Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

more on orchestras

Expand Messages
  • Robert
    I was listening on the radio to the Phildelphia Orchestra conducted by Mutti doing the Pines of Rome. And it occurred to me to wonder in what reasonable
    Message 1 of 8 , May 31, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I was listening on the radio to the Phildelphia Orchestra
      conducted by Mutti doing the Pines of Rome.
      And it occurred to me to wonder in what reasonable
      verifiable real sense ANY orchestra is better than that.
      Recordings could surely be better--too many microphones.
      But the orchestral playing?
      It was beautifully in tune, highly expressive, dynamically
      powerful where needed as well as exquisitely delicate when that was
      called for. I really wonder just exactly what people
      are thinking when they declare that one orchestra at this
      level is better than another.
      I also wonder how many of them could actually identify
      which orchestra was which if one removed the hall considerations
      and the woodwind soloists(some of whom have distinctive sounds).

      Nero Wolfe's phrase "pretentious piffle" comes to mind here.
      At a certain point, one might like one better than another,
      but better? What does it even mean?
      Critics like to say that sort of thing. It makes them feel important and they think it is interesting--even if it means darned close
      to nothing at all.

      I am not as such recommending this recording(not for recording technique). But listen to it or something like this and ask yourself, I would suggest, just exactly what could be improved about the playing to make the orchestra "better".

      REG
    • Edward Mast
      Exactly the view I have when I hear the Cleveland Orchestra doing its winter series here. Any orchestra playing at this level is as good as it gets, whether
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Exactly the view I have when I hear the Cleveland Orchestra doing its winter series here.  Any orchestra playing at this level is as good as it gets, whether it be the most well known or even some of the lesser known.    "Pretentious piffle" is an apt description.
        On Jun 1, 2011, at 12:31 AM, Robert wrote:

         

        I was listening on the radio to the Phildelphia Orchestra
        conducted by Mutti doing the Pines of Rome.
        And it occurred to me to wonder in what reasonable
        verifiable real sense ANY orchestra is better than that.
        Recordings could surely be better--too many microphones.
        But the orchestral playing?
        It was beautifully in tune, highly expressive, dynamically
        powerful where needed as well as exquisitely delicate when that was
        called for. I really wonder just exactly what people
        are thinking when they declare that one orchestra at this
        level is better than another.
        I also wonder how many of them could actually identify
        which orchestra was which if one removed the hall considerations
        and the woodwind soloists(some of whom have distinctive sounds).

        Nero Wolfe's phrase "pretentious piffle" comes to mind here.
        At a certain point, one might like one better than another,
        but better? What does it even mean?
        Critics like to say that sort of thing. It makes them feel important and they think it is interesting--even if it means darned close
        to nothing at all.

        I am not as such recommending this recording(not for recording technique). But listen to it or something like this and ask yourself, I would suggest, just exactly what could be improved about the playing to make the orchestra "better".

        REG


      • Roman Zajcew
        And yet you (Robert) say that you easily identified a Gergiev recording (with the St. Petersburg Philharmonic, I seem to remember) on the radio. But no doubt
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          And yet you (Robert) say that you easily identified a Gergiev recording (with the St. Petersburg Philharmonic, I seem to remember) on the radio. But no doubt you will put that down to Gergiev's eccentric interpretation(s) (which you did/do not like).

          One reason to have the discussion on orchestras on this list was because it's fun. And perhaps even useful, from the perspective of discovering some interesting experiences to put on the bucket list. And sure, people are guilty of saying "I think it's better" (or even "it is better") when they mean "I liked it more". I certainly do this periodically. As does Robert.

          But if Robert feels this is "pretentious piffle" and wants to put a stop to it... Well, it's Robert's list.

          - Roman

          P.S. Robert's opinion certainly calls into question the concept of touring orchestras (or, to be precise, it calls into question the concept of touring orchestra hitting any cities with a first-class orchestra). A lot of money could be saved if we just have the concept of touring conductors, since conductors do make a difference. Oh yeah, we already have the concept of guest conductors.


