TubeNet

1. Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra
2. Berlin Philharmonic
3. Vienna Philharmonic
4. London SYmphony Orchestra
5. Chicago Symphony
6. Bavarian Radio SYmphony
7. Cleveland Orchestra
8. Los Angeles Philharmonic
9. Budapest Festival Orchestra
10. Dresden Staatskapelle
11. Boston Symphony Orchestra
12. New York Philharmonic
13. San Francisco SYmphony
14. Mariinsky Theatre Orchestra
15. Russian National Orchestra
16. St. Petersburg Philharmonic
17. Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra
18. Metropolitan Opera Orchestra
19. Saito Kinen Orchestra
20. Czech Philharmonic.

What are your thoughts on this list? Who would you add, who would you remove. Would you change the order? Have at it, interested to hear your opinions.

Any list w/o the Philadelphia Orchestra in the top 20 would be just about worthless as a reference.

.

What data was used to compile this list? I don't believe one could alter this list without knowing what criteria Gramophone used in making their original decision. Was it number of performances, recordings, budget, subscription sales, etc...?

TMB

Thomas Maurice Booth wrote:What data was used to compile this list? I don't believe one could alter this list without knowing what criteria Gramophone used in making their original decision. Was it number of performances, recordings, budget, subscription sales, etc...?

TMB

Number of unicorns on the mailer list.

More than likely, someone tried to "quantify" some aspects of orchestra quality in order to create this list. Additionally, what time frame is this in reference to? Orchestras are extremely dynamic organizations. We tuba players know that changing one member of the roster can make a significant difference in the playing of much of the common repertoire. Pretty much the change in any principal chair will correlate with some change.

Montreal (esp. with Joe Allessi) recordings are quite special. Philly has had many good years as well, in addition to being a highly recorded group under Stokowski and Ormandi. St. Louis is also a group of high critical regard that should be mentioned. Also not on the list outside of the states would be the Royal Scottish National Orchestra which is a fine group with some excellent recordings of rare works.

Lists really don't do much but create controversy. Business Week and US News utilize the "list method" to generate a large majority of their periodical sales and now website traffic. Consumer Reports and their imitators do this to generate sales of auto-related publications. So, while the list may mean something to the layperson or beginning enthusiast, they really don't mean much to those that "know better".

Side note: I have heard recordings of both the (now defunct) Florida Symphony Orchestra and Florida Philharmonic Orchestra (poster Jay Bertolet was in that group) and they put out recordings on par with top level groups.

Criteria used, as reported in the article...

-Modern Romantic orchestra
-concert performances
-recording output
-contributions to local and national communities
-ability to maintain an iconic status in an increasingly corporate climate

There's some fabric for you. Continue discussing please

ZNC Dandy wrote:Criteria used, as reported in the article...

Thanks for the criteria. Here's my opinion:

-Modern Romantic orchestra

I guess this refers to size and instrumentation. More of a qualifier than a criterion.

-concert performances

This seems to be a decent quantifiable measure. However, are these free performances? Not a big deal here, as most orchestras play in halls and charge admission. Free concerts can usually be counted on one hand with most North American groups.

-recording output

This also seems to be a good measure, but has realistic flaws. I remember years ago when "Laserlight" started putting out recordings of a lot of the standard repertoire. Some were good, but most were nothing to write home about. I remember quite a few of these being played by a former Eastern Bloc orchestra. So there is some padding that might influence final results here. Also, some groups, like St. Louis, really are "off the beaten path" in regards to recording projects.

-contributions to local and national communities

This one I found a bit odd. Considering most orchestras have (at least in the USA) a large amount of benefactors, I would be weary of one that is doing a lot of "contributing" above and beyond driving PR campaigns and awareness to younger children. Also, this can be quite a dynamic measure as well.

-ability to maintain an iconic status in an increasingly corporate climate

I'd love to see the quantifying measurements in this category. Major Seven? Big Three? Big Five? Top tier? Tier II? Blah blah blah. This category sounds overtly subjective with the "increasingly corporate climate" thrown in to make it appear to have more gravitas.

There's some fabric for you. Continue discussing please

I still stand with my original conclusion. Lists are created to generate revenue, not to actually quantify results or qualify real decisions.

SSOtuba wrote:Regardless of the authenticity of it, it created one heck of a stir in the orchestral community.

