Talk:Vienna Philharmonic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tickets

I added the "Popularity" section from my own knowledge of their website and looking at hearing them on tour this spring. Does anyone have knowledge of how to get tickets to hear them in Vienna? I assume one can if one calls the right ticket agencies and fork over enough cash, but I haven't done this myself. Rob

you can buy tickets day of with a little calling around. Go to a box office and they can find you a ticket. Don't expect multiple seats together day of, but you can get seats there.66.83.107.214 18:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Instruments

I think it is fantastic that the VPO has such a variation in their instruments. I wish other major orchestras did something similar. 66.171.76.248 01:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The section regarding instruments needs some improvement.

   * The clarinet has a special fingering-system.

The VPO clarinets are normal German system clarinets - not unique to the VPO, and used in other German orchestras.

   * The bassoon has special fingering-combinations and reeds.

The bassoons are again, normal German type instruments. In each case, reeds are very personal to players.

   * The trumpet has a rotary-valve system and a narrower measurements.

Trumpets are normal German rotary-valve trumpets. (at least one being made by Shagerl). They are certainly different in measurement to American style trumpets used elsewhere.

   * The trombone and the tuba have a different fingering and valve-system.

For quite a few years, VPO trombonists have favoured American instruments. (eg. Vincent Bach). The current principal trombone, Ian Bousfield is English, and seems still to use a non German instrument, possibly a Conn.

   * The timpani use natural goat hide instead of synthetic hide.

It is not the hide that is significant - a lot of players world-wide do this, it is the old fashioned handle tuning system, with no pedals.

   * The double-bass retains the traditional theater-placement in a row behind the brass.

True, but the design of the Konzertvereinsaal, where they mostly perform, makes this an ideal placement.

   * The Viennese oboe has a special bore, measurement, reed, and fingering-system. It is very different from the otherwise internationally used French oboe.

True.

 * The Viennese (F-)horn is a variation of the natural horn with a valved crook in F inserted, so that the chromatic scale can be played. It has a narrower measurement, longer tubing, and a piston-valve system. These valves have the advantage of providing a tone which is not so sharply defined, as well as possibilities for smoother connections between notes. Moreover, the Viennese horn is made of stronger materials than, for example, the French Horn (Double Horn in both F and Bb).

This would read better as:

The Viennese F horn is based in dimension, on the Bohemian style natural horn in F. It uses a separate terminal crook, and the valve system uses double piston valves of a type invented by Leopold Uhlmann in 1830. These valves, in conjunction with the other measurements of the horn, allow very smooth changes between notes. These instruments, when well played, produce a most beautiful tone, which is immediately recognisable.

The comments about materials are nonsense - the horns are made of exactly the same types of metals as other quality makers. Vienna horns are mostly made these days by Jungwirth, Haageston, and Yamaha, who have a workshop in Vienna. Some VPO players are still using the old Gennossenschaft horns, which are now getting very old and worn out. The Yamaha vienna horns are mostly copies of these.

These comments are based on personal observations, and conversation with players.(Evansgd 01:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC))

Maybe you are right, but that's not what the Vienna Philharmonic themselves claim. In the VPO's official website, they insist on the unique characteristics of their clarinets, bassoons and trombones, and state bluntly that "Viennese horns are also constructed of stronger materials than conventional double horns" (in "The Viennese Sound", VPO website). 200.152.207.131 (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Clemens Hellsberg article biased...

When you mention the specific instruments the VPO uses, an important point to make is that those instruments are not appropriate for all kinds of orchestral music, especially modern music. This effects the ability to judge the VPO fairly with other orchestras - while in Beethoven they probably are the best (and the proportion of German orchestras in the study is justified with German music), in music of Messiaen the VPO would have to be "disqualified," because even though they play standard instruments on occasion, they don't play this music at all. In the realm of ALL orchestral music - an orchestra that plays all orchestral music well would naturally have to come first - and there are a few, some not even on this list. The BPO covers a wider repertoire, so they have a better chance at being the best, among others. The editors who made the selections were biased, and the conclusion that the VPO is best should be taken with a grain of salt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.147.201.17 (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the VPO is the best (this is just an oppinion, not an objective fact), but it is a expression not good for an objective article on an encyclopedia. Expressions such as "regularly considered one of the finest in the world" even if proper sources are indicated, are not good for an article. --Karljoos (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

VPO Logo

It's on the official site, at the op of the pagewienerphilharmoniker.at --Governor Jerjerrod (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Overzealous additions...