          On May 31, 2011, at 9:31 PM, Robert wrote:

          > I was listening on the radio to the Phildelphia Orchestra
          > conducted by Mutti doing the Pines of Rome.
          > And it occurred to me to wonder in what reasonable
          > verifiable real sense ANY orchestra is better than that.
          > Recordings could surely be better--too many microphones.
          > But the orchestral playing?
          > It was beautifully in tune, highly expressive, dynamically
          > powerful where needed as well as exquisitely delicate when that was
          > called for. I really wonder just exactly what people
          > are thinking when they declare that one orchestra at this
          > level is better than another.
          > I also wonder how many of them could actually identify
          > which orchestra was which if one removed the hall considerations
          > and the woodwind soloists(some of whom have distinctive sounds).
          >
          > Nero Wolfe's phrase "pretentious piffle" comes to mind here.
          > At a certain point, one might like one better than another,
          > but better? What does it even mean?
          > Critics like to say that sort of thing. It makes them feel important and they think it is interesting--even if it means darned close
          > to nothing at all.
          >
          > I am not as such recommending this recording(not for recording technique). But listen to it or something like this and ask yourself, I would suggest, just exactly what could be improved about the playing to make the orchestra "better".
          >
          > REG
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
        • Roman Zajcew
          ... Onwards with parsing of language... Isn t saying playing at this level is as good as it gets more than a little pretentious, in and of itself? After all,
          Message 4 of 8 , Jun 1, 2011
          • 0 Attachment

            On Jun 1, 2011, at 8:44 AM, Edward Mast wrote:



            Exactly the view I have when I hear the Cleveland Orchestra doing its winter series here.  Any orchestra playing at this level is as good as it gets, whether it be the most well known or even some of the lesser known.    "Pretentious piffle" is an apt description.

            Onwards with parsing of language... Isn't saying "playing at this level is as good as it gets" more than a little pretentious, in and of itself? After all, the statement was not "I have not heard any orchestra that is better". It was an absolute statement that "this is as good as it gets". And heck, how does one define "as good as"? It seems to me that this is just as ill-defined a term as "better". And perhaps the original statement should have been "I have not heard playing that I enjoyed more than the playing of the Cleveland Orchestra". Something along those lines is pretty much the only way of stating this "accurately".

            As I said in my earlier note, many (most? all?) of us are guilty of playing it a bit fast-and-loose with the English language. But this is an email list. We're not writing a textbook.

            - Roman

            P.S. Ed, I don't mean to pick on you for the above. Pretty much any email that expresses an opinion could be critiqued this way.

            P.P.S. And I'm definitely not making any sort of a comment about the playing of the Cleveland Orchestra.

            On Jun 1, 2011, at 12:31 AM, Robert wrote:

            I was listening on the radio to the Phildelphia Orchestra
            conducted by Mutti doing the Pines of Rome.
            And it occurred to me to wonder in what reasonable
            verifiable real sense ANY orchestra is better than that.
            Recordings could surely be better--too many microphones.
            But the orchestral playing?
            It was beautifully in tune, highly expressive, dynamically
            powerful where needed as well as exquisitely delicate when that was
            called for. I really wonder just exactly what people
            are thinking when they declare that one orchestra at this
            level is better than another.
            I also wonder how many of them could actually identify
            which orchestra was which if one removed the hall considerations
            and the woodwind soloists(some of whom have distinctive sounds).

            Nero Wolfe's phrase "pretentious piffle" comes to mind here.
            At a certain point, one might like one better than another,
            but better? What does it even mean? 
            Critics like to say that sort of thing. It makes them feel important and they think it is interesting--even if it means darned close
            to nothing at all. 

            I am not as such recommending this recording(not for recording technique). But listen to it or something like this and ask yourself, I would suggest, just exactly what could be improved about the playing to make the orchestra "better".

            REG





          • Robert
            I was not saying that they are all the same! The Vienna Phil sounds quite a lot different from the LA Phil to say the least. What I am calling into question is
            Message 5 of 8 , Jun 1, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              I was not saying that they are all the same!
              The Vienna Phil sounds quite a lot different
              from the LA Phil to say the least.

              What I am calling into question is things like
              the Gramophone list of "the best".
              This did not include e.g. Philadelphia.
              I think there is no reasonable sense in which
              the Los Angeles Philharmonic (which
              was reasonably far up the list) is "better" than
              the Phildelphia.

