# What exactly constitutes an excellent orchestra?



## Almaviva

Pardon me for being naive, I'm just an opera lover with much less knowledge of other forms of classical music; I don't play an instrument; and I can only read music in the most basic way. So, I'd like to learn from our learned musicians, sophisticated listeners, and music scholars/students in our forum, about what exactly constitutes an excellent orchestra.

Of course, I'm aware of the most obvious standards - it needs to be made of good musicians, they need to interact well with the conductor without being a herd of cats, they need to play accurately, etc. 

But this is not helpful for the quasi-lay person like me. I can tell when an amateur or student orchestra is not that good, but just paying attention to these most obvious standards is not as useful when comparing two senior orchestras that wouldn't commit the most blatant mistakes. Still, how can I tell which one is better than the other if they both at least keep up with basic standards?

Is an orchestra just as good as its conductor? Can we separately gauge an orchestra independently of the conductor, as in, a good orchestra would work well with any conductor while a less good one would have trouble adapting to a different conductor?

Do orchestras have a personality? How can we tell if they do? Is it a question of resonance, of specific sounds? Do they keep this personality over time, or is it mostly impacted upon them by their then current music director/conductor?

What about specialization? We have several HIP by smaller orchestras with period instruments for baroque music, for instance. This much is easy to understand, but what about other major general orchestras that take upon a more varied repertory; can we say that some orchestras are good at playing a part of the repertory or some specific composers, while others are good at something else?

Would you please back your explanations with YouTube clips, hopefully showing not only what an orchestra is doing right, but also what some other orchestra is doing wrong or poorly?

It would also be nice if you guys could tell me what specific orchestras you consider to be great, and most importantly, why so, hopefully with examples of CDs or DVDs in which they fully display their talents.

Thank you in advance for your kindness in guiding me through the answers to these questions.


----------



## emiellucifuge

The best orchestras have a very very specific character, that has developed over many years.

Think about it, if you join an orchestra there will be more experienced musicians from whom you will learn. They will retire but you will stay on to pass the knowledge to the next generation. If an orchestra exists for say 100 years, than a very distinct musical culture will have formed within the orchestra.

The Concertgebouw is often described as having a special relationship with Mahler's music, even today. This is because during his lifetime Mahler conducted the orchestra many times. The chief-conductor, Willem Mengelberg, at the time was very proactive in getting Mahler's music performed. No doubt some of the musical 'secrets' gained at that time will still exist within the orchestra.

No doubt a good chief-conductor will build upon the legacy of those before him. I would definitely say different orchestras are stronger in different parts of the repertoire. Some have special relationships with the composers. It is often to do with the country their in, e.g. French orchestras tend to do better with french composers.... And is definitely impacted by the preferences of each conductor. The Concertgebouw has had many great Mahler conductors at its helm, Haitink, Mengelberg, Chailly. Perhaps the fact that there have only been 6 conductors in its 123 year history also means something.

The orchestra is also often described as having 'golden brass', and 'velvet strings'. This is probably attributable to the wuality of the musicians playing and to the wuality of the instruments they play. However I suspect their secret weapon is the concert-hall in which they play whichnhas some of the best acoustics in the world. The orchestra has adapted wonderfully to this acoustical setting to the point of perfection.
Finally, there has to also be some sense of feeling the music together. The orchestra should play as one instrument. Instruments should come in and fade out smoothly. For example if a melody is switched from one instrument to the other, I am always surprised by the incredible seamlessness with which the Concertgebouw manages this. It is as if the instrument gradually changes timbre of itself.

Listen to this video:




See how incredibly smoothly the clarinet takes over from the oboe and then back after the second chord? And after that the horn, and then after the violins finish their ascending scale the winds come in so extremely perfectly on time.

You can probably tell I believe this to be the greatest orchestra on earth.

After seeing the orchestra many, many times Ive been able to see them with both good and (imo) bad conductors. Having established that this is a good orchestra, it is pretty obvious when a bad performance is the conductors fault. Often the orchestra will still play the notes to near perfection, but the conductors interpretation will be at fault, i.e. Bad choice of tempi.

PS: ive edited the post multiple times.


----------



## samurai

Hi emiellucifuge. Thank You so much for posting the Beethoven link. I am just about to purchase the 1964 recording of this work done by Leonard Bernstein and the New York Philharmonic. The second movement already had me hooked, and I haven't even seen "King's Speech"yet! I was fascinated by something else you included in your reply to Almaviva re: Mahler's "secrets" that this great orchestra might have inherited from him because he had conducted them on occasion. Could you explain what you are referring to, perhaps?
Thanks again!


----------



## emiellucifuge

Im not really too sure, but it will be details that Mahler instructed the orchestra to perform. For example, accents, comments on the nature of the work, phrasing etc...

Ill have to go read through that book again...


----------



## samurai

emiellucifuge said:


> Im not really too sure, but it will be details that Mahler instructed the orchestra to perform. For example, accents, comments on the nature of the work, phrasing etc...
> 
> Ill have to go read through that book again...


