If you had to rate North American orchestras ...

[Lance]

If you had to rate NORTH AMERICAN orchestras [US and Canada], how would you rate the TOP TEN based on what you know from hearing live performances and/or recordings?

Most of us could name the Top 5, 6 or 7, but getting beyond the Top 7 (if we include Canada) might cause some consternation. Let's see what you come up with. Just curious.

[RebLem]

1 Chicago Symphony.
2 Boston Symphony
3 Montreal Symphony
4 Philadelphia Orchestra
5 Cleveland Orchestra
6 New York Philharmonic
7 Minnesota Orchestra
8 Cincinnati Symphony
9 Los Angeles Philharmonic
10 San Francisco Symphony

If I could add ten more, they'd be

11 Pittsburgh Symphony
12 Seattle Symphony
13 Baltimore Symphony
14 Atlanta Symphony
15 St. Louis Symphony
16 National Symphony
17 Houston Symphony
18 Vancouver Symphony
19 Toronto Symphony
20 Nashville Symphony

[Lance]

Very fine, RebLem! You've obviously put some thought behind this. Interesting that you placed LA before the San Francisco.

What happened that Montréal is at the top and Toronto is in the second set? I've heard both, enjoyed both, but Toronto used to be in the high end.

The Chicago takes first place for you. It probably would for me, too, though I have a real love for the Boston SO. Cleveland is still very much in the picture.

Atlanta was considered a Top 10 but that may have been when Robert Shaw was at the helm. I've heard them on several occasions, even after Shaw, and was impressed with the orchestra.

And the NYP! One wonders what is happening out there in the world of symphonic music.

Thank you for two great lists!

[John F]

I wouldn't. Top by what criteria? What's the point? I'm curious why you asked.

[Lance]

Just to know how people/music lovers are thinking. I'm a very curious person especially anything about music and its performers.

I wouldn't. Top by what criteria? What's the point? I'm curious why you asked.

[Seán]

Just to know how people/music lovers are thinking. I'm a very curious person especially anything about music and its performers.

I wouldn't. Top by what criteria? What's the point? I'm curious why you asked.

I am too, so keep them coming.

[nut-job]

1 Chicago Symphony.
2 Boston Symphony
3 Montreal Symphony
4 Philadelphia Orchestra
5 Cleveland Orchestra
6 New York Philharmonic
7 Minnesota Orchestra
8 Cincinnati Symphony
9 Los Angeles Philharmonic
10 San Francisco Symphony

If I could add ten more, they'd be

11 Pittsburgh Symphony
12 Seattle Symphony
13 Baltimore Symphony
14 Atlanta Symphony
15 St. Louis Symphony
16 National Symphony
17 Houston Symphony
18 Vancouver Symphony
19 Toronto Symphony
20 Nashville Symphony

Many of these orchestras I've never heard a note of. But I've gotten a lot of pleasure from recordings by San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Chicago, Montreal and New York (old Boulez recordings mostly). I only recall only one CD from the Boston Symphony that has managed to keep its place in my collection.

[jbuck919]

Very fine, RebLem! You've obviously put some thought behind this. Interesting that you placed LA before the San Francisco.

I'm noticing that he put Montreal ahead of Philadelphia, Cleveland, and New York. I live much closer to Montreal than to NYC (less stressful trip, too)--maybe I should be making some plans?

[maestrob]

Chicago
New York
Philadelphia
Met Opera
Boston
Cleveland
Los Angeles
Montreal
St. Louis
Cincinnati

1) The last 4 have improved markedly over the past 15-20 years, and deserve recognition for that.

2) I've based my list only on recordings and telecasts I've heard, rather than live performances.

[Lance]

I know some of these "lists" seem ludicrous and nonsensical in many ways, but I guess all of us rate products and services and things we enjoy one way or another ... like Steinway, Rolex, Mercedes-Benz, Haagen-Dazs, Polo-Ralph Lauren, Diamonds vs. Zircons and their brilliance, Mont Blanc, Domingo or Pavarotti vs. Caruso, etc. In all these cases, of course, there are always some lemons at one time or another. And what do we do with lemons? We make lemonade! I suppose we feel the same way about our orchestras and performing artists, the ones with which we are most happily affected on a personal level. For years, the NYP has been considered in the uppermost Top 5 by music lovers, but by most standards, they are not Number 1 these days, maybe because of the conductor, maybe because of the hall in which they perform, maybe because there is too much modern music the grey-hairs don't want to hear. Anyway, it remains a curiosity what people like and what they choose. Knowing John Francis's love for great art and music, and who is also an eloquent writer and commentator as we have all observed, I still would be curious how you would rate them "just for the heck of it," [sorry Heck!].

I wouldn't. Top by what criteria? What's the point? I'm curious why you asked.