That is pretty much in agreement with what I wrote. These lists are created to eat up bandwidth and drive some revenue to the author/editor. Most serious music folk would pretty much dismiss this ranking immediately. It's not to slight any of the groups, but instead recognize that they are all on much more even ground than ever before.

Before the advent of widely available and inexpensive playback formats (this includes the LP) I am sure that orchestras varied quite a bit in all manners: repertoire, interpretation, staffing, ability, etc. As people were able to "benchmark" using recordings, the professional orchestra became more homogeneous. Why is it that nearly every orchestral player uses a 6/4 CC tuba? Because the idea of the contrabass role in the brass choir is much more standardized than it was 50-60 years ago. There were fellows playing F tuba on everything in US orchestras (e.g. Vinal Smith) not all that long ago, relatively speaking. There have been significant influences on every section of the orchestra, and most of them are essentially playing in a similar manner. With current digital technology, even ideas on music in every context can be shared nearly immediately. This, of course, has it benefits, but also has drawbacks. Some of those drawbacks are that many of the Conductors are basically controlling the same group as every other with control over tempo and dynamics being the only variables left to change.

This is why some oddball recordings (like the LA Phil Planets recording) are so interesting. Two tubas (IIRC) in octaves in some areas makes the piece sound sonically different than everything else. There are little things that make many of the "great" Planets recordings different, but nothing on the scale of the LA Phil recording. It sounds radically different. Of course besides the score treatment and recording tech, the players were on some "no longer mainstream" horns as well.

I guess it is good that someone took the time to rank a few groups. It is better that the list at least got a response, and it seems like there are people out there who have well-founded opinions as to why some great ensembles were left off the list. However, I just worry about the folks who don't know the "whole story" and will now think about the local orchestra the way they think about toasters or four door sedans.

What a completely pedestrian idea, and ridiculously subjective.

"My orchestra is better than your orchestra."

Sheesh...too bad more people don't just enjoy the orchestra they have close to them and not have the need to compare them to others. No wonder the arts are dying a painful death...crap like this just gives people another reason not to support their local symphony. Like I care what some record executives in suits think about the "20 Greatest Orchestras."

I know...for an encore, how about they compile a list of the "20 Greatest Composers"?

Todd S. Malicoate wrote:Like I care what some record executives in suits think about the "20 Greatest Orchestras."

tubahead wrote:Again, these are not record executive but music critics/columnists.

Sorry...let me try again:

Todd S. Malicoate should have wrote:Like I care what some music critics/columnists in suits think about the "20 Greatest Orchestras."

Obviously bogus list. No John McLaughlin & Mahavishnu Orchestra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inner_Mounting_Flame

It's good that Cleveland was on there. That town needs all the help it can get.

another group/person would have a totally different list, at least different in order.
There may be an argument that the RGO is, indeed, the best around, but others could certainly make a good case for themselves. If they wanted to.

Lists such as this are aesthetic autoeroticism.

[ ]

I also heard the NPR report and thought it a more reasonable discussion than usually follows such lists. One of the highlights was the notion that orchestras were rewarded more for staying true to their unique qualities than for just being flawless. Character counted more than precision.

Of course it's subjective.

If the result is that people start buying more and different recordings of orchestras outside their usual comfort zone, then no harm can come from it.

The purpose of good criticism, it seems to me, is not to criticize, but to critique. When I read a critical review, I want it to tell me why I should be listening to something, not why I shouldn't. Too many critics follow the sports journalist mold of commentary on the play of the game rather than promoting what's valuable in the music. That can be done without cheerleading, which is another fault shared by some critics. As C. S. Lewis put it, good criticism opens the reader to new horizons. Too many critics want to appear to be skeptics to the point of being cynical, which sometimes makes me wonder if they even like music.

A list like this (and the commentary it engenders) can have those effects, even to the extent of encouraging people to pay greater attention to their favorite orchestras who were not on the list.

Rick "whose has some favorites not on the list" Denney

Good discussion so far on the merits of this list. I agree with most of it, although one glaring omission I noticed was the:

Orchestre de Paris, check this out. What an ensemble!

Polovtsian Dances
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUKby0sYmf4" target="_blank" target="_blank
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYx_ewGX ... re=related" target="_blank" target="_blank

Orchestre de Paris! What an energetic, virtuoso performance!

Also pretty dumbfounded how the Lucerne Festival Orchestra was overlooked?