# Talk:London Symphony Orchestra

Something must be said about the fact that the LSO has sunk so low as to accept sponsorship from the devil, the tobacco companies 180.216.102.61 (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I quite like linking the dates it is very useful when building the year in music pages to look at 'what links here' and then see that Abbado became principle conductor of the LSO, if you were working on 1979 for instance. SimonP 15:00 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, I don't feel very strongly about it (not today, anyway), so if you want to put them back, I won't remove them again. But I do think it looks ugly, and I think they're of very limited interest for the reader. --Camembert
I probably over linked the first time, you can cover every year for the conductors' by linking to just one of the two. SimonP 15:07 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks much better now. Thanks Simon. --Camembert

It might be nice to have a link on this page to the other symphonies in London. Rmhermen 17:00 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Good idea - I've added five that I can think of. I'm sure there are others. --Camembert

Was looking at Londons Symphony Orchestra page, and it looks like that's all this is.  Anyone else agree with the merge suggestion?

There is a redirect from the LSO page to the London Symphony Orchestra. I don't know how to set it up myself, but there should be a disambiguation page for the Local Shared Object entry.

Why is there a principal conductors section when it just duplicates exactly what is in the template of the same name? I'll remove the section for now, it can be discussed here, if needed. I'll also preserve the table on this page Lethe 21:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

although i am agnostic on the subject for now, i replaced the section on principal conductors as the issue should be discussed before article is changed.  although the data is indeed somewhat redundant, it should be noted that the template only indicates begin dates, and do not reflect periods of vacancy. --emerson7 | Talk 05:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think its wrong to link each notable recording to the LSO website, where one can proceed to purchase. we are not a sales engine for record sales, no matter how high minded the operation is. i see this talk page is not very active. I will probably remove the links in the next week, unless someone argues successfully for some other plan.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know why LSO is so widely used in TV, Movie, Games, non-classical music etc. It seems that if a rockband used a orchestra, if a tv-game used a orchestra or latest if Apple used an orchestra it always is LSO. Why?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.157.61 (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 

The Recordings section of this article is currently heavily biased towards film music and commercial (pop) initiatives which, although very notable (see for instance the query above), could scarcely be considered the major artistic recording achievements of this orchestra. I've temporarily created a 'Further reading' section so as to add Richard Morrison's LSO biography to the article: although not currently cited as a "source", I feel it must be one of the most comprehensive best available.--MistyMorn (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a query: Stuart, Philip. Decca Classical, 1929–2009, accessed 7 July 2012 is cited as a source in the LSO recordings section, but not the same author's 938-paged specific London Symphony Orchestra Discography, 1913-2009 (pdf file) (3.4 MB) available at http://www.charm.rhul.ac.uk/download/download.html.  Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:London Symphony Orchestra/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 21:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
That was a "false start", but I'm starting now. Sorry for the delayed start. Pyrotec (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


### Initial comments
I've done a "lighting quick" (a slight exaggeration) of the article and on this basis, i.e. not having checked any citations, copyright status, etc, I'd place the body of the article somewhere between GA and FA, but for an article of this depth" I suspect that the WP:Lead is a bit "thin". Note: this article is a WP:GAN nominee, so I'll only be reviewing it against WP:WIAGA.
I'm now going to work my way through the article, starting at the History section and finishing with the Lead. This is likely to another two or three days. Pyrotec (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