              But of course they are all somewhat different.
              What I was questioning was whether the people
              making these lists , mostly from recordings,
              could in fact tell them apart. In reality,
              they all sound a little different and are worth
              hearing. I do like touring orchestras. It is a nice
              thing to do.

              But the world is full of people making judgments of
              relative merits of things where no such judgments
              are really reliable or perhaps even meaningful,
              and where, even worse, the people making the judgments
              cannot really tell the things apart.

              Gergiev is indeed identifiable because of his extreme
              style, like it or not.

              Anyway, I actually like to hear different orchestras!
              And in the real world, as opposed to recordings, they
              do sound somewhat different. Different countries
              in particular tend to have different styles of playing.
              But better or worse--not really to the extent that
              critics like to say. It is the business of critics
              to make such judgments. It keeps them employed.

              Audio critics are much the same.
              It is the business of audio critics to make relative
              judgments. Naturally such things tend
              to get exaggerated. Everyone likes to think
              that what they do makes sense even more than it does
              make sense--and of course audio (and music) criticism
              does make sense.

              But as far as I am concerned a list of the 20 best orchestras
              in the world which does not include Philadelphia
              is just exactly "pretentious piffle'.

              Of course there is no reason not to keep discussing these
              things! One just needs to remind one's self occasionally
              that a lot of the things written about such matters are nonsense.

              REG

              PS to RZ: Would you really be willing to bet a lot of
              money the Gphone critics could identify the orchestras
              blind?


              --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Roman Zajcew <Roman@...> wrote:
              >
              > And yet you (Robert) say that you easily identified a Gergiev recording (with the St. Petersburg Philharmonic, I seem to remember) on the radio. But no doubt you will put that down to Gergiev's eccentric interpretation(s) (which you did/do not like).
              >
              > One reason to have the discussion on orchestras on this list was because it's fun. And perhaps even useful, from the perspective of discovering some interesting experiences to put on the bucket list. And sure, people are guilty of saying "I think it's better" (or even "it is better") when they mean "I liked it more". I certainly do this periodically. As does Robert.
              >
              > But if Robert feels this is "pretentious piffle" and wants to put a stop to it... Well, it's Robert's list.
              >
              > - Roman
              >
              > P.S. Robert's opinion certainly calls into question the concept of touring orchestras (or, to be precise, it calls into question the concept of touring orchestra hitting any cities with a first-class orchestra). A lot of money could be saved if we just have the concept of touring conductors, since conductors do make a difference. Oh yeah, we already have the concept of guest conductors.
              >
              >
              > On May 31, 2011, at 9:31 PM, Robert wrote:
              >
              > > I was listening on the radio to the Phildelphia Orchestra
              > > conducted by Mutti doing the Pines of Rome.
              > > And it occurred to me to wonder in what reasonable
              > > verifiable real sense ANY orchestra is better than that.
              > > Recordings could surely be better--too many microphones.
              > > But the orchestral playing?
              > > It was beautifully in tune, highly expressive, dynamically
              > > powerful where needed as well as exquisitely delicate when that was
              > > called for. I really wonder just exactly what people
              > > are thinking when they declare that one orchestra at this
              > > level is better than another.
              > > I also wonder how many of them could actually identify
              > > which orchestra was which if one removed the hall considerations
              > > and the woodwind soloists(some of whom have distinctive sounds).
              > >
              > > Nero Wolfe's phrase "pretentious piffle" comes to mind here.
              > > At a certain point, one might like one better than another,
              > > but better? What does it even mean?
              > > Critics like to say that sort of thing. It makes them feel important and they think it is interesting--even if it means darned close
              > > to nothing at all.
              > >
              > > I am not as such recommending this recording(not for recording technique). But listen to it or something like this and ask yourself, I would suggest, just exactly what could be improved about the playing to make the orchestra "better".
              > >
              > > REG
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > ------------------------------------
              > >
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
            • Robert
              I read an interesting interview with Dohnanyi recently in which he says that the Mahler playing of Cleveland is especially good because they play better in
              Message 6 of 8 , Jun 1, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                I read an interesting interview with Dohnanyi recently in
                which he says that the Mahler playing of Cleveland
                is especially good because they play better in tune
                than most other orchestras--and he thought that was very important in Mahler (I would agree for what that is worth).
                This is information!
                And it means something. It is also likely true.

