|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.39.192.230
In the Friday February 9, 2007 Wall Street Journal Willem Bruls has an intersting artical titeled: "What Elevates an Orchestra From Good to Great?" This is a subject often talked about on this forum and Mr. Bruls comments are very intersting. One intersting point is the importance of the hall on the orchestra. (Can this explain the New York Philharmonic?) Also most interesting is the list of the six greatest orchestras in the world "The same names come up on most lists: the Berlin Philharmonic, Vienna Philharmonic, Amsterdam's Concertgebouw Orchestra, Dresden's Sachsische Staatskapelle, the Orchestra of the Bayerischen Rundfunks and the Cleveland Orchestra" Only one orchestra from the USA made the list, but the right one was picked. A very good item to read and it has a very nice picture of the stage in Severance Hall.
Follow Ups:
Orchestras accomodate themselves to the acoustic of their halls. Fisher Hall has such thrust (it is an exponential horn, after all) that the horns throttle down to allow other instruments to be heard.The old Academy of Music in Philadelphia was a bit dry. That and Stokowski account for the singing string tone they developed. I could go on . . . and on.
Even bad halls become comfortable for orchestras, witness Ford Auditorium and the Detroit Symphony! However, Detroit played so much better at Carnegie it simply was amazing!
To me, Symphony Hall in Boston is the best all around hall in the US (I haven't heard the newest halls yet, Disney for example). But Carnegie is improving as the years since the restoration slip away. As for the acoustics in Lincoln Center, the City should do what they planned until the money ran out, gut the place and start over (Fisher, City and the Met, though Tully has a niche).
Halls certainly affect the sound of the resident orchestra. The same is certainly true in Europe (the Concertgebouw is an example). The best place to hear an orchestra is in its home. Failing that, Symphony Hall in Boston and Carnegie ain't bad in the US.
I'm envious of people who have the opportunity to hear great orchestras even occassional. I go to concerts far too infrequently: cost is high and my wife doesn't share my interest, so it's hard to justify to her.In any case I've only heard local orchestras:
= Symphony London -- London, Ontario, that is
= The Regina Symphony -- Regina, Saskatchewan, 'nough said!
= The Toronto Symphony
= The Montreal Symphony -- that was many years ago in the pre-Charles Dutoit era.
Bill Bailey
___________________________________________
See my stereo config ... but always looking for cost effective improvements
... to those with patience! My wife didn't used to like orchestras so much, but she's come around.And there's a lot to be said for smaller orchestras and "community music making." One of my favorite concert-going memories is a performance of LvB 9 by a local orch that shall remain nameless. They absolutely slaughtered the adagio--some of the most out-of-tune string playing I've ever heard--but watching a chorus of local folk belting out the "Ode" was more than worth all the wrong notes. I particularly remember one guy in the chorus who was so excited he was jumping up and down and singing at the top of his lungs! Such behavior, needless to say, is not tolerated among professionals, but it brought a big smile to my lips, and still does, whenver I think of it! Local performances are often wonderful for what they are.
but that night, seeing the Chicago Symphony Orchestra play Pictures At An Exhibition last April was one of the most amazing experiences of my entire life. I frequently attend my local Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra's concerts, but to hear the CSO, in their fantastic hall was a transcendant experience. The brass, the brass!
IBSmiester
Open Your Ears....
This thread gives me heart to continue reading these forums. The Top Orchestras can be rated but pedantically, no.VPO, BPO, Amsterdam, and Cleveland are all at the top. The rest of the top 5 or 10 are debatable. If you read my posts, you know that I love all of them, esp. rooting for the Cleveland under Szell/Maazel, as Todd K points out below. He's not sure, but I think they sounded wonderful with Dohnanyi even, if not the same and certainly they played more melodiously than in the Szell days. And you know that my view is that BPO is becoming a non German orchestra these days. Also, Philharmonia and LSO were very good as were all of the big 5 American orchestras.
