 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Clarinetist
Date: 2004-05-07 19:38
Hi! In Finland we have two professional orchestras which are considered the best. The Helsinki city orchestra and the Radio´s symphony orchestra. I wonder what is the best orchestra in USA if there even is one that is considered better than the others?
Thanks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: larryb
Date: 2004-05-07 19:55
I don't think that there is one orchestra in the states that could be considered better than the others. There are a good number of high quality, mostly big City, orchestras that play at the same level consistently. Most have very rich traditions and passionate partisans.
At that level, one would include the orchestras from:
New York
Boston
Philadelphia
Chicago
Cleveland
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Atlanta
Detroit
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2004-05-07 20:56
I'm starting to get the inkling of an idea.....it's clear that it takes enormous skill and talent (and probably some luck and maybe even good connections) to become a PLAYER in a major symphony orchestra --- but we've also determined that many orchestras are, at one time or another, conducted by CLOWNS -- so, taking the next logical step:
1) I'll never get into a major orchestra as a player 'cause I ain't good enough;
2) I am a Clown (frequently);
3) Oftentimes these great orchestras are conducted by Clowns;
Therefore...........
I could be a CONDUCTOR of a major symphony orchestra in the US!!!!!!
Cool.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: msloss
Date: 2004-05-07 21:04
And the converse of that is also true. I have heard some otherwise 2nd tier orchestras give stunning performances when working under the baton of a truly great musician.
And for those of us who prefer their orchestras clownless, let us not forget:
Orpheus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: larryb
Date: 2004-05-07 21:14
I didn't mention the Big Apple Circus orchestra - I think their conductor is a real clown
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2004-05-07 21:24
msloss' mention of the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra reminds me of a depressing true story:
I was with a 20's-30's jazz band in West Palm Beach a couple of years ago, we were playing the wedding of some fabulously rich people (I shall not divulge their identities). Our band was outside on a stage in the backyard under a tent; inside the mansion, playing 'light dinner music' was the Orpheus group (or at least a subset thereof), flown in for the occasion from New York (as indeed we were flown in from DC, the florists were flown in from New Jersey, you get the picture.....)
As we were leaving to get on our bus following the gig, a couple of totally bored/blase' rich old women were sitting on a bench, watching us leave, and one of them asked us if we were the 'string players' from inside.....
these people wouldn't have known a symphony orchestra from an organ-grinder, nor could they have cared less that one of the finest classical ensembles in the world had been performing for their worthless wedding reception enjoyment. It made me sick.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: larryb
Date: 2004-05-07 21:28
musicians who play weddings are wedding band musicians - whether Orpheus or any other schlock trio. At least they got paid. If they need to be appreciated, they could have refused the job.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeOpus1190s
Date: 2004-05-07 21:29
maybe im not nice... oh well
There are the big five, as they are classically referred to...
(order means nothing)
Chicago Symphony Orchestra
Philadelphia Orchestra
Boston Symphony Orchestra
New York Philharomonic
Cleaveland Orchestra?
I can't remember if the last is correct,but those are definatly four of the five.
Clarinetists can argue but in the overal musician realm of the world these are considered the best, above others.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bradley
Date: 2004-05-07 22:10
While those are the legendary big five, I am happy to be among one of the clarinetists who will argue the validity of that statement as far as things are currently. Some of the traditionally "lesser" orchestras I know belong up there and a couple of those stated don't anymore.
Bradley
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JessKateDD
Date: 2004-05-08 23:19
Speaking of - I once played a concert conducted by Ronald McDonald. He even honked his horn from time to time. I'd like to say he is the worst conductor I've played under... but I'd be lying.
The Met gets my vote for best US orchestra. Perhaps an over 30 year tenure by one of the world's best conductors has something to do with that?
If you want to be a conductor, I would advise a fake English accent, big hair, and you must be a sociopath with a God complex. Oh - and the more you dance on the podium, the better. Musical talent is optional.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeOpus1190s
Date: 2004-05-09 22:14
really bradley? Well then tell me, what orchestras should be there and what orchestra's shouldn't be on the list anymore?
I curious to what you have to say.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2004-05-10 03:48
When Leonard Slatkin was in St. Louis and Jesus Lopez Cobos was in Cincinnati, many music critics argued that these two orchestras belonged in the (U.S.) top 5. As I recall, most often recommended for demotion were New York and Cleveland though Chicago was sometimes mentioned, as well. Since Slatkin has departed, the SLSO has probably fallen -- their performance standards are as high as ever (and at least as high as any of the traditional "big 5") but their programming has been less adventurous, their financial problems have curtailed their touring and the recording contract with BMG/RCA went with Slatkin, all factors that seem to weigh in such "rankings." Cobos' departure from Cincinnati is more recent so only time will tell what impact it has on that orchestra's standing but the fact remains that he built an outstanding ensemble there.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bradley
Date: 2004-05-11 09:52
Mr. Kissinger said basically all I have to say.
