 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: ChrisArcand
Date: 2007-07-24 15:15
I've had this interesting thought for a while now.
There are two main branches which go to my thought:
1) Recently I've been meeting lots of people (aka music majors) coming to study at the University of Minnesota as I am, and talking with them about living here in Minneapolis has been incredibly interesting. I've lived in Minneapolis (or, rather, a very close suburb) for my entire life. So, it's been interesting to try and imagine a student looking at the skyline thinking "Whoa, I know nothing about this place and I'm going to live here"
Anyways, my main point about the above paragraph is summed up here: As I was talking with a buddy from Bismarck about the city and specifically, Orchestra Hall, I realized suddenly, "You've never seen the Minnesota Orchestra, have you? You've never even heard of Orchestra Hall?" (I then proceeded to say that I'm going to get him to a concert within the first week of school.)
That made me think: I'm a lucky guy. I've been seeing one of the top five orchestras perform since I was around 10 or something. My question is, what's it like NOT living by a major orchestra? It just seems almost odd to me. Please understand that I'm not sneering at anyone like "Ohhh I think the ONLY way to go is to live in Minneapolis, Boston, Philadelphia, New York or Cleveland." I'm just really extremely curious.
Which brings me to my other "branch", which I would ask PLEASE do not make this the main point of this thread.
2) The slow death of classical music and professional orchestral playing is a topic often talked about, everywhere in the music world. I've often wondered how things can look so optimistic to some, and yet so horribly "Don't you dare even think of making a living playing music, it's hopeless" My thought is this: Since I've lived in such a musical city, it's been almost confusing seeing the city around me look not nearly as horrible as what some people claim the music world is. Are regional orchestras and whatnot really dropping like flies everywhere but the cities I mentioned above? Disclaimer - Believe me, don't think that I'm trying to convince everyone that classical music isn't losing and has lost quite a bit of it's power and appeal to general people. I realize that it really is dying quite a bit.
Please, anyone who comments (and I would really like to hear from people), don't turn this thread into a "Let's talk about the death of music and go get a real job" thread, there's enough of those; I'm really interested in the "I don't live in Minneapolis/New York/Boston etc" talk. I mentioned the talk of the decline of music simply because it was another thought mixed in with my main idea.
CA
PS: As you can see, I'm at work with nothing to do :-D
PPS: One more little thought that just came to me: I guess I'm also pretty lucky because as I was auditioning at various schools across the east coast, I was fortunate enough to see almost all of the major american city-based orchestras, including all that I've mentioned in this thread, minus Boston. So don't think I'm a "Minnesota Orchestra rules all" sort of guy.
PPPS: I've never been to the west coast.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bufclar
Date: 2007-07-24 15:32
"Ohhh I think the ONLY way to go is to live in Minneapolis, Boston, Philadelphia, New York or Cleveland." I'm just really extremely curious".
You might want to add Atlanta, Cincinnati, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington DC, San Francisco, Denver, Seattle, St Louis, Dallas, Houston, Salt Lake City, Baltimore and Milwaukee to that list.
I know it was not your point to only list the city's you listed but I wanted to list more because there is a lot of good music making in all of these orchestras. Maybe the "best" string sections are in the top level groups but there is alot of music being made all over the country and really good clarinet players in every area of the US. I think the old notion of there only being 5 major orchestras is very obsolete. The only thing major about them at this point in time is that they have a bigger budget then the rest.
Maybe this notion of only the top orchestras are good is part of the problem regarding the death of classical music. Only a couple orchestras make recordings because those are the only ones that will sell. The fact is there are a lot of fine orchestras in this country and while this isn't Europe, There is a lot of good things happening all over the place.
There are great orchestras all over the place just not great audiences.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ChrisArcand
Date: 2007-07-24 15:39
"I know it was not your point to only list the city's you listed but I wanted to list more because there is a lot of good music making in all of these orchestras. Maybe the "best" string sections are in the top level groups but there is alot of music being made all over the country and really good clarinet players in every area of the US. I think the old notion of there only being 5 major orchestras is very obsolete. The only thing major about them at this point in time is that they have a bigger budget then the rest."
