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