One can judge from recordings and FM and live broadcasts (own conductor in own hall), but not as well as if M. Lucky's method is followed. Only heard The Cleveland Orchestra and Der Bayerischen Festspielhaus Orkester, not Rundfunks in the live setting in their own place. And the Czech Phil in Cleveland, as well as Cleveland under Maazel in Kansas City.
...been enthusiastic until recently. (Oh, William Steinberg's and MTT's band was excellent.) So give it a break.Also I wonder how many of those who take pokes at me, have so assiduously followed *any* symphony orchestra?
I have heard many orchestras, but admittedly listen more at home on LP and CD with some FM.I am glad you can hear the BSO live and it's doing well. Perhaps it's the top band in the land nowadays and is back to world class. That would be good.
x
Since I joined AA, I have always noted your opinions and respected them, and will continue to do so. I admire someone who goes to decades of concerts without breaks. I loved Steinberg with Pitt and the recordings with BSO also. thanks for putting up with me, and sorry for any misunderstanding.
...a small handful of individuals here have chosen to become highly antagonistic, besides willfully misconstruing my remarks.
and funny that I thought of you last week. I just got a bunch of old mono LP's in excellent shape. A friend talked his 85 year old mom into giving his late father's LP's away. Working my way through them, and wanted to post them to you and ask if you'd comment. See link.
Anyone who listens to live music on the radio is already "half-assed", according to one of those guys, and that was in stereo... so mono must be for full asses!My recommendatuion is for you to give them all to me and salvage your reputation.
Here's your misrepresentation of what I said:"Anyone who listens to live music on the radio is already "half-assed", according to one of those guys...."
Here's what I actually said:
"You sure as hell can't hear musicians' true sounds through a radio no matter how good your system is. Judging an orchestra without hearing them live and feeling the solo and ensemble sounds in your gut is half-assed, to say the least."
Funny how you don't hesitate to misrepresent others' words while almost simultaneously complaining: "Don't put words in my mouth please."
s
As you've mentioned before, you have never heard my music.Posted by clarkjohnsen ( R ) on January 15, 2007 at 11:59:24
I should know better? Why? My collection has never been graced with an album from this gentleman...That has not prevented you from categorizing it as "notional", despite your endless complaints about other people making judgements without first LISTENING. Why? Because in addition to possessing a number of other less than desireable traits, you're a poster boy for HYPOCRISY.
Posted by clarkjohnsen on 2002-05-31, 16:42:39 (207.251.94.245)?...you never know until you listen! clark .......
But listen first! Please! nt (2.67) ?Posted by clarkjohnsen on 2006-08-09, 07:44:49 (208.58.2.83)Yours is the reply of a person who (sadly) knows it all without needing to listen. nt (2.56) ?Posted by clarkjohnsen on 2004-10-26, 07:46:24 (69.16.84.33)
Which hogwash? The stuff mixed up by those who refuse to listen? nt (2.56) ?Posted by clarkjohnsen on 2005-02-09, 07:14:12 (208.58.2.83)
But for THAT... he'd have to LISTEN. And clearly he's much too busy angrily hitting the keys. nt (2.54) ?Posted by clarkjohnsen on 2006-02-11, 10:09:52 (208.58.2.83)
"It's not hard to hear the benefits." But Andrew, first you have to *listen*. That's the stumbling block. nt (2.39) ?Posted by clarkjohnsen on 2006-07-19, 08:59:16 (208.58.2.83)
"Sickening." Here, let me hold this barf bag for you. (2.27) ?Posted by clarkjohnsen on 2006-01-11, 16:01:41 (66.27.187.224)?On second thought, you can hold your own. I'm using mine to throw up when I have to listen to people who have never listened to what they're ranting about.
Uh oh. You're drowning in your own barf.
Stating the obvious now qualifies for recognition as excellent audio "journalism"?Transparently lame bs.
...you wouldn't have posted that dumb attempt at an analogy.