I just got back from hearing the Vienna Philharmonic in the Sydney Opera House, and was surprised to see that featuring prominently in the "History" section was a mention that Valery Gergiev was the first conductor to take the orchestra to Australia! Contrast this to the statement about Mahler taking the orchestra to Paris (rather more notable). While somewhat interesting at the moment to Australians, I felt it just didn't fit in an article about one of the world's greatest orchestras, when so much other more timeless and interesting information has been left out of the article. Ckerr 14:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

A comment from William Osborne:

I think you are referring to an article about Ozawa I wrote in 2002. Under the Philharmonic name, the ensemble uses only guest conductors they choose themselves. (It has been Philharmonic policy since the end of the Second World War to not have a chief conductor.) In 2002, Ozawa had led the Philharmonic only twice in the past while others such as Muti, Abbado and Maazel had directed them repeatedly. (Maazel, for example, has led the New Years Concerts eight times, while Ozawa has led only one.)

About six years ago (I would have to double check the exact date) Ozawa became the GMD of the Vienna State Opera, where the Philharmonic, named The Vienna State Opera Orchestra, serves in the pit. Since then Ozawa has conducted the orchestra in its Philharmonic formation a number of times, including a tour to the USA. The Phil, however, tries not to use their GMDs from the opera too often so the ensemble in its Philharmonic formation can maintain its autonomy. (End of comment.)

Pertaining to the article, there were some questionable statements. One is in the introduction, from the sentence stating "This process is a long one, with each musician having to prove his or her capability for a minimum of one thousand years' playing for the Opera and Ballet." Obviously having one thousand years experience is humanly impossible, but if this is a known joke pertaining to the orchestra then it should probably be noted.

Also, in the History section, there is a sentence stating "With Nicolai's departure in 1847, the orchestra nearly folded, and was not very active until 1860, when 2Pac joined as conductor." Was the name Felix Dessoff mistakenly replaced with 2Pac? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.178.225 (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, I reverted the vandalism! Catgut (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

I know I really need to check up on the gender/ethnicity business - I don't have all the details and facts to hand right now. I'll try to get a bit more specific about that stuff one day, but I'd love for somebody else to do it. --Camembert

see http://www.osborne-conant.org/purity.htm Let99 (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I heared that 1997, woman join this orchestra... 61.211.131.51 12:40, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm changing the dates for Hans Richter to 1883 - 1898 -- that's what it says on the Vienna Philharmonic's own website. Grover cleveland 07:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the Hans Richter mentioned above has nothing in common with the 20th. century surrealist artist of the same name (removed erroneous link)User: Thomas Ludwig

I had to take out some paragraphs from the Sexism and Racism Controversy. All of it goes back to a few pieces written by a William Osborne, and it is nearly impossible to check the sources. When you search the net for related articles you always find the same pieces authored by Osborne. And I became rather doubtful about Osborne's knowledge by the way, reading in a footnote that Seiji Ozawa has only occasionally conducted the orchestra. Which of course is complete nonsense. Does anybody know about impartial and independent sources concerning this topic, e. g. regarding the way auditions are held? --Catgut 02:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

anti-austrian?

Would a Chinese orchestra have to deal with these racist accusations, if most of its members were Chinese? Would anyone even consider a "race/gender quote system", when talking about the national orchestra of Russia? Actually I find these accusations offensive towards central Europans and the cultural heritage of the austrian monarchy. Of course the whole issue is connected with the "Holocaust -> Austrians are racists" narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.196.233 (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

National Socialism period

Currently listed under controversies. I guess this could be moved to history, but this may give itundue prominence given how short the rest of the history section currently is. Udzu (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the "undue weight" warning, and I think that refers to the above comment (am I right?). I believe that a detailed, even-handed summary of the panel's 2013 reports on its National Socialist history definitely belongs in Wikipedia. I can see how it might be a separate entry that is just summarized in the main Vienna Philharmonic article and linked to, but my stronger inclination is to balance it out by adding much more to other sections of the history, e.g., something about Margaret Notley's research on the orchestra's Volksconcerte in the 19th century. There's quite a lot of good history about this orchestra out there. I'll try to get around to this in the coming months. Brozhnik (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded the main 'History' section, so I hope it is now OK to remove the "Undue weight" notice on the National Socialism section- is it? Again, I am convinced that the section is both timely and important - it is a key part of the orchestra's modern history as of 2013. I plan to add more to the main History section, in any case, to make it clearer and more complete. Also, I want to rework the "popularity" section (it doesn't sound very encyclopedia-like right now) to make it more rigorous, and add material to it about criticism during the later 19th century about the high price of concert subscriptions, which put them out of the reach of most Viennese, and of the Volksconcerte undertaken to remedy this. I also want to update and expand the section on the orchestra's instruments. It might be good to include a list of some of the now-central works the orchestra has premiered, like Mahler's Eighth and his Das Lied von der Erde. I want to add material, too, about the orchestra's various attempts to address its Nazi-era legacy, such as its 2000 Beethoven 9th at the site of the Mauthausen concentration camp.