No no no, please don't misunderstand me. That's exactly WHY I posted about this; thanks for that list. That's exactly what a wanted - to hear of other places where great music is being played, not just those five. I don't get to see many of those places you mentioned, and I plan on doing so in the future.
I totally agree with you on the fact that a "top" five isn't the "only good music". Just last week a buddy of mine and I drove a few hours north of the cities here to see the St. Cloud Symphony perform - and although they aren't even on your list above, they are absolutely fine musicians, who did a fantastic job.
"The fact is there are a lot of fine orchestras in this country and while this isn't Europe, There is a lot of good things happening all over the place. "
Well said! I'm glad to hear that.
CA
*Edited for spelling*
Post Edited (2007-07-24 15:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ZCClarinet
Date: 2007-07-24 15:47
Having lived deep in rural Maryland (~3 hour commute to any city that has an orchestra or quality performance hall) until I went to college, I think it is a real disadvantage for aspiring musicians not to see such performances.
At college, I meet many students who have been going to see orchestras perform since they were little kids. They were motivated and inspired by it, and that gave them the head start they need to actually get serious about studying music long before college.
Being able to see a quality orchestra and experience orchestral works being performed is something that, only now that I have experienced it, I wish I had done more of back in middle school and high school. Going to see an orchestra perform gives me great motivation to practice when ever I do it.
In short: the act of seeing an orchestra - beyond being able to experience and appreciate quality music - is an easy way to get inspired, and I could have used more inspiration when I was younger.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-07-24 16:14
bufclar wrote:
> You might want to add Atlanta, Cincinnati, Chicago, Los
> Angeles, Washington DC, San Francisco, Denver, Seattle, St
> Louis, Dallas, Houston, Salt Lake City, Baltimore and Milwaukee
> to that list.
And, of course, Detroit ... 
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2007-07-24 16:32
In New York, not just the New York Philharmonic.
On any given night the orchestra at the Met will consistently amaze you with their flexibility and virtuosity ... GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bufclar
Date: 2007-07-24 16:47
I also forgot to metion Detroit, Pittsburg and of course the Met! New Jersey has had some broadcasts on WFMT with Neeme Jarvi lately that have been interesting musically (Some Techincal/intonation problems for sure) so might as well add them to that group as well.
Thanks Mark and GBK. It's so easy to miss a few.
Post Edited (2007-07-24 16:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jane84
Date: 2007-07-24 18:45
Well, I've grown in a relatively remote part of Europe - we didn't, and don't, have any orchestra, but there was a professional military band that had, of course, lots of clarinets. And I thought those were grand to listen to, and looked up to them, and I heard a lot of music I'd never hear otherwise. (I can't really say how good these were, I was just a child at that time.)
Now I've moved to a (slighty larger) city, which has a (not bad) orchestra, and I've been to many symphony concerts; but I'm still a bit overwhelmed when I look down at the stage: all those people! And they're playing right now, for you! Wow!
BTW, when I lived in a bigger city (or town, or what you call it) I never went to any concerts there...weird, now that I think about it - maybe I thought it was very expensive, or didn't have someone to go with, or didn't want to be seen as nerdy, or...I don't know. It was just too overwhelming for a small, provincial girl like me.
Really, I'm not sure how to answer your question, Chris; could you narrow it down a bit, perhaps?
-jane
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bubalooy
Date: 2007-07-24 21:01
I also come from Minnesota. When I lived there, I enjoyed the St. Paul Chamber Orchestra more than the MN Orchestra. I do love Orchestra Hall though, and I hasten to point out I liked the Minnesota Orchestra a lot too.
