[dave weil]

The Schermerhorn is finally open. It's a stunning hall and it's
reported to have incredible acoustics. It's very similar to both
Boston Symphony Hall and the Concertgeboux in terms of volume, layout
and seating capacity. The acousticians tried to combine the best of
both halls, the volume and projection of the Concertgeobux combined
with the clarity of the Boston. Everything has been factored in, from
the seat padding to the design of refracting and reflecting surfaces.
The hall itself is separated from the "outer box" by a three (or is it
two?) inch acoustic gap and all of the mechanicals are isolated in the
outer box. It's got large windows high up which let in light, and the
inner windows are two inch thick while the outer windows on the outer
wall of the outer box are three inches thick, and they are separated
by about 2 feet of air space. The seats are on movable sections which
retract into the basement under a folding floor, so they can turn the
whole hall into a dancehall in about two hours. They did a dry run a
couple of weeks ago with a full audience where the orchestra performed
and, in between, they performed sweep tests with a mic'ed dummy at a
designated seat. Not only did this allow them to fine tune the actual
structure when necessary, they set a standard for recording whereby
you'll be hearing the recording close to what you would hear from this
seat (unless the producer chooses otherwise, of course).

Leonard Slatkin is the "musical advisor" and sometimes conductor. They
broadcast the opening conert and it was really fine. It featured a
piece from Bela Fleck and Edgar Meyer with a friend of theirs on
tablas, a "Triple Concerto" which made its debut last night.

It was $123 mil well spent. And it came in on time and on budget.

I can't wait to attend an event there...

Where is it?


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
The Schermerhorn is finally open. It's a stunning hall and it's
reported to have incredible acoustics. It's very similar to both
Boston Symphony Hall and the Concertgeboux in terms of volume, layout
and seating capacity. The acousticians tried to combine the best of
both halls, the volume and projection of the Concertgeobux combined
with the clarity of the Boston. Everything has been factored in, from
the seat padding to the design of refracting and reflecting surfaces.
The hall itself is separated from the "outer box" by a three (or is it
two?) inch acoustic gap and all of the mechanicals are isolated in the
outer box. It's got large windows high up which let in light, and the
inner windows are two inch thick while the outer windows on the outer
wall of the outer box are three inches thick, and they are separated
by about 2 feet of air space. The seats are on movable sections which
retract into the basement under a folding floor, so they can turn the
whole hall into a dancehall in about two hours. They did a dry run a
couple of weeks ago with a full audience where the orchestra performed
and, in between, they performed sweep tests with a mic'ed dummy at a
designated seat. Not only did this allow them to fine tune the actual
structure when necessary, they set a standard for recording whereby
you'll be hearing the recording close to what you would hear from this
seat (unless the producer chooses otherwise, of course).

Leonard Slatkin is the "musical advisor" and sometimes conductor. They
broadcast the opening conert and it was really fine. It featured a
piece from Bela Fleck and Edgar Meyer with a friend of theirs on
tablas, a "Triple Concerto" which made its debut last night.

It was $123 mil well spent. And it came in on time and on budget.

I can't wait to attend an event there...

[ScottW]

wrote in message
. ..
Where is it?

http://www.nashvillesymphony.org/main.taf?p=15,4

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

The Schermerhorn is finally open. It's a stunning hall and it's
reported to have incredible acoustics. It's very similar to both
Boston Symphony Hall and the Concertgeboux in terms of volume, layout
and seating capacity. The acousticians tried to combine the best of
both halls, the volume and projection of the Concertgeobux combined
with the clarity of the Boston. Everything has been factored in, from
the seat padding to the design of refracting and reflecting surfaces.
The hall itself is separated from the "outer box" by a three (or is it
two?) inch acoustic gap and all of the mechanicals are isolated in the
outer box. It's got large windows high up which let in light, and the
inner windows are two inch thick while the outer windows on the outer
wall of the outer box are three inches thick, and they are separated
by about 2 feet of air space. The seats are on movable sections which
retract into the basement under a folding floor, so they can turn the
whole hall into a dancehall in about two hours. They did a dry run a
couple of weeks ago with a full audience where the orchestra performed
and, in between, they performed sweep tests with a mic'ed dummy at a
designated seat. Not only did this allow them to fine tune the actual
structure when necessary, they set a standard for recording whereby
you'll be hearing the recording close to what you would hear from this
seat (unless the producer chooses otherwise, of course).

