The Classical Chat Thread

[Brian]

The Park Avenue Chamber Symphony's bass trombone player is now Donald Trump Jr.'s attorney.

[Karl Henning]

The Park Avenue Chamber Symphony's bass trombone player is now Donald Trump Jr.'s attorney.

A few thoughts (some of which may possibly apply):

• Even in New York, many musicians have another (and non-musical) job.
• An attorney who is also a musician may be (to speak figuratively) hungrier than an attorney free of such a, shall we say,
  distraction.
• The trombonist presumably thinks this is a fairly good idea at present.  I hope for his sake he does not to regret the decision.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

The Park Avenue Chamber Symphony's bass trombone player is now Donald Trump Jr.'s attorney.

One of the horn players of the Vienna Academy Orchestra is a top shelf lawyer from LA.

But realistically, one better look at it the other way round: A top shelf lawyer from LA indulges in her hobby, horn-playing, with the OWA... and is allowed to do so, because she brings connections & money to the party. (She isn't terribly good but very decent for an amateur.) Similar situation above: a lawyer who played trombone in an orchestra as a semi-professional hobby (probably also getting his spot in that band through his extra-musical merits) has simply gotten another lawyer-job.

[Brian]

Well it is worth noting that the Park Avenue Chamber Symphony is not a professional orchestra but is composed of classically-trained part timers; there is a hedge fund manager violinist and a UN officer in the cellos. If I were to take away an extra-musical lesson from this, it's the difficulty trained musicians have finding work in that field, and the desire they still have, after switching to a more lucrative career, to continue pursuing a musical life.

[Karl Henning]

Of course, it is possible that none of my thoughts apply.

[Brian]

Of course, it is possible that none of my thoughts apply.

Certainly after Trump Jr. spent the morning posting potentially self-incriminating emails, the third point applies.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

Latest on Forbes.com

Hamburg's Elbphilharmonie is glorious. But at a 20th (!) of its cost, Bochum's very fine new venue might be a better model for future concert halls.


On Time, On Budget: Bochum's New Concert Hall
Might Be A Better Model Than Hamburg's Elbphilharmonie

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenslaurson/2017/07/20/on-time-on-budget-bochums-new-concert-hall-might-be-a-better-model-than-hamburgs-elbphilharmonie/#3239fee86d52

[Pat B]

Hamburg's Elbphilharmonie is glorious. But at a 20th (!) of its cost, Bochum's very fine new venue might be a better model for future concert halls.

From a quick peek at wikipedia, the Elbphilharmonie is a much larger facility, with double the capacity in both halls, an organ, a parking garage, and a (presumably revenue-generating) hotel. The building itself is a tourist attraction. I don't disagree with your points that Hamburg paid a premium and that many cities will just want a nice hall, I just want to emphasize that the cost comparison is apples to oranges.

Your article is excellent.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

From a quick peek at wikipedia, the Elbphilharmonie is a much larger facility, with double the capacity in both halls, an organ, a parking garage, and a (presumably revenue-generating) hotel. The building itself is a tourist attraction. I don't disagree with your points that Hamburg paid a premium and that many cities will just want a nice hall, I just want to emphasize that the cost comparison is apples to oranges.

Your article is excellent.

Of course the two places are VERY different. Not that the size or the organ accounts for the Elbphilharmonie (I was lucky to be at its opening, too) having been 20 (!) times as expensive. It's the ambitiousness of the project and in particular its location + the ineptitude along the way. What I meant to suggest is that the Bochum-model is one to which more places could realistically look than the "Temple-at-all-costs" model of Hamburg. Even though, in its way, it's working out for them, of course. As the Hamburg Intendant said: "We could put a janitor playing the jewish harp on the bill, and we'd still sell out the large hall for the next two years." It's got an attraction-quality of its own that the Bochum hall doesn't exude.

[Pat B]

Of course the two places are VERY different. Not that the size or the organ accounts for the Elbphilharmonie (I was lucky to be at its opening, too) having been 20 (!) times as expensive. It's the ambitiousness of the project and in particular its location + the ineptitude along the way.

I basically agree (taking your word on the ineptitude part). You would expect a 2x-sized building to have about 2x cost. But even looking at the per-seat cost, Hamburg is 10x more than Bochum. Accounting for the other things I mentioned (hotel, garage, organ) brings it down to maybe 8x, still a whopping cost for location and design.

What I meant to suggest is that the Bochum-model is one to which more places could realistically look than the "Temple-at-all-costs" model of Hamburg. Even though, in its way, it's working out for them, of course... It's got an attraction-quality of its own that the Bochum hall doesn't exude.

Totally agree with all of this.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

I basically agree (taking your word on the ineptitude part). You would expect a 2x-sized building to have about 2x cost. But even looking at the per-seat cost, Hamburg is 10x more than Bochum. Accounting for the other things I mentioned (hotel, garage, organ) brings it down to maybe 8x, still a whopping cost for location and design.

Totally agree with all of this.