Anyway, I didn't grow up in the Twin Cities and heard almost no classical music in my young years. Fortunately, The St. Paul Chamber Orchestra did play a performance at my local high school. I was in Jr. High at the time and I skipped school to sneak into the Gymnasium to hear them. One of the pieces I heard was Charles Ives " The Unanswered Question" and I thought nothing could be greater in the world than to create something like that. ( I had been listening mostly to Heavy Metal at that time in my life.) To try to bring this to a close, I wound up being a music major and did my graduate study in compostion and theory.
I understand that in the States most of the money to fund tours, such as the one that allowed me to hear the Ives piece, has dried up. Orchestral ticket prices are prohibitive for a lot of people and tickets to the Met., I am told, are rediculously high. Here in Germany I can here the Stadt Oper with good seats often for less than 45 Euros and Great Orchestras for less because of state subsidies. Without those I fear for the future of through composed music in the USA.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ChrisArcand
Date: 2007-07-24 22:39
Pretty neat - You lived here in Minnesota and moved to Germany?
I'm glad you brought up the St. Paul Chamber. I completely forgot to mention that too, in my initial post. To be perfectly honest, I have heard the St. Paul Chamber only once. Yes, yes, I know I know shame shame. I really have tried to get out to hear them - I was almost ready to buy a ticket a few months ago but then I suddenly had something important to do that night. I'll get out to see them next month.
In response to narrowing down my question, I guess I don't really now how - it was less of a question as more of a thought that maybe other people have had before? And actually, my question has been answered by those people above who have told me that it really is harder when you live far away from a orchestra of some sort.
In any case, as everyone probably knows here, it's interesting to meet musicians from all walks of life and hear how they came about their ambitions and were inspired by different things.
CA
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Aequore
Date: 2007-07-25 06:04
HEY!
I would like to add Miami as one of the good orchestras out there.
I lived in Miami for some time untill I moved up to NY for music.
and as a little kid i was exposed to orchestras and string ensembles etc.
though i have to say it was hard in a family of Doctors to accept that one member of the ''medicine family'' would major in MUSIC. I really dont believe classical music dying. Im 19 and currently attending Juilliard and plan to play in a major orchestra out there when I graduate. So there you have it, im part of the young crowd and I LOVE CLASSICAL MUSIC! and like me im sure there are many other youngsters out there planning to fill up the chairs of retired musicians.
PB
Post Edited (2007-07-25 19:10)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-07-25 11:09
If you grow up in a place with no 'amaizing' music you look at it from the outside- kind of 'I wish I could do those great things that THEY do'. You don't see it as something real, that you can grow up to be a part of. It's almost imaginary.
I grew up in the sticks and felt like a nothing to 'New York' music students when I first went their. Then I realized that geography has no relation to any of it- High School kids sound bad ALL OVER!
Post Edited (2007-07-25 11:11)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ChrisArcand
Date: 2007-07-25 13:12
Aequore wrote:
"and like me im sure there are many other youngsters out there planning to fill up the chairs of retired musicians."
This is where someone says "Yes, but are there many other youngsters out there planning to fill up the chairs off the stage?" Which brings me to another thought: How often does everyone actually get out to a professional concert? I'm talking from $50+ NY, MN, Philly etc tickets to $10 city symphony tickets (actually, since I'm a student it's around 7$!). I could be horribly wrong, but here it is: There's a good number of musicians all over the country, music majors being made by the hundreds every year, tons and tons of people auditioning for a relative very few number of orchestral musicians - why is concert attendance so much of a problem? Are we as aspiring professional musicians (so I'm speaking for the performance majors out here, I guess) so lost in what we're doing that we ourselves don't support the jobs we would like by attending concerts of our colleagues?
I'm not a stubborn person. If (and when, as some of the people on this board would say :-D ) I really do get tired of what I'm doing in a life of performance, I won't be the guy that's so wrapped up in the idea that he doesn't go find something else to make him happy. But even if I put down my horn, I will always, ALWAYS support our music - That doesn't require me to be a $100,000 "platinum donor" in the concert program - that requires me to do something I love by buying a ticket to listen to some great music, and more than once a year.
