What has happened to the Concertgebouw?

[shawn]

Hi everyone, I've been reading this board for a long time, and I want to add my first contribution 

At the Concertgebouw's website, the orchestra is being marketed as follows: the velvet strings, the unique sound of the woodwinds and the golden brass. Well, this may have been a hallmark of the past, but in 2019 I rarely hear it. It's still a great orchestra, but it's sounding more and more like any other orchestra... The woodwinds are still impressive. The strings have a certain sheen and sweetness (but again, this is hardly unique), and the brass may still sound 'golden'... if you can hear them!

Now I don't want to sound pedantic (because it still IS a great orchestra), but I really feel the RCO has lost some of it's characteristic 'bite'. There was a time when every department made its presence felt. A 'symphony' orchestra in every sense of the word. But things went backwards, starting - unsurprisingly perhaps - with the arrival of Jansons.

Now, I don't want to conceal the fact that I don't care for Jansons. Jansons is like taking a train trip through the Dutch countryside. The train departs perfectly on time, there are no accidents along the way, and arrives on time at your destination. But fresh and green as the Dutch countryside may be, it makes for a very monotonous trip. In that way he resembles Haitink (at least, in his later years).

The major difference between Haitink and Jansons, is that, basically, Haitink has no startling ideas about how the music should go. Jansons, on the other hand, is known for having 'ideas' that do the music more harm than good. We all remember the RCO M5, in which Jansons slows down way too soon in the closing pages of the Rondo. He's not alone in this, but that's hardly an excuse. A bore Haitink may be, he is NEVER perverse (although, his Vaughan Williams cycle does come close).

Chailly's is the last distinctive period of RCO's legacy. Gatti's tenure was too short to assess. Chailly's programming was intriguing and adventurous, which wasn't always accepted. He also had a radically different approach to Mahler: more analytical, maybe not the Mahler we 'know', but it certainly was different. Chailly also had the advantage of the RCO at its peak; every department responded with equal commitment. Gatti had the major task of restoring the 'bite' of the RCO. And even if I don not warm to all Gatti's performances (his idiosyncratic Berlioz SF was a major trial), I do feel he had the kind of personality that Jansons lacked.

For me, the most significant RCO period was Van Beinum's. He managed to present an orchestra in full bloom, without having to resort to cheap, calculated, arbitrary effects which made Mengelberg's tenure so (in)famous. Mengelberg surely made the RCO famous all over the world. His orchestra had a very distinct sound. David Hurwitz once classified Mengelberg's music making as being 'unhygienic' (or something to that effect, please correct me if I'm wrong), and I must concur. There must be room for freedom of interpretation, but Mengelberg crosses the line. There's no excuse for adding exasperating rubato where the composer does not ask for it. Mengelberg's distortions damage the overall structure of the music. It's the kind of music making that may be intriguing (sort of) at a concert performance, but it quickly tires on the ears on repeated listening. It's flashy and self indulgent. Mengelberg may be in charge of the show, but it's the composer that should be at the center of things!

At least Van Beinum showed that you can get good results without those antics, remaining true to the composer's intentions, and at the same time sound idiomatic, unique and exciting. Van Beinum also championed Dutch music more than Mengelberg. Indeed, Van Beinum's repertoire was broader than his predecessor. Mengelberg, with exceptions, basically kept on performing the tired old ha-rang of the standard repertoire.

Unlike Beinum, Mengelberg didn't take much notice of Bruckner, probably because Bruckner's music is not a good vehicle to impose his ridiculous mannerisms on! Of course, there's Mahler. Mengelberg introduced his music to The Netherlands. For that he deserves thorough credit! But I cannot not believe that the 1939 account of the Fourth is the same interpretation as in the early 1900's. Mengelberg was a very vain and stubborn conductor who valued his views on music above everything else, even Mahler's. Actually, the 1939 Fourth is quite 'normal' in the last three movements. But the first movement is heavily and willfully distorted, up to the point of parody. Now, Mahler wasn't afraid to poke fun at himself, but the first movement of the Fourth was not intended as a joke.

But, back to the 'sound' of the Concertgebouw. Berlin has often been criticized (aptly, I might add!) for being an overrated band with an impressive past. Now, I won't call the RCO overrated. But there are similarities. Like Berlin, the RCO is losing its unique brand of sound. The strings dominate, especially in Berlin, the woodwinds save the day in Amsterdam, and in both cities the brass are mostly buried beneath a large amount of string playing. I don't like it.