Your "analogy" is ridiculous.
We can't all be geniuses like you who never err.
I decided to shorten my reply to your previous drivel.
Only a silly twerp like you...
I ain't on "any audio board" seeking an endless stream of blather and bluster from you.
There are enough good-spirited people at AA offering up opinions and experiences sans a display of ego malfunction in costume as aggressive and unwarranted self-assuredness to make it interesting.
Thanx for the laugh. You really should have your own show on Comedy Channel.
I see you're in full strut for turkey day.
-- Rick W
[That's looking at just over two months.]
After all, those are kind of collective lyrics, representing the view of your internet personna so many others share.
Though a membership requirement ought to be that you actually make your notional living at it.For instance, I played eight notional ballets last week, taught several notional students, and shipped two sets of notional program notes to the notional Pittsburgh Symphony (along with four notional sidebars), a set to the notional Boston Conservatory, and three more to other notional clients.
Meanwhile, I'll bet you played a few notional gigs and did the grunt work getting your notional CD (on which you were the notional composer, arranger, and bandleader, not to mention the occasional notional alto soloist) out and heard, among other notional things.
I believe that one of our by-laws ought to be that we can only make our notional judgments about other musicians' worth by evaluating their internet postings. Why listen? That would be as stupid as, say, evaluating audio devices by their sound!
Another would be that we should take EVERYTHING personally while expecting everyone else to have a thick skin.
I'm not sure we could force members to archive every notionally contrary internet posting for future use, however; even notional musicians (sometimes) have notional lives.
I refuse to be president, however. Thanks anyway. There's only so much notional time for this notional sh!t.
nt
... that virtually no one on the planet is in any kind of position to rate them all!To be able to rate an orchetra accurately, you would have to a) hear them in their home hall, b) hear them under a variety of conductors, and c) hear them play a variety of repertoire over a period of at least a couple weeks.
Recordings don't count, for obvious reasons. Hearing a given orchetra on tour doesn't really count, either. It'll give you a better idea than a recording, but it won't tell you how they sound in their home hall, which the musicians will have adjusted their sound to over time. Besides, hearing just one performance of the kind of "showcase" material orchestras usually tour with isn't going to tell you much. Can they play modern music? Do they approach Brahms any differently than neo-classical Stavinsky? Can they play Mahler or Shostakovich with the proper idiomatic touch? You can't tell any of that if you hear them run through Beethoven's 5th one time. And you really need to hear them under their music director, not a guest conductor, to have a real sense of what they're going for.
So... unless someone has actually been to London, Prague, Berlin, Vienna, St Petersburg, Dresden, etc etc etc within the past two-three years and heard a series of concerts in each of the two-three dozen cities that have excellent orchestras, it's pretty hard to do a ranking with any credibility. It's fun to discuss, I admit, but I doubt there are more than a handful of people in the world who are actually in position to have an informed opinion.
Last year when I was in Germany and the Netherlands I tried to pack as many concerts in as I could. I saw the Berlin Philharmonic, Berlin State Opera, Netherlands Philharmonic, Gardiner's period instrument orchestra, then a few days later back in the states the Met Opera and Philadelphia Orchestra. Technically everyone was equally excellent. What seemed to matter the most was who was conducting. Interestingly, I saw "Cosi" at the Met (Levine conducting) and BSO within a week of each other. I thought the no name cast at the BSO out did the MET, but that was because the production was far more clever and the BSO hall's small size made the experience more intimate and better suited the music.
That's the kind of vacation I'd like to take some year! As it is, I get to see/hear a lot of orchestras when they come to the west coast. But many of the best don't get out here very often!
Next time I want to get an apartment for a month in Vienna and just go to the Musikverein every night since there's practically an orchestral concert given in it every night. The Vienna State Opera is also pretty active, and Prague and Budapest are close. I was going to do it this spring, but my schedule will no longer permit it. I'll probably have to push this plan back to Spring 2009.
conductors make a difference. Seems simple but it's profound.
