Jump to content

Talk:The Royal Opera

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Royal Opera, London)
Featured articleThe Royal Opera is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 12, 2015.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 22, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
February 18, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Question

[edit]

Oliver Chettle, could you explain why you just reverted my merge of this article with Royal Opera House? Having two separate articles complicates things for those of us writing articles on operatic topics, particularly biographies of singers. The only case I found it to be necessary is Paris, where the Opéra National de Paris has been associated with more than one venue (Opera Bastille and Paris Opera). In all the other articles, the company and the house are dealt with together on one page since they are for all practical purposes one. Viajero 10:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They are not one. They are legally separate, just as the Royal Ballet and the building are separate. The theatre is much older than the company. The Royal Opera House should not be categorised in opera companies because it is not an opera company. Oliver Chettle 11:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware that, technically speaking, they are not one. However, in cases where the opera company has not been associated with two (or more) theaters for which we have entries, it makes sense to deal with them both on the same page. In nearly every singer biography, there is a line which goes something like this: "in 19xx singer X made his/her debut in [London]", where [London] is a variable. Hitherto, we have had to choose between linking to the "Royal Opera House" (the locale) or to "London" (the public); either is correct. Now you complicate things further by adding a third option: the company. Did singer X perform at the hall or with the company? In virtually all cases, the answer is: both. If you look at any other article on a major opera house, such as La Scala or Berlin State Opera you will see that the house(s) and the company are intertwined. It is not ideal but serves our purposes better than splitting things in separate pages. Please reconsider, especially given the fact that all of the information on this page can safely be brought under ROH, as my original merge demonstrated. -- Viajero 12:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Legally separate" is not a very useful distinction for the Wikipedia reader who might be kept in mind more constantly than she is. Is it really sensible to have two articles on each major opera venue, one for the house and one for the paper corporation that may or may not own the physical plant? Perhaps Oliver Chettle will take pity on the reader and the rest of us. --Wetman 13:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually everything I do on Wikipedia is done for the readers not for the comparatively tiny number of editors. I am unconvinced by the arguments put forward. The opera company article is just as legitimate as the ballet company article (I hope I haven't now exposed that to attack). The building has a long history which does not really relate to the present performing company, and much that should be written about the company has little to do with the building. Oliver Chettle 04:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Royal Opera content moved from ROH page

[edit]

I have moved the Royal Opera content from the Royal Opera House page. This leaves one article for the building and an article each for the two companies that use it as a home. For history of earlier edits of most of the content, please see the ROH history page. Humansdorpie 09:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

Shouldn't this page be moved to "Royal Opera (London)" if (as I assume) the intent is to disambiguate with other foreign opera companies with royal patronage? "Royal Opera, London" is not a proper noun, or at least it's not at all commonly employed as such. I believe it's Wiki practice to put the disambiguator in parentheses. Badgerpatrol (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See "Name redux" below. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 21:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited material

[edit]

I am gathering material to overhaul this article substantially. If any editor has so far contributed any uncited contributions to the present article, may I invite him/her to add citations in the next week or so? Many thanks – Tim riley (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PR

[edit]

I have added some info and removed uncited material, and put the article up for peer review, where comments will be most gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PR - supplementary comments

[edit]

Copied, with minor edits, from my talk page: comments from User:GuillaumeTell received after PR closed:

Further comments:

