What makes an orchestra "world-class"?

[Brian]

Forgive the length of this post. I just wanted to set a few thoughts down before hearing everyone else's. If you want to skip all of my meditations and general cud-chewing on the subject, scroll down until you see "here's the question" in bold.

The other day I took a Greyhound bus from San Antonio to Houston, across Texas. The trip was a little over four hours, and the person sitting next to me was not particularly friendly, so I pulled out my iPod and sound-cancelling headphones (which only cancel about half the sound, actually), turned the volume up to 95%, and began to listen. Before I begin to describe my listening experience I think it's important to reiterate that my volume was at near-maximum, which always seems to make a performance sound like it's "there" - so all the great moments and flaws are as vividly present as if you were at a live concert. Provided the engineering is good, of course.

Here was my playlist:
BERLIOZ Symphonie fantastique (Riccardo Muti conducts the Philadelphia Orchestra)
GLIERE Symphony No. 3, "Ilya Muromets" (Donald Johanos conducts the Czecho-Slovak Radio Symphony Orchestra)
SMETANA Vltava / Moldau (Leonard Bernstein conducts the New York Philharmonic Orchestra)
SMETANA Vltava / Moldau (Antoni Wit conducts the Polish National Radio Symphony Orchestra)
BEETHOVEN Finale from the Symphony No. 7 (Herbert von Karajan conducts the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, 1963)

Astute readers will notice two things, one much less important than the other:
1. The last three pieces are short(ish). This is because we were near the destination, so I thought I didn't have time to put on another symphony, but then we kept getting stuck in traffic.
2. Here's the important part. The orchestras alternated between universally accepted "world-class" ensembles (Philadelphia, New York, Berlin) and two rather obscure Eastern European groups, one of which (the Slovaks) my father ridicules by calling them the "Bratislava Kitchen Ensemble". As I listened to the Kitchen Ensemble begin to play, I decided to pretend I was still listening to the Philadelphia Orchestra, to the extent that my brain can successfully deceive itself. Thus I was able to ask - "What makes the world-class orchestras noticeably and quantifiably better?"

To my surprise, the answer was almost nothing. In the Gliere performance, I noticed a few second-rate moments, but they were mostly the fault of the recording engineers: murky balances between strings and woodwinds and a strangely shrill sound in the final bars of the first movement. The only things I really noticed concerning the Slovaks themselves were the famous "Slavic horn" sound, which in my opinion is inferior to our western variety but which also appears on Czech Philharmonic CDs (think of the second movement of Tchaikovsky's Fifth in Matacic's classic performance), and the sheer astonishing technical ability of the woodwinds. These guys - particularly the flute, which is assigned the Part from Hell in Gliere's second movement - are standouts.

Aside from the horn sound, though, I heard nothing in particular that established the Slovaks as any better or worse in my eyes than the Philadelphia orchestra. The orchestras have different strengths, of course - the American band's legendary strings and oomphy brass, and if you will forgive me for saying so the Europeans' superior winds - but their distinctive sound qualities each suit the music being recorded perfectly, and they each did terrific jobs.

My impression was further confirmed upon listening to the next three odds and ends. Leonard Bernstein's "Moldau" is, at 11:35, far too fast, with the initial "river" section and its mesmerizing theme racing by. Conductor Antoni Wit does far better in his own "Moldau", shaping a far more majestic, eloquent performance. He's got the Polish Radio Orchestra, though. And what makes them "inferior" to the New York Philharmonic? Well, I guess it might be because the New Yorkers have to play everything more quickly. But, once again, although I heard differences in the orchestras, I heard nothing to establish one or the other as "superior" (no comment on their conductors  ). In any case, this is a hard one to judge because the sound quality is hugely different - Bernstein's orchestra dates to the 60s in this clip, Wit's to the DDD 90s.

Karajan's Beethoven is from the early 60s, too, and although the conducting is peerless the Berlin Philharmonic's strings really bothered me. Their playing, technically and as a group, is not up to the standards I am used to in the digital age. Ultimately time seems to be a huge factor in orchestra quality. As some other members of this forum have mentioned in other threads, technical performance standards have changed so dramatically over time that what was considered "great" in decades past could be merely "mediocre" now. The same is true for most instrumentalists, of course. In his day, Liszt was one of maybe a dozen, tops, pianists who could skilfully perform Liszt; now graduate students at my university play the B minor Sonata and Mephisto Waltz No. 1 at recitals almost weekly. To put matters very simply, our standards have rocketed up, and so have our standards for greatness.

So what exactly is greatness in an orchestra? This question was asked indirectly by a fairly recent thread which wondered about "world class orchestras outside Europe and North America". The most common answer, interestingly, was that a great orchestra is made by a great conductor. Examples abounded of decent-to-very-good groups elevating their game to greatness thanks to the effort of a great conductor, like the NBC Symphony and Toscanini or the Malaysia Philharmonic and Kees Bakels. But is that really all there is to it? If the Slovak Radio Symphony was inspired to great heights by Donald Johanos in its Gliere disc, why isn't Johanos more famous? (The guy does an incredible job, by the way, although he seems to get lost a bit in the finale's absurd lack of structure.) And if it's really all to Johanos' credit, how did the same orchestra just turn out one of the two or three best Dvorak cycles ever recorded last year, under the baton of the equally obscure (but equally astounding) conductor Ivan Anguelov?

All the same, I can understand this viewpoint. Anyone who's heard Karajan and Kubelik conduct the same Berlin Philharmonic in radically different ways, or Khachaturian lead the Vienna Philharmonic in a raucous and rowdy "Lezghinka", knows how profound an impact a conductor has. But to say that the baton-holder makes the orchestra is to oversimplify, quite radically, isn't it? Orchestras have their distinct styles, from the Slovaks with their tremendously exciting way of making everything sound like a gamble to the Viennese just a few dozen miles away with their (usually) polished, lavish sound. What makes one better than the other? What makes one world-class while the other is the Bratislava Kitchen Ensemble? I bet if the Viennese tried their hands at "Ilya Muromets" they would fail miserably (the reverse is true for the Slovaks, who have failed repeatedly at Johann Strauss).

The best orchestra I've ever heard live is the Shepherd School Orchestra at Rice University, under the baton of Larry Rachleff. Better than the Houston Symphony (and it is NOT close!). What made them better? Passion, commitment. They threw themselves into the music with the abandon of, well, youth, and had the technical prowess to survive. There was excitement and intensity there that put the professional Houston band (former conductor: Christoph Eschenbach) to absolute shame (and my seat for the HSO concerts is in the third row, so it's not like I just sit in a bad place).

And so here's the question: when we say an orchestra is world-class, why is that so? Is it having a consistent, well-known history of grand music making (New York, Berlin)? Is it having a top-notch conductor (Malaysia with Bakels)? Is it knowing your strengths and playing to them (the Czech Philharmonic in Dvorak and Janacek)? Is it great passion for music married to technical prowess (the Shepherd School Symphony)? Is it simply taking great music and playing the living daylights out of it? Which is most important, a rich tradition, a distinctive sound, or a terrific conductor? How do we explain the "third-rate" Slovak Radio Symphony's Gliere and Dvorak?

Of course, most of those were trick questions. I think all the things I listed can make an orchestra world-class. But then, in this age where maybe 50-75 orchestras minimum are capable of achieving the miraculous on any given weekend, how do we draw the line?

What is "world-class"?

[gmstudio]

What is "world-class"?

Whatever the marketing department says it is.

Nothing more.

[Mark]

Great post, Brian. Never normally read such lengthy posts, but yours was well worth it (not least for the Ivan Anguelov recommendation ).

I've no idea what makes an orchestra - or a performer, for that matter - world class. General consensus, perhaps? A track record of consistently high-standard playing and interpretation? Or, as gmstudio cynically but possibly correctly asserts, a record label's hype ... sorry, marketing team?

I've often puzzled over this myself: why Naxos orchestras, for instance, most of them largely unknown, get stick from some quarters simply because they're NOT the NYPO, BPO, VPO or any other well-established set of initials. Listen to their playing. Do some blind listening. See past the names on the CD cover and actually concentrate on the music. There are times when I think that all there is separating the 'great' orchestras from the others is pomposity and elitism, though I'm sure this isn't entirely the case.

[Renfield]

I'd think a world-class ensemble is one with:

a) proficiency
b) experience
c) tradition
d) distinction


To elaborate, I'd expect an orchestra known as "world-class" to be technically proficient (i.e. know how to play very well, regardless of wrong notes, etc.), to have an extensive experience with a wide repertory of works, to have a tradition behind it (not in terms of years, but rather of previous achievements), and to be made distinct from other orchestras by something unique to that ensemble (i.e. to have an exceptional "sound").

However, I will admit that I skimmed through, rather than read, the OP at the moment. So perhaps I might get back to this subject once I've had a proper chance to read your thoughts on it.

[Mark]

I'd think a world-class ensemble is one with:

a) proficiency
b) experience
c) tradition
d) distinction


To elaborate, I'd expect an orchestra known as "world-class" to be technically proficient (i.e. know how to play very well, regardless of wrong notes, etc.), to have an extensive experience with a wide repertory of works, to have a tradition behind it (not in terms of years, but rather of previous achievements), and to be made distinct from other orchestras by something unique to that ensemble (i.e. to have an exceptional "sound").

I like this. It might well serve as my own basis for determining 'world class' status.

[jochanaan]

1: Tone.  The world-class orchestras usually have extra body and gloss to their sound that carries across from conductor to conductor.  Even while Riccardo Muti was "rebuilding" the Philadelphia Orchestra's legendary sound to match his own ideals, you could hear that gloss and richness (at least in the strings and woodwinds; their brass have seldom been quite the match of Berlin or Chicago, and the percussion can be downright weak sometimes).  And this leads to

2: Consistency.  Roger Scott, long-time bass section leader of the Philadelphia Orchestra, said in the 1970s, "You don't make mistakes in Philadelphia."  Of course there are duds sometimes; they're human too; but the style, the tone and proficiency stay on a high level.  And this brings me to

3: Individuality.  The best ones sound like themselves--not like some mass-market "great orchestra."  It's easy to recognize the London Symphony by its brilliance, especially in the brass; the Philadelphia Orchestra by its lush strings and woodwinds; the Berlin Philharmonic by its huge brass and strings; the Vienna Philharmonic by its creamy richness, and so on.

Of course, orchestras can decline or rise suddenly.  The Philharmonia was a world-class group when first formed, but declined during the 1960s and 1970s; then Riccardo Muti took them over and transformed their sound and raised their proficiency to awesome heights.  The Boston Symphony declined over Seiji Ozawa's tenure, but James Levine seems to be turning it around.  (Karl, can you verify?)  The Pittsburgh Symphony was great under Reiner and Steinberg and even Previn, but I haven't heard much from them recently.  Still, orchestras like the Philadelphia, the Royal Concertgebouw of Amsterdam, and the New York Philharmonic tend to have a momentum that carries them through the tenure of lesser conductors.

[Renfield]

I like this. It might well serve as my own basis for determining 'world class' status.

Great!

To be honest, I came up with the items in that list as I added them: but it looks solid enough.

(Especially given that jochanaan's own criteria are almost exactly the same, albeit expressed in a different manner, and jochanaan is a performing musician who likely knows orchestras much better than I do, from within! )

[12tone.]

When Menuhin stepped up to conduct you knew by how much the air in the hall changed that even his Telemann was going to cause earthquakes of bliss.

[Brian]

I know I'm returning to this topic rather belatedly, but late is better than never.

jochanaan and Renfield, your replies make a lot of sense to me, especially the ideas of consistency and distinctiveness. I wonder how an orchestra would go about becoming world-class. It seems the main ingredients are time and an original new approach. And probably the idea of "playing to your strengths" has a big role, too, more so than covering for weakness. (As it happened, my complaint with Philadelphia in their Berlioz disc was regarding the percussion, which goes along with what's been suggested here...)

Listen to their playing. Do some blind listening. See past the names on the CD cover and actually concentrate on the music.

Great point! And I have a quiz that should help listeners do just that. It asks you to guess which clip is a famous performer and which is obscure. I went through and chose the ones I thought were better-performed, and got a 50%.

[Larry Rinkel]

Don't be swayed always by the hype associated with "world-class" conductors and orchestras who have been the beneficiaries of good marketing and slick promotions. I kid you not when I say I have never heard a better Beethoven Pastorale, especially the wonderfully lively first movement, than the El Cheapo version performed by Bystrik Rezucha (yes, a real name) and the Slovak Philharmonic. There's a lot of good music-making in the Czech-Bohemian performance tradition, and this Pastorale leaves more expensive other versions (like the soporific Harnoncourt with the Chamber Orch of Europe) behind in the dust.

[Brian]

Don't be swayed always by the hype associated with "world-class" conductors and orchestras who have been the beneficiaries of good marketing and slick promotions. I kid you not when I say I have never heard a better Beethoven Pastorale, especially the wonderfully lively first movement, than the El Cheapo version performed by Bystrik Rezucha (yes, a real name) and the Slovak Philharmonic. There's a lot of good music-making in the Czech-Bohemian performance tradition, and this Pastorale leaves more expensive other versions (like the soporific Harnoncourt with the Chamber Orch of Europe) behind in the dust.

Is that this one? Because at $0.37 plus shipping, I'm buying... my family has Rezucha's "Scheherazade", which is imperfect but very good, far more exciting than our other recording (Haitink/Concertgebouw).

[Larry Rinkel]

Is that this one? Because at $0.37 plus shipping, I'm buying... my family has Rezucha's "Scheherazade", which is imperfect but very good, far more exciting than our other recording (Haitink/Concertgebouw).

That's it. The companion version of the 8th is not nearly as good. But you might hold off for a better price. I now see a copy at Amazon for $0.36, and next week you might get it for a quarter.