I mean while those 5 are "legendary" many orchestras have the artistry to be in that category and some also have the pay if you want to go by the financials. I'm really beginning to dislike the term "big five". Big anything really- 'cause you can run into the same problem as far as clarinet makers go.
Bradley
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Pappy
Date: 2004-05-12 15:51
I would also recommend as an excellent "second tier" orchestra, the Indianapolis Symphony. It is one of the few "full time" Orchestras outside of the top tier. They can be kind of still sometimes, but for a city our size, we are really blessed with some great music.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2004-05-12 16:28
Certainly in my opinion the big five are as such;
New York Phil....when they are good they are extremely fine and better than any.
The Chicago Symphony...overall the most consistent however, at times they can sound very run of the mill...I think they really need challenging conductors. By and large one of the finest groups in the world.
The Cleveland Orchestra...it still retains its warm and focus from the Szell year. The sound of this group is quite a bit darker than prevoiusly under Dohyani.
Boston Symphony...capable of electricity still and very nice in brass and strings too.. the woodwinds are very clean.
The San Fransico Symphony...much better in terms of sound and blend than PHilly...
I don't include Philly that high...just not into their sound since they got the new conductor.....
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Poulsen
Date: 2004-05-12 17:31
Speaking of the Indianapolis Symphony, last Saturday, the conductor of our community band, who attends their concerts regularly, highly praised their previous evening's performance of Pictures at an Exhibition, saying that under new director Mario Venzago the orchestra seemed to be enjoying themselves and were becoming an orchestra that should definitely should be listened to.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kevin
Date: 2004-05-12 23:25
The New York Philharmonic is the only orchestra whose concerts I make an effort to attend consistently.
In recent years, they have been constantly critisized, but when you have that big of an audience that they do, it's hard to not rank right up there.
Their brass section is extraordinary: Jerome Ashby, Phillip Myers, Joseph Alessi, Philip Smith... all tremendous musicians.
I like their viola section as well. Cinthy Phelps, who of course certainly needs no introduction, is the person I feel to be the most enjoyable musician to watch in the world. Deeper down in the section, there's Robert Rinehard. I don't know much about him as I've never heard him play individually, but he's one heck of a guy to watch, the most energetic of all the 100+ musicians there.
And then there's Dicterow, Drucker, Nuccio, Staples, Langevin, Robinson, Nancy Allen, Carter Brey, Nai-ye Ni, Qiang Tu, Rebecca Young, Leclair, Harwood, and Breslaw; to name some of the terrific talents in the group.
And another great thing about the orchestra is the diversity of their musicians: from those in their lower 20's to those in their 80's, and from all cultural backgrounds.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Pinner
Date: 2004-05-13 00:08
As a professional player I am often stunned by the lack of musical knowledge, especially harmonic, of conductors. I have made a bit of a study out conductors styles and where possible their approaches to score preparation. I will preface anything further by saying that there are quite a number of absolutely brilliant conductors out there despite their approaches and shortcomings. There are a lot more who are total sheisters whose use of the white cane should be as an aid to crossing the road!
One of my favourite types of conductor is the military man. These individuals, unsurprisingly, tend to front military bands. There approach is generally one of form over function. As long as they look good then the public is totally bluffed. They look like traffic cops!
The well intentioned amateur also provides some entertainment. They are generally found at the head of 2nd rate primary school bands and 5th rate community bands. They are often selected purely on their lack of ability to actually play anything. Other selection criteria include being one of the oldest and the ability to appear totally unembarrassed, regardless.
The continental type is usually found around the operatic scene and often fronting larger symphony orchestras. The most striking feature of these types is their people skills. They have none. They can sure draw an extremely emotive performance from the most moribund groups but not without an excess of bloodshed.
Teutonic types are also found in similar settings to the continentals. Their people skills are just as amazing. Again none. They however, provide the antithesis to the continental type. Cold, clinical, meticulous and unfeeling. Also in possesion of a healthy amount of shadenfreude, especially whilst soloists are playing.
The Bohemian, Jewish and or Eastern European type. Generally encompassing all of the qualities of the above two but more so. Fond of minor keys and flats.
Score preparation methods provide an interesting thesis. There are a number of approaches to this. The first of these is competence about which no more need be said.
The graphic score method is fascinating. There are some conductors that follow the blackest looking bits on each page. I do admit that some pretty vertical patterns do emerge on score pages but there is a little more to it.