[John F]

I asked, "by what criteria"? There are many. The League of American Orchestras ranks them by budgets, an objective criterion that involves no invidious artistic judgments. Other possibilities: total attendance, or paid attendance (not the same number); the number of performances per year, including tours, which is obviously related to attendance; recording contracts, in the days when orchestras had recording contracts; and so on. Prestige as such is anything but an objective criterion, but it doubtless influences and is influenced by these other factors.

One criterion which I don't believe in is people's impressions of the quality of the orchestra's playing. When these impressions are based on edited recordings, as I'm sure most people's impressions of most orchestras are and have to be, they can't be true. To get a true impression of an orchestra's quality you really have to listen to them week after week, in different repertories under different conductors, allowing for their playing like angels one week and like pigs (well, maybe not quite that bad) the next.

And if you do this, what do you come up with? To my ears, the actual differences in sound and skill among North America's full-time professional orchestras are very slight and subtle. Last Saturday's Carnegie Hall concert by the St. Louis Symphony under its music director David Robertson - Debussy, Saariaho, Stravinsky - was at a level of technical skill and tonal polish that if heard blind, could not be distinguished from the current playing of much more celebrated and prestigious North American orchestras. But nobody in CMG and very few of the public would put this orchestra and this conductor at the top. RebLem ranks them #15; maestrob, #9; others, nowhere.

There are few orchestras in the world that I would go to hear because of their own distinctive quality, and none of them are in the western hemisphere. I go to New York Philharmonic concerts because they're here; I choose which concerts by them and visiting orchestras to attend, and which recordings to buy, according to the repertoire and conductor on the day. Even the Vienna Philharmonic, my favorite of all orchestras, couldn't attract me this season with Lorin Maazel conducting and the repertory he chose. On the other hand, I went to last month's concert by the Mannes College Orchestra because they were playing Schnittke's extraordinary viola concerto - and what a performance they and the student soloist gave! Similarly, the reason I heard the St. Louis Symphony concert was to hear Kaija Saariaho's song cycle "Quatre Instants," and if it had been performed by any other orchestra I'd have gone to that one instead. Substitute songs by, say, Mahler or Strauss, and even though the soloist was Karita Mattila, I wouldn't have bothered.

That's the best response I can give to Lance's question, and I still haven't answered it.

[nut-job]

I asked, "by what criteria"? There are many. The League of American Orchestras ranks them by budgets, an objective criterion that involves no invidious artistic judgments. Other possibilities: total attendance, or paid attendance (not the same number); the number of performances per year, including tours, which is obviously related to attendance; recording contracts, in the days when orchestras had recording contracts; and so on. Prestige as such is anything but an objective criterion, but it doubtless influences and is influenced by these other factors.

One criterion which I don't believe in is people's impressions of the quality of the orchestra's playing. When these impressions are based on edited recordings, as I'm sure most people's impressions of most orchestras are and have to be, they can't be true. To get a true impression of an orchestra's quality you really have to listen to them week after week, in different repertories under different conductors, allowing for their playing like angels one week and like pigs (well, maybe not quite that bad) the next.

And if you do this, what do you come up with? To my ears, the actual differences in sound and skill among North America's full-time professional orchestras are very slight and subtle. Last Saturday's Carnegie Hall concert by the St. Louis Symphony under its music director David Robertson - Debussy, Saariaho, Stravinsky - was at a level of technical skill and tonal polish that if heard blind, could not be distinguished from the current playing of much more celebrated and prestigious North American orchestras. But nobody in CMG and very few of the public would put this orchestra and this conductor at the top. RebLem ranks them #15; maestrob, #9; others, nowhere.

There are few orchestras in the world that I would go to hear because of their own distinctive quality, and none of them are in the western hemisphere. I go to New York Philharmonic concerts because they're here; I choose which concerts by them and visiting orchestras to attend, and which recordings to buy, according to the repertoire and conductor on the day. Even the Vienna Philharmonic, my favorite of all orchestras, couldn't attract me this season with Lorin Maazel conducting and the repertory he chose. On the other hand, I went to last month's concert by the Mannes College Orchestra because they were playing Schnittke's extraordinary viola concerto - and what a performance they and the student soloist gave! Similarly, the reason I heard the St. Louis Symphony concert was to hear Kaija Saariaho's song cycle "Quatre Instants," and if it had been performed by any other orchestra I'd have gone to that one instead. Substitute songs by, say, Mahler or Strauss, and even though the soloist was Karita Mattila, I wouldn't have bothered.

That's the best response I can give to Lance's question, and I still haven't answered it.

Was it really so unclear that we are being asked to rank orchestras by how much pleasure we have had from listening to their performances/recordings? Fine, you can rank them by the financial soundness of their pension plans, if you wish. It was clear to everyone else what was meant.

[karlhenning]

. . . I only recall only one CD from the Boston Symphony that has managed to keep its place in my collection.

I'm cryin', here.

