# Orchestras as a reflection of their city?



## RonP

That's probably a poorly-worded thread title, so I'll try to explain myself a bit. I'm a native Baltimorean who now resides in the DC area and so I have the great luxury of being able to hear both the Baltimore Symphony and National Symphony perform. I enjoy visiting the Kennedy Center and the NSO does a great job, but it seems like they portray my impressions of DC - cosmopolitan, top-flight (especially since they can afford to have Eschenbach as music director), kinda "aloof". I just don't "connect" with them.

Meanwhile, I feel at "home" with Baltimore. Still a good orchestra, but it seems like some of their best music directors (Alsop and Zinman) spend a lot of time doing community outreach and inviting the city into the Meyerhoff Hall. Yeah, they do a lot of pops-oriented stuff like Legends of Zelda, but it fills seats and might encourage folks who don't know classical music to come back and hear the "serious" repertoire. Alsop has started an OrchKids program to help inner-city kids gain exposure to classical music and now there's also a Rusty Musicians program. Yet they can do an admirable job with the serious stuff and while creating an inviting atmosphere. 

In a way, the BSO reflects Baltimore - good, solid folks who are maybe not as sophisitcated as DC, but take a lot fo pride in what they do. It's almost the difference between the fancy living room couch no one sits on and the recliner you use to watch football.

Anyone else have a similar experience in other cities?


----------



## Guest

Hello Ron! I've a couple of points I'd like to run by you, and to be frank I'm going to be critical about what you have said. 
I'll start this way: I live in a city that borders major towns/cities in central eastern Europe with their respective orchestras: Strasbourg, Mannheim, Heidelberg, Lucerne, Basle, Zurich ... Some of these orchestras (and 'subsidiary' ensembles) have an international reputation, others a more local one, but in all cases they are professional orchestras. To be frank with you, my ear is not overly (if at all) attuned to their respective merits, so what I read in your post is that you maybe have more of a 'perceived difference' rather than a concretely aural one; I think two musicological buzzwords come to mind at this point, these being, respectively, 'delineated' and 'alienated' approaches to one's listening practices.


----------



## RonP

I have no complaints with either orchestra's level of playing. Both do a fine job to my ears, although someone with more acuity might notice some differences. The difference to me seems more in the "atmosphere" each one portrays.


----------



## Guest

So if you were to listen to each 'acousmatically' (I think it was Aristotle or Socrates who first advocated this), you would not be able to tell the difference. If that is the case, let the primacy of the ear dominate and **** the suits.


----------



## Hector

I live in an area where we have three major orchestras and many other four-programs-a-year orchestras that may have the same musicians. The Los Angeles Philharmonic, the Pacific Symphony and the San Diego Symphony are the three big orchestras and they kind of reflect their cities or their aspirations, like you said, towards their community. The L.A. ensemble is of course one of the top orchestras in the nation with very varied programming, most anything you can think of music, the LA Phil´s got it. The Pacific Symphony and the San Diego Symphony have more symphonic programming, not so much chamber or new music, etc. that L.A offers, but great quality in music making. 

The rest of the orchestras are too numerous to mention, and though I've never seen them live, I'm pretty sure they have quality players from the great pool of freelance musicians that work in the recording industry. Off the top of my head, I can mention the Pasadena Symphony, the Long Beach Symphony, the Santa Barbara Symphony, New West Symphony, Riverside County Philharmonic and the Orquesta de Baja California.


----------

