« Assorted links | Main | Why are music reviews so positive? »
The world's best symphony orchestras?
Gramophone magazine polled music critics and here is the top ten list they came up with:
1 Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra
2 Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra
3 Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra
4 London Symphony Orchestra
5 Chicago Symphony Orchestra
6 Bavarian Radio Symphony
7 Cleveland Orchestra
8 Los Angeles Philharmonic
9 Budapest Festival Orchestra
10 Dresden Staatskapelle
You'll find 10-20 here, along with some discussion. The news, if that is what you would call it, is that Philadelphia does not make the list at all. Here is another discussion of the results.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 22, 2008 at 09:47 PM in Music | Permalink
Comments
Where the heck is New York Phil?!
Posted by: Mark N. at Nov 22, 2008 10:04:00 PM
Where the heck is New York Phil?!#12.
Posted by: Bob Montgomery at Nov 22, 2008 10:55:45 PM
I get to see Dudamel tomorrow with the Israeli Phil. Anyone know how the Israeli Phil might rank?
Posted by: John Turner at Nov 22, 2008 11:24:56 PM
I wonder if the Asians were given a fair chance.
Posted by: Jon Claerbout at Nov 22, 2008 11:34:59 PM
Does anyone have more detail on the details of poll?
Because if they simply asked everyone "What is your favorite Orchestra", and then ranked the answers, that wouldn't be very useful. If most score agreed that a certain Orchestra was the second best in the world, it would score horribly by that metric.
Instead, you'd want every candidate to rank their schools, and then rank by average rank.
Posted by: David Shor at Nov 23, 2008 12:20:34 AM
Also missing: Montreal? Detroit?
Posted by: StreetWalker at Nov 23, 2008 12:38:12 AM
My pal James D. Jacobs, the classical music DJ and cellist argues in fact a better list would be Gramophone's top 6 minus Vienna, for a nice top 5. "A lot of these aren't what they used to be," he notes.
Posted by: StreetWalker at Nov 23, 2008 12:49:37 AM
As a native of Cleveland I'm glad to see the Cleveland Orchestra so well represented here. #7 in the world, and #2 in the US! Awesome!
Posted by: Devon Steven Phillips at Nov 23, 2008 1:34:31 AM
Perspective is everything.
There is no such thing as an unbiased classical music critic. What was their musical background, what classical era most interests them, what instrument does their wife/daughter/son play....
As a trombonist with interest in heavy romantic era classical music I'd have a decidedly different list when compared with a flutist who cherishes Haydn and Handel.
Like it or not, different orchestras excel in different musical areas and forcing some aggregate ranking is as provoking as it is misleading. (akin to school rankings?)
Posted by: Alex at Nov 23, 2008 10:45:26 AM
Amazing that Dresden can (after 45) sustain such a quality musical scene in a city of less than 500,000 people.
Posted by: Kirill at Nov 23, 2008 12:38:15 PM
Was Tel Aviv ever a Top 20 orchestra?
I've heard it argued that Israel's magnificent classical music tradition is in decline as the Ashkenazi birthrate can't keep up with that of other Israeli groups less interested in European art music.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Nov 23, 2008 10:17:38 PM
I remember that about 40 years ago it was argued that the top five in the world were all in the US, in no particular order: Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, with the only serious non-US rivals being the Berlin and the Concertgebouw. So, the more stunning story here is the collapse of the US symphonies (plus the not all that surprising rise of the Los Angeles).
I have long heard it argued that the Chicago was the top in the US, and probably the world, dating from at least the conductorship of Georg Solti, if not earlier. I have long been very impressed by them, and as an old French horn player, very aware of their superiority in brass (although when Mason Jones was playing for the Philadelphia, they were a close second), with Cleveland's strength being its string section (I have known some people in recent years arguing for the supremacy of the Cleveland).
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Nov 24, 2008 9:12:38 AM
I don't listen to any others live, but WOW! The Chicago Symphony is unbelievably outstanding. Night in and night out, it brings me near tears.
Bernard Haitink conducted Mahler's Second last week and the audience was roaring in appreciation.
