Hi All,
What is/are the difference(s), if any, between the 2 please ? Is it anything to do with the instruments sections, numbers of musicians in it, etc ?
Thanks.
i'm not sure, could be just different ways to say the same thing, but i could be wrong.
There is no difference at all. A matter of choice in making up the name of the orchestra. The LSO is the London Symphony Orchestra. The LPO is the London Philharmonic Orchestra. Both play the same repertoire, they are full size orchestras.
Mike
Okey dokey, thanks for the clarification, MT and Knight ! :)
No sweat.
Mike
The difference is huge. Philharmonic sounds way cooler. Symphony orchestra sounds like a 50 member ensemble.
You are of course joking, I am hoping the person asking the question clues into that.
The Chicago Sym. Orch. rarely sounds like a 50 piece band.
Mike
Quote from: knight on June 17, 2007, 01:14:59 PM
You are of course joking, I am hoping the person asking the question clues into that.
The Chicago Sym. Orch. rarely sounds like a 50 piece band.
Mike
I was
obviously joking.
Quote from: knight on June 17, 2007, 01:14:59 PM
You are of course joking, I am hoping the person asking the question clues into that.
The Chicago Sym. Orch. rarely sounds like a 50 piece band.
Mike
Only when Zinman's conducting. :)
This subject reminds me of the orchestra that changed its name to "Symphonicity"...you've probably all seen this before:
http://www.playbillarts.com/news/article/6282.html
The Virginia Beach Symphony has decided to rebrand itself as 'Symphonicity,' reports The Virginian-Pilot.
Orchestra management announced its new name at a concert on April 1. Music director David Kunkel told his audience that the 26-year-old orchestra decided to rename itself for two reasons. First, it wants to minimize confusion with the Virginia Symphony Orchestra, based in nearby Norfolk and led by JoAnn Falletta.
Secondly, the orchestra will shortly move into a new and larger home at the Sandler Center for the Performing Arts, where its first concert is scheduled for November 18. It needs to attract a bigger audience and thus also requires a beefed-up marketing campaign.
According to the Virginian-Pilot, the orchestra hired a consultant and brainstormed a list of hundreds of possible names. The result was Symphonicity, with a fermata over the first "i." In print, the name will always be accompanied by a six-word subtitle, "The Symphony Orchestra of Virginia Beach," until people get accustomed to the new name.
The newspaper report points out that Symphonicity sounds a lot like "Synchronicity," the 1983 album and song by The Police, which is the first thing Robin MacPherson, senior art director at HCD Advertising & Public Relations, thought of when she saw the new name.
"It's a $50 word, that's for sure," Dan Downing, executive vice president at HCD, told the paper. "But it's something that you see it, you don't forget it."
I wonder if this will inspire a Philharmonic orchestra to change their name to "Philharmonious?"
"Syn - phonein ": sound together
phonos (phoh NOHS), "voice"
and the Greek :syn-(sy-, sym-, syl-, sys-). (Greek: together, with, along with).
By extension, syn- may also mean: together, with; united; same, similar; at the same time.
Phil - harmonia : friend(s) of harmony / sounding together / Devoted to or appreciative of music.
From the Greek : philo-, phil-, -phile, -philia, -philic, -philous, -phily, -philiac, -philist, -philism (Greek: love, loving, friendly to, fondness for, attraction to, strong tendency toward, affinity for).
Harmon : (Greek > Latin: a fitting together, joining, proportion, concord, agreement, musical harmony)
Peter
Thanks :)
and yes, Philarmonic sounds waaaaaaaaaaaaay cooler indeed :P
And then there are those orchestras that don't call themselves either, like the Cleveland Orchestra, the Hollywood Bowl Orchestra and the Philadelphia Orchestra. :D
Quote from: knight on June 17, 2007, 01:14:59 PM
You are of course joking, I am hoping the person asking the question clues into that.
The Chicago Sym. Orch. rarely sounds like a 50 piece band.
Mike
The Berliner Philharmoniker has 90 members. The Chicago Symphony Orchestra has 106 members.
Them's da facts.
I know, I know, it is nitpicking ...but : ::)
I count 124 members at the Berlin PO.....( incl. 4 Konzertmeister;,excl. 3 or 4 open posts)....see: http://www.berliner-philharmoniker.de/de/orchester/ :)
Peter
Nowadays there's no significance in the use of philharmonic or symphony in the names of orchestras.
However, I believe it is the case that at some points in the past, in some places, the name philharmonic did carry a connotation of amateurism - in the sense of being an enthusiast - or charitable status e.g. the considerable number of "Philharmonic Societies" and "Philharmonic Choirs" which sprang up in Britain in the 19th century. (It was the Philharmonic Society of London, later Royal Philharmonic Society, which commissioned Beethoven's 9th Symphony.)
It's an odd thing though - composers write symphonies but no one writes philharmonies. I wonder why?
Quote from: RebLem on June 19, 2007, 11:02:11 PM
The Berliner Philharmoniker has 90 members. The Chicago Symphony Orchestra has 106 members.
Them's da facts.
BPO certainly has more than that. Just look up their Mahler videos...huge orchestra and chorus.
Quote from: techniquest on June 20, 2007, 01:57:24 PM
It's an odd thing though - composers write symphonies but no one writes philharmonies.
Nope. Just philm scores. ;)
Quote from: techniquest on June 20, 2007, 01:57:24 PM
It's an odd thing though - composers write symphonies but no one writes philharmonies. I wonder why?
Maybe this will give one of our resident composers and idea.
Anyway, a slight variation on this is "Philharmonia". The Utah Philharmonia is one of the student orchestras at the University of Utah, and the Utah Symphony is the local professional orchestra.