The Concertgebouw brass doesn't make its presence felt. For some strange reason, they've vanished into the overall blur. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not longing for the kind of aggressive approach favored by the likes of Solti, turning the orchestra in a brass band with additional contributions by strings and woodwinds. But hey, there isn't a crime for making your presence felt.

It's odd: when we DO hear the RCO brass, the tone is full and noble. But in tuttis or densely orchestrated pieces, they simply do not 'cut through' the texture. Horns are mellow, but have no 'edge'. Trumpets mostly can be heard, but there's a big difference between being heard and making your presence felt. And the trombones? They are the most disappointing aspect. There is no swagger (remember MTT's Ives 2 finale from Amsterdam? Yuck!).

It has often been said that the lack of bite has something to do with the hall. I don't agree. There have been hundreds of recordings made there, ranging from Mengelberg to Gatti and many guest conductors, and in most cases the brass make their presence felt. The deteriorating is clearly emanating from, approximately, the period after Chailly. I don't think this is a interpretative choice either as I can not imagine any conductor not wanting every section of the orchestra to shine through. In a quite recent Bruckner 5th with Harnoncourt, there is no bite from the brass, not even at the famous and gorgeous coda of the finale where the brass writing is nothing short of exhilarating. There is no excuse for that! Why has it to be this reserved? Is it more musical, more civilized or tasteful? Come on!

I could go on and on. I still like the RCO. It still is a great orchestra. But I find the lack of bite frustrating. And we do not know what the future will bring. Even if you hire an exciting new chief conductor, he has to deal with the mellow sound, mellow sound can be attractive but should not be an overall hallmark of an orchestra claiming to be versatile. Mellow may work in Brahms (sort of), but it does scant justice to Mahler, Shostakovich, Stravinsky and all the usual suspects.

Maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe it's simply the way orchestras sound these days. But I refuse to accept that notion. Look at Pittsburgh: a magnificent, powerful brass section! Look at Vienna: still great horns, decent trumpets (trombones were never a great asset in Vienna). Look at New York, Chicago... You get my point.

The RCO has become a mainstream orchestra in every sense of the word, it's orchestral values diminishing and adhering to some kind of generalized sound heard in practically every major orchestra. It even releases its own recordings, many of them highly superfluous and inferior to the RCO's previous outings. Or just put more bluntly: they are a snooze fest. The often lauded 2005 Haitink Bruckner 8 'SACD' was a disgrace, again with a brass section unable to cut through a thick blanket of strings, never mind the tedious tempi.

I can only hope the RCO will regain its bite. There aren't that many orchestras in the world with such a pedigree. But you can't live on your reputation alone. 'Tradition is slovenliness' as Mahler aptly stated. People want to hear the RCO not only for its distinctive sound, but also for its music making and interpretation. They want to hear an orchestra play the pants off the music! They want to leave a concert mesmerized, not thinking 'it was good, even nice, but I can't spot any goosebumps on my arm'. And with RCO asking big prices, they have an obligation to oblige.

Just my two cents 

[barryguerrero]

Acoustics do play a part in what you're describing. In the Van Beinum days, the brass would be playing smaller bore instruments with generally smaller mouthpieces. The sound would be more narrow and cutting than what we're used to today. That's a generality, but it was true for pretty much all orchestras in those days. The Concertgebouw performs on much steeper tiers than in most halls. As a result, the woodwinds cut through much more than usual. To prove this point to yourself, listen to a pirate recording of Haitink doing M3 in the Concergebouw with the Vienna Phil. Their woodwinds cut through much more than they do in the Musikverein. Anyway, the trumpets and trombones are relatively high up and farther back than normal. This is one reason why they continue to avoid the darker sounding, rotary valved German trumpets. The horns don't have a wall behind them for the sound to bounce off of. As bore sizes and mouthpiece sizes have increased, so too has the 'spread' of the sound. In Chicago, one gets an entirely different result because the stage in Orchestra Hall is relatively wide and shallow. Most of the sound carries upwards.

