Talk:Big Five (orchestras)

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 July 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Cleanup

A cleanup tag was placed on this article, but there wasn't any explanation of the concerns about the page. I left a comment at User talk:Sin-man to see if we can get more context for the objection. --Arcadian 13:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expand or modify label

The "big five" label either needs to be expanded or modified. Neither Boston or Philadelphia are anywhere near as good as they were in their hey-day under Koussevitzky and Munch, and Stokowski and Ormandy respectively.

Living in Los Angeles (and being a native Angeleno), I can definitely say that our own LAPO is NOT a front-rank ensemble despite the high-profile business with the opening of the Disney Hall, ads on our MTA buses and trains (because EVERYBODY knows all it takes is a bus bench ad to convince someone to listen to Mahler!), and what not. Salonen is a pretty stiff conductor. Revueltas, Shostakovich, Mahler, Beethoven, Stravinsky - Salonen has the uncanny ability to make all these very individual and powerful composers sound grey and dull. The LAPO sound is too smooth, too edgeless. The strings sound pretty thin, the brass under-powered, and the winds lack character.

Orchestras I believe are truly our front-rank are the following:

Cincinnati Symphony
Cleveland Orchestra
New York Philharmonic
Chicago Symphony
San Francisco Symphony
Minnesota Orchestra
Dallas Symphony

Cincinnati definitely is a top-flight ensemble. The Telarc recordings of the orchestra, wonderful though they are, don't do the sound of the orchestra justice. I was able to attend a concert of the Cincinnati Symphony about two years ago and was left with jaw agape at the stunning beauty and richness of its string section. The brass is mellow, rich in tone; the winds ripe and full of character. Cincinnati's definitely one of my picks to be a "big five" orchestra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.23.34 (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern use

The whole "Modern Use" section reads as some kind of Ivy League school resentment diatribe (i.e. my state school is better than Harvard). FACT: The Big Five have the highest base salaries and as a result, get first pick at musicians. And it's typically that the Big Five poach musicians from non-Big Five orchestras, not the other way around. That being said, there is no shortage of highly talented musicians. So what's the difference between a Big Five orchestra and all others? Not much, except the extra edge that more money can provide. But the notion that some Big Five orchestras have fallen from grace is ridiculous. While Philadelphia may not have the big warm sound of the Ormandy era, the orchestra of today is technically much sharper, with a far more impressive dynamic range.

So the article should be just left at explaining what the big 5 is and that many people think it's an outdated term since there are so many good orchestras in American today. No editorializing about my orchestra being better than yours -- save that for a message board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.131.103 (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of entry

Wikipedia's philosophy is clear that it is used to collect and make convenient information that can be corroborated by existing sources. An article on the "Big Five" should explain exactly what it is, and not include information about what people think it should be unless it can be cited and noted as a somewhat common public opinion. I think the Modern use section is pushing things a bit, and I think changing the members of the Big Five would be completely unwarranted unless someone can find verifiable evidence that the popular idea of what this term means has actually changed. Also - please sign your discussion entries!

Joemoser 21:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NY Sun -Big Five Change

I just read an artical from the NY Sun, saying the Big Five are being changed. Is this true? is it official? http://www.nysun.com/article/44570 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.166.155.133 (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The New York Sun's credibility as a source of classical music criticism is highly dubious. One little known critic's opinion on which orchestras constitute the "big five" is irrelevant.THD3 (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Origins: Deletion of Philharmonic Hall, etc.

I deleted the following from the Origins section:

With the opening performances at Philharmonic Hall (now Avery Fisher Hall) in New York's Lincoln Center, which featured a select group of invited guest orchestras in September 1962, Cleveland was acknowledged among the nation's best.^[1]

Without any statement of which orchestras performed in the September 1962 series, the statement does not support the evolution of the Big Three into the Big Five. The cited Time article, which only discussed Cleveland, did not say that Cleveland performed in the series. If the article is going to talk specifically of Cleveland's elevation, it should do the same for Chicago. Finell (Talk) 04:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The Glorious Instrument", Time. (February 22 1963)

References

The characterization of the linked references is not a substitute for bibliographic citation. See WP:Cite. Also, I deleted the reference to an Angelfire page because it is not clear that it is a reliable source. Finell (Talk) 04:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who were the Major Seven?

The article refers to a former list of "Major Seven" orchestras. If they are mentioned they should be identified. 173.16.252.154 (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion

As noted at the top of the article, I have nomiated it for deletion. The article is not properly cited (despite long standing requests for such), largely speculative, and has one section ("Modern Use") that smacks of original research. The term itself is specialized and non-notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. In addition, the very notion of a Big Five group of orchestras that includes none outside the United States is laughable.THD3 (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Five (orchestras). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070428221541/http://nyphil.org/about/overview.cfm to http://nyphil.org/about/overview.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "The Glorious Instrument", Time. (February 22 1963)

[1]