  • One problem that I've been pondering is the likelihood that drive-by editors may wish to add their favourite ROH singers (currently 61), conductors (27), composers (35), operas (48), directors (only 9 - where is Richard Jones?) and/or designers (currently a big fat zero) to the article. There's therefore a bit of a question about what the criteria for inclusion ought to be. I also note that there's a rather noticeable bulge in operas near the end of the article.....
    • Point taken about drive-by edits by fans of Madame X or Signor Y. Rather to my surprise the analogous WP article on the ENO hasn't suffered thus, though of course the Garden attracts the canary fanciers more than the Coliseum does. I'm not sure one can in practice set a criterion for inclusion. I don't think we should mention directors more than necessary; it only encourages them. Tim riley (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No mention of Jette Parker (formerly Alberto Vilar ...) Young Artists programme. They're doing Il viaggio a Reims next summer.
  • Nor the not-entirely-successful Edward Downes attempt to perform all of Verdi's operas, including early versions, to celebrate (I think) the centenary of his death.
  • Should summer seasons of Russian operas (e.g. Semyon Kotko, War and Peace, Boris Godunov) performed by Gergiev and the Mariinsky Opera at the ROH in 2000 and 2005 get a mention?
  • No mention of Lord Chadlington (at least by name) who was involved in the great post-"The House" goings-on.
  • Worth mentioning Paul Bunyan, performed at the Shaftesbury Theatre during the Opera House shutdown; also (I'm sure about this - it's in Michael Kaiser's book!) the cancellation of Le Grand Macabre which was to open the refurbished Opera House, because the stage machinery wasn't working properly.
    • I'm afraid I disagree about mentioning Paul Bunyan; it came from and has returned to a well-merited obscurity. I'll mention the Ligeti; bit of luck about the stage machinery - opening with Falstaff was a much better arrangement. Tim riley (talk)
  • Operas not mentioned that I think should have been: The Fiery Angel, Matilde di Shabran, Die Fledermaus, King Priam, Iphigénie en Tauride.....
    • I'll mention King Priam and add the names of the Poulenc and Ravel works already alluded to at the same point. Of your other suggestions I am in two minds whether The Fiery Angel is noteworthy; I've never heard of Matilde di Shabran; and Fledermaus, surely, goes without saying - just as, say, The Barber, Butterfly and Trovatore do, none of which is specifically mentioned. I'll add the Gluck. (Oddly, the only perf I've seen of the last at the ROH wasn't by the Royal Opera but by the English Bach Festival - all frightfully authenticke.) I hope I needn't emphasise that if you think I'm wrong about the Angel etc (and Paul Bunyan too) there will be no bleating from me if you choose to add them yourself. Tim riley (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the Linbury: a small number of Royal Opera productions, e.g. Powder Her Face, have been performed there, but mostly the repertory is things like Birtwistle's "Punch and Judy" performed by small companies such as Music Theatre Wales and The Opera Group. Dunno about the ballet, but that's not part of this article.
  • Oh, and the Deborah Voigt little black dress (Ariadne auf Naxos) imbroglio.

--GuillaumeTell 00:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am mightily grateful for these points. We differ on a few of them, but I think the article will be much improved when I have finished incorporating the rest, which I shall now go and do. Thank you very much. Tim riley (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too bothered by the suggestions that you've rejected (others may disagree, of course!). I've looked through the additions, etc., and everything seems in order. I'll see if I can find out when the term "Director of Opera" first appeared, and if I do, it should be easy to add a third column to the table with all the names. Payne and Padmore really do need WP entries, which I may be able to start if/when I'm in a position to provide names and dates. --GuillaumeTell 11:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Many thanks! Tim riley (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Table

[edit]

The new table for Chief Exec, Dir of Music, Dir of Opera kindly done by GuillaumeTell: by necessity of the current format, many fields are blank. Would a table a bit like the one here produce a more elegant table?