Thanks so much--I really look forward to hearing from you on this topic!


----------



## Vaneyes

Talent, you can't miss it. It's the most obvious piece of the orchestral pie. The sound that emits is the calling card for the organization, worldwide.

Reading a 1998 problem solver--The Orchestra Forum: A Discussion of Symphony Orchestras in the US, one can quickly deduce what's present in spades for the great ones. Such as, the musicians respect for the orchestra as a society, and continuing education and inspiration on a consistent basis from a music director.

http://www.mellon.org/news_publications/annual-reports-essays/presidents-essays/the-orchestra-forum-the-orchestra-forum-a-discussion-of-symphony-orchestras-in-the-us


----------



## Tapkaara

I'd say excellent players with an excellent conductor. If their instruments are excellent, and the hall is too, well, that's just icing on the cake! As Bill and Ted would say: "Excellent!"


----------



## Almaviva

emiellucifuge said:


> You can probably tell I believe this to be the greatest orchestra on earth.
> 
> After seeing the orchestra many, many times Ive been able to see them with both good and (imo) bad conductors. Having established that this is a good orchestra, it is pretty obvious when a bad performance is the conductors fault. Often the orchestra will still play the notes to near perfection, but the conductors interpretation will be at fault, i.e. Bad choice of tempi.
> 
> PS: ive edited the post multiple times.


Thanks, Emiel. You are not alone, since I got from more than one source that the Royal Concertgebouw is currently the best orchestra in the world, with the Wiener Philharmoniker and the Berliner Philharmoniker in close pursuit. When I first learned about the excellence of this orchestra, I bought a DVD of one of their performances - tone poems from Richard Strauss - and I was absolutely stunned with the richness of their sound. One of these days I shall go to Amsterdam to listen to them in person.

But then, I'd love to have the opposite example for my learning: would you have a YouTube clip that would demonstrate a weak performance of the same work - Beethoven's 7th - so that I can compare? I'd like to understand - with my ears - the difference between an outstanding performance, and a so-so performance, and why.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I must admit I did try for you, but I could not find anything. There are numerous excellent recordings by for example Kleiber on youtube. The playing here is obviously near perfection too, and so the differences between that and Haitink's will be more to do with the interpretation. Unfortunately The only other thing I found was this, which I believe to be an amateur orchestra:





If you do care to listen then do compare the begiNning to the Haitink video. Note how the sounds fail to blend. Also, im a little dissapointed by how 'un'staccato the violin playing is. Its likely that each violinist is playing staccato, but if they are not playing exactly together, the sound will blur.


----------



## Almaviva

Thanks, Emiel, I'm a little busy now but will listen attentively when I have a moment.


----------



## TxllxT

I've noticed that the Concertgebouw Orchestra is always mentioned in one breath with Bernard Haitink. No word about Riccardo Chailly and only a few about Mariss Jansons.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Thats true. I believe Jansons is the greatest living conductor so you wont hear me complaining. Haitink is obviously legendary. Chailly is meant oto be very good but I confess I havent explored much of his recordings.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Tapkaara said:


> I'd say excellent players with an *excellent conductor*. If their instruments are excellent, and the hall is too, well, that's just icing on the cake! As Bill and Ted would say: "Excellent!"


You could have the best orchestra in the world - but if you have a bad conductor, they'll be terrible. However, great conductors can make the most where talent may be lacking. And like you said, the rest is icing on the cake.

I think a lot of it has to do with the conductor just because that's where it could really go hit or miss.

Example 1: I think the Hartford Symphony Orchestra has very good talent...but they have a horrific conductor...and it makes all the difference with that group.

Example 2: Ever see Stravinsky conduct?


----------



## hemidemisemiquaver

Romantic Geek said:


> You could have the best orchestra in the world - but if you have a bad conductor, they'll be terrible. However, great conductors can make the most where talent may be lacking. And like you said, the rest is icing on the cake.


Same here with piano accompanists: the singer may be worst ever, but if they're professional, they can tone down sharp details... It doesn't mean that they will have a desire to do that, though. Consequently, the best orchestra in the world would boycott a terrible conductor, because they know better than anybody that conductor is heavily responsible for result, playing a coordinating and very important role. So I agree that no orchestra can be excellent with poor conducting.


----------



## Saturnus

Romantic Geek said:


> You could have the best orchestra in the world - but if you have a bad conductor, they'll be terrible.


I've heard about orchestras being known for simply not following conductors they don't like. The BPO is probably the most famous example, if a conductor doesn't earn the players' acceptance the players will just play as they please or even bad to ensure that the conductor doesn't get hired again.
The BPO can do just fine without a conductor, I once heard a concert on the radio where they played without a conductor to commemorate someone.