But part of it is their ability to inspire the musicians. Most of the time the basis for a great performances is if the musicians are having a good time.
n/t
.
DAMN! is about all I can say.Now that I've heard the work done perfectly, I'll need never hear it again.
That sentiment applies to nearly everything those guys play. Over the radio I hear orchestras from around the world, and the BSO (dare I say?) is the best.
But ya know, the L.A. Phils aren't bad!
Players devote their lives to nailing center sound/pitch, developing their own conceptions of sound on their axes, ensemble blend, subtle nuance and inflection on solos, adjustments for stage/hall acoustics....and you rank orchestras through a radio.Listening to the radio and records I grew up thinking Joe Henderson had a huge and powerful sound. The first time I heard him live I was amazed at how small and soft his sound was. Beautiful, rounded, full of nuance, but when he veered from the mic I could hardly hear him from ten feet away. By contrast, Dexter Gordon filled the whole club (long gone Storyville) with his huge sound sans mic. How such things could be considered unimportant is beyond me. You sure as hell can't hear musicians' true sounds through a radio no matter how good your system is. Judging an orchestra without hearing them live and feeling the solo and ensemble sounds in your gut is half-assed, to say the least.
for no reason apparent to me.BSO will not be able to be the best for at least a generation, as Ozawa seemed to hire on the basis of "who can't possibly blend with what I have already? THAT'S who I want." (If that was his intention he couldn't have done better.) It will take a while for Levine to sort it all out, if he stays long enough.
(Besides the French diction of one of the soloists.)clark
PS Boston's most musical music critic, Lloyd Schwartz, had this to say a few days ago:
James Levine was back in front of the BSO after his Christmas break, and as good as at least one of the guest conductors was (Sir Colin Davis), Levine’s conducting was more exciting, and so was his program: the last of his revelatory Beethoven/Schoenberg pairings... Symphony Hall reverberated with the powerful outbursts, and Levine captured Beethoven’s unsettling rhythmic juxtaposition of string section against string section.
Symphony No. 8 was genial, witty (a startling Haydnesque whisper ends the first movement), alternating delicate scampering and raucous vigor. Despite a few rough edges, it was one of the most engaging renditions I’ve heard of this least-performed of Beethoven’s nine symphonies.
Mr Schwartz may be a good critic but has penned a real whopper in the review Clark cites.The least performed Beethoven symphony, by a wide margin, is #4, followed by #1. In forty years of concertgoing I have yet to hear a live performance of either.
In this report from Philadelphis, it's #2. That gives us a wide range of choice, huh? Maybe it *is* #8.clark
The American Symphony Orchestra League Repertoire Report shows between 16 to 18 performances of Beethoven symphonies nos 1, 2, 4, and 8 in the most recent season for which statistics have been gathered. By contrast, the most frequently performed work was Beethoven symphony #7, with 92 performances!
I was playing Midsummer Night's Dream down at the ballet. It's not a piece I would go out of my way to hear in any event.But your general and repeated enthusiasm for Levine is not something I can relate to; I find him utterly ordinary.
Meanwhile there are issues with the band I can't not hear. At least the most musicallly destructive force in the brass has retired. A good first step, but it will be a long while.
Eichler, The Globe:Thursday night, the Tanglewood Festival Chorus proved itself up to the task, singing with both strength and tonal flexibility. The orchestra seemed to take a few extra moments to settle into its standard level of transparency and precision, but it just grew stronger and stronger as the night wore on, with many distinguished solo contributions. The sensitive English horn solos that accompany Marguerite's second song were a particular pleasure.
[Pity you leave yourself out of this loop.]
based on the company I keep, particularly critics, some of whom on that list I find myself disagreeing with on a regular basis. (The horror!) I'd wager that if you looked back at the press clippings back when Ozawa began his tenure you might find similar unanimity. Folks thought differently later on. Or some of them did, at any rate--those who didn't need to keep the door open for feature interviews."Pity you leave yourself out of this loop."