Leonard Slatkin is the "musical advisor" and sometimes conductor. They
broadcast the opening conert and it was really fine. It featured a
piece from Bela Fleck and Edgar Meyer with a friend of theirs on
tablas, a "Triple Concerto" which made its debut last night.

It was $123 mil well spent. And it came in on time and on budget.

I can't wait to attend an event there...

Fantastic! Congrats to the good people of Nashville! I hope to hear
something there when I'm in Nashville next July.

There certainly has been a lot of new halls open recently: Disney in
L.A. a couple of years ago, Segerstrom in Orange County this month, etc.

Slatkin is a genius and an American musical hero.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:10:50 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
Where is it?

http://www.nashvillesymphony.org/main.taf?p=15,4

ScottW

Thanks!

Sorry, Norm...

[George M. Middius]

Uncle Troll Shelleyed:

The Schermerhorn is finally open.

Where is it?

Not in Seattle.



--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Harry Lavo]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
The Schermerhorn is finally open. It's a stunning hall and it's
reported to have incredible acoustics. It's very similar to both
Boston Symphony Hall and the Concertgeboux in terms of volume, layout
and seating capacity. The acousticians tried to combine the best of
both halls, the volume and projection of the Concertgeobux combined
with the clarity of the Boston. Everything has been factored in, from
the seat padding to the design of refracting and reflecting surfaces.
The hall itself is separated from the "outer box" by a three (or is it
two?) inch acoustic gap and all of the mechanicals are isolated in the
outer box.

Here's the fact sheet:
http://www.nashvillesymphony.org/res...%20design% 22

Compare to Verizon Hall in Philly. Verizon Hall is separated from the
"outer box" via a 10 foot space. The outer box stands free within the
Kimmel Center, which also houses the smaller Perelman Theater.
Unfortunately, it appears to have serious problems. See
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15291303.htm for a description of the
problems.

The ambitious design is described by the acoustic architectural firm he
http://www.artec-usa.com/03_projects...ladelphia.html,

"Verizon Hall may be the only concert hall in the world to be shaped as a
cello, a design proposed by the world-renowned architect, Rafael Viñoly.
In addition, the hall includes 260,000 cubic feet of coupled reverberation
space, motorized adjustable acoustical banners, and a three-piece
vertically moving acoustical canopy system, which hangs above the stage
area. The moving elements can be adjusted to tailor the room, visually and
acoustically, to the needs of the performance."

See http://blogs.ocregister.com/mangan/a...08/post_6.html

Is Boston's Symphony Hall, that plain rectangular box, still America's
favorite symphony hall?

It is still right up there with the old Carnegie (and some would argue also
the new Carnegie) as the best sounding in this country.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
The Schermerhorn is finally open. It's a stunning hall and it's
reported to have incredible acoustics. It's very similar to both
Boston Symphony Hall and the Concertgeboux in terms of volume, layout
and seating capacity. The acousticians tried to combine the best of
both halls, the volume and projection of the Concertgeobux combined
with the clarity of the Boston. Everything has been factored in, from
the seat padding to the design of refracting and reflecting surfaces.
The hall itself is separated from the "outer box" by a three (or is it
two?) inch acoustic gap and all of the mechanicals are isolated in the
outer box.

