Klarinet Archive - Posting 000988.txt from 1997/02
From: Karl Krelove <kkrelove@-----.COM> Subj: Re: symphony vs. philharmonic Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 20:16:59 -0500
At 11:06 PM 2/26/97 -0800, you wrote:
>Good evening(11:00 P.M. for me) fellow clarinetists.
>
>Does anyone have a definitive answer to the question: Why are some
>orchestras called 'symphony orchestra' and others 'philharmonic
>orchestra'? I've been meaning to find out the answer to this for about
>20 years.
>
>Starr
>
I'm guessing, just like everyone else who has responded to this. Two of the
BIG (famous) "Philharmonic" orchestras, the N.Y. and the London Phil (not
the L.S.O.) are (or were when they began) self-governing ensembles, i.e.
administered by some kind of committee representing the players themselves.
Perhaps back when the original "Philharmonic" orchestras or societies were
formed, the term was meant to imply a musical organization run by and for
its own members rather than a hired orchestra funded and promoted by a
non-performing group of wealthy philanthropists. Of course, by now, the
terms are probably meaningless and are chosen arbitrarily regardless of the
orchestra's administrative structure.
|
|
|