History -
Background -
Looks compliant. I added a couple of wikilinks.
Foundation-
Looks compliant. I added a couple of wikilinks.
Early years -
...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The "terms", presumably people such as composers, to which this phrase is referring is unclear: "stodgy programmes of insipid Cowen, worthy Stanford, dull Parry and mediocre Mackenzie". They need defining or wikilinking, whatever is easiest.
I think I'd prefer a footnote rather than linking from the quote. The MoS discourages the latter, though we all do it sometimes. I'll run up an explanatory note. Tim riley (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
That nicely addressed the problem. Pyrotec (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Otherwise, this subsection is OK.
First World War and 1920s -
Looks compliant. I added a wikilink.
1930s & 1940s and 50s -
These two subsections appear to be compliant.
But just a minor point, the final paragraph of 1940s and 50s states: The average age of the LSO players dropped to about 30.[60]. Yes, it's verifiable but there is an unasked (and unanswered) question what was the average age before those principals left?
A wholly fair question, but I'm afraid I have no answer from any source known to me. If you think the absent antithesis is too obtrusive I am willing to lose the sentence. By the way, I was slightly worried that the juxtaposition of "With the new intake the orchestra rapidly advanced in standards" and "The average age of the LSO players dropped to about 30" was a bit tendentious in an ageist way. I'm glad it didn't strike you so, but perhaps you'd just revisit (though I tried several drafts to get all the relevant info in and couldn't improve on this.) Tim riley (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Looking it at the citation, it does not say that the age dropped, but it could be inferred, or "read between the lines". Overall, the wording of the final paragraph does not come across as ageist, so I'm going to close this  comment. Pyrotec (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
1960s -
I'm not sure, firstly, if I understand the distinction between amateur and professional singers in the chorus (of the LSO chorus) and, secondly, After the professional element was removed ..... Were for instance the singers paid, if so is the differences that of full time and part time employment as a singer? What happened to the professional element?
Good. It isn't clear, and I'll reword. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Later: now done. Tim riley (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
It reads much better now, so I'm going to close this  comment. Pyrotec (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Otherwise, this subsection is OK.
1970s and 80s -
This subsection appears to be compliant.
1990s to 2010s -
...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks compliant.
Reputation -
This section looks compliant.
Recordings and films -
Looks compliant.
WP:Lead -
At three, or three to four paragraphs, the current WP:Lead is perhaps compliant in that limited aspect. However, its rather "thin" or "shallow" for an article of this length and within such confines it can't, and does not, reflect much of the substance to be found in the body of the article.  I'd expect the lead to be perhaps 50 percent or 100% longer than it currently is.
Instance, its reason for formation (exclusivity clause) is given, but there is nothing about its cooperative nature and lack of salary / profit sharing agreement; nothing about loss of members, to form new organisations such as the Sinfonia of London and/or the creation of other organisations because the LSO was unwilling to change its stance (such as the LPO); nothing about some of its conductors that raised its standards, etc, before being "abruptly dropped"; nothing about the LSO Chorus.
At this point, I'm putting the review On Hold. Only the WP:Lead needs some work done, after that I'll award the article a, well-deserved, GA. Pyrotec (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I don't dissent from your view about the lead. (I always struggle with writing leads.) I'll be away for a little while from tomorrow, but will have web access and so should be able to devote time to this on Wednesday or thereabouts.
Now done: duly augmented, I hope. I have included the points you mention (as well as a couple of others) with the exception of the dropping of Elgar and Harty, which I'm not sure is central to the narrative. Please ponder. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
That's fine, as a reviewer I can only say (if that is what I conclude) that the lead is not compliant with WP:Lead in respect of "coverage". The follow-on comments, e.g. about what could be added to improve it, were merely suggestions. P.S.: When I did my first masters, at the turn of the millennium, we had a tutorial on summarising. I'd never heard of wikipedia at that time; but that tutorial has come in quite useful for my wikpedia work. Pyrotec (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I envy you! I don't think I'll ever be much good at précising articles for the lead, and I'm always grateful for steers such as yours, above. Tim riley (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


### Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
An informative article, that I believe has the potential of making FA without too much (additional) effort.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
A well-illustrated article, with relevant illustrations.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

An informative and very readable article; and I'm please to be able to award it GA-status. It is a "strong" GA and I believe that it could make FA without too much additional effort. Congratulations on a "fine" article. Pyrotec (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The infobox is wrong - none of these have been members. If correct, the box would need to have 100s of names in there (even the current complement would have 80 or so names (http://www.lso.co.uk/players)). This is particularly ironic for this orchestra, one of the few which had a book published consisting entirely of the thoughts of the players themselves...  Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I so agree, but the infobox zealots are not to be budged. A victory for theology over common sense, I fear. I think they'd be outraged at the idea that "members" should actually list the members. And which of the zealots, I wonder, would bother to keep the list up to date from month to month from the LSO's website. Heigh ho! Tim riley (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Have removed the non-members from the "members" category. Have done the same chez BBC Symphony Orchestra. If Cg2p0B0u8m likes to extend this removal of misinformation in other articles about symphony orchestras I shall applaud heartily. Tim riley (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on London Symphony Orchestra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930173905/http://lso.co.uk/page/3151/LSO-and-Film-Music to http://lso.co.uk/page/3151/LSO-and-Film-Music
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on London Symphony Orchestra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20121219114653/http://www.pmf.or.jp/en/about/history/ to http://www.pmf.or.jp/en/about/history/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)