Here's the fact sheet:
http://www.nashvillesymphony.org/res...search=%22Sche
rmerhorn%20acoustic%20design%22

Compare to Verizon Hall in Philly. Verizon Hall is separated from the
"outer box" via a 10 foot space. The outer box stands free within the
Kimmel Center, which also houses the smaller Perelman Theater.
Unfortunately, it appears to have serious problems. See
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15291303.htm for a description of the
problems.

The ambitious design is described by the acoustic architectural firm he
http://www.artec-usa.com/03_projects...mmel_center/ve
rizon_hall_kimmel_philadelphia.html,

"Verizon Hall may be the only concert hall in the world to be shaped as a
cello, a design proposed by the world-renowned architect, Rafael Viñoly.
In addition, the hall includes 260,000 cubic feet of coupled reverberation
space, motorized adjustable acoustical banners, and a three-piece
vertically moving acoustical canopy system, which hangs above the stage
area. The moving elements can be adjusted to tailor the room, visually and
acoustically, to the needs of the performance."

See http://blogs.ocregister.com/mangan/a...08/post_6.html

Is Boston's Symphony Hall, that plain rectangular box, still America's
favorite symphony hall?

It is still right up there with the old Carnegie (and some would argue also
the new Carnegie) as the best sounding in this country.

I've not had the pleasure of hearing Symphony Hall, but I can testify
that Carnegie is the best hall that I've ever heard, from a variety of
audience seats and from the conductor podium, bar none. It's not even
close to anywhere else in my experience.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Soundhaspriority" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

...
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
The Schermerhorn is finally open. It's a stunning hall and it's
reported to have incredible acoustics. It's very similar to both
Boston Symphony Hall and the Concertgeboux in terms of volume, layout
and seating capacity. The acousticians tried to combine the best of
both halls, the volume and projection of the Concertgeobux combined
with the clarity of the Boston. Everything has been factored in, from
the seat padding to the design of refracting and reflecting surfaces.
The hall itself is separated from the "outer box" by a three (or is it
two?) inch acoustic gap and all of the mechanicals are isolated in the
outer box.

Here's the fact sheet:
http://www.nashvillesymphony.org/res...df#search=%22S
che
rmerhorn%20acoustic%20design%22

Compare to Verizon Hall in Philly. Verizon Hall is separated from the
"outer box" via a 10 foot space. The outer box stands free within the
Kimmel Center, which also houses the smaller Perelman Theater.
Unfortunately, it appears to have serious problems. See
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15291303.htm for a description of
the
problems.

The ambitious design is described by the acoustic architectural firm
he
http://www.artec-usa.com/03_projects.../kimmel_center
/ve
rizon_hall_kimmel_philadelphia.html,

"Verizon Hall may be the only concert hall in the world to be shaped as
a
cello, a design proposed by the world-renowned architect, Rafael
Viñoly.
In addition, the hall includes 260,000 cubic feet of coupled
reverberation
space, motorized adjustable acoustical banners, and a three-piece
vertically moving acoustical canopy system, which hangs above the stage
area. The moving elements can be adjusted to tailor the room, visually
and
acoustically, to the needs of the performance."

See http://blogs.ocregister.com/mangan/a...08/post_6.html

Is Boston's Symphony Hall, that plain rectangular box, still America's
favorite symphony hall?

It is still right up there with the old Carnegie (and some would argue
also
the new Carnegie) as the best sounding in this country.

I've not had the pleasure of hearing Symphony Hall, but I can testify
that Carnegie is the best hall that I've ever heard, from a variety of
audience seats and from the conductor podium, bar none. It's not even
close to anywhere else in my experience.

Jenn, how do you get to Carnegie Hall?

From 17th Ave, turn west on W 57th St. and you're right there!

Oh, OK.....

Jenn, how do you get to Carnegie Hall?

PRACTICE! (and be very lucky)

[[email protected]]

Harry Lavo wrote:

It is still right up there with the old Carnegie (and some would argue also
the new Carnegie) as the best sounding in this country.

