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? Mr Weeble 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 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)

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)

Luigi Cherubini: Symphony in D Major
Philharmonia Orchestra, Bruno Walter
 * 1) Largo. Allegro
 * 2) Larghetto cantabile
 * 3) Minuetto: Allegro non tanto
 * 4) Finale: Allegro assai
 * 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) ===
 * Moderato
 * Adagio
 * Allegro con brio
 * 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)