entire canon of TKC's recordings, the vast majority of which were made under King's direction before 2007. Not surprisingly these are also referred in the article about the King's Consort. Since both groups cannot claim them, one might think that TKC has the better case. However, one of its recordings, made under Halls, is still listed for RE. Even this seems debatable but hardly worth worrying about. Responding to Voceditenore's comments, the fact that The King's Consort is no longer associated with a charity is not surprising since creating a new charity takes time and all the assets (such as remain) accumulated under King's Musical Directorship, which included the accumulated performing fees of the group, stayed with the trustees of Retrospect Ensemble. Voceditenore seems to request more detail on the history of the charity. It is easily obtainable from the Charity Commission website, at the precise page referenced in the article, which I have now done. The facts are that the first charity (1010092) was established in 1992 under the name "The King's Consort". A new charity (1079482 - same name) then took over the assets of the first charity when a new incorporated constitution came into being on 18 February 2000. This was then renamed, as described, by the trustees in the early spring of 2009. As for the comment about the "battle of the bands", the aim surely is to establish the facts with suitable source verification. By giving a brief outline of the history in relation to the two performing groups, complete with name change, and by providing a direct reference to the Charity Commission register (hardly ambiguous!), Ongaku-aikouka has done precisely that. If more is required in the body of the article it can easily be added. I agree that the financial information is possibly out of place in an article about music. Anybody interested can easily obtain it from the Charity Commission reference provided that is retained, ideally in the first paragraph. WisdompersonWisdomperson (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I've removed the financial stuff, which really is quite irrelevant and failed to make clear other aspects of the Trustees report, including the fact that during that financial year, the charity was called The King's Consort and the performance fees were from a group performing (albeit no longer) as The King's Consort. I have retained the reference, however. So the full details are available to anyone who's interested. Voceditenore (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, by "ambiguous link", I was referring to the use of a link to The King's Consort ensemble when talking about the charity.[2] Voceditenore (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)