Boston Symphony Hall is generally regarded as better than Carnegie. I
think the latter gets higher marks than otherwise would be the case
because of where it's located. If Carnegie Hall were in Denver or
Kansas City instead of New York, but identical in every other way
acoustically, it would go down several notches in the eyes of many
critics or afficianados.

[Jenn]

In article .com,
wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:

It is still right up there with the old Carnegie (and some would argue also
the new Carnegie) as the best sounding in this country.

Boston Symphony Hall is generally regarded as better than Carnegie. I
think the latter gets higher marks than otherwise would be the case
because of where it's located. If Carnegie Hall were in Denver or
Kansas City instead of New York, but identical in every other way
acoustically, it would go down several notches in the eyes of many
critics or afficianados.

I understand what you're saying about the advantage of location, but the
sound is TRULY magnificent, IMO.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Soundhaspriority" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

...
In article ,
"Soundhaspriority" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
.
com
...
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
The Schermerhorn is finally open. It's a stunning hall and it's
reported to have incredible acoustics. It's very similar to both
Boston Symphony Hall and the Concertgeboux in terms of volume,
layout
and seating capacity. The acousticians tried to combine the best of
both halls, the volume and projection of the Concertgeobux combined
with the clarity of the Boston. Everything has been factored in,
from
the seat padding to the design of refracting and reflecting
surfaces.
The hall itself is separated from the "outer box" by a three (or is
it
two?) inch acoustic gap and all of the mechanicals are isolated in
the
outer box.

Here's the fact sheet:
http://www.nashvillesymphony.org/res...1.pdf#search=%
22S
che
rmerhorn%20acoustic%20design%22

Compare to Verizon Hall in Philly. Verizon Hall is separated from
the
"outer box" via a 10 foot space. The outer box stands free within
the
Kimmel Center, which also houses the smaller Perelman Theater.
Unfortunately, it appears to have serious problems. See
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15291303.htm for a description
of
the
problems.

The ambitious design is described by the acoustic architectural firm
he
http://www.artec-usa.com/03_projects...ues/kimmel_cen
ter
/ve
rizon_hall_kimmel_philadelphia.html,

"Verizon Hall may be the only concert hall in the world to be shaped
as
a
cello, a design proposed by the world-renowned architect, Rafael
Viñoly.
In addition, the hall includes 260,000 cubic feet of coupled
reverberation
space, motorized adjustable acoustical banners, and a three-piece
vertically moving acoustical canopy system, which hangs above the
stage
area. The moving elements can be adjusted to tailor the room,
visually
and
acoustically, to the needs of the performance."

See http://blogs.ocregister.com/mangan/a...08/post_6.html

Is Boston's Symphony Hall, that plain rectangular box, still
America's
favorite symphony hall?

It is still right up there with the old Carnegie (and some would argue
also
the new Carnegie) as the best sounding in this country.

I've not had the pleasure of hearing Symphony Hall, but I can testify
that Carnegie is the best hall that I've ever heard, from a variety of
audience seats and from the conductor podium, bar none. It's not even
close to anywhere else in my experience.

Jenn, how do you get to Carnegie Hall?

From 17th Ave, turn west on W 57th St. and you're right there!

I just want to point out a slight error forgiveable to any out-of-towner:
It's 7th Avenue. There is no 17th Avenue.

Opps, I know that; purely a typo. I stayed in a lovely hotel just
across 7th Ave. from Carnegie Deli (yum!), and just across 56th St. from
Carnegie Hall.

By subway, from Penn Station:
Exit Penn Station on the east side at 32 Street. Cross 7th Avenue, walk east
one block, and enter the Herald Square subway station. Take the N,R,Q,orW to
57th Street.

Oh, OK.....

Jenn, how do you get to Carnegie Hall?

PRACTICE! (and be very lucky)
and good!

[[email protected]]

Jenn wrote:

I understand what you're saying about the advantage of location, but the
sound is TRULY magnificent, IMO.

