RFH acoustic
Fri, Nov 5 2010, 8:13AM
Something like £100,000,000 was spent 'refurbishing' the Royal Festival Hall. Not the organ though, it seems, as they just wrote to me asking for money for that. It's a couple of years now since they re-opened and maybe it's time to dwell on what they did.
I used to avoid the RFH on the grounds it was tatty and the acoustic was terrible. It's a little less tatty (though they bought a carpet which was a replica of the old one and which, now it's already quite dirty, just looks like the tatty old one) but the acoustic is just as dire.
Really they could have spent the money on a new concert hall with modern acoustics. Instread the preservationists got to work insisting that the **** old acoustic be 'preserved' if slightly 'reinforced'. It's dire. I won't pretend I can't believe that a quango of posh duffers and their circumambient yes-persons could have come up with such a failure - in our culture none of us expect any different. A lot of the money they flushed away was from public sources. It's par for the course, but what a loss to the rest of us who never got a single free champagne lunch out of it.
It seems insane that the Barbican Hall, not even designed as a concert hall and with a notably bad acoustic is still ten times better than the RFH, a purpose-built concert hall (and physically a dump which is rammed down our throats as part of our 'architectural heritage' - thanks a lot, m'lud) with a £100,000,000 upgrade.
Word to the wise - if you feel obliged to go, sit only in the front, centre block. The sides and especially the rear are as dull as ever and you will strain to hear. A violin soloist might as well be on the moon. Notably, the few times I went after the refit, many of these inferior seats were left empty. The audience has learned quickly. Even the music journalists complain and their complimentary seats always fall in the narrow band where you can hear somethng. Even the seating - which lines up one head behind another, instead of in the gaps, obstructing vision - was not altered but replaced by a historical replica of the original failed layout.
Who will answer for this fiasco? And when will London get a viable, purpose-built concert hall?
Sun, Nov 7 2010, 7:32PM
#2
RE: RFH acoustic
Instread the preservationists got to work insisting that the old acoustic be 'preserved' if slightly 'reinforced'. It's dire.
Odd. In a 2008 article in The Times, written one year after the RFH re-opened, David Cairns seemed to think the acoustic was a lot better:
"... the consensus was that something needed to be done, and it has been. Without doubt, the sound is warmer, fuller, all over the hall, and there is greater physical impact
"... Conductors appear to be in no doubt about the benefits, not least an increase in the hall’s reverberation period from about 1.7 seconds to 2.25. “It wasn’t always a pleasure to play here, but it is now” (Simon Rattle); “You don’t recognise the sound — what used to be dead is very lively now” (Vladimir Jurowski, chief conductor of the London Philharmonic, one of the hall’s resident orchestras); “There is more air around the notes we play, everything sounds more attractive” (Vladimir Ashkenazy)."
So has it got worse since 2008?
And if so, why/how?
Mon, Nov 8 2010, 7:09AM
#3
RE: RFH acoustic RE: RFH acoustic
I've read that comment and many more. These commentators are frequently part of the machinery and not too objective. (Ever heard of 'puffing'? Read British reviews of Hyperion and Chandos CDs). I've noticed most commented on the sound before they had heard it. The conductors comment on their own experience of the sound and they too need to flatter. Players are reported to admit only a slight improvement from their perspective.
I could go on.
Instead of padding your post with 'critical quotes' why don't you report your own opinion? And why do you think that seats improved at a cost of £111,000,000 remain empty?
(that's about £45,000 per seat...)
Fri, Nov 12 2010, 5:51PM
#4
RE: RFH acoustic
Instead of padding your post with 'critical quotes'...
It wasn't 'padding' - it was something published in the mainstream media that seemed relevant to the issue you'd raised.
Of course, you may be right that everyone concerned is biased or has an agenda.
... why don't you report your own opinion?
Perhaps because I don't live in London and don't frequent the RFH?
And why do you think that seats improved at a cost of £111,000,000 remain empty?
The re-opening of the RFH pretty much coincided with the credit crunch. Maybe potential attendees are still cutting expenses?
Mon, Nov 15 2010, 8:33PM
#5
RE: RFH acoustic
It was all money completely wasted, the defunct "helmhotz" (?) resonators (which kept breaking down) and were then abandoned have now given way to an acoustical roof "void" which was supposed to improve it - but in fact it does sod all. If you sit in the choir seats why is there still a very audible mechanical plant humm from machinery on the stage right side - it was there before the refurbishment and is still there now! The RFH is an acoustical disgrace in the musical life of London.
Robert.
Wed, Nov 24 2010, 7:49AM
#6
RE: RFH acoustic
By chance I was in the stage right choir seats just last night. In fact I didn't hear that noise! I was though able to look out once again on a half-empty house - for Helene Grimaud, no less.
Sat, Nov 27 2010, 12:40PM
#7
RE: RFH acoustic
Nobody seems to have picked up on the fact that since the 'refurbishment' the trains can clearly be heard rumbling past on the adjacent bridge at least once a minute, particularly from the centre stalls (which are necessarily the most expensive seats in the house). As someone who has regularly used the RFH since 1961, I know for a fact that one could never hear the trains before the supposed update. Hence we go downwards and backwards into the 21st century. Also the toilets in the RFH would look bad in a third world country, but perhaps that's what modern Britain has become nowadays.
Mon, Dec 13 2010, 4:11PM
#8
RE: RFH acoustic
The remedy is simple
Get thee all to Symphony Hall Birmingham, there are plenty of cheap trains back to Lahndon, afterwards.
Great music in Brum as well as brilliant Baltis!!
Wed, Dec 15 2010, 9:57PM
#9
RE: RFH acoustic
As a German resident who used to live in London during the times of the "old" accoustic I was a very frequent visitor of various concerts at RFH, many of them will forever stick to my memory. But I agree, the accoustic was never really great.
Therefore, with significant anticipation I was back for the a concert in 2009 in order to experience the "hugely improved" accoustic following the 110+ million GBP refurbishment.
I must say that I was hugely disappointed by what I heard. As some of the other posters, I must really ask where all that money has been spent. Its not just the accoustic, also in the general ambience and outfitting of the venue I could hardly see any material improvement.
Truly disapointing. What a fantastic new hall could have been build on this prime location for the same amount of money.
An opportunity missed. And btw. fully agree with the prvious poster on maybe taking a train to Birmingham. That hall definitely IS fantastic and on the same level as the Berlin Philharmonie - so makes all perfect sense that Rattle was picky on his new hall :-)
I note the Planets, one of the current recordings of the month, was made there and despite Edward Greenfield's comments I am not impressed with the sound of the excerpt on the G Player. I cannot see the point of making a recording of a much recorded work in such poor acoustics when there are so many better sounding versions available, other than as a souvenir for one who attended the concert (assuming it is unedited).