Are there any real differences between different major orchestras performing the same piece?
Is the London Symphony’s version of Beethoven’s Ninth any better than the New York Philharmonic’s? Or vice versa?
Would the casual classical music listener notice?
Sure. I always keep the band (and the conductor) in mind when I’m comparison-shopping for a particular orchestral piece.
The Vienna Philharmonic has been pretty much the world standard for over a hundred years. The Berlin Philharmonic and the Concertgebouw Orchestra of Amsterdam are also in the top rank of Europeans orchestras.
London and Paris have never been considered great leaders in the world of symphonic music, for some reason. But the Orchestra of the Academy of Saint Martin in the Fields, particularly under the baton of Sir Neville Mariner, are noted for performances of Baroque and early classical music.
The “top five” of the USA have traditionally been the New York, the Boston, the Philadelphia, the Cleveland, and the Chicago. Each of these has different strengths, which have come out under different conductors.
I’ve never been overly fond of the Philly (Eugene Ormandy is a snore, although they did great stuff years ago under Leopold Stowkowski) and I hate Seiji Ozawa so I avoid the Boston. The NY improved dramatically under Kurt Masur after a long crappy period with Zubin Mehta, but now they’ll probably suck again under Lorin Maazel, another leader I can’t stand.
I tend to opt for the Cleveland for pre-1875 stuff…Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven and the early Romantics. They have a nice light precise sound and a brilliant string section, honed under the baton of George Szell. For anything post-Wagner, I prefer the Chicago, who seem to have a more ponderous tone, but a superb wind section. I have a wonderful Mahler’s Fourth with Cristoph van Dohnanyi leading the Cleveland, though, so there’s always an exception that proves the rule.
Lenny Bernstein conducting Mahler with the New York Philharmonic is standard repetoire. When he does it with the Vienna, it’s transcendant.
Sir Simon Rattle led England’s City of Birmingham Orchestra for years. No one would call this band one of the best on the planet, but Rattle yanked some brilliant music out of them.
Okay, so I’m not a “casual classical music listener.” But the differences ARE there.
Yeah, what he said…
I am partial to the Academy of St. Martin-in-the-Fields. Especially Mozart’s Requiem.
Again, what Ike said. It’s not so much the orchestra or the conductor alone, as it is the combination. The NY Philharmonic is notorious for being a difficult ensemble to command (and a conductor really has to command it), but the aforementioned Leonard Bernstein and Kurt Masur have been masterful. Mehta and Maazel not so much.
It also depends on the composer. Herbert von Karajan, while directing the Berlin Philharmonic in his later years, did some interesting revisions of the Beethoven symphonies. The few recordings I’ve heard of Richard Strauss’s music played by just about any orchestra under the baton of Neeme Jarvi have been extraordinary. Those are the only examples coming to mind, unfortunately.
I think the casual classical music listener would notice if you played the pieces sequentially, or if you took a particular piece they were familiar with by one orchestra and played a different orchestra’s version.
The things you’d most likely notice are dynamics (when things are loud or soft) and tempo (how fast or slow they’re playing), because these are quite open to interpretation, even with the sheet music directions. There are, of course, other things, but they tend to be more subtle and/or subjective. Sometimes it may be difficult to pin down exactly what it is about a conductor or an orchestra, but there’s something about the way they approach the piece that makes a connection, where other versions by perfectly respectable orchestras just seem to lie there. Some orchestras are also better-versed in eras or styles than others, so you can sense their strengths and weaknesses if the composer or school are different.
AG (whose personal weakness is Charles Dutoit & the Montreal SO)
Definitely a difference with the conductor. Stowkowski vs. Ormandy? HUGE difference.
Certainly the biggest difference is whether or not the ensemble uses period instruments or not.
To explain further…
In the last 25 years there has been a strong faction that contends that music should be played the instruments it was originally written for, not the modern versions of those instruments. The difference in sound can be quite striking. Playing techniques and the tempos chosen by these groups add to a decidedly different sound.
Is there a difference between the makeup of a symphonic and a philharmonic orchestra?
HUUUUUUGE differences!
Even more so these days, I would say, when period performance practices are such an important factor. I would seriously hesitate before buying any recording of Mozart/Beethoven/classical or Baroque repertoire unless it was done on period instruments, and in line with period practices. A good example is my Karajan/Berlin Phil recording of the Mozart Requiem (hey, it was given to me, ok?), which sounds constipated and generally hideous in comparison with, say, the Eliot Gardner or St Martin-in-the-Fields recordings. I’d say a casual listener could tell the difference easily.
I was fortunate enough to study music history for a year under a man called Geoffrey Lancaster, who is one of the foremost early keyboard players and early-music scholars in this country. One of his more notable achievements is a recording of the Four Seasons with the Tasmanian Symphony Chamber Orchestra, in which he went back to early editions of the score and completely rejuvenated the piece. He’s also done a truly amazing Pachelbel Canon recording - I happy-danced for about half an hour the first time I heard it. My listening tastes have been influenced not-inconsiderably by his teaching, and his understanding of early-music aesthetics.