Posted by: Moon at Nov 24, 2008 10:13:58 AM
1) I envy people who can actually hear that the Concergebouw (which is great) is better than the Berlin (which is great). They sound equally amazing to me. I am grateful to hear such groups play - can scarcely believe it. Try this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBbOZ7jGm_8 - or Rattle's recent Brahms Requiem CD or Abbado's older video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46tWh-rzvlA&feature=related
2) But isn't "better" a meaningless term at this level?
3) The top 3 are heavily state-funded, yes? Tyler, pls comment on the economics of a great orchestra, ok?
4) The Vienna might have a shot at first place if it hired more women.
Posted by: beedy at Nov 24, 2008 10:54:54 PM
beedy,
I think 2) is right: 'better' is meaningless at that level. I put all the top five at about the same level. Although there are particular areas (e.g. brass, for Chicago) where some orchestras stand out, there isn't one orchestra that beats all the rest in all the relevant musical aspects. This also means that your comment 3) about the top 3 orchestras being state-funded isn't very significant. The best American orchestras are mainly privately funded, and the best American orchestras are up there with the best (state-funded) European orchestras, so I doubt that the source of funding has much discernible effect on the greatness of the orchestra.
Posted by: Ponder Stibbons at Nov 25, 2008 3:23:29 AM
"Concertgebouw" is Dutch for "Concert Building"
And yes, it is heavily funded by the Dutch government. A half year ago they asked for 3 million euro extra. I don't know if they got it, but if they did, the total will be around 13 million euro. Otherwise, they couldn't pay the better musicians.
They would go to New York, Vienna or Berlin. Or London. The Hague isn't so big.
Posted by: Maciano at Nov 26, 2008 3:37:59 AM
Oops, I wrote The Hague. That must be Amsterdam.
Posted by: Maciano at Nov 26, 2008 3:42:32 AM
Is it recordings that the orchestras are judged by? Or is it live performances? If the latter I would rate Chicago (under Barenboim) higher than Vienna or Berlin which are also both outstanding. The concergebouw hall is, of course, unequalled in acoustics, something that the Avery Fisher hall in New York sadly lacks. But all of the top five are superb; it really is a shame that you have to rank them.
Posted by: Amos Benvered at Nov 29, 2008 12:49:32 PM
Please come to cheap shaiya gold, we will give you a great surprise.
Posted by: shaiya gold at Dec 31, 2008 12:02:48 AM
Gramophone's list is interesting. By comparison, the editors of Encyclopaedia Brittanica came up with their list of the best 25 in 2007: Berlin Phil, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Leipzig Gewandhaus, London Phil, London Symphony, L.A. Phil, Montreal, New York Phil, NHK Tokyo, Suisse Romande, Paris, National de France, Oslo, Philadelphia, Philharmonia (London), Pittsburgh, Royal Concertgebouw Amsterdam, Royal Phil (London), St. Louis, St. Petersburg (not Leningrad!), San Francisco, and Vienna. They presented the list in alphabetical order, saying it was utterly stupid to try to rank them. So much depends on what and where they are playing. Also, they specified that the conductor was as important, if not more important, than the orchestra.
Posted by: Mike at Feb 15, 2009 5:57:08 PM
Gramophone's list is interesting. By comparison, the editors of Encyclopaedia Brittanica came up with their list of the best 25 in 2007: Berlin Phil, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Leipzig Gewandhaus, London Phil, London Symphony, L.A. Phil, Montreal, New York Phil, NHK Tokyo, Suisse Romande, Paris, National de France, Oslo, Philadelphia, Philharmonia (London), Pittsburgh, Royal Concertgebouw Amsterdam, Royal Phil (London), St. Louis, St. Petersburg (not Leningrad!), San Francisco, and Vienna. They presented the list in alphabetical order, saying it was utterly stupid to try to rank them. So much depends on what and where they are playing. Also, they specified that the conductor was as important, if not more important, than the orchestra.
Posted by: Mike at Feb 15, 2009 5:58:23 PM