It's certainly worth considering, but from a quick look at the link it is a bit beyond my capabilities. Might you have time and inclination to attempt such a thing on our behalf? Tim riley (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If no one here is au fait with them I would be happy to give it a bash! In my sandbox at first, of course almost-instinct 15:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know for a definite fact that other contributors to the article are as technically inept as I am, but I suspect that if the table is to be reformatted it will probably be you who does it. It's a most handsome offer. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. I clicked the link and my eyes glazed over. By the way, I intend to add refs to the names in the Director of Opera column and also (somehow) a note to say that Peter "little black dress" Katona (not the Slovakian footballer) is actually still on board with the title "Director of Casting". --GuillaumeTell 18:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on what I come up with, you might regret the "handsome" bit ;-) Right, here goes.... almost-instinct 20:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think its fair to say I'm quite pleased with that! I had to create the fourth column, to stop the table misbehaving. I suggest all the stuff currently under the table goes into that column. Do not attempt to do anything clever with that fourth column! Just replace the "none" with info or leave it be. I couldn't find a reason for the misbehaviour but this solution works almost-instinct 21:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My word! That's very fine. Thank you so much! For my own part, I'd drop the fourth column if it were technically possible and leave the explanations of the various titles as footnotes, but I'd be glad to see what Guillaume Tell thinks. Meanwhile, please accept my loud applause. Tim riley (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without the fourth column it didn't overlap things properly, and compressed it from 20 lines to 14. Very annoying. Alternatively, I could turn the fourth column into a prelimary column and put the dates in there? almost-instinct 21:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As we can't do away with the fourth column, it occurs to to me that we can make good use of it by listing the Chairmen of the ROH Board. I think I can dig the names and dates out quickly, if you would then be so kind as to add them and move/delete cell top and bottom boundaries accordingly. Is that all right?
The important thing about the fourth column is that each cell must be only one cell deep. Hmm, I don't know how to express myself. Put it this way: a fourth column which overlaps like the first three do won't stop the table from misbehaving almost-instinct 10:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To improve the look of the fourth column I have moved the notes that GT put underneath the table into the various cells. Also in that column I have replaced the "none"s with endashes. I think this column looks significantly less bogus now! I think GT might not like how I mangled with his prose while turning moving the info into the table: I think the text in the 4th column needs a ce :-) almost-instinct 10:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I think. While you were doing that I dug out the names of the chairmen since 1944. No use for the table perhaps, but I list them here for the record:
See here for how the the removal of the fourth column compresses the table incorrectly almost-instinct 11:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some additions and alterations. It looks to me as if everyones's title ought to be in the fourth column. Capitalisation of titles needs standardising. As far as chairmen are concerned, they don't relate only to the opera company, of course, but how would the table look if a fifth column was added for them on the left? --GuillaumeTell 11:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My monitor is a widescreen so a fifth column would work for me, but I suspect that on traditional monitors it would snarl things up.... Should the list of chairman be on the page for the building rather than the opera company? Could notes also be added to explain the various "none"s in columns 1-3? almost-instinct 11:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to leave the chairman out of the chart. I'll ponder on adding them to the article on the Opera House. At all events, I'm prodigiously grateful to both GT and A-i for the input on this. Tim riley (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate everyone's efforts here, but I'm beginning to think that column 4 as it is now could cause confusion and/or (more likely) bafflement. Given the large amount of available blank space, wouldn't it be better if there would be, underneath, say, John Tooley's name, a line saying "General administrator, 1970-80" and another line saying "General director, 1980-1988". The fourth column could then just be used for other notes and refs, where appropriate.
Actually, the Chief Executive, I've just realised, is, like the Chairman, in charge of both the opera and ballet companies. Shouldn't we either have both or neither in the table...? --GuillaumeTell 17:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine arguments being made for the inclusion of the Chief Executive, despite the exclusion of the Chairman... But that's not really my dept. Question for GT: In 1971-3, between Ingpen and Schmidt when Colin Davis was the new musical director, what was Peter Hall's title? Given what it says here should he be in the table, too? almost-instinct 15:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shoving the Riley oar in, P Hall was named as "Director of Productions", but backed out in July 1971 before taking up the post, which he was due to do in September 1971. (The Times, 8 July 1971, p.1)
Would that information be worthy of the "notes" column? Presumably Dir of Prods would have been the equivalent of Dir of Opera? Would explain why that position was vacant for a bit almost-instinct 18:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd be inclined to leave it out, but Guillaume's views on this would be gratefully received. Tim riley (talk)

As soon as I've remembered how I built this table I'll get it ready for Tony Hall's successor! almost-instinct 16:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right I've got it all ready. The info about dates may want clarifying - I was just putting text in for the sake of it, really almost-instinct 21:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the Table rumbles on ...

[edit]

... this article has become a FA! Great effort, Tim. --GuillaumeTell 18:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir! The effort was much aided by the attentions of others, naming no eponymous Rossini heroes. Tim riley (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Berlioz: Les Troyens last performance

[edit]

This article claims that Les Troyens has not been performed at Covent Garden since 1972, although Scottish Opera gave one or two performances there around 1990, I think. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I shall check and amend as needed. This article is only about the resident company's productions, otherwise (gasps as ROH luminaries reach for their sal volatile) we should have to mention - aargh - Gilbert and Sullivan and Welsh National Opera. I'm a bit hazy about productions of The Trojans at the ROH, though I know the Great Dame appeared at short notice as Dido in 1969, borrowed from the Scottish Opera production at short notice when Josephine Veasey was taken ill. Dame Janet sang in English and the rest of the cast sang in French, but, I am told by one who was there, it was stupendous nonetheless. But I digress. I'll research and report back. Tim riley (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the only Offenbach (apart from Hoffmann) I have ever seen in Covent Garden was the Komische Oper once doing ‘Ritter Blaubart’. Visits by the Kirov and Bolshoi will have confused the situation also. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name redux

[edit]

Badgerpatrol raised a question back in 2008 that's never been addressed (see "Name" above). I thought I'd look into it, by starting with the sister company The Royal Ballet.