I agree that many of Jansons' recordings are too soft edged and, sometimes, quite boring. What's strange is that he sounds like an entirely different conductor in Munich, even in Mahler. I think a lot of that may had to do with the 'mission statement' of RCO Live and Jansons' relationship with management at the Concertgebouw. It may interest you to know that the Concertgebouw just recently released its top administrator (whatever his title was). Undoubtedly, much of it must have to do with their handling of Danielle Gatti's dismissal. There has been quite a bit back-blow on that whole episode. This brings me to a question?

Have you heard any of the recordings of the Concertgebouw with Gatti?   .    .    .    I think they're quite good and much more 'intense' than what we hear with Jansons. Sexual misconduct allegations may have been at the heart of Gatti's dismissal, but I think they were also intimidated by his intense, fiery temperament. Management may have had trouble controlling him. It's always too easy for people and institutions to believe their own p.r. The Concertgebouw got named the greatest orchestra in the world by Grammophone. When that kind of mindset sets in (no pun intended), people become resistant to new input or criticism. Anyway, I own Gatti's excellent recording of M4 and a superb 'pirate' of him doing M3. I thought their Alban Berg disc was excellent as well. His M2 was maybe less successful, but very interesting.

The Concertgebouw have their 2020 Mahler Festival coming up soon. I believe all the conductors have been lined up. Of course, Gatti won't be involved. I'm sure the orchestra will pull itself together and put on quite a show. They will never sound like the Berlin Phil., Vienna Phil., Chicago Symphony or much of anyone else. The hall is, indeed, rather unique. The Concertgebouw has outstanding woodwinds and percusssion (the first orchestra in Europe to truly modernize its percussion department). If anything, they more closely resemble the Czech Phil. and, perhaps, the Dresden Staatskapelle. We can only wait and see what becomes of their future. Keep in mind that the cost of living in Amsterdam is very, very high and that public support in Holland is waning, in terms of supporting such institutions with tax money. In other words, it'll continue to be challenging times.

[shawn]

Hello Barry, thanks for the reply,

First of all I'm a music lover  My knowledge of acoustics may be poor. Your explanation on that field is probably the cause for much of the timid brass sound.

But something's still puzzling me. Even in Chailly's latter days with the orchestra (2004), the RCO was using the kind of instruments far removed from the Van Beinum days. It is also the same hall as it is today, as you describe, with the same acoustic peculiarities. I find it puzzling, that in 2004, Chailly's orchestra had a brass section that was able to offer the oomph required, especially in Mahler. Not only in studio conditions, but also concerts. As an example: Chailly's farewell concert Mahler 9th. A great concert, by the way, to match his studio outing for Decca. There the entire orchestra delivered the goods, including the brass. Maybe this was one of those moments where everything went magically. But at least it proves they can do it when they want to.

I think you have a good point on acoustics and different mouthpieces, and I am encouraged to read more about it.

Maybe a stupid question: is great brass playing always marred by acoustics, or is it, as in the Chailly example of 2004, also a question of 'gusto' and commitment? Not being a brass player myself I am wondering how much 'involvement' matters in the course. Jansons can be quite relaxed, while Chailly strikes me as more of a perfectionist wanting and asking total commitment. Was he pushing the brass to leave its comfort zone? (And if so, does that trump acoustic problems?) Come to think of it, in Gatti's recent RCO performances, I did find the brass less reserved, horns especially... Interesting discussion.

I think Gatti would be a major improvement over Jansons. Berlioz SF aside (weird performance!), his RCO outings were always interesting. And 'interesting' alone is a word that doesn't apply to Jansons. For the life of me, I can't understand why they wanted Jansons. Yes, he was dear to the orchestra, but that simply implies that the orchestra didn't want to be pushed out of their comfort zone, and guess what: Jansons never did that. When you think of it, it's the most classical example of 'slovenliness'. Gatti was a conductor who indeed DID push them out of their comfort zone, and I'll bet the orchestra got annoyed. They weren't used to that after decades of Haitink and Jansons. So, as we will never hear the complete truth about Gatti's dismissal, I wouldn't be at all surprised there's more to it than simply 'me-too'. It's Amsterdam's loss.