Thus ends my concert attendance thought. Really, it wasn't meant to sound overly serious, I'm in a completely curious and light hearted mood about it. :-)
__________________
skygardener wrote:
"Then I realized that geography has no relation to any of it- High School kids sound bad ALL OVER!"
Ain't that the truth.
CA
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: katie_netie
Date: 2007-07-25 14:06
Hi there,
In terms of the top orchestras, for the simple cause of canadian pride I must add: the Montreal Symphony Orchestra, the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, and the National Arts Centre Orchestra.
I think that the decline of classical music is a very complicated issue. I don't think that it is by any means a lost cause, but I agree that there are huge issues with funding and lack of positions. Here in Canada we get some financial support but the wages are tiny compared to those in the US or Europe. Also, the cost of a good musical education is insane. There are great schools like Curtis and Juliard but any college like that is pretty much impossibly expensive, especially for someone from out of the country.
I would love to some day play in the pit for the Canadian Opera Company or with the Met, but I find I get really discouraging advice... pretty much I'm told to stop practicing and start studying because my only way of supporting myself is to become a prof or teacher... sigh.
Any comments?
Katie
Yamaha Custom SEV, Vandoren M13, Vandoren Optimum Ligature
Buffet E11 Eb Clarinet, Vandoren leather ligature and B44 mouthpiece
Going into second year university for music
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Connor
Date: 2007-07-25 23:29
Denver performs nearly as many concerts as the Chicago Symphony as well as varied and interesting programs that rival that of the "major 5's'". Find Denvers recording of Tchaikovsky's 4th and re-asses Denvers status ammong other orchestras.
As a student attending the University of Northern Colorado, I also attend the mothly concerts given by the Greeley Phillharmonic, an orchestra that has existed since the turn of the century. Are they chicago, no. However, concerts often include both academic and easly accesible works. The strings are not 100% in tune, but pieces like Beethoveen 6 are no less musicaly interesting than performances of reputable orchestras. The wind playing is always good to say the least. Last years performance of Shostakovich's 7th symphony are exepionaly memerable thanks to our Bassoon professors phenominal performance. Mr Bil Jacksons influence in clarinet playin is heard is in every concert hall in colorado. Stephanie Zelnick (student of Bil), acting pricipal in Boulder, Greeley, and Centeral City opeara is more than capable of handeling the rigours of any major orchestral work.
The most profound and noticeable difference between Denver and Chicago is the audience. Chicago's hall was sold out for a performance of Mahler's 2nd Symphony when I attended, while Denver struggles to fill more than half the hall for equally large and "dramatic"works. However, the Mozart festival, Bach festival as well as Beethoveen's 9th sym. allways attract a large number of people, most notably the classical layman...those who rarly listen to classical music, for that matter, live classical music. As for the smaller town of greeley, concerts are usualy half to three-fourths full, evedent of a concert concouis student body as well as an appriciative populis outside of the academic music circles.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bufclar
Date: 2007-07-25 23:44
Part of Denver's problem is the hall is awfull. Easily the worst hall I ever played in or heard a concert in but the orchestra is quite good.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2007-07-26 00:07
The big 5 are:
Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, and Cleveland.
Minnesota is not one of them. They are more like Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, Baltimore, and many others.
Really good Orchestra, but not considered in the top 5 "officially". Players go from Minn. to the big 5, not the other way around unless there's a secondary position replaced by becoming a principal.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bufclar
Date: 2007-07-26 00:24
"Players go from Minn. to the big 5, not the other way around unless there's a secondary position replaced by becoming a principal".
Except for Burt Hara who was principal in Philly and left that job for the position in Minnesota.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2007-07-26 00:51
Uh no.....
He left Minn. to be Principal in Phila. and personal reasons (family stuff) to go back to Minn.
We were in School in Phila. at the same time (I was with Tony G and he was with Don M.) - were scheduled to both be in a competition that I won 1st in (he didn't show up for it - he would have gotten it if he had!!). 2nd place is now one of the soloists for the US Marine Band.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2007-07-26 02:18
"I would love to some day play in the pit for the Canadian Opera Company or with the Met, but I find I get really discouraging advice... pretty much I'm told to stop practicing and start studying because my only way of supporting myself is to become a prof or teacher... sigh.