The differences in naming approaches are obvious:

  • the ballet's article starts with "The", presumably because the company's name starts with this word. Well, The Royal Opera also has a "The" (see here), but we seem to do without it here. My awareness of it having now come into existence, I find that's an inconsistency that I could not comfortably live with.
  • then the issue Badger raised: the word "London", and whether it's part of the name proper or should be merely a disambiguation tag. The name of the company is just "The Royal Opera". It seems to me that if we're going to be adding "London" in to make the article title meaningful and not ambiguous, we can't do it by pretending the company is actually called "Royal Opera, London" - because it's not. This is disambiguation, no more and no less, and so the least we should do is move the article to Royal Opera (London).

But before making any move, we really have to achieve symmetry between this article's name and that of The Royal Ballet. Mostly, article names are matters for agreement among the editors who work on that article alone, but there are cases where a bigger picture approach is called for. Hence, we name all the numbered symphonies by any given composer according to a standard format - "Symphony No. X (surname)" - and anyone who creates Havergal Brian's Fifth Symphony would find it quickly moved to Symphony No. 5 (Brian). This is a much smaller instance of exactly the same principle, because the Royal Opera and the Royal Ballet, between them, are Covent Garden (not literally, but certainly metaphorically).

Achieving symmetry could mean removing "The" from the Ballet, or adding "The" to this article - but not both, of course. Another ideal goal would be to have the word "London" in both articles or in neither, but not in just one of them as we have now. But that will depend on how many other Royal Operas and Royal Ballets there are out there, and whether or not the London pair are considered the primary names. It may be that that is the case for one but not the other. I don't know.

So, there are two matters for consideration, both of which would involve the good people over at The Royal Ballet being consulted. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 21:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as the editor who has contributed the most to this article (in quantity, at any rate: quality is not for me to say) I'd have no objection to either alternative title for the page. Would changing it mean altering tons of hyperlinks, though? Not a task I'd volunteer for! Tim riley (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no fixed views on whether changing both articles would be preferable, but do echo Tim Riley in being concerned about the number of red links that will pop up all over the place. Is there any easy way on Wikipedia for finding all articles which contact the title(s) as now written? Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can find out what links to the article by going to the 'toolbox' at the left of the article page and clicking on 'what links here'. There are more than 300 articles that link to the Royal Opera page at present, and more than 800, if you please, that link to the Royal Ballet one. I don't know if simple redirects would adequately deal with them. Expert advice invited. Tim riley (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the name really is "The Royal Opera" (as it appears to be), then I would be in favor of renaming this article The Royal Opera. The old article name would automatically link here, and other links would NOT need to be manually changed. The rule was changed some time ago to say that renames do not require fixing redirects unless there are double redirects or the rename causes links to be pointed to the wrong article (neither is true here). BTW, for anyone who was involved in the burlesque / American burlesque / Victorian burlesque situation, this is a different, and much simpler situation, because there are no confusingly similar articles, and existing links will not be pointed to the wrong article - it is just a straightforward move/rename that will leave perfectly acceptable redirects. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to Ssilvers for that. It seems perfectly doable if there is a consensus that we should do it. Over to you, Jack, to discuss with the ballet boys and girls. Meanwhile does anyone know if there is an opera forum where we can canvass the views of members of the opera project? Tim riley (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about posting your query here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera and here: Talk:Opera. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good! Thank you for that. I've posted requests on both pages for comments to be added to this one. Tim riley (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favour (for what it is worth) of renaming to 'The Royal Opera' as per arguments above. Just may need to be some header to deal with Royal Danish Opera and similar.--Smerus (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this article to The Royal Opera seems very sensible. Redirects will indeed take care of existing incoming links. After the move, a hatnote should be placed there, similar to the one at Royal Opera House, along the lines:
This article is about The Royal Opera, London. For other royal opera houses, see Royal Opera (disambiguation).
-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support also from me. One caveat: the programme for the last opera that I saw at the ROH (last February) inconsistently uses mostly The Royal Opera but also Royal Opera! The bulk of the programme, comprising the cast-list, synopsis, articles, biographies, etc., plus the front cover, is headed The Royal Opera, but the prefatory material that you see in the opening pages has sections entitled Royal Opera House, Royal Ballet, Royal Opera (bumf from Pappano and Holten plus a list of important staff and artists), Royal Opera Chorus, etc. --GuillaumeTell 18:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amateurs! People who prepare programmes should be required to train at the GT-Riley-Ssilvers School of WikiPrecision. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. What does the ROH pay its PR people for if they so dilute the brand? Be that as it may, do we think "The Royal Opera" is the pukka title? Tim riley (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Ssilvers, Smerus, Michael Bednarek, 4meter4 and I all seem to think so. --GuillaumeTell 20:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that move has my support, too. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 21:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mine too. Voceditenore (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now done, as you see. Tim riley (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2002 to date

