Robert Stumpf, II ranks the orchestras of 15-25 years ago:
>These orchestras had a rich, deep sound. They could play anything and play
>it well. Their chief conductors were musicians and when they conducted
>they were making music, not just playing it. They had a "sound".
This is an odious business, but for both points in time I would substitute
the Cleveland Orchestra for the Los Angeles Orchestra (and I just know
Steve Schwartz would!) I would put the NY Philharmonic lower. Certainly
for the earlier period I would put Boston ahead of the London orchestras (I
will never forget a London review of many years ago which found the touring
Boston Symphony just too perfect in comparison with the home team which had
a character he liked even with the imperfections in their playing. Sorry
I can't give a name or a date.) For today I would be inclined to add the
Kirov to the list.
Jim Tobin