But . . . probably the first three or four CDs ever I bought which were recordings of the BSO, I've let out of my life, too.

Cheers,
~Karl

[karlhenning]

Thread duty: I've heard too few of the orchestras in person, to vote responsibly here.

Interested to see how the thread plays out, though.

Cheers,
~Karl

[John F]

Was it really so unclear that we are being asked to rank orchestras by how much pleasure we have had from listening to their performances/recordings? Fine, you can rank them by the financial soundness of their pension plans, if you wish. It was clear to everyone else what was meant.

You may believe that's what Lance meant. But it isn't what he asked: "If you had to rate NORTH AMERICAN orchestras [US and Canada], how would you rate the TOP TEN." And it may not be what he meant, or not all of it: "For years, the NYP has been considered in the uppermost Top 5 by music lovers, but by most standards, they are not Number 1 these days." "Standards" does not suggest a purely subjective feeling but a more seriously considered judgment according to criteria of some kind - the kind I declined to make. And Karl Henning appears to feel that way too.

[RebLem]

I rated Montreal ahead of a lot of other orchestras mostly on the basis of some very good Dutoit recordings with that orchestra. I rated LA ahead of SF mosly because under Dudamel it has an enormously beefed up community outreach program modeled on El sistema in Venezuela and because I am a great deal less enamoured of MTT's Mahler performances that lots of folk seem to be. I rated NYPO relaively low mostly because of the hall they're in. They sound better in Pyongyang than in Lincoln Center. They ought to at least record in Carnegie Hall. Its a little too early to tell, but I think Alan Gilbert is helping bring the orchestra back to its former glory; it may be much better in a few years, but there's still not much to be done about the hall. Boston may go on the decline since Levine's departure, but I think he had brought it back. But still, I think it was best under Monteux. For my money, among other things, Monteux's last three Tchaikovsky symphonies beat anybody's, pretty much, even Mravinsky's, which are too frenetic for regular wear, brilliant as they may be for an occasional hearing. Toronto--I just haven't heard that much good from them since Karel Ancerl was music director.

[nut-job]

. . . I only recall only one CD from the Boston Symphony that has managed to keep its place in my collection.

I'm cryin', here.

But . . . probably the first three or four CDs ever I bought which were recordings of the BSO, I've let out of my life, too.

Cheers,
~Karl

Memory is playing tricks. The recording I thought was BSO was not BSO.



Sorry.


But I think I still have a Philips DUO of Colin Davis attempting to conduct Sibelius Symphonies. And there is a chance I have something by Munch/BSO doing Berlioz.

[jserraglio]

Based on the frequency that I seek out their radio bcsts . . .
Listed in no particular order. except for Chicago (#1)

Chicago (I love their broadcasts)
The Met
Boston (anything from the Levine years, esp. the John Harbison symphonies)
SFSO
Cincinnati
LAPO
New York
Cleveland (the guest conductors: Dutoit, Blomstedt, Alsop. etc.)
Pittsburgh
Minnesota

[slofstra]

I would rank them based on the number of full-time bass violinists. It's not as ludicrous as it sounds, and should be an easy number to get. If we did this, I wonder how close we'd come to other qualitative assessments. Quite close, I'll bet.
I would rate Chicago #1, and New York #2. Beyond that I don't have enough recordings or listening experience to be able to tell. But I do have enough listening experience to believe that no one is contending against these two.
I like Reblem's rating of Montreal at #3. The Tchaikovsky/ Dutoit recordings are one of the best things going in that department, IMO.

[Heck148]

the pay scales show some interesting changes...the present tough economy has definitely had an efffect on the traditional financial status of American orchestras

2011-12 figures - [Minimum yearly salary figures]

Chicago -- $144,000
LAPO -- 143,000
SFSO -- 141,700
MetOpera-- 138,500
NYPO -- 135,900
BSO -- 132,000
Nat'l SO -- 126,900
Clevel'd -- 120,000
MinnSO -- 111,500
PhilaOrch-- 108,700
PittsSO -- 107,600

[slofstra]

Very fine, RebLem! You've obviously put some thought behind this. Interesting that you placed LA before the San Francisco.

I'm noticing that he put Montreal ahead of Philadelphia, Cleveland, and New York. I live much closer to Montreal than to NYC (less stressful trip, too)--maybe I should be making some plans?

Definitely. Brand new concert hall, you know.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2011/ ... -call.html

[jbuck919]

Very fine, RebLem! You've obviously put some thought behind this. Interesting that you placed LA before the San Francisco.

I'm noticing that he put Montreal ahead of Philadelphia, Cleveland, and New York. I live much closer to Montreal than to NYC (less stressful trip, too)--maybe I should be making some plans?

Definitely. Brand new concert hall, you know.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2011/ ... -call.html

This could be the beginning of my long-delayed and now highly motivated repatriation.