[edit]

I'd like to suggest updating the final sentence of this section (which has a broken link as reference): "Productions announced for the 2011–12 season include a new opera by Judith Weir, and the first performances of The Trojans at Covent Garden since 1990, conducted by Pappano, and starring Bryan Hymel, Eva-Maria Westbroek and Anna Caterina Antonacci." I work at the Royal Opera House, so thought it best not to do this myself, but refer other editors to the 2012-13 season announcement on the ROH website, which could be drawn on. Thanks, OperaBalletRose (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this. I'll put it on my list unless someone else gets there first. Tim Riley (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Many thanks, OperaBalletRose (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! We're in safe hands. Guillaume Tell has done the necessary. Many thanks, Monsieur T. – Tim Riley (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royal English Opera

[edit]

Since this is mentioned in the text, why do we need to have reference to this separate company made in the lede? IMHO its not important almost-instinct 14:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, It has no such ties, and is uncited clutter. Am deleting. Tim riley (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS asks for concise writing

[edit]

An editor wishes to change "magnificently restored" into: 'The Sunday Times described the reopened theatre as "magnificently equipped for its most exigent scenic demands and audience creature comforts.' In other words, the theatre was magnificently restored (of course, for the purposes of being a theatre, both in front of the curtain and behind it). Unless anyone has a source that disputes the account of the Times, the description is non-controversial, and the writing is more concise and elegant. An encyclopedia article is not best constructed with a series of quotes from the sources, only quotes that add something of value. Rather, good encyclopedia writing involves describing what the best sources are saying, in concise, clear language, with the facts organized in a logical, balanced way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't *want* to change it to that, I was just trying to find a compromise. I think having the phrase "magnificently restored" in the sentence jars with the neutral point of view policy, but clearly others disagree and I have no desire to get involved in any unpleasant disagreements, so I shall leave you to it. Angmering (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasts

[edit]

An editor added this:

Radio and Television Broadcasts
The BBC has regularly broadcast performances from the Royal Opera since its establishment in 1946. The earliest complete broadcast was Britten's Peter Grimes in December 1947, and until the mid-1950s, some operas was only broadcast in part. Unlike the Met broadcasts in the USA, the BBC never had a regular broadcast schedule of Royal Opera performances, and sometimes only broadcast three or four in a year and rarely more than ten. Broadcasts were usually on the Third Programme (Radio 3 after 1967) but some were heard on the Home Service (Radio 4 after 1967). The BBC began FM broadcasts in May 1955, and the first Royal Opera FM broadcast was Tosca on June 30, 1955. Stereo broadcasts started in 1966 and the first Royal Opera stereo broadcast was Der Rosenkavalier, performed on April 26 but broadcast on October 29. The first television broadcast was of La Traviata on April 24, 1967 and in black and white. The first colour broadcast was of Aida on February 5, 1968.
The broadcast archive of the Royal Opera is far from complete. Audio broadcasts were not systematically kept by the BBC until the 1980s and therefore many performances from the 1940s and 1950s no longer exist in audio form.(ref:Covent Garden Recordings http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/cas/staff/lockley/coventgarden/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)) The largest archival holdings of Royal Opera performances are the Royal Opera themselves, the BBC, the National Sound Archive of the British Library and the Music Preserved Archive at the University of York. Some recordings have been released by the Royal Opera's own label, and by historical specialists such as Pristine Audio and Testament. More recent video recordings are widely available on DVD.

The lack of citations makes this unsuitable for a featured article (or any article, indeed) but it is interesting and if citations to reliable sources can be found I think it would be a useful addition. Can anyone find such sources? Tim riley talk 14:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Main page image

[edit]

It's a pity that the pic illustrating Today's Featured Article on the Main Page crops off some of the pediment of the Royal Opera House. May I suggest replacing it with one of the following images? My preference would be for the one on the far left. Ham II (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have chosen an interior, saying more about the character of a theatre, and am surprised the article has not a single one, such as File:MFroyaloperahouse1.jpg --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I second that suggestion, though the opinions of contributors to the article (which I am not) should carry more weight than mine. Ham II (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Royal Opera/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The Royal Opera's definitive list of post-war productions, as is easily available for La Scala, does not seem to be readily available.

Substituted at 05:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Royal Opera. 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:

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) 20:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Royal Opera. 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:

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) 14:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Royal Opera. 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:

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) 22:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Royal_Opera&oldid=1212754348"