Heather
Quote from: techniquest on June 20, 2007, 01:57:24 PM
It's an odd thing though - composers write symphonies but no one writes philharmonies. I wonder why?
;D ;D ;D
Anyway- some composers wrote pieces with names like : Concerto philharmonico ( 1990-1992 Gotfried von Einem -for the Vienna Phil.)
Preludio filharmonico by Czech Evžen Zámečník ( 1980) -
What are the differences between the BBC Philharmonic, Symphony Orchestra, and Concert Orchestra? The Concert Orchestra works in TV and film more I think. Is the BBC SO considered the premier ensemble?
The Concert Orchestra is indeed specialized in "lighter music". The S is in London, the P in Manchester. That's the only real difference. Who cares what is "considered" this or that? They are both good orchestras. There is also a BBC Scottish Sympony and BBC National Orchestra of Wales. Never heard the latter, but I heard the the former, it is quite good, too.
The NOW is my favourite of the BBC orchestras, having developed a sinewy, gritty sound under Walter Weller that is/was great e.g. in Bruckner. Unfortunately it all went a bit soggy under Hickox - but they are still a fine outfit.
QuoteThe Concert Orchestra is indeed specialized in "lighter music". The S is in London, the P in Manchester. That's the only real difference.
Location, gotcha. I think they're equally fine orchestras myself but always was curious just what the distinction was with the different names. In fact one of my favorite discs I've run across lately is a vivacious live Mahler 6th from the BBC Phil under Mackerras, the playing of both ensembles is top-notch.
Historically the London orchestra would get the more prestigous cheif conductors, Boult, Kempe, Boulez etc. But in recent years, they have all managed to attract rather good chiefs. For instance Ilan Volkov from 2003 in Scotland, he is a really exciting conductor.
Here are some samples of him....
http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/artist_page.asp?name=volkov
Mike
The symphony orchestra is the "modern" orchestra of the romantic period after Schubert and Berlioz, including nearly all instruments like the trombones, the harp and others on demand (piccolo, bass clarinet). The philarmonic is just another fancy name ;D
Quote from: Bonehelm on June 20, 2007, 05:38:11 PM
BPO certainly has more than that. Just look up their Mahler videos...huge orchestra and chorus.
Quote from: pjme on June 20, 2007, 07:44:00 AM
I know, I know, it is nitpicking ...but : ::)
I count 124 members at the Berlin PO.....( incl. 4 Konzertmeister;,excl. 3 or 4 open posts)....see: http://www.berliner-philharmoniker.de/de/orchester/ :)
You are correct. The BP have 128 permanent members, although rarely all of the positions are filled at the same time. They sometimes take a lot of time to fill them with people who live up to their expectations.
In addition to that, at any time, they have 30 young musicians in the "Orchester-Akademie" which is an institution attached to the orchestra. It offers a kind of postgraduate study program/internship with the orchestra for 2 years, and these young musicians play in the orchestra regularly, too.
The typical size of most bigger concert/radio/opera orchestras in Germany is about that, typically around 110-130 members or so. There are about 40 orchestras of that size, I think. They usually have 5 of each wind instruments (but 8 horns), and about 70-80 string players. That doesn't mean they all play at the same time. They have to have time off now and then.
The biggest orchestra is the Gewandhausorchester which has 192 permanent members. They do full time concert and opera.
The seond biggest is the Staatskapelle Dresden with 162 members. They do full time opera and not a full season of concerts, but they are heavily in demand for concert tours, festival appearances, recordings.
The concept of the "orchestral academy" was introduced by the BP in the early 70s (it was actually Karajan's idea) because they found that many graduates from music schools were very good, but not quite ready yet. So they started that.
It provides young musicians who are already very good, but who need some more experience and routine, with an opportunity to bridge that critical time between studying and working full time, and it allows them to "shape" young musicians and integrate them into the orchestra. Plus, it provides them with a pool of extra musicians they can draw from any time since the academists play with the orchestra regularly, sometimes almost full time when there are open positions.
The academists do not automatically become members after 2 years, they still have to take part in the auditions when positions are open. Some of them stay, some of them get jobs in other good orchestras.
That concept has been picked up by many other orchestras and opera houses, so most of them have similar insitutions now.
Quote from: M forever on June 27, 2007, 07:22:25 AM
The concept of the "orchestral academy" was introduced by the BP in the early 70s (it was actually Karajan's idea) because they found that many graduates from music schools were very good, but not quite ready yet. So they started that.
It provides young musicians who are already very good, but who need some more experience and routine, with an opportunity to bridge that critical time between studying and working full time, and it allows them to "shape" young musicians and integrate them into the orchestra. Plus, it provides them with a pool of extra musicians they can draw from any time since the academists play with the orchestra regularly, sometimes almost full time when there are open positions.
The academists do not automatically become members after 2 years, they still have to take part in the auditions when positions are open. Some of them stay, some of them get jobs in other good orchestras.
That concept has been picked up by many other orchestras and opera houses, so most of them have similar insitutions now.
Actually, that was not really that novel of an idea. E.g., the Civic Orchestra of Chicago, the training orchestra of the CSO, was founded in 1919. Martinon and Reiner were quite involved with it. It languished a bit under Solti, but Barenboim revived it again. See also here (http://www.cso.org/main.taf?p=2,4,6,4). They train and perform with the CSO MD and guest conductors as well as their own conductor, currently Cliff Colnot. Many Civic alumni go on to become CSO members or move on to other major orchestras. I happened to catch one of their concerts a few years ago with Barenboim (as well as some open rehearsals prior to the concert) and they played really extremely well, as good as any top professional orchestra. The finest live Daphnis & Chloe I have heard, with uncanny dynamic contrasts. I am sure there are other orchestral academies as well that predate Karajan's.