----That's just silly.
"The orchestra seemed to take a few extra moments to settle into its standard level of transparency and precision, but it just grew stronger and stronger as the night wore on, with many distinguished solo contributions. The sensitive English horn solos that accompany Marguerite's second song were a particular pleasure."
----You might note that I have never, ever, questioned the abilities or musicianship of any member of the BSO. A finer bunch of musicians you will not find. Some of them are my friends. But there are certain intrinsic issues there, unrelated to individual virtuosity, that prevent them from sounding as good together as they might, or have. Levine has his work cut out for him.
You seem to want everyone to be on "Jimmy's" bandwagon. I don't see any particular reason why everyone should, and I haven't noticed that you place much stock in group-think, either, apart from this. Chill.
I guess there are always problems for new conductors/musical directors who take over after a less than stellar predecessor has had sway over an orchestra for a while.The whole concept of ranking orchestras seems really tough to me. Who -- other than possibly touring soloists and conductors -- gets to hear a variety of music played by even 10 orchestras in a variety of halls over, say, a three year span? How else could informed judgements be made?
"Who -- other than possibly touring soloists and conductors -- gets to hear a variety of music played by even 10 orchestras in a variety of halls over, say, a three year span? How else could informed judgements be made?"The great ones in history, Stokowski's Philadelphia, Koussevitzky's Boston, Reiner's Chicago, Szell's Cleveland, Karajan's Berlin, and Dutoit's Montreal had distinctive tonal character that could make one pick these bands out when listening to something for the first time. Even over the radio. (I personally think Charles Dutoit has been the best conductor I've experienced during my lifetime.) For example, the Koussevitzky Boston had a clarity of melodic line that IMO was never equalled. (This was still notable early in Charles Munch's tenure.) No orchestra had better chops and tonal nuance than Szell's Cleveland. (Which may have actually peaked under Lorin Maazel.) Chicago's brass was overpowering and easily recognized. Berlin had a unique articulation for composers like Wagner that was unmistakable. I thought Montreal combined the sonorities of Cleveland and the melodic integrity of Boston. Even Vienna, with its superb string tone and raw in the brass.
But for the past decade, in my opinion, no orchestra had such uniqueness in character to pick it out like at one time. (Although I have not heard Montreal or Cleveland in recent time.) I will also say that the digitization of music has stunted our ability to discern such character.
nt
...to enjoy music, or even convey its power. But let's face it, most people accept CD's shrill, edgy sound -- especially "musicians", who as I've often noted make terrible audio critics.The advantage we have in Boston with the BSO broadcasts ( pace those who spout off without ever having listened, an altogether too typical circumstance here at AA), is that the Symphony Hall link is not PCM digital, rather "delta-mod", which eliminates many or most of PCM's enharmonic artifacts.
About radio: Radio has brought us the Metropolitan Opera since the Thirties. In the decades I've been listening, never did I find that the broadcast sound, never really very good, intruded on the music; I can give myself over wholly to the performance (if it's gripping, like last week's Cav/Pag). Radio has brought us Toscanini, Koussevitzky, Ormandy, Mitropoulos and other greats, all *live* and in performances far better than the chilly studio stuff they turn out on discs for the hi-fi addicts.
Radio (at least in Boston) brings more new music into our lives than going to a concert every day would. And for whatever it's worth, I do still go.
Back to the Boston Symphony, I would argue that its peak sonicwise over the FM was back in the Sixties, when all was analog and all was tubes . That may not sit well with some sorts, but I have a couple tapes to demonstrate my allegation. I mention this because it shows that the FM medium is capable of great things. One of those tapes -- a Mahler 6th, 2-track 15ips -- sounds quite better than Leinsdorf's RCA outing. Not to mention the superior, live performance!
