Something Don Satz mentioned about Neville Marriner started me thinking
about conductors who have carved a certain niche for themselves with a
particular orchestra, and then perform for a time with other orchestras.
Several instances come to mind:  Harnoncourt with the BPO, Gardiner
with some major outfit--I forget which, Trevor Pinnock with a Canadian
orchestra, Hogwood with the St.  Paul Chamber Orchestra, and of course
Neville Marriner with the LSO (which is where he started as first violin,
and eventually concertmaster, I believe).

These cases are different enough from such instaces as Karajan conducting
something other then the BPO, or Ozawa conducting an orchestra different
than the Boston.  The characteristic sound of Marriner and the ASMITF was,
in my mind, at least, a subtle combination of the two--the orchestra
and the conductor.  How much of that was Marriner, and how much was the
Academy? It is possible that it was his desire for beautiful, agile, chorus
string sound that led him to organize his own orchestra in the first place;
once that was done, he could take his "sound" anywhere he wanted.

My question is a broad one:  what do listeners feel about the ability of
conductors--especially conductors who have based their reputation on period
performances using smaller chamber orchestras--to bring to performances
with large established orchestras (or even other little orchestras) those
qualities that made them famous with 'their' original little orchestras?
The string sound, the ensemble, the tone, the agility, the dynamics, the
drama, the transparency, the excitement, the pace, the understanding?

Gardiner's Orchestra Romantique et Revolutionaire doesn't count, I think;
Gardiner seems to have put that one together himself.  But I do believe he
has recorded with the VPO.

Arch
Lycoming College, Williamsport PA