Really - everyone -- my apologies for this thing being dragged on so long, but
I really feel the facts are too important:
David says (in reference to my quotation including Andrew's direct quote!):
(Les Said:) > I was responding to
> Andrew's statement that there was <There *were* no American symphony
> orchestras in the mid-late 19th c.except for the NY Phil and Theodore
> Thomas's touring outfit.>
David replied:
That clearly means established standing orchestras, which is pretty
obvious from the two examples given. You did not cite any standing
orchestras that lasted any length of time to refute his main point.
First, David - I think we're getting to the point of splitting <nucleons>: Read
Andrew's line. No implication of ANY permanence; his highlighting is vividly
clear by his use of "*were* no American symphony orchestras". No American
symphony orchestras, no criteria. Period. Which - even granted your
definition, is still not factually correct - behold a list of currently-extant
American symphony orchestras established in the following years (and note: as
the 20th century is usually accepted as having begun on Jan 1, 1901 - I've
included a couple from 1900. All may find to be in existence today; certainly
we all know the tale of the New York Phil/Symphony merger:
1841-2 New York Philharmonic Society
1878 New York Symphony Society
1880 St. Louis Symphony Orchestra
1893 Philadelphia Symphony Society (to become the Philadelphia Orchestra)
1895 Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra
1900 Dallas Symphony Orchestra
1900 Honolulu Symphony Orchestra
I've removed at least 10 other orchestras from as early as 1818 - and found
claims of symphony orchestras in the US going back to 1799 - simply to preserve
the list as acceptable to your definition, though I disagree that I really need
to do so: as one which contains only orchestras still around today. But
certainly, I hope you will have to accept from this data that Andrew's
statement - even within your defined parameters - is not correct.
I've found many other references to professional orchestras in existence in the
mid to late 1800's for three to ten or more years, playing regular
seasons....now defunct. And many many more to non-pro groups.
Best,
Les
Les Marsden
Founding Music Director and Conductor,
The Mariposa Symphony Orchestra
Music and Mariposa? Ahhhhh, Paradise!!!
http://arts-mariposa.org/symphony.html
http://www.geocities.com/~jbenz/lesbio.html
----- Original Message -----
From: David W. Fenton
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Finale] OT: John Cage's/19th century - and beyond!
On 27 May 2007 at 12:00, Mariposa Symphony Orchestra wrote:
> John Howell wrote (in response to my listing of some 19th-century
> American orchestras:)
>
> <Not that I disagree with your thesis, which I think is a good one if
> perhaps a bit exaggerated, but there certainly should be some
> criterion of length of existence before an orchestra can be considered
> more established than just a pickup group.>
>
> And Les says:
>
> But that was never part of the premise, John!
But it was clearly part of Andrew's premise:
> I was responding to
> Andrew's statement that there was <There *were* no American symphony
> orchestras in the mid-late 19th c.except for the NY Phil and Theodore
> Thomas's touring outfit.>
That clearly means established standing orchestras, which is pretty
obvious from the two examples given. You did not cite any standing
orchestras that lasted any length of time to refute his main point.
--
David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