I'd have to call it "good" more than "magnificent." Its sound has less
clarity and spaciousness than Boston's hall.

[Jenn]

In article .com,
wrote:

Jenn wrote:

I understand what you're saying about the advantage of location, but the
sound is TRULY magnificent, IMO.

I'd have to call it "good" more than "magnificent." Its sound has less
clarity and spaciousness than Boston's hall.

Other than Symphony Hall (which I haven't heard), what American hall do
you think sounds better?

[JimC]

Sounds like (although I haven't heard it of course) the new hall is a
major achievement.

The Boston hall, of similar rectangular shape, is actually quite simple
in design. Because it has such excellent acoustics, it seems to me that
it would be relatively inexpensive to essentually duplicate its basic
construction and dimensions rather than spending multiple millions
trying to come up with new designs able to achieve the same results.

When the Meyerson hall in Dallas was opened, it received criticism on
talk shows to the effect that, despite the multiple $$$$ spent
("wasted"), it didn't have as many seats as the old music hall/opera
house. In my experience, smaller halls, of approximately 1,200 - 1,500
seats, often have much better acoustics than larger ones. There seem to
be some basic principles of physics that have to be respected.

Jim










wrote:
Jenn wrote:


I understand what you're saying about the advantage of location, but the
sound is TRULY magnificent, IMO.


I'd have to call it "good" more than "magnificent." Its sound has less
clarity and spaciousness than Boston's hall.

[paul packer]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 17:14:59 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


Slatkin is a genius and an American musical hero.

Ever hear of his father, Felix? One of my favourite LPs back in the
60s was "Inspired Themes From The Inspired Films".

He put out a lot of nice albums back then.

[[email protected]]

Jenn wrote:

Other than Symphony Hall (which I haven't heard), what American hall do
you think sounds better?

My experiences unfortunately don't include two of the newest ones in
the country, so I'm not exactly the most up-to-date. But based on what
this writer says, the new hall in Nashville may give both Boston
Symphony Hall and Carnegie a run for their money:

His key quote....

"Attempting to describe the sound in
Nashville's hall isn't something easily
accomplished by comparison as this
hall has a sound unlike anything I've
ever experienced."

http://www.artsjournal.com/adaptistr...e_symph_2.html


As for the house that "Mickey Mouse" built on the West Coast, this
musician's impressions may be as reliable as, or no less accurate than,
any other in her profession:

http://www.violinist.com/blog/laurie/20057/3055/

[Jenn]

In article . com,
wrote:

Jenn wrote:

Other than Symphony Hall (which I haven't heard), what American hall do
you think sounds better?

My experiences unfortunately don't include two of the newest ones in
the country, so I'm not exactly the most up-to-date. But based on what
this writer says, the new hall in Nashville may give both Boston
Symphony Hall and Carnegie a run for their money:

What halls in the world have you heard (other than SH) that are better
than Carnegie?


His key quote....

"Attempting to describe the sound in
Nashville's hall isn't something easily
accomplished by comparison as this
hall has a sound unlike anything I've
ever experienced."

http://www.artsjournal.com/adaptistr...ille_symph_2.h
tml


As for the house that "Mickey Mouse" built on the West Coast, this
musician's impressions may be as reliable as, or no less accurate than,
any other in her profession:

http://www.violinist.com/blog/laurie/20057/3055/

I agree with her.

[Jenn]

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 17:14:59 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


Slatkin is a genius and an American musical hero.

Ever hear of his father, Felix? One of my favourite LPs back in the
60s was "Inspired Themes From The Inspired Films".

He put out a lot of nice albums back then.

Yes indeed. First violin at MGM, first fiddle in the great Hollywood
String Quartet, etc. Great recordings on Capitol.

[[email protected]]

Thank GOD they didn't make it a modernist piece of garbage like the
Disney concert hall.
I hate that building.