                I am reminded of one of my conductors of a university orchestra in the past, who at one point said to the winds(aso in Mahler actually)
                "If you pay that bady out of tune, it does not matter how expressive it is."

                Truth, actually. Not all orchestras play perfectly in tune all the time. Try to find a recording where the held chords in the Midsummer Nights Dream overture(opening) are REALLY in tune!

                But of course it is not the sort of thing the Gphone
                critics tend to notice or care about. They are attuned
                to what they perceive as higher values.
                But there is a difference sometimes in how well in tune
                orchestras play. I might have mentioned
                a NY Phil recording that I heard soon after the Philadelphia
                one I mentioned that in fact was not so well in tune, though
                I would not want to say that that is true of them on a regular
                basis. Maybe they just had an off day or not enough takes or something.

                REG

                --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Roman Zajcew <Roman@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > On Jun 1, 2011, at 8:44 AM, Edward Mast wrote:
                >
                > >
                > >
                > > Exactly the view I have when I hear the Cleveland Orchestra doing its winter series here. Any orchestra playing at this level is as good as it gets, whether it be the most well known or even some of the lesser known. "Pretentious piffle" is an apt description.
                >
                > Onwards with parsing of language... Isn't saying "playing at this level is as good as it gets" more than a little pretentious, in and of itself? After all, the statement was not "I have not heard any orchestra that is better". It was an absolute statement that "this is as good as it gets". And heck, how does one define "as good as"? It seems to me that this is just as ill-defined a term as "better". And perhaps the original statement should have been "I have not heard playing that I enjoyed more than the playing of the Cleveland Orchestra". Something along those lines is pretty much the only way of stating this "accurately".
                >
                > As I said in my earlier note, many (most? all?) of us are guilty of playing it a bit fast-and-loose with the English language. But this is an email list. We're not writing a textbook.
                >
                > - Roman
                >
                > P.S. Ed, I don't mean to pick on you for the above. Pretty much any email that expresses an opinion could be critiqued this way.
                >
                > P.P.S. And I'm definitely not making any sort of a comment about the playing of the Cleveland Orchestra.
                >
                > > On Jun 1, 2011, at 12:31 AM, Robert wrote:
                > >
                > >> I was listening on the radio to the Phildelphia Orchestra
                > >> conducted by Mutti doing the Pines of Rome.
                > >> And it occurred to me to wonder in what reasonable
                > >> verifiable real sense ANY orchestra is better than that.
                > >> Recordings could surely be better--too many microphones.
                > >> But the orchestral playing?
                > >> It was beautifully in tune, highly expressive, dynamically
                > >> powerful where needed as well as exquisitely delicate when that was
                > >> called for. I really wonder just exactly what people
                > >> are thinking when they declare that one orchestra at this
                > >> level is better than another.
                > >> I also wonder how many of them could actually identify
                > >> which orchestra was which if one removed the hall considerations
                > >> and the woodwind soloists(some of whom have distinctive sounds).
                > >>
                > >> Nero Wolfe's phrase "pretentious piffle" comes to mind here.
                > >> At a certain point, one might like one better than another,
                > >> but better? What does it even mean?
                > >> Critics like to say that sort of thing. It makes them feel important and they think it is interesting--even if it means darned close
                > >> to nothing at all.
                > >>
                > >> I am not as such recommending this recording(not for recording technique). But listen to it or something like this and ask yourself, I would suggest, just exactly what could be improved about the playing to make the orchestra "better".
                > >>
                > >> REG
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
              • Roman Zajcew
                ... That wasn t my point whatsoever. My point was that this particular list *was* useful -- at least to me. It pointed out several orchestras that I really
                Message 7 of 8 , Jun 1, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Jun 1, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Robert wrote:

                  > I was not saying that they are all the same!
                  > The Vienna Phil sounds quite a lot different
                  > from the LA Phil to say the least.
                  >
                  > What I am calling into question is things like
                  > the Gramophone list of "the best".
                  > This did not include e.g. Philadelphia.
                  > I think there is no reasonable sense in which
                  > the Los Angeles Philharmonic (which
                  > was reasonably far up the list) is "better" than
                  > the Phildelphia.
                  >
                  > But of course they are all somewhat different.
                  > What I was questioning was whether the people
                  > making these lists , mostly from recordings,
                  > could in fact tell them apart. In reality,
                  > they all sound a little different and are worth
                  > hearing. I do like touring orchestras. It is a nice
                  > thing to do.
                  >
                  > But the world is full of people making judgments of
                  > relative merits of things where no such judgments
                  > are really reliable or perhaps even meaningful,
                  > and where, even worse, the people making the judgments
                  > cannot really tell the things apart.
                  >
                  > Gergiev is indeed identifiable because of his extreme
                  > style, like it or not.
                  >
                  > Anyway, I actually like to hear different orchestras!
                  > And in the real world, as opposed to recordings, they
                  > do sound somewhat different. Different countries
                  > in particular tend to have different styles of playing.
                  > But better or worse--not really to the extent that
                  > critics like to say. It is the business of critics
                  > to make such judgments. It keeps them employed.
                  >
                  > Audio critics are much the same.
                  > It is the business of audio critics to make relative
                  > judgments. Naturally such things tend
                  > to get exaggerated. Everyone likes to think
                  > that what they do makes sense even more than it does
                  > make sense--and of course audio (and music) criticism
                  > does make sense.
                  >
                  > But as far as I am concerned a list of the 20 best orchestras
                  > in the world which does not include Philadelphia
                  > is just exactly "pretentious piffle'.
                  >
                  > Of course there is no reason not to keep discussing these
                  > things! One just needs to remind one's self occasionally
                  > that a lot of the things written about such matters are nonsense.
                  >
                  > REG
                  >
                  > PS to RZ: Would you really be willing to bet a lot of
                  > money the Gphone critics could identify the orchestras
                  > blind?

                  That wasn't my point whatsoever.

                  My point was that this particular list *was* useful -- at least to me. It pointed out several orchestras that I really should make it a point to see. And (at least to me) it seems that this (in and of itself) made the list more than "pretentious piffle". And I even (pretentiously) thought that my opinions on the subject might be useful to others. And I would have liked to read the opinions of others on the topic.

                  And now you say that "there is no reason not to keep discussing these things". But I will point out that as soon as you made your comment about the list, all conversation about the list itself stopped. [And maybe there wouldn't have been a "conversation" (since I seem to remember being the only one that said anything)]. And that is (I believe) because no-one feels like writing about anything that you have called "pretentious piffle" (and do not pretend that your opinion on these matters isn't important). I mean, if it's piffle it's not worth discussing.

                  And then you throw in your comment about the Philadelphia Orchestra belonging on the list. It seems to me that you are indulging in the same pretentiousness that was used to create the list in the first place. And you haven't really described what *you* mean by better either.