Any comments?
Katie
Yamaha Custom SEV, Vandoren M13, Vandoren Optimum Ligature
Buffet E11 Eb Clarinet, Vandoren leather ligature and B44 mouthpiece
Going into second year university for music"
-------------------------------------------------
Katie, who is giving you the discouraging advice? (is it a Clarinet teacher, friends, or your parents?) Is that person in a position to judge your talent level?
The music performing industry is ultra competitive.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kevin
Date: 2007-07-26 02:37
I've always heard the Minnesota Orchestra spoken of in the same vain as Detroit, Atlanta, Houston, etc; id est, a good second tier orchestra - nothing less and nothing more. Though it's a fantastic orchestra, the music circles I acquaint myself with generally do not categorize Minnesota on a same level with the big guys in Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, NY, Philly, or even SF. Would it be inappropiate or bubble-breaking behavior for me to suggest that Chris has been looking at the orchestral scene through a pair of Twin-City-colored lens?
Post Edited (2007-07-26 02:46)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ChrisArcand
Date: 2007-07-26 03:50
I figured this would come up - No, I'm not looking through my Twin City Lenses, here's my whole opinion I guess-
I should have really clarified where I was coming from. Many of you will completely disagree with me, but that's completely fine.
I have had a number of instructors from various places (read: Outside of the Twin Cities), and IMHO, that the Minnesota Orchestra has truly replaced Chicago as top five orchestra. I guess that doesn't make a lot of sense when you look at it, being that who side there has to be a top five instead of a top six? Anyway, the decline of Chicago as a true powerhouse orchestra and the real rise of the Twin Cities has led me to this opinion.
As I said, my own opinion. I probably shouldn't have said MN was a top five in the first place, as that is more of an "official" status, but in my mind, it makes sense. This is also not to say that Chicago is now not a great orchestra, either
So, I take back my title of the post and agree that "officially" Minnesota is a second tier orchestra, and the original top five american orchestras are New York, Boston, Philly, Cleveland, and Chicago.
CA
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LarryBocaner ★2017
Date: 2007-07-26 14:03
"Top Five" is an historical artifact, dating back to the 1940's and earlier when only those five orchestras provided their players with anything close to a living wage. In fact, when I was a youngster it was the "Big Three": Boston, New York and Philadelphia that mattered; Chicago and Cleveland muscled their way totally into that company in the '50's.
Public image has always lagged far behind the facts of what is happening on stage. When I first came East, as a student at Tanglewood in 1951, when I told my fellow students that my teacher (Jerry Stowell) was a member of the Chicago Symphony, I was patronizingly told "That's nice, but of course Chicago is not in the same class as Boston/Philly/New York." Imagine my shock hearing the BSO butcher Mahler First that summer, when I had been spoiled previously hearing Chicago play it superbly under Kubelik and Walter! When I browbeat my Juilliard buddies into going to hear the CSO play at Carnegie Hall in 1953, their jaws were agape at the the (unexpected) brilliance of the Orchestra. And of course the New York critics were largely unimpressed -- responding more, it think, to their prejudices than to what they and the audience were hearing on stage!
Since the emergence of player militancy in the 1960's, the economic condition of musicians in at least a dozen US orchestras (adjusted, perhaps, for cost of living in their venues) is very close to that of the historic big five. Many fine players have made quality-of-life decisions to remain in metropolitan areas that offer better family life/recreational/clean air advantages than do the Big Five cities. In my own former orchestra (National Symphony, Washington) we've had players formerly with Cleveland, Boston and Philadelphia -- also Canadian Brass). And I got to spend the bulk of my NSO career living on a 5-acre horse farm, less than a half-hour commute from the Kennedy Center. The lucrative income from recording, which was once the real difference between the big five and the "others" has largely dried up for everybody. The kind of payroll disparity that separates the Yankees from the Twins doesn't exist to the same degree in the world of --at least--the top dozen orchestras. (And don't the Twins and Brewers have a better W/L record than the Yankees?)
