Talk:Royal Albert Hall

older comments
from a duplicate article:


 * "Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall..." The Beatles, I Heard the News
 * The Albert Hall is considered Britain's parish hall. It was named after Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha the Prince Consort, husband of Queen Victoria (perhaps now we should say first husband now?) who the building was built to honour. A number of performers have performed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarquin (talk • contribs) 16:02, 27 June 2003 (UTC)


 * What's an "adam keep-fit display"? --Wetman 15:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Inscription above the external frieze
I don't believe that the word "amid" appears on the Hall. My suspicion is that a contribtor has plagiarised the text from the Victorian London website http://www.victorianlondon.org/buildings/alberthall.htm and in doing so has perpetuated an OCR scanning error (or deliberate mistake) from that site.

Surely the first part of that quotation comes from the King James Version of 1 Chronicles 29:

29:11 Thine, O LORD is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all.

And if we can find a source other than Victorian London (or a contributor with a good pair of field glassses?) presumably the article should give the full text of the other inscription; which is some variant on...

"This Hall was erected for the advancement of the arts and sciences, and for the works of industry of all nations, in fulfilment of the intentions of Albert, Prince Consort. The site was purchased by the proceeds of the great Exhibition of the year 1851. The first stone of the Hall was laid by Her Majesty Queen Victoria, on the 20th day of May, 1867, and it was opened by Her Majesty the Queen on the 29th day of March, in the year 1871." --Lang rabbie 01:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Beatles Concert at Albert Hall
I noticed that, while this page does reference the line from "A Day in the Life", it does not mention the Beatles concert at the Albert Hall in its concert list. This needs to be fixed, especially because of the importance of the Beatles as a band and the fact that they made reference to the hall in a very influential song. This refrence is very hard to understand if you do not know that the Beatles played a concert there. --I Am The Walrus 02:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * i am agreing this is very important. 70.153.208.164 (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Name
Twice today the full name of the hall has been truncated. I appreciate that it's not in common use, but that really is the full name so there needs to be good reason for removing it. I also severly trimmed the info on guided tours as Wikipedia is not a travel guide. David Underdown 12:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Arts venue
It may originally have been conceived as a general arts venue, but is it not almost solely now a music venue? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There are usually also a few sports events there each year, and the Institute of Directors (I think) has it's AGM there, it's used for Imperial College graduations and so on, and Hawking gave a sell-out lecture there in the late 90s. It's full name is still the Royal Albert Hall of the Arts and Sciences so I think that really should stay in the lead (just as we always give a person's full names, even if they don't use them).  David Underdown (talk) 11:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll accept it has other uses than music but I think we should stick with the most commonly used name. I checked on the RAH website and I couldn't find the full name still listed. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 11:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got the hsitory that was published two or three years ago, and I'm sure it's mentioend in there. One day I'll get round to using that as a source for a complete re-write - the hall deserves better than the current article.  David Underdown (talk) 12:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AlbertHall.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:AlbertHall.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Recognisable the world over
How exactly do you judge this. I live in the UK and know the Royal Albert Hall but you can not claim it to be one of 'the most treasured and distinctive buildings' because it would only be along with hundreds of others, I could say this about Christ's Church, Oxford or the Tate or the National Gallery etc etc. Has some survey found this information? I'm not saying it isn't distinctive or treasured, I just don't see the revelance. I may not have argued this very strongly but I thought I should mention it, in case any one more eloquent agrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.198.174 (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

While it is certainly a unique and impressive structure, I would not have been able to recognize it prior to reading this article. Neither could the handful of my fellow, poor ignorant souls that I tested with the image. Perhaps because we are from another part of the world. I'm deleting the statement. I'm not going to add a request for citations, and I pessimistically expect a zealous revert. Please don't take it as an attack against your national heritage. 74.2.191.66 (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Robert

USE section entries
"Dylan actually did close his European tour on 26 and 27 May and of that year; these were his last concerts before Dylan got into a motorcycle accident and became a recluse for a brief period of time".

Might these sentences be improved? For example: "actually did close". Does this mean "closed his European tour at the Royal Albert Hall"? If not then what is the relevance to The Royal Albert Hall?

The style of English could be simplified in the second sentence "got into", could be replaced with "had".

The information about the motorcycle accident has a full entry in the Bob Dylan Wikipedia article. The following paragraph about Creedence Clearwater Revival is covered in the Wikipedia article on that group.