                  - Roman

                  >
                  >
                  > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Roman Zajcew <Roman@...> wrote:
                  >>
                  >> And yet you (Robert) say that you easily identified a Gergiev recording (with the St. Petersburg Philharmonic, I seem to remember) on the radio. But no doubt you will put that down to Gergiev's eccentric interpretation(s) (which you did/do not like).
                  >>
                  >> One reason to have the discussion on orchestras on this list was because it's fun. And perhaps even useful, from the perspective of discovering some interesting experiences to put on the bucket list. And sure, people are guilty of saying "I think it's better" (or even "it is better") when they mean "I liked it more". I certainly do this periodically. As does Robert.
                  >>
                  >> But if Robert feels this is "pretentious piffle" and wants to put a stop to it... Well, it's Robert's list.
                  >>
                  >> - Roman
                  >>
                  >> P.S. Robert's opinion certainly calls into question the concept of touring orchestras (or, to be precise, it calls into question the concept of touring orchestra hitting any cities with a first-class orchestra). A lot of money could be saved if we just have the concept of touring conductors, since conductors do make a difference. Oh yeah, we already have the concept of guest conductors.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> On May 31, 2011, at 9:31 PM, Robert wrote:
                  >>
                  >>> I was listening on the radio to the Phildelphia Orchestra
                  >>> conducted by Mutti doing the Pines of Rome.
                  >>> And it occurred to me to wonder in what reasonable
                  >>> verifiable real sense ANY orchestra is better than that.
                  >>> Recordings could surely be better--too many microphones.
                  >>> But the orchestral playing?
                  >>> It was beautifully in tune, highly expressive, dynamically
                  >>> powerful where needed as well as exquisitely delicate when that was
                  >>> called for. I really wonder just exactly what people
                  >>> are thinking when they declare that one orchestra at this
                  >>> level is better than another.
                  >>> I also wonder how many of them could actually identify
                  >>> which orchestra was which if one removed the hall considerations
                  >>> and the woodwind soloists(some of whom have distinctive sounds).
                  >>>
                  >>> Nero Wolfe's phrase "pretentious piffle" comes to mind here.
                  >>> At a certain point, one might like one better than another,
                  >>> but better? What does it even mean?
                  >>> Critics like to say that sort of thing. It makes them feel important and they think it is interesting--even if it means darned close
                  >>> to nothing at all.
                  >>>
                  >>> I am not as such recommending this recording(not for recording technique). But listen to it or something like this and ask yourself, I would suggest, just exactly what could be improved about the playing to make the orchestra "better".
                  >>>
                  >>> REG
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >>> ------------------------------------
                  >>>
                  >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >>>
                  >>
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • Edward Mast
                  I take your point and quite agree, Roman. Mea culpa. -Ned
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jun 1, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I take your point and quite agree, Roman.  Mea culpa.

                    -Ned
                    On Jun 1, 2011, at 12:38 PM, Roman Zajcew wrote:

                     


                    On Jun 1, 2011, at 8:44 AM, Edward Mast wrote:



                    Exactly the view I have when I hear the Cleveland Orchestra doing its winter series here.  Any orchestra playing at this level is as good as it gets, whether it be the most well known or even some of the lesser known.    "Pretentious piffle" is an apt description.

                    Onwards with parsing of language... Isn't saying "playing at this level is as good as it gets" more than a little pretentious, in and of itself? After all, the statement was not "I have not heard any orchestra that is better". It was an absolute statement that "this is a s good as it gets". And heck, how does one define "as good as"? It seems to me that this is just as ill-defined a term as "better". And perhaps the original statement should have been "I have not heard playing that I enjoyed more than the playing of the Cleveland Orchestra". Something along those lines is pretty much the only way of stating this "accurately".

                    As I said in my earlier note, many (most? all?) of us are guilty of playing it a bit fast-and-loose with the English language. But this is an email list. We're not writing a textbook.

                    - Roman

                    P.S. Ed, I don't mean to pick on you for the above. Pretty much any email that expresses an opinion could be critiqued this way.

                    P.P.S. And I'm definitely not making any sort of a comment about the playing of the Cleveland Orchestra.

                    On Jun 1, 2011, at 12:31 AM, Robert wrote:

                    I was listening on the radio to the Phildelphia Orchestra
                    conducted by Mutti doing the Pines of Rome.
                    And it occurred to me to wonder in what reasonable
                    verifiable real sense ANY orchestra is better than that.
                    Recordings could surely be better--too many microphones.
                    But the orchestral playing?
                    It was beautifully in tune, highly expressive, dynamically
                    powerful where needed as well as exquisitely delicate when that was
                    called for. I really wonder just exactly what people
                    are thinking when they declare that one orchestra at this
                    level is better than another.
                    I also wonder how many of them could actually identify
                    which orchestra was which if one removed the hall considerations
                    and the woodwind soloists(some of whom have distinctive sounds).

                    Nero Wolfe's phrase "pretentious piffle" comes to mind here.
                    At a certain point, one might like one better than another,
                    but better? What does it even mean? 
                    Critics like to say that sort of thing. It makes them feel important and they think it is interesting--even if it means darned close
                    to nothing at all. 

                    I am not as such recommending this recording(not for recording technique). But listen to it or something like this and ask yourself, I would suggest, just exactly what could be improved about the playing to make the orchestra "better".

                    REG







                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.