I also think the section on the controversy over women and minorities is appropriate as is -again, it is a central and unique part of the history of this orchestra during the last two decades. It is immediately striking even now when you see the VPO perform and compare its musicians to other leading orchestras like the Berlin Philharmonic or Concertgebouw or Chicago, which are obviously at a moment's glance way more diverse (way more women and non-Europeans). Thus I suggest removing the undue weight notice; it seems to me about right.Brozhnik (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

String instrument ownership

Anyone have a source or reference to add for "The string section's instruments belong to the orchestra, unlike other orchestras in which each string player uses his or her own instrument"? Thanks.Brozhnik (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:DUE

When it comes to criticizing the Vienna Philharmonic, all possible arguments are of course welcome. Yet WP:DUE should not be forgotten or ignored. The majority of the critical arguments or sources presented in this context lead back to the writings of William Osborne and his webpage. While Osborne's texts may be arguably based on serious sources, he nevertheless only shows one side of the coin. He doesn't try to be impartial, and he does not need to do so, but we do. We have to strive for being impartial and unbiased, and follow the WP:NPOV principle. Minority positions are minority positions, and they should not be given undue weight, especially when the other side is not given exactly the same amount of space. Wikipedia is not the place for one-sided personal campaigns, not to speak of smear campaigns. Thus, I removed the section heading Racial discrimination as it presented something as a stated fact which is basically just an accusation supported by a minority opinion. The bias was reflected in the edit emphasizing that Australian conductor Simone Young had just been a temporary guest. In fact, all of the Vienna Philharmonic's conductors have been temporary guests since 1933, when a change in the orchestra's policy occurred. Generally it can be said that this orchestra is a private club, and it may hire or fire whomever it wants. The arts are not about fairness, human rights, or gender policies. Some artists are lucky, others aren't. Regarding women, their importance has been overlooked for many centuries. Louise Bourgeois had to wait a long time to get the praise she deserved. When you look at the movie business today, a strong majority of Hollywood mainstream movies are directed by male directors. At a time when the Vienna Philharmonic refused to accept female conductors, the film business did the same with female directors, important museums presented mostly male painters and sculptors, and still today the world of classical music is dominated by male conductors and composers. All of this may be regrettable and pure injustice, but again, arts aren't about fairness and justice. Any orchestra's policies reflect its history and tradition. Has anyone yet complained about the presence of Palestinians, Christians or even Asians in the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra? No, and it wouldn't make any sense, given this fine orchestra's history and geopolitical context. Or has anyone complained about the number of black musicians in the New York Philharmonic? Why are only 3 out of the 16 NYPO's principal players women? Who were the NYPO's female conductors, and why did they pick Alan Gilbert and not a woman (hey, it's 2010, and after all those years there simply should be a female chief conductor, right?)? Have there been any feminist protests against the NYP having a male chief conductor? Of course not, because it would be ridiculous. Thus, I'm strongly opposed against using the VPO as an easy target for the purposes of all kinds of political or ideological campaigns. Especially when they reflect minority positions, but try to shout loudly in order to gain attention. Catgut (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

All you have to do is check Osborne's references. For example: [1] [2] -- the involvement of a political party and redirection of funds by the government is significant. If the US Government cut funds to the NYPO then it would be worthy of mention. It is also significant that the group has been repeatedly accused of racial discrimination, especially considering it in the context of the orchestra's history under Hitler. The included quotes say a lot. Let99 (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I did check all of Osborne's texts and sources. And while his views may be mentioned in this article, it is clear that his position is one-sided and not neutral. He uses those quotes and sources which advance his position. But he never does what any serious journalist should do, mentioning differing views or asking the other side for a comment. Thus we're confronted with a one-sided position held by a minority, not by a majority, and there's a lack of counter-arguments. In short, there's a clear danger of undue weight, and allowing a one-sided minority position to dominate the article. Let me quote WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. (...) In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. (...) Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." Right now, there are no competing views, there's just Osborne's position and the quotes supporting it. I think Osborne has given enough space, probably even too much (as there are no counter-arguments), leaving open the question whether his texts could be considered a reliable source in the first place. Certainly, this article is not to be transformed into an attack page with the primary purpose, at least of one of its sections, to attack its subject by citing one-sided arguments or positions. Catgut (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Osbourne does mention the other side, and the terminology they use is racist and supports his position.Let99 (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