So let's not equate snobbery (a la blumberg?) with real excellence! There is a lot of both to go around.
Larry Bocaner
National Symphony (retired)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2007-07-26 15:09
No, not snobbery - there are plenty of great (world class) non big 5 Orchestras out there. But to leave out my personal favorite Chicago does call for a response from me. Again, a Section Violinist would leave Phila, Boston, etc to take a Section Leader position yes, to go from section to same section position for just the playing? - no. The "big 5" in the past have had much more recordings made of them, and have much better distribution of them.
It comes down to budget.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
Post Edited (2007-07-26 15:22)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bradley
Date: 2007-07-26 15:34
Shouldn't we just view the "Big 5" in the same way that we view the "Ivy League"? Stanford will never be an Ivy League school, no matter how much higher rated than Brown (just an example, I know it's rated higher than more Ivies than that...) it is. I would hesitate to exclude Chicago (in particular) if we're making a "new Big 5". However, I certainly agree with the thought that Minnesota is doing a fantastic job and is basically as good as it gets. Then again, so is SF, Cincinnati, Atlanta, LA and others. To say "Big 5" almost sells our abundance of good music here short, but as people have said before- it's just a historical term and has less to do with level of playing as time passes.
Bradley
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ChrisArcand
Date: 2007-07-26 16:18
Well put. Before this thread, I was a very open musician - I appreciated tons of different groups around me, and the musicianship that orchestras like St. Cloud Symphony and whatnot offer. I appreciated being close to such a fine orchestra as Minnesota, but still didn't think that Minnesota was the #1 orchestra over everyone else. I realized that there are some of the finest players in symphonys other than the main six that we've been talking about, and that the "level of excellence" between each of these orchestras is really not a level of excellence at all, but rather an opinion of taste, and even then the tiniest miniscule little things - as was mentioned, in a blind test, the chances of being able to pick out the different orchestras is very difficult, unless you know the characteristics of an individual player.
After going through this thread, I'm the same way :-)
However, I think that Larry is right - that the term "Big 5" really is strictly historical; it has no bearing on the quality of musicianship (not that I EVER assumed that, as I've been saying this whole time). In a way, it is about budget, as some have mentioned, but there's more than that too.
Now that we're over the Big 5 talk, my thought really still is valid, regardless - Instead of saying What's it like to not be next to a Big 5, it can still be said What's it like not being next to a major symphony - Houston, Atlanta, etc included? It looks like according to Bubalooy, it is easier to maintain inspiration and whatnot with a major orchestra around. Makes sense. Really, it was a pretty obvious answer, but, as I said, it was just a thought going through my mind that I was sharing with you all :-)
Thank you Larry, I really appreciate the post it was very insightful.
CA
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kevin
Date: 2007-07-27 15:54
How well an orchestra sounds is only one small factor of how "good" it is. I'll agree with David and Bradley on this one. Minnesota might play twice as better as NY or Boston, but audiences, performers, and critics buy into the hype. And I do too.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bufclar
Date: 2007-07-27 20:07
On my drive to work today I was able to hear the new recording of Mahler's 3rd Symphony done this year by the Chicago Symphony with Bernard Haitink. I didn't get to hear the whole thing but what I did hear was absolutely fantastic. Anyone who thinks the CSO is not one of the premier orchestras in this country needs to wake up and think again. I have heard recent recordings of Minnesota and honestly I don't think there is room for debate. I can't wait to hear more CSO concerts in symphony hall this upcoming season.
Post Edited (2007-07-27 20:12)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JessKateDD
Date: 2007-07-28 07:59
I'm with Larry on this one. The "big five" is a fifty year old designation that is about as descriptive as "Ivy League" is of top colleges. They are all terrific groups, but they have equals outside of their little click. For my money, the best orchestra in NY, if not the entire US, is that little pit orchestra in the opera house. Cleveland has a heck of a lot of competition right down the road in Cincinatti. A decade or so ago, music critics started compiling "best orchestra in America" lists, and St. Louis took first or second on pretty most of them. And the west coast orchestras in LA and SF are absolutely top notch.