The tempo guru. These people are generally umbilically attached to there metronone. They can tell you BPM conversions across any number of asymetric time signatures. Pity about those dynamics!
The fraud. Those that carry a large score in which the 1st cornet or 1st clarinet part is pasted because they are incapable of actually reading a score.
The harmonic genius spends an extraordinary amount of time explaining to the 3rd horn player that they are actually playing the sharp 11th and that it is an extremely important note. The reality, knowing the odd 3rd horn specialist, is that they are in that position because they can't play low notes and still want a blow.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-05-13 01:19
Mark, interesting ... where do you position me in that list?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mkybrain
Date: 2004-05-13 03:21
I dunno if its just me, but all this competetion is sad. sometimes(just sometimes) i wish i didnt play an instrument, just so i wouldnt always here what went wrong in a piece(whether it be classical or more modern/popular), u know, b/c then i could enjoy all kinds of music even more, i wouldn't have to listen to all this "TOP 5" bussiness, the fact that the competetion has to be there is sad, but it is necessary b/c otherwise, we wouldn't have so many good musicians, or at least as many as we do now....that just depresses me
i don't know if its just me, but i think that this thread and the fact that people feel the need to list the top 5 orchestras is depressing/sad/
Post Edited (2004-05-13 03:24)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2004-05-13 04:42
Mark....what, then, defines a GOOD conductor?
Which, if any, extant practictioners of the art meet your criteria?
(I am asking this as a serious learning question, not to be critical of your last post)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Pinner
Date: 2004-05-14 08:31
At the top Diz!
Alseq
For what it is worth I think that a good conductor gets the best possible result from what he or she has got to work with. The whole issue of which orchestra or conductor is the best is vexed. Apart from the obvious technical issues the intangibles are just that.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bradley
Date: 2004-05-14 13:01
Kevin- you always attend their concerts you say......Maybe that is largely due to the fact that you live in NY. Being in a city like NY, with a reputation like the one they've built up over the years it's hard for the NY Phil not to be popular. I just don't think they're as enjoyable to listen to as other typically "lesser" orchestras.
This type of situation is seen a lot in music. The best isn't always what's gonna be making the most money.
I have respect for many of the musicians in the NY Phil. After having a masterclass a few weeks ago with Mr. Nuccio I highly respect him as a teacher, regardless of my thoughts on the NY Phil.
Bradley
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: msloss
Date: 2004-05-14 15:46
The NYPO's reputation and success is not the accretion of years of great marketing and being lucky to be in the middle of a big city. Their reputation has been and is deserved based on the musicianship and artistry of the individuals and the ensemble. Being seated in one of the cultural centers of the world doesn't hurt, but it also makes sense that great talent attracts a great audience and vice versa.
Ranking orchestras is about as silly an exercise as trying to decide what the best piece of art is. What are the criteria? Opinions are like (allow me to soften the metaphor) noses -- everyone has one (Yes, I have one as well. And some have more than one, which makes for interesting party conversation...). The NYPO, or any of the other "majors" for that matter, may not suit an individual's taste. That is quite different from the question of whether a reputation is deserved or not.
Instead of a sweeping generalization, how about a clear example of a "lesser" orchestra exceeding the NYPO. Is this based on playing in both ensembles? Comparing recordings? Attending live performances?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Keil
Date: 2004-05-15 18:12
I think as a whole the question really isn't "who's better" but which do you find inspiring/moving/beautiful? Of course that is quite subjective and can't adequately be treated in a short post. I think the biggest qualm I have with the Big 5, is that they are known as the Big 5 and thusly lose that extra sparkle that one can find somewhere else. With all the hype it's so easy for an organization to fall under the expectations. I've consistenly found that no matter how celebrated a group maybe I'm always left feeling underwhelmed only because it's impossible for someone to reach your expectations when your expecations aren't necessarily theirs. I find it's best to just enjoy each group for who they are and what they have accomplished as an individual unit of a greater whole. Also, another issue i have with Big named groups is that often times their performances aren't consistently excellent due to lackluster execution or just an overall level of discontent. It's like the great debate sports enthusiasts often times find themselves embroiled in, college leagues versus professional. People argue that the college leagues are better because they play with more heart, it's not a job for them but a way of life, it's a passion they're still trying to reach the top, whereas those at the top, the professionals, have nothing to strive for because they're already at the top. It's good but lacks something in the passion department. Granted the professionals maybe better overall with fewer mistakes but the passion with which the college level groups play with make-up for any skill they may or may not be lacking. No one is playing for a paycheck there, it's all drive and motivation. This is probably why lesser known groups are so beautiful to listen to. They don't have the reputation to worry about, they can take risks and play with passion because it's not about the check at the end of the week but the music making throughout.
Cheers
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