In later works, using more standardised and often bigger orchestras, there’s still a big (but perhaps not as easily recognised) difference between different orchestras and conductors. However, I’m not a hugely Romantic girl when it comes to my listening preferences, so I won’t comment. Basically what Ike said 
foxyboxer, AFAIK, there is no practical difference between “symphony orchestras” and “philharmonic orchestras” - they’re just useful words that professional orchestras like to stick in their names. However, I may be wrong, so if anyone can correct me feel free.
Going slightly off-track, I’ll add that the performance venue also makes a tremendous difference, at least live. The same orchestra will sound different when playing in different concert halls. I don’t know how much of this factor gets neutralized by recording engineers in a studio, however.
To follow-up on tritone’s post, “symphony” and “philharmonic” orchestras are different in name only. There may be differences in internal organization, but as far as the listener is concerned, the repertoire, musicians, and style (in the broadest sense) are all the same. Examples:
This is probably worth a debate thread on its own (one which would get even FEWER views than this one! Can’t you guys stick “Tolkien” or “Simpsons” or “Buffy” in some of your serious music thread titles, whip up some interest from the rubes?).
While I appreciate the period music movement…glad to have MORE listening options open…I’m not going to throw away my Glenn Gould discs because he plays Bach on a Bosendorfer grand piano instead of a harpsichord, fortepiano, or pipe organ.
And say…is it all right to play Bach on an organ with an electrically-manipulated bellows, or does that muss up the purity? Do we have to have a couple of choirboys down in the cellar working the pumps?
I’ve got a disc of Beethoven’s Ninth by Frans Bruggen and the Orchestra of the 18th Century (and there’s an anachronism right there), but it gets less play than the 1959 Columbia Symphony Orchestra recording with Bruno Walter because, hey, it’s BRUNO WALTER.
How about Stokowski’s orchestral transcriptions of Bach’s organ pieces? These are always cited as the works that set period-music people’s teeth on edge…but they’re damn good! I’m listening to the Bourree from English Suite No. 2 right now, and the “bombast” doesn’t bother me a bit, because I’ve got my 1957 ears on. The flute sounds great in the lead, with the strings chasing after it.
What about Mahler’s orchestration of Handel’s Messiah? Gustav could do things with tone colors that Handel would never have thought of, even if he HAD had access to Eb clarinets, piccolos, contrabassoons and tubas.
What about 19th century wind-band transcriptions of Mozart’s operatic arias and Beethoven symphonies, written so small town who had no orchestras but DID have town bands could enjoy some good tunes? I’ve got a Beethoven’s Seventh by the Netherlands Wind Ensemble that’ll rip the ears right offa your head.
This is all great stuff; don’t miss out on it!
As a casual classical music listener I’d have to say that yes, it is possible to tell how well different orchestras play the same pieces. Of course, being an unedumacated listener, my preference may be for the crappy version.
Since Ukulele Ike has already made a hijack to this thread, I will assume it’s okay to continue in that vein?
My question is about conductors. I’ve recently had the pleasure to talk with a professional musician who related several amusing anecdotes about the conductors he’s worked under. I had no idea how much power those batons can wield! He spoke of how their different personalities really affect the general atmosphere of the orchestra and how the musicians play.
One story he related was about a tyrant who conducted in a very minimalist style- using small arm and hand movements that were difficult to discern depending on your position. One of the bassists rolled up his sheet music and used it as a spyglass to zero-in on the conductor. For this little tease, the dictator fired him on the spot!
Are there any more maestro stories people out there would like to share? This would make a great book if it hasn’t already been done. Think of all the fun you’d have traveling around to interview different conductors and musicians.
I found another set of transcriptions recorded… like Respighi’s orchestration of the Passacaglia & Fugue in C-minor, or Elgar’s treatment of the Fantasia & Fugue. Talk about bombast!
Or the Beethoven symphonies. The National Symphony did the full cycle of Mahler’s arrangements a few years back. Wish I’d had the money to go…
It goes the other way too, and not just in the 19th century. My grandfather made a band arrangement of Mahler’s 1st back in the 40’s or 50’s.
Just a few things to add to Ukelele Ike’s comments.
Handel did have access to contrabassoons (see Royal Fireworks Music).
Second, I would disagree that London and Paris have never really been leaders in the orchestral world. The London Symphony and the London Philharmonic are two of the most recorded orchestras ever, and those guys are known as extremely formidable players, not least for their ability at sightreading under the pressure of a recording session.
The Paris Opera Orchestra. Need I say more?
Some other incredible orchestras not mentioned that easily rank in the world’s best, if not most visible…
Bavarian Radio
Dresden Staatskapelle
And in the US how about San Francisco (easily the most successful and daring right now, with Tilson Thomas creating an unbelievable amount of excitement in the industry) and the Met. The Met is easily the match of any other US orchestra in terms of talent.
