Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:55:57 -0800 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Karl Miller responding to me:
>>My only disagreement here: I'd give that honor to the underrated
>>Philadelphia Orchestra.
>
>I am reminded of the old "joke" that "Koussevitzky's Boston Symphony was
>the best French orchestra in the world." He imported some ofthe finest
>French players. According to my ears, both orchestras were magnificent.
>I believethat each excelled in repertoire that was in the comfort zoneof
>their respective conductors. So which was better? For me it depended
>on the time, conductor,and repertoire. However, to be honest, while I
>have triedto collect every shred of Boston, pre Ozawa, I can't say I go
>out of my way to find Philadelphia recordings...unless it is Stokowski.
Going back that far, who knows: maybe I'd agree. Not that it matters
if I do or not, since you know that period of orchestral playing much
better than I do. I was thinking more about the 1950s-60s.
Roger Hecht
***********************************************
The CLASSICAL mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned LISTSERV(R)
list management software together with L-Soft's HDMail High Deliverability
Mailer for reliable, lightning fast mail delivery. For more information,
go to: http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
|
|