----------



## daspianist

Saturnus said:


> I've heard about orchestras being known for simply not following conductors they don't like. The BPO is probably the most famous example, if a conductor doesn't earn the players' acceptance the players will just play as they please or even bad to ensure that the conductor doesn't get hired again.
> The BPO can do just fine without a conductor, I once heard a concert on the radio where they played without a conductor to commemorate someone.


I am most curious to see videos of some bad conductors - paired with reasonably good orchestras. One name that jumps to my head is Rossen Milanov ... I have had the pleasure of playing side by side at an rehearsal with Philadelphia Orchestra musicians, and their advice to me was "Don't pay attention - he doesn't know what he's doing."

And yeah, his conducting is most.. trying - overladen with artificial gestures and needless cues, lack of emotional involvement with the orchestra, and just in general boring programming. Sorry if it sounded mean, Rossen, but c'est la vie.

Any other nicht so gut conductors you guys could think of?


----------



## Vaneyes

Reiner and his tight beat. Karajan with eyes wide shut. Dutoit gyrations. Lenny's jumping. Obviously, anything goes once you've made it. Hey, atleast they used batons.


----------



## Almaviva

Vaneyes said:


> Reiner and his tight beat. Karajan with eyes wide shut. Dutoit gyrations. Lenny's jumping. Obviously, anything goes once you've made it. Hey, atleast they used batons.


Are batons really important? Gergiev's waving fingers, for instance, seem to this lay person - me - rather efficient in conveying cues. I was watching a DVD with him (and I recently watched him live in a concert) and it seemed to me that the waving of his fingers was rather precise and evocative.

I understand that batons are mostly used to mark the beat/tempo, and other cues are given through all sorts of other body language. But then, one can still mark the tempo using one's hand, no?


----------



## Meaghan

Unconventional conductors can still be effective leaders. I had a youth orchestra conductor who could out-jump Lenny (whom I admire, btw) and did not always use a baton, but we still improved vastly under his direction because 
1. He commanded our respect and attention by being respectful and attentive (as well as authoritative and musically intelligent) and 
2. He had clear and coherent visions of exactly how he wanted the music to sound and communicated these to the musicians in a straightforward way and
3. He _loved_ the music and it showed, and that made us love it too, and want to play it well.

One of the nice things about batons, though, is that they make it easier to see the beat from further back in the orchestra (like for us clarinets). Whether or not a baton is necessary is partly dependent on the size of the ensemble.


----------



## Almaviva

emiellucifuge said:


> I must admit I did try for you, but I could not find anything. There are numerous excellent recordings by for example Kleiber on youtube. The playing here is obviously near perfection too, and so the differences between that and Haitink's will be more to do with the interpretation. Unfortunately The only other thing I found was this, which I believe to be an amateur orchestra:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you do care to listen then do compare the begiNning to the Haitink video. Note how the sounds fail to blend. Also, im a little dissapointed by how 'un'staccato the violin playing is. Its likely that each violinist is playing staccato, but if they are not playing exactly together, the sound will blur.


Thanks again, Emiel. The difference is rather striking and has increased my understanding. If you or anyone else here has more examples of a good orchestra and a so-so orchestra performing the same piece, please post them for us, together with an explanation just like you did, Emiel.


----------



## tchaik

My own sense is that different orchestra/conductor combinations work well for different composers/pieces. 

For instance, when it comes to light classical forms such as the Viennese Waltz or anything by the Strauss family, I find myself preferring the Vienna Philharmonic - I have particularly enjoyed the New Year concerts with Zubin Mehta. On the other hand, with more serious music such as Brahms, I have liked the Bavarian Radio Symphony (Munich) or the Leipzig Gewendhaus. Recently, I have been very impressed by several Tchaikovsky recordings with Japanese orchestras (Hiroyuki Iwaki and NHK Symphony Orchestra or w. Charles Dutoit). Many years ago, one of my favorite recordings for the Beethoven Eroica was with John Barbirolli and the BBC Symphony. While I imagine few would be familiar with the Zagreb Philharmonic but I loved their recording of Mozart's K414 and K449 piano concertos. And to date, my favorite recording of the Schumann Piano Concerto has been with the Slovak Philharmonic, although before that, my favorite was Lili Kraus with the Paris Conservatoire. I have also like several works performed by the Gothenberg Symphony w. Neeme Jarvi conducting. For opera, I find myself liking the Met although La Scala Milan is an obvious safe bet for Verdi. (Maazel's Aida with La Scala is quite impessive in the grand choruses for instance.) So I prefer to think of "great recordings" or great performances" rather than ranking orchestras in the abstract. 

All world class orchestras have their own unique stamp and it is perhaps a matter of taste as to what tempo, what texture, what tonal balance and color you prefer for a particular piece. 

Also, one can be impressed by a conductor's interpretation of a specific piece with a particular orchestra and yet not be partial to either the conductor or that orchestra in general. For instance, I was very moved by Seiji Ozawa/Berlin Phil doing Tchaikovsky's 6th - but I am not a particular fan of Ozawa or the Berlin Phil on all occasions.


----------