Do either of these paragraphs merit inclusion in the Wikipedia entry for the Royal Albert Hall? Would a reference to the relevant articles where they are recorded be sufficient?Braeburn8 (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Really the whole section needs drastic pruning, most of the entries aern't referenced, and while it may be significant for the artist themselves that they performed at the Albert Hall, the vast majority listed don't actually seem that significant in terms of th hisotry of the hall. I've thought for a while that we should list the major recurring events, and events taht are included in published hitories of the hall, most of the rest should go.  David Underdown (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This section is now getting completely out of hand, and is far too large in its relative importance to the article subject. Is every singer or band that's ever played the hall eventually going to be listed? I propose that the section is scrapped completely.  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 15:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. There is nothing to either confirm that these acts played or, more importantly, that the appearance was in some way notable. Scrap it.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No objectors in three days so I'm removing it.  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 10:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Prommers??
The article currently states: "Proms concertgoers, particularly those who stand, are sometimes described as "Promenaders", but are most commonly referred to as "Prommers".[14]" A single reference to book is given, but the text cited does not claim that "Prommers" is more commonly used, it merely makes use of the term (once).

A quick Google search shows that '"Promenaders" "Albert Hall"' gets twice as many hits as '"Prommers" "Albert Hall"'. This backs up my own experience that they are more commonly referred to as "Promenaders". The claim that they are most commonly referred to as "Prommers" seems extremely POV, and the reference does not support it.

Unless anyone puts forward any valid arguments for the term, I'm going to modify it to remove the "most commonly referred to" section. 86.7.21.237 (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

listing all concerts
i am reading this and wondering why this is haveing so many concrets listed. this aritcle is about the bulding and not about all this groups. i am taking out sections explaineing all about the groups and each concert everyone has. this information is maybe intersting but is beter for aritcle of each group or may be in List of famous concerts in royal albert Hall. not here please. 70.153.208.164 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Size of the Albert Hall
Hello,

I amm doing my usual wikignoming and something that crops up from time to time, as I am sure you are aware, is the "size of the Albert Hall". Rightly you have the linear dimensions but not the volume. I have asked the same at WP:CONVERT and Talk:List of unusual units of measurement and the frmer, for which I am peripatetic, so far suggested the latter, but I ask here simply because it is kkinda annoying, encylopaedically, if someone lists something as twice the size of the albert hall or enough water to filll the albert hall in an hour etc. The albert hall obviously being a standard unit of measure

Its volume by secondary source is thus:: "According to official figures provided by the Royal Albert Hall's management the horse's mouth itself { the volume of the auditorium is between 3 and 3.5 million cubic feet, so that's between about 85,000 and 99,000 cubic metres." I appreciate this is a somewhat jocular style, but so is the whole book as you may imagine, and I think stands if there is no better. I am also having a go at some of the other units there, since many can be sourced if someone bothered (which I intend to) otherwise it is just hearsay and OR.

I am an inclusionist so am not standing on OR etc etc but I know I can source many of these where no source is there now, and the "size of the albert hall" usually means its volume, not its linear dimensions which are there precisely in the article, and so thi really is by way of a courtesy to say if it is an "unusual" unit of measure, and I am sure that word was chosen very carefullly, it woould be handy to know what an albert hallsworth is.

BTW I think it is a magnificent building and I have had many good proms nights there.

My best wishesSi Trew (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is also a curiously precise figure of 3,060,000 cubic square feet at various sources, for which I have been unable to find an original source. --Lang rabbie 23:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On the Westminster council planning application, I found the total volume of the building listed as 170000.00000000m3. I'm not sure why so many 0 after the point. You can check it out yourself on;
 * http://idoxpa.westminster.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=M35B91RPZ5000
 * anc click the Application Form PDF, Page 4/6 Section 10 Demolition. KlickingKarl (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just found an additional planning application that states volume as approx. 38,612m3.KlickingKarl (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Pictures
The "First Ever Performance" and Postcard pictures appear to be irrelevant to their captions, and are nothing to do with the Hall at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.232.212 (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Westminster
I've been rubbing my eyes and trying (but failing) to convince myself that the OS 1:25000 map does not show the Royal Albert Hall (along with the RGS, Royal College of Music and much of Imperial College) lying within the City of Westminster, not the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. If I am correct this seems to have gone unnoticed by Wikipedians editing this article, South Kensington, Albertopolis, etc. Can someone else have a look and confirm this please? Pterre (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been bold and corrected it. Pterre (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure that is correct as shown towards the bottom of the 4th page of the history PDF from the RAH website says Westminster City Council approved the closure of the road surrounding the hall during renovation work. http://www.royalalberthall.com/uploadedFiles/About_The_Hall/assets/History_of_the_Royal_Albert_Hall.pdf KlickingKarl (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Event notability
I think there needs to be some clarity on what events should be added. The Hall has been open since 1871, 141 years. There are now over 350 events a year. There have been probably nearly/over? 50,000 events in its history. There doesn't seem to be much value in listing events. People seem to add events by artists or groups of those that they have an interest in. This means eventually we would have a list a mile long, as different strokes for different folks goes. I have been developing the regular events section as I feel this is of more value for the article. Perhaps an article should be made for events at the RAH, but again, I don't think lists have much encyclopaedic value. Any comments? KlickingKarl (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Seem to remember clearing this out a year or so back when it acted as an excuse for anyone to list their favourite band if they had appeared in the RAH. Think they need to be notable appearances with references otherwise they become trivia and fancruft.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Now partially cleaned out again, and it should be reduced further, to a textual description of the variety of events over the hall's history, with some significant examples. Kablammo (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This problem has slowly reappeared over the last decade and this article is now full of random "X performed here in 19/20xx" paragraphs again without much notability, sometimes duplicated in multiple sections. I've removed a few in recent months but I'm looking to rewrite and slim down listings to just the most notable and major events in the building's history quite soon. BillyH 19:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

