OT: Best orchestra according to Gramophone

[michaelw]

Hello,

For those who like (to discuss) rankings: the Gramophone has invited a jury to find the best (modern romantic) orchestra:

This is the result:

20 – 11 (they called it the best of the rest)
Czech Philharmonic
Saito Kinen Orchestra
Metropolitan Opera Orchestra
Leipzig Gewandhaus
St. Petersburg Philharmonic
Russian National Orchestra
Mariinsky Theatre Orchestra
San Francisco Symphony Orchestra
New York Philharmonic
Boston Symphony Orchestra

10 – 6

Dresden Staatskapelle
Budapest Festival Orchestra
Los Angeles Philharmonic
Cleveland Orchestra
Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra

5 Chicago Symphony Orchestra
4 London Symphony Orchestra
3 Vienna Philharmonic
2 Berlin Philharmonic
1 Royal Concertgebouw

The criteria have been:

„concert performances, recording output, contribution to local and national communities and the
ability to maintain iconic status...“


Michael

[brunumb]

Interesting criteria.
But I can't see how they define the best orchestra.  The 'highest profile' orchestra maybe.
I don't really know what criteria I would use to decide the 'best' orchestra.
In any case these 'best of' lists are really rather meaningless in my opinion, although they may be interesting from the perspective of showing how some minds tick.

[david johnson]

that top 6 has done a lot of mahler work, along with the nypo & bavaria.

dj

[akiralx]

Looks OK, but the LSO should not be so high.

[je-b]

A list that has the Mariinsky Theatre Orchestra up there and omits entirely a world-class ensemble like the Staatskapelle Berlin which has repeatedly shown responsible for some of the most exciting things happening in classical music today (i.e. the complete Mahler cycle under Barenboim and Boulez which has recently been revived with guest performances in Vienna) entirely? Or the excellent Zurich Tonhalle Orchestra? Come on... 

Who of those people compiling this list has actually heard all of these orchestras live on a regular basis in recent years? I thought it was actual music making that counts - not the "ability to maintain iconic status"...

[Jules]

The Dresden Staatskapelle is magnificent: they should be higher in the ranking.

[Damfino]

Posted by je-b:

...and omits entirely a world-class ensemble like the Staatskapelle Berlin which has repeatedly shown responsible for some of the most exciting things happening in classical music today (i.e. the complete Mahler cycle under Barenboim and Boulez which has recently been revived with guest performances in Vienna) entirely?

I was looking for the Staatskapelle Berlin as well. In addition to the performances you mention, their playing on the Barenboim Beethoven cycle is (IMO) outstanding. They sound so good on that set, it's like they are showing off.

[michaelw]

I also had expected the Staatskapelle Berlin on the list. I had the chance to see them twice during their Mahler season 06/07 and would 
attend more concerts if more often in Berlin.

Not only the recent Mahler recordings, but also the Schumann (I like it much more than Zinman, Gardiner or the recent Dausgaard) and especially  the (often bashed by German critics) Beethoven cycle show the fantastic sound and capabilities of the orchestra.

However, whatever one might think of such rankings, in this particular case it shows, that in our times a orchestra has to be very present to receive international appreciation.

If you check the web page of the Staatskapelle, you will find a list of recordings „since 1991 with the participation of the singers and musicians of the Staatsoper Unter den Linden and the Berlin Staatskapelle“.

We can see 23 CDs. (omitting DVDs). But this includes the Daniel Barenboim Wagner Ring with the Bayreuth Festival Orchestra (-4), historical selections with Suitner,   Barenboims Chicago Stravinsky etc.
At the end, we have: M7, M9, Beethoven cycle, Schumann cycle, Tannhäuser, Brautwahl (Busoni) and a few others. They have not even listed the Fliegende Holländer, Boulez' M8, Fidelio and maybe some others.
But this shows the point: in science there is the word "publish or perish". Like it or not, that's a fact, and at least you have the choice to publish selected IMPORTANT things with style or print any single thin idea again and again. The Staatskapelle surely follows a very (too?) strict version of the first path.

Again, I like the Staatskapelle very much and in particular the Tannhäuser might be one of the most-played CDs in our household for the last 6 years, since my wife listened to it several dozens of times (and we don't have only one Tannhäuser), but maybe they have to work on their publication strategy.

This has nothing to do with being good or even “best”, but that's how it works.

Some orchestras have their own label now and this does not necessarily lead to the best results, but only waiting for people coming to Berlin or for Warner/Teldec having a generous day is probably not enough. For example, the Gürzenich Orchestra Cologne offers CDs of a concert right after the concert. After a while these CDs can be downloaded via iTunes (unfortunately in a very reduced format, otherwise I already had checked out the new M5 conducted by Markus Stenz). The BRSO has regular 5.1 broadcasts on Friday evening. Why do I have to travel 450 km to hear the Staatskapelle more often?


Michael 

[Dave H]

I have to say that lists like this are just plain ridiculous. Period. And the more they pretend to employ objective or systematic criteria, the stupider they are.

Dave H

[barry guerrero]

While I'm happy that they placed the Concertgebouw at the top of the list, I also have to agree with David. There's no objective way to measure such things, and so it simply turns into something of a popularity contest. I, for one, would never rate the Chicago Symphony over the Cleveland Orchestra. I would also place Philly well above Chicago. But then again, what evidence would I have to support such an argument? It's simply a matter of which sounds please me more.

Barry

[Dave H]

And beyond that, one of their criteria for selection was "presence on recordings," or some such nonsense. That has NOTHING to do with the quality of the orchestra and everything to do with economics. If the survey had been done in the 50s then you would have had to add to the list the never very good Suisse Romande Orchestra because Decca was headquartered in Geneva and the then head of the label was buddies with Ernest Ansermet. This is how they got the LSO onto the list. Now the LSO is a very good orchestra, and very frequently recorded because so much of the industry has been headquartered in London, but no one who is not English would place it in the top five or six worldwide (or even in London) over time on the basis of music quality alone (but in what repertoire, over what period?). The fact is that no one cared about the LSO until Previn cleaned them up in the late 60s and early 70s and started recording for RCA and, especially, EMI. Before that it was the Philharmonia, and before that the Royal Philharmonic (under Beecham).

The same thing holds true of the German orchestras, the finest of which (for me) has always been the Staatskapelle Dresden--vastly superior to the Berlin Phil, especially since that ensemble has deteriorated under Abbado and Rattle, and which enjoyed the huge commercial advantage under Karajan of being the flagship ensemble of West Germany (and DG and to a lesser extent EMI) during decades of the Cold War. Again, what has that got to do with music?

I also agree with Barry about the relative rankings of the American orchestras, but then Chicago was led for so many years by Solti, who had a big following and major connections in the UK, and he recorded for Decca exclusively. Recordings by Ormandy, Bernstein, and Szell on Sony (then Columbia) were far less accessible overseas in the 60s and 70s, before the major labels became part of big international entertainment conglomerates. So once again non-musical factors come into play. The survey is further compromised by the fact that no one participating has access to the one piece of information that might be useful: the experience of hearing all of these orchestras over time in concert, season after season. Indeed, the criteria used consist of just about everything BUT actual musical quality of results in real time. So what are they really measuring and who on earth who loves music should care?

The real reason that surveys like this are done is because they raise the profile of the magazine because folks like us talk about them. That is their sole justification.

Dave H