Talk:Royal Academy of Music (company)

What is this article about?

What is the focus of this article? It seems to be a loosely-connected set of events nebulously related to Handel.  HWV258.  09:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Same question here. It's not about the Royal Academy of Music. It's an excerpt from a Handel biography. I started rewriting it as it appears the first language of the author is not English, but then decided it's not worth the effort. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your userpage is boring. I hope you found a better place to show your talents. Taksen (talk) 09:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Taksen, if you keep making personal comments like this, I will push to get you blocked. Please restrict yourself to non-personal observations and comments.  HWV258.  09:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir Karljoos, don't you think Mclauglin's remark was offending and totally unnecessary? Many thanks for your concern.Taksen (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Project

I am not sure this article is within the scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers (mainly "the life and work of art music composers of all eras and all styles (...)"). I think it should be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music or Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera.--Karljoos (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Karljoos, I'm unfamiliar with projects, but yesterday I found it a bit fragwūrdig. I leave the case to you or other, more experienced users.Taksen (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

comment

• Information that peopel were subscribers has been added to several biographic articles without a citation. The additions are perhaps appropriate, but since the main source for them is DNB or OBND, which probably does not include the information, a citation ought to be provided. I have tagged the addition in two cases {{cn}}, not becasue it is wrong, but to encourage a citation to be provided.
• I notice that the acadmy is described as a "corporation". Bodies corporate were unusual in early modern England; it would thus be useful to add something about how it was incorporated. The statement that the capital was increased seems dubious, as this would (I think) have required authorisation by the king which should be traceable. Are you sure that the additional shares did not arise by transfer or subdivision of existing shares? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I will supply the phrase I added this afternoon with two references and than we could discuss your second remark. The King was involved in founding the corporation and the online information, a database under construction (select the year 1719) could answer your question. If not, I might hear from you again. Greetings from Amsterdam. Taksen (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My second remark is (on reconsideration) not entirely warranted. in views of the statemtn that the academy was created by letters patent, the description as a corporation is wholly justified. The question of the result of the over-subscription is however a differnet matter. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please check note 4. Winton Dean, p. 300. It is possible to supply you with that page by sending a photo. The matter is unsolved and not within my competence.Taksen (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested comments on the article

I have been asked to comment on the article. It deals with an important part of English opera history, and it is good that this subject has been taken up. I don't have time to do a full review at the moment, but here are a few pointers towards its improvement.

• The title is problematic. It doesn't give a clear idea of the article's subject, and despite the explanatory note at the head, there is bound to be confusion with the actual RAM founded in 1822. I would change the title to something like "Royal Academy of Music 1719–1728", or even "Handel's Royal Academy of Music", to make clear what the article is about.
• The lead should be expanded, as per WP:LEAD, into a summary of the whole article, rather than an introduction to the subject. It should also clarify Handel's role in the Academy - he was designated "Master of the Orchestra".
• The whole article is rather short, at around 1,400 words. Dean & Knapp's book has a long chapter devoted to the Academy. This, I feel, together with the other available material, could be a basis for making the article much more comprehensive.
• The prose is rather weak, and needs a thorough copyedit throughout. The bullet-point format in the "Musicians" section needs converting to straight prose.
• The organisation of material is wayward at times. For example, information about the payment of a dividend shouldn't be in the middle of the "Operas and singers" question. The "New or Second Academy" section doesn't define what the Second Academy was, when it began etc. Information in the penultimate paragraph of this section appears to relate to the 1719-28 Academy. It is not clear what is meant by "The Academy" in the final paragraph.
• The whole article is very unevenly cited. Some whole paragraphs, and at least one verbatim quote, are without citations to source.
• We need a proper list of book sources used, which includes author(s), title, publisher, year and place of publication and, if appropriate, isbn code.
• For online sources we need, title, publisher, author if possible, year if possible, last access date
• Images: far too many for such a short article. Image overload forces much of the text to be squeezed between columns of pictures, contrary to WP:MOS. I'd get rid of at least half of them, at least until the text has been expanded.

I hope the main editor (User:Taksen) won't find these comments discouraging. As I indicated earlier, it's a worthy subject and I hope that efforts continue to develop the article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Name of the article

The current name does not reflect exactly what the RAM was. It was not "Händel's" (he was neither founder nor "owner" of the company", it was founded by group of aristocrats. I think the name "Company" reflects better what the RAM was.--Karljoos (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but the name is completely uninformative as to the subject-matter of the article, and will not draw readers to it. The names given above were suggestions - another possibility might be "Royal Academy of Music (18th century company)". The present name, even if technically accurate, is the most anonymous and least imaginative of all the options. Brianboulton (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure names have to be creative and imaginative, they have to reflect what they are (Wikipedia:Naming conventions). The RAM was a company and I don't see any need to make the name interesting.--Karljoos (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure you can call it a company, it was called a body corporate and politick ... in deed and in act. Maybe the Royal Academy of Musick is a solution? Taksen (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's quote from the article: "The Royal Academy of Music was a company founded in February 1719, during George Frideric Handel's residence at Cannons by a group of aristocrats to secure themselves with a constant supply of baroque opera or opera seria. It commissioned large numbers of new operas from three of the leading composers in Europe (...)" and "the capital of ₤10,000 was divided in 50 shares of ₤200 each". If the members got profit from the RAM then it is a corporation. If they didn't and they did it as a kind of charity maybe we could say it was a society(see Royal Philharmonic Society).--Karljoos (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Karljoos, you cannot quote from the lead of the article and use it as a proof you are right, as you were the one who added the word company on January 25, 01.30hrs. It is not done! I did not use the word company, when I started the article. I suggest we leave the word company in the article untill we found out more, but not in the title. Besides, I like to make the name of the article short, clear and interesting.Taksen (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me quote from a website ([1]): " (...) during the winter of 1718-19 members of the nobility created an Italian opera company in London, initially funded by an eight-year subscription, calling it, with the king's permission, 'The Royal Academy of Music' with Handel as its music director. Recognizing the vital importance of employing only the very best singers and instrumentalists, especially in the lead vocal parts (...)". Please also visit [2], [3] and [4]. It doesn't matter how you want to understand it, the RAM was a company and/or an opera company but a company after all. And names don't have to be interesting, they have to indicate clearly what the subject is (Wikipedia:Article titles). Best.--Karljoos (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Directors

If the source used spells William Poultney with an "o" I suppose the spelling will have to stand - but perhaps the list could be indicated as a direct source quotation. The spelling familiar to historians is Pulteney, and it's the one you get when you follow the link. He did not become Ist Earl of Bath until 1742, so any reference to that in the article would be anachronisticDelahays (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Royal Academy of Music (company)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Royal Academy of Music (company)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Musuem":

• From Ottone: Malina, János. "Atalanta". Handel House Museum. Retrieved 30 May 2014.
• From Admeto: "Admeto". Handel House Musuem. Retrieved 4 June 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I fixed that (finally, after numerous efforts).Smeat75 (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Royal Academy of Music (company). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090623102039/http://www.scribd.com:80/doc/889430/Handel-by-Edward-J-Dent to http://www.scribd.com/doc/889430/Handel-by-Edward-J-Dent

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)