And as important as the players are, there is also the person up front to consider. Most of them are pretentious, big-haired, dancing fools. But the good ones make a world of difference.
I have heard almost every major American orchestra in person (and about half of the top European orchestras). I've heard every orchestra in the "big five" have off nights. I have recordings of each of those orchestras that are sloppy. And the second tier orchestras sometimes have great nights.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2007-07-28 12:32
I wouldn't say that the second tier orchestras sometimes have great nights as for the most part they have great nights all the time.
When a top tier group has a bad night, it's probably due to lack of rehearsal time due to a really tight schedule.
So is St. Louis better than Minnesota?
Is Atlanta better than Houston?
Is Berlin better than Chicago? (personally I don't think so)
Will Phila. ever get past loosing 10,000 ball games?
;)
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LarryBocaner ★2017
Date: 2007-07-28 13:34
JessKateDD wrote:
"A decade or so ago, music critics started compiling "best orchestra in America" lists, and St. Louis took first or second on pretty most of them."
With all due respect for my friends in St. Louis, that all started with one critic in Time magazine. Could it be that critics listen to each other more than they listen to the music?
This whole business of ranking orchestras is IMO silly. I'll admit to having my own favorites, but it's a fluctuating list, depending on whom I heard play what last. Same with soloists: the guy whose Chopin knocked me silly is not the same one I would like to hear playing Beethoven sonatas.
Post Edited (2007-07-28 13:57)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JessKateDD
Date: 2007-07-29 07:16
Larry,
I wasn't saying St. Louis is the best - just that music critics really seem to like it. Of course, what a critic says rarely has any effect on my perception. I also find the "best orchestra" lists to be silly. However, during his long tenure, Slatkin build a solid group in St. Louis, and they sold a lot of recordings.
I've attended 100s of concerts over the years by many top flight groups. The best concert I ever heard was the Bavarian Radio Orchestra under Kubelik. I'm not going to proclaim them the best based on one performence, but I can say that, on a given night, they could hold their own with anyone. The claim that there are five magical orchestras in America, with all others being inferior, is absurd.
And I disagree with David - good nights are common, but great nights are rare. But, I probably set the "great" bar a lot higher than he.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: shmeon
Date: 2007-07-29 14:03
I have lived 30 minutes from San Francisco my whole life. I too have grown up with a top 5 orchestra in my backyard. What I have enjoyed most about this is seeing and hearing the orchestra grow and change. Getting to know the musicians personally, getting to know how MTT works, and studying with and becoming great friends with the clarinet section. It has all been wonderful. The downside is that I'm not used to other orchestras. When other orchestras come and play in Davies Symphony Hall I'm thrown off center by their sound and the way they carry themselves on stage. I'm uncertain if I like there sound or not. I feel this is because I've been steeped in the SF sound so long. MTT has a way of getting the orchestra to play that is much different from say....Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh came and played and I just wasn't a fan of their performance. My friends in the SFS loved it but I wasn't convinced. I realized that I was stuck in rut; I only enjoyed the San Francisco sound. Since then I've made it a point to stay away from SFS recordings in my casual listening, to attend every guest orchestra's concerts, and just try to get my head out of the sand when it comes to orchesral sound. So, in summary, living around a a great orchestra is great. I often ask my students the following set of questions: "How does a chef learn to cook well?" (They go to many restaurants and eat lots of good food.) "How does a painter learn to paint well?" (They go look at beautiful paintings and stunning environments.) "How should a clarinet player/musician learn to play well?" (Go hear great music in the concert hall!!) So while I feel it is essential to be around a great orchestra I have defintely notcied my sometimes extreme bias when it comes to appreciating other orchestras.
-Dan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