[Harry Lavo]

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

It is still right up there with the old Carnegie (and some would argue
also
the new Carnegie) as the best sounding in this country.

Boston Symphony Hall is generally regarded as better than Carnegie. I
think the latter gets higher marks than otherwise would be the case
because of where it's located. If Carnegie Hall were in Denver or
Kansas City instead of New York, but identical in every other way
acoustically, it would go down several notches in the eyes of many
critics or afficianados.


Well, I've heard a fair number of good halls and have never heard one better
(although Boston is as good, but "different"). But outside those two, the
others have not measured up. I would write this off to my necessarily
limited exposure relative to the number of concert halls in the country,
much less the world...except that people (musicians) with much wider
exposure than I and whose opinions I trust feel the same way.

In other words, I respectfully disagree.

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message
oups.com...
Thank GOD they didn't make it a modernist piece of garbage like the
Disney concert hall.
I hate that building.


I feel the opposite. Building a neo-classical building in this day and age
is a complete cop-out and a homage to poor taste.

[[email protected]]

Harry Lavo wrote:
I feel the opposite. Building a neo-classical building in this day and age
is a complete cop-out and a homage to poor taste.

It may be a little dull and hackneyed, but it's still a lot better than
modernism, which I feel is a complete abandonment of all design, sense,
taste, beauty, humanity, intelligence, skill, and everything good or
worthwhile in general. Modernism embraces randomness, ugliness, and
shock value.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:15:08 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
Thank GOD they didn't make it a modernist piece of garbage like the
Disney concert hall.
I hate that building.


I feel the opposite. Building a neo-classical building in this day and age
is a complete cop-out and a homage to poor taste.

I don't entirely disagree. However, the neo-classical design was
actually as pragmatic as anything. It was actually more cost effective
in the long run to do it this way because it kept the costs down,
believe it or not. Also, they see this building as having a shelf life
of at least 300 years, unlike most of the buildings that surround it.

It also sort of ties into Nashville's old tag as "The Athens of the
South". After all, we have a full-sized replica of The Parthenon g.

Believe it or not, the building doesn't seem "in poor taste" when you
view it. It DOES like shiny and new, which is a contradiction, but
given a few years of urban pollution, I think it remind people of the
great concert halls of Europe. It's not as grand as Vienna's Opera
House (not enough elevation for one) but it does come off as fairly
stately.

The Symphony board was impressed by the Berlin facility, but quickly
decided that they preferred the sound of the Concertgeboux and other
shoebox designs, so that's what they went with...

Still, there is a valid point about neo-classic designs. They are by
nature highly derivative. When you consider the alternative of what
Nashville has thrown out there, I guess I'm glad they stayed
conservative:

http://tinyurl.com/fgutd

[[email protected]]

Harry Lavo wrote:

Well, I've heard a fair number of good halls and have never heard one better
(although Boston is as good, but "different"). But outside those two, the
others have not measured up. I would write this off to my necessarily
limited exposure relative to the number of concert halls in the country,
much less the world...except that people (musicians) with much wider
exposure than I and whose opinions I trust feel the same way.

Even more so if you're basing your opinion on the opinion of others,
the following statement has been very much rule of thumb for a long
time:

"Symphony Hall in Boston, Massachusetts
is widely considered to be one of the two
or three finest concert halls in the world,
alongside Amsterdam's Concertgebouw
and Vienna's Grosser Musikvereinssaal."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_Hall,_Boston


Unlike the so-called Big 3, Carnegie is shaped more like a square box
(compared with a shoe box) and is a bit too large so that its
acoustical quality ends up compromised to a great enough degree,
meaning that its sound is dry and fuzzy enough to make it less
compelling.