Finally, regarding live concerts over the radio, what should involve one is the music, not the sound. MUSIC IS NOT ABOUT SOUND.
The quality of the players in most major professional orchestras these days is sky high, and the competition is fierce for every chair. Alas, the days of unlimited rehearsals stretching hours beyond when they were scheduled to end (with no complaints from the musicians) are basically over. The economic situation in classical music today doesn't permit that approach.There are second and even third tier orchestras that I believe would come very close to the Vienna Philharmonic or Amsterdam Concertgebouw in quality if they had unlimited rehearsal time. It is no coincidence that those two great orchestras have long enjoyed heavy government funding.
It often comes down not to which orchestra is better, but which is better prepared (and that can be variable), or maybe even more importantly, which is better recorded.
It's impossible to compile such a list. The level of quality is uniformly equal among full time Orchestras. As recordings have shown, provincial radio orchestras (which now dominate the non-major labels), and even period instrument orchestras, posses the same level of technical skill as any big name orchestras.Having heard the Berlin Philharmonic live in their hall with Mackerras conducting in October 2005, while they gave a superb concert, I felt that the orchestral playing and sound was no better than any of the other "great" orchestras.
s
This is a most uninformed listing of "world's best" orchestras. While it's hard to argue with Berlin, Vienna and Amsterdam, the Dresdeners are merely a top 10 group by American standards and the Symphonieorchester des bayerischen Rundfunks (a group I know well) are far less than that.I would substitute the Philharmonia (pre decimation) and either Philadelphia or Boston for Munich and Dresden's best.
Dresdeners are merely a top 10 group by American standards> >I heard them in London the night after the Czech Phil - the Czechs were on fire, the Dresdeners all very smoooooth (doze) and lifeless. Who wants smooth when there are orchestras that knock you back in your seat? Is this a German malaise? Where are the rasping trumpets, the braying horns, the woody clarinets? With the Czechs you could be out in the open air at a super-fanfare - a reminder that folk music isn't too far away.
I finally got a chance to listen to the Philadelphia earlier in the month: teo conccerts and I luckily got access to a rehearsel session. They are good, extremely good, I have not heard the others on the list live, but the Phily had almost prefect intonation and precision, far more so than any other orchestra I have heard.
As far as their players are concerned, I believe their third seat viola player became first chair in Berline and Rattle actually wanted their new tuba player (the first female player in a major orchestra and only 22 years old) to try out for an opening in Berlin. They do need a better music director though. Watching from the Conductor's circle, behind the orchestra, I do not see how it is humanly possible to follow his beat which was non existent for the most part.
I cannot speak for the new Severance Hall, but while it was not exactly at a level of the Concertgebouw or Boston's Symphony Hall for the audience, the musicians thought pre-renovated Severance (and New York's pre-renovated Carnegie Hall) had the best acoustics for the musicians themselves. (These two halls have a semblance, visually speaking. Maybe the same architect.)Makes me wonder why the NYPO would even think about performing in that other hall, which near-unanimous consensus has deemed it an irreparable disaster.
I like the Czech Phil best out of all the orchestras on the scene - have absolutely no idea what their hall is like, but probably very pretty and ornate.
I concur with the nomination of the Czech Philharmonic. Ancerl lifted it to world standards and it has stayed there. Another Eastern European orchestra of more recent vintage which must be seriously considered is Ivan Fischer's Budapest Festival Orchestra. They started off as Philips' house band for Bartok and Kodaly but now that they have been dropped by this label for some unaccountable reason they've given us some superlative Mahler, Rachmaninov, and Tchaikovsky for Channel Classics.I've heard nothing from the current Berlin Philharmonic (under Rattle) that has blown my mind. On the other hand, when he gets back in front of his former orchestra in Birmingham and does Szymanowski I buy without waiting for the reviews.
Ivan Fischer is the magic behind the Budapest FO. Musicians seem to love working with him, and he's been able to replicate his insightful idiomatic performances with other orchestra.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: