Location, Location, Location....

[marty]

We’ve all heard the term as it relates to real estate. As audiophiles, we often think of location as it relates to speaker and listener placement in our listening room. But here’s a new twist, which is a story from the permanent display at the museum at Carnegie Hall which many patrons frequent during intermission. It’s a cute story about a different type of location placement of a piano in a great hall by a guy who was apparently as OCD as any self-respecting audiophile; the great Vladimir Horowitz.

 

[Scott Naylor]

I watched Elly Ameling do the same thing at the hall where I was assistant stage manager as a conservatory student. It was well known amongst singers there that if you went too far forward on the stage you lost the reinforcement of the acoustical design and it was easy to over-sing* because of the perception you weren’t projecting. After vocalizing a bit, she found her preferred place, looked down and noted there was already a small “x” permanently placed under the wood floor's coating. A discreet piece of gaffers tape helped her should she want to find it later under stage lighting.

*BTW, I don’t think Elly Ameling ever was guilty of over-singing in her entire career

 

[jeff1225]

We’ve all heard the term as it relates to real estate. Bu as audiophiles, we often think of location as it relates to speaker and listener placement in our listening room. But here’s a new twist, which is a story from the permanent display at the museum at Carnegie Hall which many patrons frequent during intermission. It’s a cute story about a different type of location placement of a piano in a great hall by a guy who was apparently as OCD as any self-respecting audiophile; the great Vladimir Horowitz.


View attachment 108100


View attachment 108101

View attachment 108102

Fantastic story... thank you for sharing.

 

[Gregadd]

i watched an episode of TBBT. Sheldon would make a sound to find the acoustic sweet spot. I wondered was it an error for him to be both the source and destination of the sound?

 

[PeterA]

James Levine was BSO music director a few years ago. One of the first adjustments he made to the orchestra was to move the cello section from the right side to center stage. It was an interesting change which separated the collision from the violas. I liked it.

 

[tima]

We’ve all heard the term as it relates to real estate. Bu as audiophiles, we often think of location as it relates to speaker and listener placement in our listening room. But here’s a new twist, which is a story from the permanent display at the museum at Carnegie Hall which many patrons frequent during intermission. It’s a cute story about a different type of location placement of a piano in a great hall by a guy who was apparently as OCD as any self-respecting audiophile; the great Vladimir Horowitz.


View attachment 108100


View attachment 108101

View attachment 108102

review: Horowitz at Carnegie Hall: An Historic Return

 

[marty]

I was moved by the part of the review regarding the Schuman Fantasy that said "where his hand-over-hand technique ranged across the octaves with amazing dexterity, sounding at times as if he had three hands". The performance I heard on Saturday was Daniel Trifonov performing Prokofiev's daunting 2nd piano concerto, where the same impossibly fast hand-over-hand technique was readily apparent. Without Horowitz, there would be no Trifonov! (The only other guy who could play like he has 3 hands is Art Tatum, but I doubt he could play Prokofiev 2!!)

 

[bonzo75]

James Levine was BSO music director a few years ago. One of the first adjustments he made to the orchestra was to move the cello section from the right side to center stage. It was an interesting change which separated the collision from the violas. I liked it.

this is done often. Conductors mix them up it is not as left and right as tradition

 

[Scott Naylor]

this is done often. Conductors mix them up it is not as left and right as tradition

Following up on your excellent point bonzo75, here's a fun article discussing the changes in orchestra seating since the start of the classical period. Leave it to conductors to ”interpret” composer intent a la “Stokowski shift”

Conducting Electricity: There's a science behind where symphony musicians sit on stage

One of the questions I’m asked most often is why the string sections of the Jacksonville Symphony sometimes change where they sit between pieces in a concert. Loyal symphony goers will remember that …

www.jacksonville.com

 

[PeterA]

this is done often. Conductors mix them up it is not as left and right as tradition

I made note of it because I have attended the BSO off and on for about 35 years and Levine was the only conductor/director to do it. It was immediately returned to the way it was after he left and remains that way today. I was not aware it is done often. Thank you.

 

[stirlingtrayle]

We’ve all heard the term as it relates to real estate. Bu as audiophiles, we often think of location as it relates to speaker and listener placement in our listening room. But here’s a new twist, which is a story from the permanent display at the museum at Carnegie Hall which many patrons frequent during intermission. It’s a cute story about a different type of location placement of a piano in a great hall by a guy who was apparently as OCD as any self-respecting audiophile; the great Vladimir Horowitz.


View attachment 108100


View attachment 108101

View attachment 108102

Thank you for this wonderful story. It really resonates with me. I've always been curious how many conductors, when on tour with their orchestra, take into consideration the acoustics of the different halls they play. Here in San Francisco at Davies Hall during the Blomstedt years, although he's a great conductor, I was always a little disappointed in the sound of the SF Symphony. Yes, of course, it could have been my seat location, my quite(!) inexperienced ear, or the hall. But during one performance, with SF Symphony playing, a guest conductor(can't remember who) from Concertgebouw delivered a whole new and exciting sound, not interpretation or reading, but sound to the hall. For lack of a better description, the hall really jumped. At least, that's the way I remember it from a gazillion years ago. In the way Horowitz found his spot at Carnegie, do conductors focus on how their music is presented in different halls? Is there common knowledge about how each hall presents that conductors rely on? Do they care? I know from a musician's perspective, some halls are really dreaded for not being able to hear each other, but this doesn't necessarily correlate to how the audience experiences the performance. At Davies Hall, there are these moveable reflectors above the orchestra that really impact the presentation. The musicians were complaining that they could not hear each other, so they lowered the reflectors, giving the musicians a much better ability to hear each other. The musicians were happy, but when the reflectors are that low, dang the sound suffers greatly. I really don't know much about how or if conductors deal with this and would be curious to learn more. I could even guess that the pace and logistics of getting a traveling orchestra in place on performance night is so tight that this may just not be a thing they can worry about.

 

[marty]

Following up on your excellent point bonzo75, here's a fun article discussing the changes in orchestra seating since the start of the classical period. Leave it to conductors to ”interpret” composer intent a la “Stokowski shift”

Conducting Electricity: There's a science behind where symphony musicians sit on stage

One of the questions I’m asked most often is why the string sections of the Jacksonville Symphony sometimes change where they sit between pieces in a concert. Loyal symphony goers will remember that …

www.jacksonville.com

I loved the article on the "Stokowski shift". My earliest recollection of that was its use by Gerard Schwartz in Seattle in the 80's( (?) so I loved the article which provided a far more detailed history.

Thank you for this wonderful story. It really resonates with me. I've always been curious how many conductors, when on tour with their orchestra, take into consideration the acoustics of the different halls they play. Here in San Francisco at Davies Hall during the Blomstedt years, although he's a great conductor, I was always a little disappointed in the sound of the SF Symphony. Yes, of course, it could have been my seat location, my quite(!) inexperienced ear, or the hall. But during one performance, with SF Symphony playing, a guest conductor(can't remember who) from Concertgebouw delivered a whole new and exciting sound, not interpretation or reading, but sound to the hall. For lack of a better description, the hall really jumped. At least, that's the way I remember it from a gazillion years ago. In the way Horowitz found his spot at Carnegie, do conductors focus on how their music is presented in different halls? Is there common knowledge about how each hall presents that conductors rely on? Do they care?

One of my main grievances at live orchestral performances is that whether there is a Stowkoski shift or not, whatever strings are placed in the front right, whether it be 2nd violins, violas or celli, the players are invariably always turned slightly so they face the conductor. That means the instruments are never projecting out into the audience, but always to the left rear of the stage. I appreciate the conductor needs to conduct and that the musicians need to see the conductor. But would it be so difficult for the front two rows of the right strings, no matter what they might be, to rotate about 15 degrees counterclockwise so at the minimum, the audience is not facing the back of their instruments as is typically the case? (Some of this can be attributed to the fact that the conductor's podium is generally set a little deeper in the stage than the front row of the orchestra). Why conductors don't appreciate this is a mystery to me. Even the double basses which are located furthest on the right rear, the audience generally sees only the sides of the instruments in the front two rows of the double basses nearest the audience. It is for this reason that I will never sit in seats on the right side of the orchestra floor (parquet). That is dead man's land and are invariably the worst seats in the hall because the sound there is usually imbalanced and not as full sounding as anywhere else in the hall. This anomaly can be reduced significantly with seats that are elevated in one of the balconies (First tier, second tier, Grand Tier, Nosebleed section or whatever it is called in various halls). But still, we're almost always looking at the backs or sides of those front rows of right strings and basses.

Now as long as we're talking about audience grievances, I always like it when conductors put the instruments on risers, especially those towards the rear of the orchestra. This improves the sound heard by the audience from those orchestra parquet floor seats, which are located so that the listener's ears are typically positioned at a level below the player's feet, especially in the front of the orchestra parquet seats. I wish every conductor used risers which helps project the sound out, above the heads of the players in front of them.

 

[R Johnson]

I loved the article on the "Stokowski shift". My earliest recollection of that was its use by Gerard Schwartz in Seattle in the 80's( (?) so I loved the article which provided a far more detailed history.



One of my main grievances at live orchestral performances is that whether there is a Stowkoski shift or not, whatever strings are placed in the front right, whether it be 2nd violins, violas or celli, the players are invariably always turned slightly so they face the conductor. That means the instruments are never projecting out into the audience, but always to the left rear of the stage. I appreciate the conductor needs to conduct and that the musicians need to see the conductor. But would it be so difficult for the front two rows of the right strings, no matter what they might be, to rotate about 15 degrees counterclockwise so at the minimum, the audience is not facing the back of their instruments as is typically the case? (Some of this can be attributed to the fact that the conductor's podium is generally set a little deeper in the stage than the front row of the orchestra). Why conductors don't appreciate this is a mystery to me. Even the double basses which are located furthest on the right rear, the audience generally sees only the sides of the instruments in the front two rows of the double basses nearest the audience. It is for this reason that I will never sit in seats on the right side of the orchestra floor (parquet). That is dead man's land and are invariably the worst seats in the hall because the sound there is usually imbalanced and not as full sounding as anywhere else in the hall. This anomaly can be reduced significantly with seats that are elevated in one of the balconies (First tier, second tier, Grand Tier, Nosebleed section or whatever it is called in various halls). But still, we're almost always looking at the backs or sides of those front rows of right strings and basses.

Now as long as we're talking about audience grievances, I always like it when conductors put the instruments on risers, especially those towards the rear of the orchestra. This improves the sound heard by the audience from those orchestra parquet floor seats, which are located so that the listener's ears are typically positioned at a level below the player's feet, especially in the front of the orchestra parquet seats. I wish every conductor used risers which helps project the sound out, above the heads of the players in front of them.

When I was checking the prices for the NY Phil in the renovated Geffen Hall, I noticed that the left section prices were higher than the right section. (Or was it Carnegie?) Apart from concerts with Piano, I could not understand this. Your thinking may explain this, though I've never read anyone else with similar comments.

Recently I attended a Chicago Symphony rehearsal with Hilary Hahn. For the first half I sat on the left side of the Lower Balcony as usual. But I decided to actually try the Main Floor for the second half. (My regular seats are left side of the Gallery). I was in row N, right side. The first 10 rows are blocked off. That seat was great for watching and listening Hilary Hahn. But the sound of the orchestra was quite different. My simplest description is "muffled". Note that this is with risers.

My theory: If you can't see the musical instrument, your ears are missing much of its direct sound, hearing almost all reflected sound. In Chicago this means that one should sit in the Lower Balcony (3rd floor) or the Gallery (6th floor).

 

[marty]

When I was checking the prices for the NY Phil in the renovated Geffen Hall, I noticed that the left section prices were higher than the right section. (Or was it Carnegie?) Apart from concerts with Piano, I could not understand this. Your thinking may explain this, though I've never read anyone else with similar comments.

Recently I attended a Chicago Symphony rehearsal with Hilary Hahn. For the first half I sat on the left side of the Lower Balcony as usual. But I decided to actually try the Main Floor for the second half. (My regular seats are left side of the Gallery). I was in row N, right side. The first 10 rows are blocked off. That seat was great for watching and listening Hilary Hahn. But the sound of the orchestra was quite different. My simplest description is "muffled". Note that this is with risers.

My theory: If you can't see the musical instrument, your ears are missing much of its direct sound, hearing almost all reflected sound. In Chicago this means that one should sit in the Lower Balcony (3rd floor) or the Gallery (6th floor).

Agree with all. I never appreciated the asymmetrical pricing for orchestra seats, but you're right. For Geffen, it's there. Not sure of the reason but you may be on to something!

The front Lower Balcony at Chicago is simply terrific as you know. The clarity and impact of the double bass and lower brass is just wonderful.

 

[Al M.]

Now as long as we're talking about audience grievances, I always like it when conductors put the instruments on risers, especially those towards the rear of the orchestra. This improves the sound heard by the audience from those orchestra parquet floor seats, which are located so that the listener's ears are typically positioned at a level below the player's feet, especially in the front of the orchestra parquet seats. I wish every conductor used risers which helps project the sound out, above the heads of the players in front of them.

It would also somewhat protect the ears of the players in front from the acoustic energy of the instruments behind them, because these instruments would play more above their heads. Hearing loss among orchestra musicians can be a serious issue.

 

[tima]

One of my main grievances at live orchestral performances is that whether there is a Stowkoski shift or not, whatever strings are placed in the front right, whether it be 2nd violins, violas or celli, the players are invariably always turned slightly so they face the conductor.

From experience I know that when the conductor looks at you, you darn well better be looking back.

 

[Marcus]

The front Lower Balcony at Chicago is simply terrific as you know. The clarity and impact of the double bass and lower brass is just wonderful.

Recently I attended a Chicago Symphony rehearsal with Hilary Hahn. For the first half I sat on the left side of the Lower Balcony as usual. But I decided to actually try the Main Floor for the second half. (My regular seats are left side of the Gallery). I was in row N, right side. The first 10 rows are blocked off. That seat was great for watching and listening Hilary Hahn. But the sound of the orchestra was quite different. My simplest description is "muffled". Note that this is with risers.

My theory: If you can't see the musical instrument, your ears are missing much of its direct sound, hearing almost all reflected sound. In Chicago this means that one should sit in the Lower Balcony (3rd floor) or the Gallery (6th floor).

It’s so interesting for me to read your comments as I had an opportunity to be on the concert in Chicago Symphony Hall, even more so because I listened to the Hilary Hahn concert performance you mentioned. Great experience I will never forget. So many great records I have were made there. I haven’t much experience with best concert halls of the world (have the Concertgebouw on my belt though) but my feeling with the Chicago Symphony Hall was that it’s so well balanced and proportioned. I easily heard all instruments (a problem in various other halls I visited) and the clarity of brass section was phenomenal.

 

[marty]

....my feeling with the Chicago Symphony Hall was that it’s so well balanced and proportioned. I easily heard all instruments (a problem in various other halls I visited) and the clarity of brass section was phenomenal.

Exactly, It is unique for its intimacy among big halls that makes hearing orchestral music there very enjoyable and immersive. Lower Fadim balcony are some of the best seats on the planet. Fortunately, single tickets go on sale in August and are generally available for most performances for the 23-24 season. I always look for something to attend there. Mahler 2 in late May of next year is my current target. I'm excited already!

 

[stirlingtrayle]

I loved the article on the "Stokowski shift". My earliest recollection of that was its use by Gerard Schwartz in Seattle in the 80's( (?) so I loved the article which provided a far more detailed history.



One of my main grievances at live orchestral performances is that whether there is a Stowkoski shift or not, whatever strings are placed in the front right, whether it be 2nd violins, violas or celli, the players are invariably always turned slightly so they face the conductor. That means the instruments are never projecting out into the audience, but always to the left rear of the stage. I appreciate the conductor needs to conduct and that the musicians need to see the conductor. But would it be so difficult for the front two rows of the right strings, no matter what they might be, to rotate about 15 degrees counterclockwise so at the minimum, the audience is not facing the back of their instruments as is typically the case? (Some of this can be attributed to the fact that the conductor's podium is generally set a little deeper in the stage than the front row of the orchestra). Why conductors don't appreciate this is a mystery to me. Even the double basses which are located furthest on the right rear, the audience generally sees only the sides of the instruments in the front two rows of the double basses nearest the audience. It is for this reason that I will never sit in seats on the right side of the orchestra floor (parquet). That is dead man's land and are invariably the worst seats in the hall because the sound there is usually imbalanced and not as full sounding as anywhere else in the hall. This anomaly can be reduced significantly with seats that are elevated in one of the balconies (First tier, second tier, Grand Tier, Nosebleed section or whatever it is called in various halls). But still, we're almost always looking at the backs or sides of those front rows of right strings and basses.

Now as long as we're talking about audience grievances, I always like it when conductors put the instruments on risers, especially those towards the rear of the orchestra. This improves the sound heard by the audience from those orchestra parquet floor seats, which are located so that the listener's ears are typically positioned at a level below the player's feet, especially in the front of the orchestra parquet seats. I wish every conductor used risers which helps project the sound out, above the heads of the players in front of them.

I loved the article on the "Stokowski shift". My earliest recollection of that was its use by Gerard Schwartz in Seattle in the 80's( (?) so I loved the article which provided a far more detailed history.



One of my main grievances at live orchestral performances is that whether there is a Stowkoski shift or not, whatever strings are placed in the front right, whether it be 2nd violins, violas or celli, the players are invariably always turned slightly so they face the conductor. That means the instruments are never projecting out into the audience, but always to the left rear of the stage. I appreciate the conductor needs to conduct and that the musicians need to see the conductor. But would it be so difficult for the front two rows of the right strings, no matter what they might be, to rotate about 15 degrees counterclockwise so at the minimum, the audience is not facing the back of their instruments as is typically the case? (Some of this can be attributed to the fact that the conductor's podium is generally set a little deeper in the stage than the front row of the orchestra). Why conductors don't appreciate this is a mystery to me. Even the double basses which are located furthest on the right rear, the audience generally sees only the sides of the instruments in the front two rows of the double basses nearest the audience. It is for this reason that I will never sit in seats on the right side of the orchestra floor (parquet). That is dead man's land and are invariably the worst seats in the hall because the sound there is usually imbalanced and not as full sounding as anywhere else in the hall. This anomaly can be reduced significantly with seats that are elevated in one of the balconies (First tier, second tier, Grand Tier, Nosebleed section or whatever it is called in various halls). But still, we're almost always looking at the backs or sides of those front rows of right strings and basses.

Now as long as we're talking about audience grievances, I always like it when conductors put the instruments on risers, especially those towards the rear of the orchestra. This improves the sound heard by the audience from those orchestra parquet floor seats, which are located so that the listener's ears are typically positioned at a level below the player's feet, especially in the front of the orchestra parquet seats. I wish every conductor used risers which helps project the sound out, above the heads of the players in front of them.

Thank you for your insights. As a part of my "orchestral experience education" journey, I've been deliberately sitting much closer to the orchestra than the wonderful seats you have mentioned in the balcony. I know these seats can provide a beautiful and satisfying experience, but I've been trying to learn more about the nearer field experience, maybe somewhat closer to what the recording microphones pick up while recording a performance. Maybe windowing out the hall a bit... Last night I attended SF Symphony doing Shostakovich 1st. Symphony, mostly because I use it for setup and have heard it, I don't know how many thousands of times. It was a great reality-check opportunity. I was sitting in row G, super close I know, and took this pic while they were warming up. I guess this kinda illustrates your grievance with orchestral positioning. I did notice that the conductor was not as buried into the orchestra as usual. During the performance, SF's principal violin does regularly angle himself more toward the audience, especially when playing any sole stuff as he did last night. The principal 2nd violin (a sub here, sitting 3rd from the left behind the music stand) is usually positioned directly in front of the conductor's left hand, facing forward, always an...interesting...place for him to be when Juja is doing her signature bows.... As buried as they were with this layout, the violas were surprisingly present and supportive in the performance, even from where I was sitting.

 

[marty]

Stirling,
Enjoy exploring your seating choices. Sitting up close can be very satisfying, particularly for chamber, or a piano and violin concerto. One advantage is that you get to see the expression on the musician's faces which can really translate to appreciation of the piece and the performance. Sometimes, a new location can really be an educational experience. I remember thinking I should try the upper balcony at Carnegie because many of the regulars (and even HP) thought it was sonically excellent, and it was, but in a way I had not assumed it might be.

Any live music is...all good!
Marty