[Iago]

This post may sound as if it's coming from an "elitist". A term whichI apply to many members of this forum, and which I mean to use disparagingly.
But IMO, you cannot even come close to rating an orchestra as world class unless you've heard them "live" in concert a repeated number of times, over the course of many years, under a variety of conductors.
Recordings (no matter how good they turn out) are pale impressions of the abilities of both an orchestra and of conductors.
Lets take for example, just one orchestra and one conductor.
Lets take the Cleveland Orchestra under George Szell. And I am going to refer to "live" performaces, NOT recordings. I attended Szell performances with that orchestra for the entire length of time that he was its music director. Every single performance that I attended over the course of approximately 20 years was impeccable in every way. With the exception of a rare blob of saliva in a mouthpiece, there were simply NO discernible errors or fluffs. Perfect ensemble, perfect intonation. perfect balance between sections. To be able to produce those kinds of performances ("LIVE") over an extended period of time is to me, the mark of a "world class" orchestra. Performing "LIVE" means performing under pressure. And just as a great athlete rises to such occasions, so to, do "world class" orchestras

[MISHUGINA]

Iago simply has a point like it or not.

The recording medium simply cannot capture enough of the real thing in live performance. A lot of people who attended Karajan's live concerts agreed his performances compared with CDs were different as night and day.

It is true that today's orchestras may made many orchestras in the past sounded mediocre. But today maybe the standards and criteria might need re-evaluation. Today, we may have many technically proficient orchestras that may stand to ruthless Toscaninian standards (lol) including even a third-rate Bratislava ensemble. I heard a Sibelius recording by BBC Scottish Symphony which was recorded in 2006 and I was amazed by the brass section which some might even swore are members of Chicago Symphony or Berlin Phil. And today's Berlin Phil's brasses sounded puny by comparison!    But still many classical listeners were hankering for the good old sound of Karajan/Berlin, Klemperer/Philharmonia, Szell/Cleveland etc. I don't think they are sentimentalists because orchestras today are sounded more and more alike. Few orchestras boast recognisable timbre and sound that give themselves individual identity, Vienna Phil for example. Can anyone tell me if there are American orchestras today that has annoying, squeky wind sections like in NYPO, CSO in the 50s or 60s? Today American wind sounded very much Eastern European instead.

I don't know. I don't think my rant could answer any questions 

[gmstudio]

T I attended Szell performances with that orchestra for the entire length of time that he was its music director.

You lucky, lucky bastard.    I was born the year Szell died, so while I, too, have grown up attending Cleveland Orchestra concerts like crazy, I've been raised in the Dohnanyi & Welser-Most eras.

Which probably explains my late-romantic symphonic tendencies.

[Maciek]

Well, what better time to chime in than two years after the discussion waned off?

Thanks for starting an interesting thread, Brian.

I'd just like to point out that while the PRNSO does not date to the 15th century, it does have a respectable tradition. It was founded by Grzegorz Fitelberg in 1935. So that's tradition and experience. As for proficiency, they're certainly one of the three best orchestras in the country (the other two being the National Philharmonic in Warsaw and the Sinfonia Varsovia). As for consistency, I haven't been around long enough to say. And I'm tone-deaf, so that takes care of tone, individuality and distinction. Whether they are a world-class ensemble, I really don't know.

One thing I find interesting is that so far HIP ensembles, such as Orchestra of the Eighteenth Century, have been out of the discussion. That's probably because they have a limited repertoire? But in point of fact, they often have a wider repertoire, only fewer of the 19th c. warhorses (and even that is changing). Of course, they don't really play 20th century music. But I'm sure there must be at least a few contemporary compositions written for HIP orchestras. By Kagel or someone like that. At least I don't see why there shouldn't be. Anyway, the best ones certainly have tone, experience and proficiency.

[DavidW]

I strongly disagree with Brian's characterization of the Polish National Radio Symphony Orchestra as being minor league.  They have done many fine recordings that have received high praise from critics and listeners alike.  I think it shows a bias towards orchestras west of the Berlin wall more than it does an actual critical assessment of their worth.

[Superhorn]

 I agree and disagree with a lot of the things said here about orchestras.
Judging orchestras is a highly subjective thing; one critic or listener may prefer one orchestra over another, and find faults in an orchestra's playing you or another don't hear, or ignore faults which you or others seem to find.
I fail to comprehend how David Hurwitz can dismiss the magnificent BPO brass as"weak",as he has in many reviews. This is like calling Arnold Schwarzenegger puny, or Hulk Hogan.
  Pure polish ,accuracy, flawless intonation and balances aren't enough. Better to hear a performance with a few blemishes which brings the music vividly to life than a perfect but clinical one.
  And yes, some of the less well-known orchestras today are amazingly good.

[PerfectWagnerite]

What makes an orchestra "world-class"?

If M Forever says it is.

[DavidW]

I fail to comprehend how David Hurwitz can dismiss the magnificent BPO brass as"weak",as he has in many reviews. This is like calling Arnold Schwarzenegger puny, or Hulk Hogan.
 

QFT