Well, technically you would expect a 2x size building to have about 8x the cost. I (mis)remember a mythical story about how the Colossus of Rhodes was conceived and the Rhodesians asked a neighbouring people to build it for them. The latter projected the cost, the Rhodesians agreed, and the project was about to be tackled when the Rhodesians said: "Wait a minute, actually... maybe we'd like it twice as tall as projected, after all. Could you do that? Obviously we'd pay you twice the amount!" And the other tribe, being maths-challenged (which is strange for a tribe good at engineering difficult things; another hole in the story) said: "Okeydokey, sure thing." Only to realize, too late, that a three-dimensional body doubled in size means eight times the volume ... and went bancrupt over the incident.

Fanciful, but the story still is in me and reminds me every time I think of cubic-anything that doubling meand octupling. That said, a modern a concert hall wouldn't necessarily 8 times as expensive because on the inside is mostly air... nor does double the seats mean that twice the size a building would be necessary.

That said (I have the hard facts somewhere but not off the top of my head), I'm sure that the Elbphilharmonie is WELL over twice -- in fact probably ten+ times -- in volume what the Bochum Anneliese Brost Musikzentrum is. Probably even if one counted the church. The Elbphilharmonie is gigantic and massive and complicated and a real engineering feet. Herzog & Meuron said it had been their most challenging project, by far. The cost overrun in the end was caused a.) by insufficient planning and calculating the cost (perhaps partly intentional/tolerated, to get the initial estimated cost down and make the project politically more feasible), b.) encountering unforseen problems that further pushed cost, and c.) by said ineptitude of a complete lack of communication between the various parties responsible to plan and build the thing. In short: You are right in saying the places are not quite comparable...
I'm sure the Elbphilharmonie will turn out to be something like a minor Neuschwanstein for Hamburg... not as long-lived, not AS popular, but still a civic milestone of iconic proportions that people will soon say was worth it all. (If they don't already say that, given how popular it is.)

[Pat B]

Fanciful, but the story still is in me and reminds me every time I think of cubic-anything that doubling meand octupling. That said, a modern a concert hall wouldn't necessarily 8 times as expensive because on the inside is mostly air... nor does double the seats mean that twice the size a building would be necessary.

If you double each dimension, then the volume is 8x but the surface area is 4x.

I don't think concert halls scale like that in height, but I could be wrong.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

If you double each dimension ... 8x but the surface area is 4x.

Really? If I have a cube with the height of 1, it has the surface area 6-square. If my cube gets increased to the height of 2, the surface area is, if I am having this straight, 6x4... ah, yes, I see.   

I don't think concert halls scale like that in height, but I could be wrong.

You'd be right, EXCEPT with the Elbphilharmonie, which just happens to go really, really high up - not just the building, but the concert hall itself.

(Though we've stopped comparing, of course, knowing that one was really "just a building" and the other one was a true modern engineering feat.

[Pat B]

Really? If I have a cube with the height of 1, it has the surface area 6-square. If my cube gets increased to the height of 2, the surface area is, if I am having this straight, 6x4... ah, yes, I see.   

You'd be right, EXCEPT with the Elbphilharmonie, which just happens to go really, really high up - not just the building, but the concert hall itself.

(Though we've stopped comparing, of course, knowing that one was really "just a building" and the other one was a true modern engineering feat.

On a semi-related note, I read that London is again considering a new hall, this time at the Barbican, but not as a replacement for the existing hall. It would take the current place of the Museum of London which is moving elsewhere. Apparently the budget was £278M but has been revised down to £250M. Assuming the project comes to fruition, what's the over-under on final cost?

[SurprisedByBeauty]

re. Apparently the budget was £278M but has been revised down to £250M. Assuming the project comes to fruition, what's the over-under on final cost?

Ha! I'll give you 640.

p.s.

Latest on Forbes:


Classical CD Of The Week: Friedrich Cerha Succumbs To Lulu At Night

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenslaurson/2017/07/25/classical-cd-of-the-week-friedrich-cerha-succumbs-to-lulu-at-night/#194656c03cd3

[Pat B]

Ha! I'll give you 640.

If there is one city that really does not need a splashy, attention-grabbing concert hall, it is London. (If there are two, the other would be Paris, but that spaceship has already launched.)

But I have seen the list of architects they're considering, so I'll take the over.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

If there is one city that really does not need a splashy, attention-grabbing concert hall, it is London.

But they COULD use a REALLY GOOD hall! I hate the Barbican (outside more than inside, but not by MUCH), and Southbank ain't very sexy or great-sounding... though it's workmanlike OK.

[Brian]

I like Southbank a good deal. Barbican is godawful inside and out. And of course it can't fit an orchestra, but Wigmore is divine.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

I like Southbank a good deal. Barbican is godawful inside and out. And of course it can't fit an orchestra, but Wigmore is divine.

The programming is the best part of Wigmore, though; the acoustic fine is surely overrated, at least for the last 15 rows where, by some evil coincidence, I seem to sit every time I'm there.

[Pat B]

Barbican is godawful inside and out.

I haven't been there. Do you dislike Brutalism in general or do you think Barbican is a bad instance of it?