Also, I’d like to offer an alternate view of Maazel as a first-rate exciting conductor. A bastard, yes. But a world-class musician too. A genius with a photographic memory and unmatched technique. Everything you need as a player is RIGHT THERE. No guessing. He turned Pittsburgh into a world class orchestra (which shows up on many European critics new “Big Five” lists of the best American orchestras…the traditional list is outdated and inaccurate, now merely referring to orchestras with old money). He’s been affiliated with the best orchestras in the world (Vienna, Bavarian Radio, Cleveland, and on and on).
The New York Phil is far from “sucking” under him, and he is as far as you can get from a lame duck. He could also kick the ass of most men half his age in tennis.
There are so many angles to this thread that I can’t seem to cohere any more thoughts…
Ok, Ike, I’m prepared to concede… a little I know there are some great non-period arrangements and recordings out there of a lot of early music. Certainly, I won’t knock your Glenn Gould Bach - I own a bit of it myself. And my purist tendencies don’t quite go to the anal-retentive extreme of refusing electrically-pumped pipe organs.
I think the way to deal with the dichotomy (although it’s really more of a continuum) is to see these arrangements/recordings as new perspectives or alternative views of baroque/classical pieces. Most importantly, they should be seen in the context of the period and aesthetic in which they were made.
(Bolding mine)
Yup, the concept of “1957 ears” sums up exactly what I mean
Of course, having said all that, I still prefer my period recordings, in the vast majority of cases. This may have something to do with the fact that my tastes lean more towards early music at the moment (though not exclusively by any means, and I’m always open to new things). Discovering the period performance movement led me to a whole new understanding of all the Baroque and Classical stuff which had previously seemed a little stale. The sound and texture and feel of a period recording of, say, a Beethoven symphony is, to me, lighter, more subtle, and infinitely more profound. My meagre performance experience backs this up. Playing Bach on a harpsichord for the first time was a revelation, and the difference between singing Mozart with a period orchestra and a modern-day SO is hard to describe unless you’ve done it.
I could go on all night, but alas, I have a pathology exam tomorrow, so I’d best return to my bladder neoplasms :rolleyes: Happy to continue the discussion at a later date, though.
I’ll take your word for it; I didn’t actually do the reseach before tossing up a bunch of more elaboarate instruments that you don’t usually see in orchestral works up until the mid-19th century.
I agree with you on the London Philharmonic. I just flipped through my collection and find I have a lot more of it than I thought I did…including almost everything by British composers. I was going to say “Yeah, but Andre Previn and the London’s Vaughan Williams isn’t nearly as good as Bryden Thomsen and the…ummm…London. I’ll be quiet now.”
I also agree with your comments about the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra under James Levine and the SF under Michael Tilson Thomas. I said “the traditional Big Five” in my first post, and I figured it was long enough already without adding stuff about Frisco.
Where I DON’T agree with you is the Maazel thing. I grew up in Cleveland and heard my first orchestral music from George Szell. When he died in 1970, Maazel came in, and I went through my teens listening to HIM, and even a brat like me could tell he wasn’t anywhere near the same league. Granted, Szell was a tough act to follow, but so is Kurt Masur. And the music pundits here in NYC are definitely giving Lorin mixed reviews. And he’s choosing dirt-dull programs, heavy on the Three B’s, compared to Masur’s; very little contemporary music.
And I have NEVER heard him called “exciting” until I read your post.
I agree with you, too. Golly, I must be in a good mood today.
As I said, I’m delighted that the period perfs are available at ALL…20 years ago you wouldn’t have had that alternative. The more options for listening I have, the better I like it. Handel’s flute sonatas sound much better on a recorder than they do out of a modern flute, even if it’s Jean-Pierre Rampal blowin’ on it.
Have you heard Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue performed by a Paul Whiteman-1920s-style jazz orchestra, as compared to the whomped-up version for symphony orchestra? Much cooler!
All of this surprises me a bit. I was always under the impression that classical music was more rigidly constructed and, therefore, not open to personal interpretation. I figured that, if you were to travel back to the day when these pieces were originally performed, they would sound pretty much like they do today.
Very interesting stuff, indeed.
Yikes, Mr. Blue Sky! Not open to personal interpretation? How d’you think all these musos have been kept in work all this time, making new recordings and new performances of the same old music?
Classical music is open to endless personal interpretation - that’s what makes it so much fun. A work that you’ve heard a squillion times can be made enormously exciting by a new interpretation - as in the recordings of Vivaldi’s Seasons and Pachelbel’s Canon in D (two of the most over-exposed works in the repertoire) which I mentioned in my previous post.
The changes in performance practice over time are also to do with the way that musical performance has changed over the last few hundred years. The instruments are different (well, most of them are, though the strings ain’t changed much), the instrumental techniques are different, hell, even the pitch is different! (as you may know, the standard concert pitch we use today, A=440Hz, has gone up about a tone since the 17th century). Our whole understanding of music and what it means and where it fits in in the world has changed.
Hrm… if you were nearer, I’d lend you some CD’s so you could hear for yourself what I mean. To anyone who says classical music is staid and boring, I say you’re not listening hard enough!
Hee hee. Click here for the latest viola joke.