I always chuckle when they announce a 'Greatest orchestra' list. It's more of a PR stunt than anything else. Of course, Rattle's BPO also got a high ranking. The British will never stop raving about their Birmingham wonder boy, never mind the fact that his 'leadership' in Berlin has contributed to the deterioration of the orchestra. These kind of lists offer yet another opportunity to put another feather in his cap. The RCO was placed at top. Well. It certainly has seen better days. Maybe we should rephrase the title, not 'Greatest orchestras', but, 'the best of the worst.' Today most orchestras sound alike, especially when taken out of their own halls. I have a fondness for Dresden (not only the city but also its orchestra). I think it's the best German orchestra (in fact, I even think they were better than Karajan's BPO, but of course, that band always got the spotlight).

I think what Amsterdam needs, is a conductor (like Gatti) exploring the capabilities of the orchestra and not simply be a caretaker. Willem Kes, Willem Mengelberg and Eduard van Beinum BUILT the orchestra, Haitink and Jansons maintained its standards without offering new insights, Chailly took them into radical new musical territories. Quite simply, they need another 'maverick' at the helm. But I have grave doubts the orchestra will stand for it.

[barryguerrero]

It's a complicated question, because THAT sound will probably never reappear. Some of it may have to do with how the orchestra was miked in those days.  I do know what you mean. As a brass player, these are difficult questions. Many conductors try to control the brass in rehearsals - wanting to hear all kinds of inner detail - only to encourage them to play louder and louder in concert. As you know, Richard Strauss warned against doing that.

As with any other players, brass players are looking for improvements in their equipment that will help them to play well in-tune without having to pull slides all over the place. They're also looking for a 'centered' sound that's pleasing, as well as comfort (good ergonomics) and endurance. Players today are expected to go an entire concert without making 'clams' (hitting a wrong note or 'splitting' a note). That expectation wasn't so drastic in earlier times. Also, brass players try not to 'stand out' these days. As a result of all this, there is, indeed, a certain 'homogenization' of the brass sound. I'm not sure how to combat that. Many players are not willing to 'take risks', so they tend to play their parts in a safe manner. I recently had a conversation on that very point with an old (French) horn player friend of mine. Many people praise my local big-name symphony, San Francisco. But I think their strings aren't competitive with the best (Philly, Cleveland, Boston, etc.), and that their horn section tends to 'play it safe'. They are thoroughly professional in the sense that they make very few mistakes. I'm not happy with the sound that MTT has encouraged over his 25 year rein and Davies Hall is quickly falling behind other big halls in the country. Disney in L.A., for example, is far better. Anyway, I'm willing to bet that brass players in the Concertgebouw are not playing on the same brands or types of instruments that they would have in Van Beinum's day. At one point, they were using a lot of Yamaha equipment (I don't think that would be nearly so true today). That may very well NOT be the case with their woodwinds, which have had a long tradition of excellence. Brass instruments have evolved tremendously in 50 years time, and I believe very few players would be willing to go back to old equipment. The exception to that point, of course, is within the period instrument community. But even there, the players are generally using modern copies of ancient instruments.

I too share your enthusiasm for the Dresden Staatskapelle. At times, I feel they're Germany's best as well. Are you at all familiar with recordings made with the Rotterdam Phil.?   .    .   .  That's an interesting case, because here's another great Dutch orchestra that sounds entirely different than the Concertgebouw. Their brass are, indeed, much more 'in your face'. There's a heavier, more powerful 'Slavic' sound to that orchestra. Again, I think at least some of that has to do with the difference in acoustics and lay out. I've very much enjoyed a recent DG box set with Nezet-Seguin/Rotterdam Phil. It has an outstanding Shostakovich 4th - very 'in your face' - and a truly solid Bruckner 8th (among other things). The Youtube video of Nezet-Seguin doing Mahler 8 in Rotterdam is quite good as well.

I'll again state that I find Jansons a puzzling case. He sounds much more alive and involved in his Munich recordings (Bavarian Radio Symphony). I have a Mahler 3 with him and the BRSO that is quite excellent. A 'pirate' I have with Jansons/Pittsburgh doing Mahler 5 is also really good. That, of course, goes back a few decades.

[shawn]

Hello Barry,

I think you offer some pretty darn good insights on the practice of brass playing! I kinda felt bad of 'preaching' about the brass sound  As I said, I love music, and notice a 'decline' in the presence (and character?) of today's brass playing. I think it's perfectly natural that brass players 'don't want to wear themselves out' during a performance. I'm just not sure this is adding anything special to a performance. You mention San Francisco, and I agree. Undernourished strings. But I also have a problem with its brass. They sound very 'American', but also in a very 'generic' way. They could just have well come from any other American orchestra, there isn't anything particular San Francisco about it. In that regard, RCO's brass, at least, has a more unique sound, more noble sounding (the SFS trumpets are rather 'thin' sounding, in Amsterdam they are more 'rounded').

