[Jenn]

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
Harry Lavo wrote:

I'm not sure about the "new" Carnegie....I was only in it when it was
empty
and still had acknowledged "problems". But the old Carnegie was not
anything as you describe...a voice sung or spoken on stage could be heard
anywhere in the hall with startling carry and articulation. Music
sounded
lively and dynamic when called for, with a wonderful sense of
"rightness",
neither too ambient nor too dry.

You may find the following of some interest.

As you probably know, the New York Philharmonic's home before the early
1960s was Carnegie Hall. When they were planning their new building at
Lincoln Center, the template they used for their future space, which
was to be known as Philharmonic Hall (and is now Avery Fisher), was not
Carnegie but Boston Symphony Hall:



Lincoln Center, the architect, Max Abramovitz, and the acoustical
consultant agreed from the start that the acoustical goals were three:
First, Philharmonic Hall was to accommodate principally the regular
repertoires of the New York, Boston, and Philadelphia orchestras.
Although other uses were contemplated, it was not to be an
"all-purpose hall."

Second, the seating capacity of the hall was to be no greater than is
consistent with good acoustics.

Third, no effort was to be spared that would enable Philharmonic Hall
to assume a place among the best halls in the world-halls like Boston,
Vienna, Amsterdam, and Basel.

The views of the New York Philharmonic Society were presented in a
letter to the architect from the late George Judd Jr., on April 20,
1959:

Dear Mr. Abramovitz:

I should like to confirm by this letter the Society's position
relative to the acoustics of the new Philharmonic Hall. Not being
technicians in the field, we shall not state our desires in figures or
formulas but shall relate them to acoustics of halls in existence.

...In the Society's judgment, the acoustics of the Hall should
approximate as closely as possible those of the Boston Symphony Hall
when filled, but in no event should the reverberation time be shorter.
We feel the reverberation time of London Festival Hall too short, while
that of the Vienna Grosser Musikvereinssaal and Amsterdam Concertgebouw
may be slightly longer than is necessary.

We understand, however, that it is much more feasible to adjust from a
longer reverberation to a shorter than vice versa. If this is true,
special care should be taken not to run any danger of too short a
time...

George Judd Jr., Manager


And boy did that turn out to be a dud of a hall.

For sure.

I was there shortly after
it opened for the world premier of Bernstein's "Chichester Psalms"

Paint me jealous!

and the
sound of the orchestra stunk...fortunately, the halls bright acoustics were
reasonably complimentary to the boy suprano, who sang beautifully, and to
the chorus...but the orchestra sounded absolutely terrible...bright, etched,
no bass, "hi-fi" in the extreme. I remember thinking....how could they go
so wrong. Then of course, all hell broke loose as the critics continued to
pile on.

It is hard for me to imagine the acousticians took Boston Symphony Hall into
account in any way, shape, or form other than a series of acoustic
measurements. There wasn't a shred of similarilty in the physical design or
outfitting.