[[email protected]]

dave weil wrote:

Still, there is a valid point about neo-classic designs. They are by
nature highly derivative. When you consider the alternative of what
Nashville has thrown out there, I guess I'm glad they stayed
conservative:

It's impressive they were able to create that building for only around
$125 million. In comparison, most of the other new halls in this
country have cost quite a bit more, up to around twice or more that
amount. And since the architect designed what really is almost a
duplicate of Vienna's Musikverein, the hall in Nashville may have
acoustics better than a lot of the less traditional rooms, particularly
the concert hall in Philadelphia, which opened 5 years ago.

[Jenn]

Soundhaspriority wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Soundhaspriority" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

...
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
The Schermerhorn is finally open. It's a stunning hall and it's
reported to have incredible acoustics. It's very similar to both
Boston Symphony Hall and the Concertgeboux in terms of volume,
layout
and seating capacity. The acousticians tried to combine the best of
both halls, the volume and projection of the Concertgeobux combined
with the clarity of the Boston. Everything has been factored in,
from
the seat padding to the design of refracting and reflecting
surfaces.
The hall itself is separated from the "outer box" by a three (or is
it
two?) inch acoustic gap and all of the mechanicals are isolated in
the
outer box.

Here's the fact sheet:
http://www.nashvillesymphony.org/res...df#search=%22S
che
rmerhorn%20acoustic%20design%22

Compare to Verizon Hall in Philly. Verizon Hall is separated from
the
"outer box" via a 10 foot space. The outer box stands free within
the
Kimmel Center, which also houses the smaller Perelman Theater.
Unfortunately, it appears to have serious problems. See
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15291303.htm for a description
of
the
problems.

The ambitious design is described by the acoustic architectural firm
he
http://www.artec-usa.com/03_projects.../kimmel_center
/ve
rizon_hall_kimmel_philadelphia.html,

"Verizon Hall may be the only concert hall in the world to be shaped
as
a
cello, a design proposed by the world-renowned architect, Rafael
Viñoly.
In addition, the hall includes 260,000 cubic feet of coupled
reverberation
space, motorized adjustable acoustical banners, and a three-piece
vertically moving acoustical canopy system, which hangs above the
stage
area. The moving elements can be adjusted to tailor the room,
visually
and
acoustically, to the needs of the performance."

See http://blogs.ocregister.com/mangan/a...08/post_6.html

Is Boston's Symphony Hall, that plain rectangular box, still
America's
favorite symphony hall?

It is still right up there with the old Carnegie (and some would argue
also
the new Carnegie) as the best sounding in this country.

I've not had the pleasure of hearing Symphony Hall, but I can testify
that Carnegie is the best hall that I've ever heard, from a variety of
audience seats and from the conductor podium, bar none. It's not even
close to anywhere else in my experience.

Jenn, how do you get to Carnegie Hall?

From 17th Ave, turn west on W 57th St. and you're right there!

I just want to point out a slight error forgiveable to any out-of-towner:
It's 7th Avenue. There is no 17th Avenue.
By subway, from Penn Station:
Exit Penn Station on the east side at 32 Street. Cross 7th Avenue, walk east
one block, and enter the Herald Square subway station. Take the N,R,Q,orW to
57th Street.

Oh, OK.....

Jenn, how do you get to Carnegie Hall?

PRACTICE! (and be very lucky)
and good!

Hey SOUNDHASPRIORITY:
Question to whom I presume is a NYC local:
If I looked down 7th Ave (away from Central Park, Lincoln Center, etc,
toward the Broadway theater area), would the sky there been filled with
the WTC towers? Just trying to get my bearings. I had such a
wonderful NYC trip, but time didn't allow for a "Ground Zero" visit,
regrettably.

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message
oups.com...
Harry Lavo wrote:
I feel the opposite. Building a neo-classical building in this day and
age
is a complete cop-out and a homage to poor taste.

It may be a little dull and hackneyed, but it's still a lot better than
modernism, which I feel is a complete abandonment of all design, sense,
taste, beauty, humanity, intelligence, skill, and everything good or
worthwhile in general. Modernism embraces randomness, ugliness, and
shock value.