I also agree on Rotterdam. It's a quite different orchestra than Amsterdam. Of course, Amsterdam is much more famous. But in the end, good playing and interpretation is what counts. I may be scorned for what I will say now: I like the Netherlands Radio Philharmonic even more than Rotterdam. The NRP has had an impressive roster of conductors who really made a difference. And of course, De Waart's Mahler cycle is a winner. Gorgeous sound from RCA, too. In fact, I always refer to that cycle as 'the most unknown, consistently great Mahler cycle'. It doesn't even need remastering! Just reissue it 

Jansons sounds markedly different in Munich! I will also state Jansons wasn't a bore in his early years. The RCO collaboration was frustrating. It's almost as if his tenure 'didn't happen' (for all the impact it had). I also have grave problems about the RCO's programming in those days. Who needs another Brahms 2, another Rachmaninoff 2, another Bruckner 9 if you haven't anything interesting to say? (all these recordings have been sold as SACD's, and I could mention many more that are so inferior to RCO's earlier discography. It's like fouling one's own nest.) Why don't they give a shot to more unfamiliar territory? More Dutch music? I really like Hendrik Andriessen's suites and symphonies (his 4th is a scorcher)! And just because Jansons didn't care for them very much, they were never heard. In that respect: Jansons was never a special Mahler conductor, and even less impressive as a Brucknerian. But of course, he did record them, just because the RCO feels obliged to do so, and the results are quite underwhelming.

Don't get me wrong, there's is nothing bad about performing the same old standard repertoire. But it needs to be balanced by lesser known works to keep things interesting.

[barryguerrero]

There's nothing you've said that I disagree with. You have very good ears and insight. A thought came to me this morning.

At some point during the Haitink era, the Concertgebouw hired a woman principal horn who had come from Chicago. She undoubtedly played a different horn than would have been traditional during the van Beinum years (which probably would have been a mix). It may be at that point that the horn sound began to change significantly. In the early Haitink M3 recording, you do hear more of that old Concertgebouw horn sound. Someone who is both a horn player and a Concergebouw maven could probably shed some insight.

[ChrisH]

When discussing things like this, we still need to take in consideration that this is a recording! Everything has been altered in some way. To my mind, you can't really use a recording to 'hear' what one of these orchestras sounds like live. In the case of San Fran, I have attended a master class with Mark Inouye, and his sound is very large and far from thin. I also have taken a lesson from Glenn Fischtal, the previous lead trumpet in San Fran, and he sounds nothing like on the recordings made with Blomstedt, especially up close. I enjoyed my time with him so much, that I almost went to school there.

Also, a big part of this could be the standardization of teaching musical instruments. It used to be, at least in the US, there were different schools and methodologies of playing. My 2 main trumpet teachers were both of the Cleveland school, having studied with Bernard Adelstein. There used to be New York school of Vachianno and all of his disciples, a Boston school of Ghitallas of students etc... Now everyone studies the same stuff, the same way. I also think, because of this, all the newer players are growing up playing this difficult music. 30 or 40 years ago, high school student were not performing Mahler 5, now they do at certain camps, and high schools like Interlochen or Colburn. The level of playing right now is so damned high. This could give you the generic feeling. That's why I always really enjoyed the old New York Phil brass section with Phil Smith, Joe Alessi, Warren Deck, and Philip Myers. They had a sound, and it was distinct, live or on record.

[shawn]