"150,000 different events"
The events section claims that the hall has hosted over 150,000 since its opening. Working at one event a day this would take it 410 years, so I find this unlikely unless there have been some days where it has hosted several thousand 'events'. Is someone able to make this any clearer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.217.175 (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I know that currently in the run up to Christmas each year it hosts 3 shows a day over the weekends in the main auditorium. It also has possibly weekly Elgar Room events that run concurrently with main auditorium shows. During regular runs of many shows, such as Cirque du Soleil, it has 3 or 4 days a week (over a month long run) when there are two shows a day. There are also Classical Coffee mornings in the Cafe Consort. From the Royal Albert Hall website "Today more than 350 events are staged each year...Outside the main auditorium, there are free Friday lunchtime concerts and Sunday brunch performances of world music and jazz in the Hall's Café Consort and occasional concerts by cutting edge new talent in the Hall's hush series presented in the Elgar Room. A series of exhibitions of photographs and children's work is presented in the Hall's ground floor corridor. The Hall continues to fulfil its commitment to promoting science primarily through its Learning & Participation programme for school children and by occasional public lectures." http://www.royalalberthall.com/about/arts-and-sciences/default.aspx


 * I think if it counts exhibitions, concerts in the restaurants and elgar room it has hosted a lot of events over 143 years, however not 150,000. If there were 350 events a year for the past 143 years that would be 50,050 events. That doesn't include any of the extras, so it's possible that number could be as high as 100,000, maybe even 150,000. We could do with some facts on this. KlickingKarl (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Royal Albert Hall, London - Nov 2012.jpg
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Royal Albert Hall, London - Nov 2012.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 20, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-04-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Didn't the tiles on the Albert Hall get over cleaned?
"Q&A" exchange from the Guardian pages. I though that they might be relevant to the RA Hall:

[Janek123] Didn't the tiles on the Albert Hall get over cleaned?

[retiredarch] As I understand it, the RAH was in a very poor state in the 1970s and by the time work could start on cleaning, repairing the exterior and stopping the rain getting in, the Tories had control of the GLC.

The Tory run GLC of the late 1970s was all about cutting costs, downsizing and selling off anything and everything (they were one of the first to start selling council housing).

I was told by a former GLC architectural employee, that the Tories did not want to spend fees on expert consultants to advise and oversee the work on the RAH - they wanted to make some sort of political statement and get it done on the cheap. The work was apparently delegated to an inappropriate unqualified character who had no idea what they were doing.

The terracotta tiles and brickwork on the RAH were cleaned by sand blasting because it was the cheapest and quickest method. Unfortunately, it also removed the surface glaze from the terracotta and exposed the core of the tiles. The building should have been cleaned using low pressure water trickling over the surface - a slow and expensive process.

To save a few pounds, the Tory GLC administration succeeded in vandalising one of their most prized assets.

5.80.70.154 (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Statue of Albert in front of the building
In the photos, I see there is a large statue of Albert in front of the building with 2 seated women on the pedestal. The article does not mention this, only the different nearby Albert Memorial. This American, for one, would like to know more about it. --rogerd (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Did you mean this statue? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Memorial#Allegorical_sculptures KlickingKarl (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Some info
Smash Hits Poll Winners Party 1988. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.203.113 (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

nothing on the ban of rock acts?
It didn't last more than 8 months or so, but still, should be in the article. one RS: https://www.royalalberthall.com/about-the-hall/news/2016/january/8-july-1971-mott-the-hoople-and-the-royal-albert-halls-rock-and-roll-ban/ 50.111.55.131 (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

/* Description */ Surface area
What is it? kencf0618 (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)