How "Good" Is Your Orchestra? The Myth of Rank

Henry,

I started out my career working for a major orchestra and have worked for much smaller regional symphonies for the past eight years. In that time I have witnessed some of the most enthralling performances of my life. Hmmm, come to think of it, one of the most exciting performances of "Rite of Spring" I have ever heard was from an undergraduate orchestra!

As I read Andy's post, I am sitting in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, where I specifically flew because I wanted to hear them (under their music director Delta David Gier) perform the Mahler 3rd Symphony, having heard a terrific Mahler 4th a year ago.
-Henry

Mr. Fogel,
What you're saying is obviously true, but no one ever seems to say it. So bless you for saying it so well.
The only real way to know the quality of an orchestra is to hear a dozen or more concerts in its home hall over the course of year. How an orchestra plays day in and day out, how it serves its community, is its true measure. A single hearing on a tour tells you nothing about that, which is another reason that's it so pathetic when "regional" orchestras scrape up the money for Carnegie Hall in hopes of getting legitimacy from those sophisticated New Yorkers.
--Tom Strini
Music and Dance Critic
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

I have heard a lot of orchestras around the world in recent years, and have pretty much come to the view that any orchestra that pays a living wage is, at a minimum, very good.

Given the quality of new entrants into the profession, there should be (and is) increasing parity in the orchestra world, since there is probably very little difference in the skill level of a new player in, say, Baltimore as opposed to Chicago. It seems to me that the difference between orchestras depends in large measure on the quality of its artistic leadership, corporate culture, expected standards of play, and programming approach.

While most like to downplay rankings, I would argue that both orchestra musicians and managements themselves continue to use them, and to perpetuate the Big 5 notion. Musicians still make lateral moves to other orchestras, and surely the perceived quality and reputation of the two groups is a significant factor. And I would imagine managements in a number of situations seek parity with what they consider "peer" orchestras, say in negotiating tour fees or deciding which conductors and soloists to book, or composers to commission. Of course, a lot of this still correlates to budget size.

As for rankings, I remember that TIME survey of 1983. And while a numerical ranking is in principle rather silly, I found that one served a good purpose: By listing St. Louis at #2, it got a lot some people (myself included) to consider your central point: That there are a lot of good orchestras out there. That ranking probably brought a lot of attention to an orchestra people often overlooked (not to mention the St. Louis PR department probably milked it for a few years).

This is a very well-reasoned post Marko, and I thank you for it. A few points, however. Musicians moving laterally from one orchestra to another rarely have to do with perceived ranking. They are either offered a meaningful increase in compensation from the new orchestra, or they prefer making music with the conductor of the new orchestra, or they are personally unhappy where they are. I have never encountered a musician who changed jobs because of a perceived ranking.

There is no question that some managers use the rankings - but others abhor them. When I managed the Chicago Symphony I fought in every way against the "big five" cliché.

But there is no question that some in the orchestra world keep the idea of rankings alive -- and I admit to its usefulness in a limited way when talked about in general terms. But to actually try to rank, from No. 1 to No. 25, different orchestras based on scant evidence and inconsistent standards (i.e., different people hearing different orchestras) is true folly.
-Henry

Check out my comments on http://sparkoc.blogspot.com