And that's why he's biased and one-sided. Furthermore, it's very easy to use the Strasser quote from 1970. Those were different times, and there wasn't the kind of sensibility regarding race and ethnicity which exists today. Just a few years before that, LBJ had officially paved the way for racial equality in the US. I wonder what musicians working in American orchestras would have said at that time. And this is what I find so irritating about Osborne: He solely focuses on the VPO, instead of comparing the VPO's behavior with other orchestras around the world. Of course he's entitled to do so, but this makes him even more one-sided, and his argumentation even more biased, as it lacks any comparisons. To me, he seems to single out the VPO for a special treatment, and I consider this highly unfair. Catgut (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

How is it one-sided to use quotes from the orchestra itself to support his points? You can just add quotes from the orchestra that refute those points if they exist. We're talking about the 1990s and 2000s, not the 1970s. Yes, America is backwards in many ways, but, for example, compare with the musicians here and here.Let99 (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Catgut. Osborne's stance in this matter is anything but neutral, and singling out the VPO as a kind of sexist and racist scapegoat is certainly unfair. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Osbourne isn't neutral, but Wikipedia itself requires a neutral point of view, not the references. How can it be unfair to mention something when a political party in Austria considers it a significant issue and the funds are moved by the government. That's noteworthy.Let99 (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, if you want fair and balanced articles on music topics, go to Grove. Don't expect it to find them in Wikipedia. Flutedude (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the "Undue Weight" flag, and have come to feel it should be removed. The amount of space given to the topics of gender balance and ethnicity seem about right. These issues have been a big part of the modern history of the orchestra (picketing of US concerts, e.g.) and have not gone away (still being debated in Austrian media and politics in late 2012). The section might be improved, but seems reasonably balanced (I paraphrased the recent Hellsberg quote to try to help balance it). So - I propose to remove the "undue weight" flag in two days. Agreed?Brozhnik (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The section "Controversies" has about 2,400 words of the approximately 4,600 words of the whole article (omitting the list of recordings which ought to be removed); that's more than 50% – clearly undue weight and much worse than the situation in mid-March this year. Also, the sub-section "Period under National Socialism" is affected by "recentism". That whole section should be split off into its own article or be severely trimmed here. While readers are very likely to be interested in the VPO's treatment of women etc. and of the orchestra's role under the Nazis, this article is not the place to provide a detailed summary of the 2013 investigation or a blow-by-blow account of the story of some non-notable female members of the orchestra. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me think about this/ work on it for a week - will see what I can come up with that works, including possibly creating new pages (and then including the gist in the main history of the orchestra - which might, however, make the topics more prominent). Also, I will see how much these two section can be tightened and trimmed (over the next week).

A question: are there clear guidelines on how long a controversy section should be relative to the rest of the article? I'd think it would depend on the subject- and the VPO is unique among major orchestras in being embroiled in controversy (from about 1990 to the present), so might be expected to have a longer "controversy" section than other orchestras (most would have no such section). (In fact, i'm aware of another VPO controversy, over its remarkable Mauthausen concert, that is not in the article.) And the controversies are not without substance (e.g., no other major orchestra had official policies denying membership to women as late as 1997). How does one determine the correct weight? - any info welcome.

Re the women and minorities section, I only looked carefully at it last night for the first time, and it did strike me as unfocused and needing tightening, so I'll try.

I'm not sure I agree that that National Socialism section is recentism. It's been a hot issue for at least two decades, and the new reports are just the culmination of those debates. Also, it's a story that has four components spread over 70 years: the VPO's embrace of National Socialism during the 1930s-40s being far greater than other major German-speaking orchestras; such attitudes having unusual persistence in the postwar period (the re-award to Schirach in 1965 is just one piece of evidence of that, but the only one mentioned); the VPO restricting access to its wartime archives until 2007, also unique among major orchestras and worth being mentioned in Wikipedia; and the VPO's coming clean by commissioning the open reports by historians in 2013, also unique - and the reports are very likely to stand as definitive for decades, which is not true of really bad recentism. All of these components belong in the main article, either as part of the history narrative, or in their own section at the end - but again, I'll see about tightening it up or alternatively making the detailed discussion its own page and just summarizing it here. Give me a week to work this out, okay?

Finally, I agree that the discography should be revised to include only recordings of special note - first recordings, etc.- right now it seems random (whatever someone liked or thought worthy, rather than something exceptionally noteworthy). Finally, i plan to add more that is sourced about the VPO's playing style, which is mentioned but not discussed. I would like to see a source, too, for the assertion that the VPO is unique in owning its string instruments; it's currently unsourced. I'm on it... Brozhnik (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Rethought this since posting the followingabove; I now think you're right. Over the next two weeks I plan to (1) incorporate the gist of the material into the main "History" narrative" - along with some other stuff that's not there, like the VPO's becoming World Health Organization "Goodwill Ambassadors," their performance of Beethoven's 9th at Mauthausen, etc. - the good as well as the not good (2) create a separate "Vienna Philharmonic Controversies" entry for those wanting more details. Brozhnik (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

(I took the liberty of repositioning and slightly refactoring your contribution above to keep the order clearer).

Thank you very much for your contributions. You certainly have made it clear to me that the VPO is indeed in a situation like no other orchestra. Still, I suspect most readers will come here for more quotidian information. As for your proposed time frame: remember there is no deadline. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I spent the last two weeks redoing the Controversies sections. I simply trimmed the Period under National Socialism section; for the Women and Minorities I did new research and a lot of rewriting- it is shorter and tighter but (I hope) more information-packed. (Things I learned: a) just how far behind similar orchestras the VPO was in admitting women- I mention the Berlin Philharmonic, but other top orchestras admitted women way earlier); b) How much discussion of the issue was going on between the VPO and the Austrian government in the mid-1990s; c) that when the orchestra voted to open membership to women, the vote split in part along generational lines (I hope the article now conveys that it is simplistic to speak of the VPO's "stance on women and minorities" as a unified thing, and that's one reason why I changed the section's title a while ago; the other reason is that it's misleading, as its "stance" since 1997 is that it does not discriminate - it was before then that it had a stance). Also, I added basic information on tenure in the VPO - nobody over 35 is hired, and 65 is the mandatory retirement age. Not sure it belongs in this section, but I couldn't think of where else it might fit. Finally, I tried hard to make the section neutral in substance as well as tone (i think the woman and minorities section was anti-VPO in substance before).

Even with that extra information on tenure the "controversy" section is now shorter (1843 words). Meanwhile, the full article (not including discography) is longer (4999 words) - so that controversies are now about 36.8% of the whole, not over half. So, the question: is the overall weight about right? I believe that it is, given the orchestra's unique history of controversy and the high profile these controversies have had and continue to have in public discussion of the orchestra. But let me know what you think, thanks. (The project of incorporating this into the main history looms next, but is actually daunting, so as a first step I wanted to get these sections right. Does incorporating them into the main history still seem a good idea? I'd be happy to leave them here.) Brozhnik (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Just came back for the first time in a while and read the entry from end to end. I'm really pleased with it - it seems to me the best one-stop article on the Vienna Philharmonic on the web, better even than the excellent VPO website as it has more diverse sources, and nicely balanced. I also think the "women and minorities" sections is now concise and neutral, and that it is now a much smaller part of the overall piece, so that it gets exactly the right amount of weight, not too much (and it really did get undue weight when I first started working on this entry). Thus, I propose to remove the "undue weight" flag by Monday, but first want to propose it here - let me know if you have any comments, thanks.Brozhnik (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Followed up on previous post and have removed the "undue weight" flag from "women and minorities" section. Please see earlier discussions on why this issue has been a significant part of the modern history of the VPO - no other major orchestra waited nearly so long to allow women in, and no other major orchestra faced significant protests and boycotts over it. I also think the current section is neutral, concise, and more informative than most of what I've seen on the Web- e.g., in showing that the vote to allow women in 1997 was split partly along generational lines. In my view, all that's left for the VPO entry is to add the few citations requested (e.g. why Erich Kleiber left Berlin Opera) - all easy to source; will do so as soon as time allows. Brozhnik (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress/1

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Berlin Philharmonic which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

In my view these move discussions should be separate. Kleinzach 02:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)