Birmingham's Symphony Hall is magnificent, why can't Wolverhampton build one instead of the Civic?
I tend to have some sympathy with Keith Parton and his letter about costly renovations at the Civic Hall.
Surely, the cost of a concert in this splendid 1930s hall should include a percentage which goes towards repairs and upkeep?
At least that is how a business should be run. Maybe the artistes who appear in the hall demand too much payment?
Since the inmates took over running the asylum (in musical terms) I have not been to the hall so often.
Popular music these days tends to be noisy and aimed at the young. I wonder what Jack Hylton would think. He opened the hall in 1938.
Of course musical tastes change, seldom for the better. What was once melodious is now seen as old fashioned and over ornate. But what is the music of today but deafening and bland. Music to damage the hearing!
It is up to the council to ensure proper maintenance to the building at a cost which is economical and sensible.
At one time in-house decorators would do some of the work, but these days everything is contracted out, and, maybe, overpriced. And perhaps the cost of acoustic treatments is over inflated?
We audio enthusiasts have used empty cardboard egg boxes to absorb excess reverberation. Painted they look very good. What is used these days which costs so much? With rock music I cannot see much point in over-doing the acoustics. Noise is noise.
One thought. If Wolverhampton wanted a state-of-the-art concert hall, one where the best orchestras and performers could perform and sound good, why not imitate Birmingham and build a new hall?
The Symphony Hall is magnificent and features adjustable acoustic chambers for the various styles of music.
C K Millward
Tipton