Hello Vehemence,

The New York brass by the likes of Smith, Alessi and co... now THAT was a sound!  I totally agree! In fact, when I started listening to Mahler recordings (at approximately age 13), I came across Bernstein's DG Live NYP outings. The New York brass were immensely 'present', at full throttle (while still being faithful to nuances). I remember to this day the opening of the M7 Rondo-Finale from Lenny/DG... Okay, maybe the horns were 'all over the place' in those opening measures, but who cares when those trumpets shine through with complete confidence? And what to think of those trombones! That swagger, some might even call it 'a sledge hammer quality' (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). It sounded great, exhilarating, mad, maybe even decadent (aspects of the M7 Rondo I don't think too many conductors notice at all). Why do so many conductors 'sanitize' this kind of music, which was intended not only as a parody, but also a willful 'collage' of musical episodes, with all stitches shown? Too many conductors present this finale as logical and sensible. There's nothing sensible about it, in fact: it doesn't make sense! But it's a great ride, like being on a roller coaster. Recently, a friend of mine gave me a copy of a recent biography of Mahler. In it, the writer claims that the M7 Finale was a mistake (or something to that effect). I don't get it. It's Mahler being Mahler, like in every other symphony! Why does Mahler have to be grim, pessimistic or fatalistic every time? Let them man enjoy himself when he wants to. The Rondo Finale is a celebration of life in full glory! I like it. Indeed, if I had my way, this music would be appropriate at my funeral, but I guess the mourners would find it rather... 'carnavalesque' 

Just my two cents... Indeed, what an era in New York. I totally agree, Vehemence. Too bad Lenny had to perform these works in the Avery Fisher Hall, with dry and hard acoustics and shoe box perspectives (at least on recordings, I don't know how it sounded in the hall). Come to think of it, I have never heard San Francisco in the hall itself, I can only judge by recordings, and I stand corrected if 'in real life' they sound notably different.

[lschmitz]

What a fascinating thread! It has compelled me to reply to this board for the first-ever time.

I can only agree with what has been said about the diminishing character of the RCO-sound. I'm a sucker for any pirate-radio-broadcast of the 1970s-1990s simply because the orchestra sounded so amazingly characterful in those days. I don't know if this is allowed on this forum, but if you want to know more about this collection, PM me . Anyway, the orchestra, like almost all modern orchestras, has been subject to increasing internationalization that has led to a homogenization of its overall sound character. Unless conscious efforts are made to preserve a distinct character of sound (like in Vienna), this character melts away over time. The RCO-academy, which trains young musicians who may someday become full members of the orchestra, is a step in the right direction.

Concerning the horn-section of the orchestra, quite recently Jack Munnecom successfully defended his PhD-dissertation on the solo-horn players of the RCO. It offers unique and very detailed insights on the history of the solo horn players and RCO horn section more generally. You are right Barry, the instrumentarium of the orchestra's horn section has changed dramatically over the years, and the orchestra's solo players all had a major impact on this. Up until the 1970s, the full horn section played on Knopf horns, which have a darker sound than most modern horns. When Julia Studebaker (trained in Chicago) arrived in 1974, the unity in instrumentarium slowly diminished and other brands such as Holton, Paxman and also Yamaha were introduced. However, from the early 2000s onwards, most players have switched to the Alexander (103) horns.

The dissertation can be accessed here (huge PDF-file!) https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/357326. It is in Dutch, though it has many pictures that still make it worthwhile if you don't read Dutch.

Although instrumentarium and acoustics play a big role in the character of the sound, I do think that it also depends on the extent to which a conductor challenges the orchestra to leave its comfort-zone. Tomasoni, one of the excellent principal trumpets of the Concertgebouw, even expressed (rightly) his frustration over the fact that he was never allowed by Jansons to truly blast out. Gatti, in spite of (or because of?) his idiosyncracies, pushed the orchestra out of its comfort zone and produced a much more powerful brass sound. Van Zweden recently also did so in Mahler 7 and Bruckner 8. For everyone's sake, I hope they soon appoint a new chief-conductor who can too.

[shawn]

Hello Ischmitz (welcome!  )

Again, like Barry, you offer some pretty valuable information about brass playing!

It doesn't surprise me that Jansons didn't encourage his trumpets to blast out. Jansons is a cushy kind of conductor.

I won't ask of the brass section to be 'in your face' every second of the performance. But for heavens sake, when a composer asks for presence, he should get presence. Today, most fff in the RCO aren't remotely overwhelming.

I, too, have fond memories of days gone by, like the 1975 Das Lied von der Erde (Haitink, Baker, King). Too bad you can't hear the mandolin in the last bars of the Abschied

[barryguerrero]

I'll agree with your point on the RCO being 'homogenized', but I could easily tell the RCO, BPO and LSO apart in a blind-fold test. That's assuming they're playing in their own respective halls. If the LSO were playing in the Concergebouw, it may take a few minutes before I can be certain. To me, the BPO sounds nothing like the other two.