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