# Talk:Royal Philharmonic Orchestra

My understanding is that an organisation is not permitted to simply call itself "Royal".  This requires permission from Buckingham Palace.  Permission would normally be given only to well-established organisations, ones that have proved by their activities that they would be extremely unlikely to ever bring the monarchy into disrepute.  I'm not saying Beecham's newly founded orchestra would ever have been guilty of that, but it was only a fledgling orchestra in 1946 and had not yet established its credentials (other than being associated with Beecham).  My assumption is that, when Beecham founded the orchestra in 1946, it was called something else (possibly just the "Philharmonic Orchestra"), and the "Royal" part of the title was added some time later.  The website says nothing about this.  Can anyone clarify the sequence of events, and under what circumstances approval was given to the use of the word "Royal"?  JackofOz 04:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tracked some information down - [1].  According to this, it stems from the orchestra's association with the Royal Philharmonic Society.  This was founded in 1813 as the "Philharmonic Society".  A century later it was granted a royal charter by King George V, making it the Royal Philharmonic Society (= RPS). .... Thomas Beecham returned to Britain in 1944 and formed a new orchestra, giving its first concert at the Davis Theatre in Croydon on September 15, 1946, just three weeks after Thomas Beecham started hiring musicians. Again, he placed the new orchestra under the RPS rubric, enabling it to take the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra name.  So there we are.  --  JackofOz (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the Royal Choral Society is made in the article, yet the Royal Choral Society article says they are associated entities.   Can someone please clarify? -- Ssilvers 19:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please add they worked (and starred) in the Frank Zappa's movie "200 motels". See this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/200_Motels . Sorry about my bad english --190.50.209.199 (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC) -Fly

I was wondering about the place in the lead where it says "is sometimes referred to as "Britain's national orchestra"." Is it really, and by whom? I mean if it is, and it is a recognized usage, then great. If it's a sort of marketing term then I'm not so sure. Can anyone please clarify? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is seriously incomplete.  For one example, the 1984 proposal to move to Nottingham did result in an extended residency over a number of years in the late 1980s and early 1990s.  They weren't in a good state then; as a Nottingham resident and concert-goer at the time, I (and many of the audience) didn't regard their arrival as an overall gain. For another, surely this should discuss the RPO's use of Cadogan Hall as a London base.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.5.16 (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC) 

Aiming, in due course (a long way to go yet), to bring this article up to GA alongside the LSO and BBC SO, I have removed all uncited material. This was mostly to do with the RPO's engagement in pop records. If anyone has any relevant and notable info on this aspect, a mention, cited to a WP:RS would be most welcome. Tim riley (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

An editor keeps adding René Leibowitz to the list of conductors closely associated with the orchestra. In fact Leibowitz conducted just one RPO concert  (18 February 1962), according the The Times. The same editor keeps adding to the RPO recordings section mention of a set of the Beethoven symphonies under Leibowitz citing the Wikipedia article on Leibowitz, in contravention of WP:WPNOTRS. (The Leibowitz article contains no references whatever.) There was such a set, and a WP:RS could be found, but as the set was undistinguished  (the American Record Guide used the phrases "not particularly perceptive" and "earthbound") it does not seem to merit a place in a concise section featuring the RPO's most important recordings. I suggest both these additions should be deleted, and would welcome the views of uninvolved editors. Tim riley (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the additions.  First, as Tim riley points out, one needs to cite a reliable source for additions to Wikipedia -- we cannot cite to other Wikipedia articles.  Moreover, as Tim riley also states, this set of Beethoven symphonies is not of sufficient encyclopedic importance in view of the other, more important information in the recordings section.  Likewise, the RPO is important in Leibowitz's life, but Leibowitz is not important in the history of the RPO.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The recent addition is a complete fantasy, and I am reverting it. The set was recorded by Decca, produced by Charles Gerhardt and engineered by Kenneth Wilkinson, between 5 and 14 April 1961 at the Walthamstow Assembly Hall. The orchestra was the RPO and the conductor was Leibowitz. It was released on the Reader's Digest label, and later re-emerged from time to time on obscure labels. See detailed session records in Philip, Stuart, Decca Classical, 1929–2009. – Tim riley (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting this nonsense, Tim.  Also, as you noted above, the set was considered undistinguished.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Concerto for Group and Orchestra anyone?
83.13.239.255 (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This was a best-selling album in 1981, released on the RCA label in the US. According to this link from discogs.com, Louis Clark was the arranger and conductor. The single was listed in the Wikipedia article ["List of 1980s one-hit wonders in the United States"].
While this release may not have been among the more shining examples of the orchestra's recorded talents, it may have had a significant positive effect on their financial security. However, there is no mention in the page. Is this an error requiring the editor's attention?
68.52.50.128 (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair point - I seem to recall that stuff like that did quite well. Erm. Financially. I am afraid it would destroy my soul to write about it - any volunteers? DBaK (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

An editor keeps adding a hatnote explaining that this orchestra is not a different orchestra. As there are five full-time symphony orchestras in London adding a link to just one or two of them is not only pointless, it is misleading. No link is needed, as the other orchestras are mentioned in the text, and no confusion is possible. Tim riley talk  13:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that it is uncalled-for: I feel that we sometimes overdisambiguate, if that is a thing, and that this is an example. But I have got into horrible disputes with this stuff before and have little stomach for it now, so I shall now just stfu as the Young People so charmingly put it. DBaK (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure you're right, DBaK. Stuffing unnecessary links into articles is patronising to our readers' intelligence. Of the various Philharmonics in Britain, I doubt that our readers will have any trouble distinguishing between the words "London", "Royal", "Liverpool" and "BBC". Tim riley talk  18:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)