In Reply to: RE: Todd has a point here, IMO posted by Brian Cheney on March 5, 2011 at 10:43:01:
Don't really mean to start a big debate, here, but Carnegie has all those seats because it has four big tiers of balconies (first tier, second tier, dress circle, balcony), going up very high. The balcony isn't a good place to hear an orchestral concert because you hear too much from the rear of the stage (brasses and percussion) rather than the balance the conductor hears from stage level.
I'm willing to stand corrected if I'm wrong, but the "ground floor" orchestra seating area is much smaller in Carnegie than it is in Avery Fischer. But with Fischer's wider and deeper shoebox shape, a lower percentage of its orchestra level seats are any good and almost none of its relatively few balcony seats are good. The middle of the first two tiers at Carnegie and most of the orchestra level seats are very good. So Carnegie probably has more good seats.
In part for the above reasons, I respectfully disagree with you (and general opinion) about the relative acoustical merits of Avery Fischer and Carnegie, at least insofar as if you are willing to pay top dollar and get the best seats, either venue will sound good. I do concede that you can do better with the cheaper seats at Carnegie.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Todd has a point here, IMO - rbolaw 11:21:04 03/05/11 (1)
- RE: Todd has a point here, IMO - ahendler 19:11:10 03/05/11 (0)