Like any other art, there is both wonderful and awful modern design, in the
eye of the beholder. And only time will tell which the preponderate opinion
holds as a judgement. But wonderful or awful, at least architects
attempting to do something with integrity and freshness are trying to move
the design world forward. But neo-classical? I would think the artchitects
would hide in shame. It's like someone trying to write a new Symphony in
the style of Beethoven. No matter how successful an execution, it is a
totally non-artistic concept.

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message
oups.com...

Harry Lavo wrote:

Well, I've heard a fair number of good halls and have never heard one
better
(although Boston is as good, but "different"). But outside those two,
the
others have not measured up. I would write this off to my necessarily
limited exposure relative to the number of concert halls in the country,
much less the world...except that people (musicians) with much wider
exposure than I and whose opinions I trust feel the same way.

Even more so if you're basing your opinion on the opinion of others,
the following statement has been very much rule of thumb for a long
time:

"Symphony Hall in Boston, Massachusetts
is widely considered to be one of the two
or three finest concert halls in the world,
alongside Amsterdam's Concertgebouw
and Vienna's Grosser Musikvereinssaal."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_Hall,_Boston


Unlike the so-called Big 3, Carnegie is shaped more like a square box
(compared with a shoe box) and is a bit too large so that its
acoustical quality ends up compromised to a great enough degree,
meaning that its sound is dry and fuzzy enough to make it less
compelling.


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.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com

If I looked down 7th Ave (away from Central Park,
Lincoln Center, etc,
toward the Broadway theater area), would the sky there
been filled with
the WTC towers?

Not at all. Waaay too far away, 5 miles or more. Also, the canyon-like
situation on 7th Avenue doesn't even point at the twin towers. It ends in
Greenwich Villiage.

The WTC is so far south that most streets aren't numbered or named in way
that is consistent with midtown. If they were, the WTC would be on like
minus-20th street, In the twin towers area, 7 th Avenue would be out in the
Hudson river someplace.

The theater district is in the high 40s, and Central Park is above 58th st.
The usual rule of thumb is 12 blocks per mile.

Just trying to get my bearings.

Check out Google Maps in "Hybrid" mode or Google Earth. It is easy to find
the site of the twin towers - it is a few blocks North from the tip of
Manhattan on the West Side Highway. It is the big empty spot just inland
from the Hudson.

I had such a wonderful NYC trip, but time didn't allow for a "Ground
Zero" visit, regrettably.

I took the time last time I was there, and there was more than enough
emotional response to doing so. However to be factual, all there really is
at the site is a hole in the ground, a fairly simple memorial display and
some fragmentary construction. Or, that is how things were in early 2005.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com

If I looked down 7th Ave (away from Central Park,
Lincoln Center, etc,
toward the Broadway theater area), would the sky there
been filled with
the WTC towers?

Not at all. Waaay too far away, 5 miles or more. Also, the canyon-like
situation on 7th Avenue doesn't even point at the twin towers. It ends in
Greenwich Villiage.

The WTC is so far south that most streets aren't numbered or named in way
that is consistent with midtown. If they were, the WTC would be on like
minus-20th street, In the twin towers area, 7 th Avenue would be out in the
Hudson river someplace.

The theater district is in the high 40s, and Central Park is above 58th st.
The usual rule of thumb is 12 blocks per mile.

Just trying to get my bearings.

Check out Google Maps in "Hybrid" mode or Google Earth. It is easy to find
the site of the twin towers - it is a few blocks North from the tip of
Manhattan on the West Side Highway. It is the big empty spot just inland
from the Hudson.

I had such a wonderful NYC trip, but time didn't allow for a "Ground
Zero" visit, regrettably.

I took the time last time I was there, and there was more than enough
emotional response to doing so. However to be factual, all there really is
at the site is a hole in the ground, a fairly simple memorial display and
some fragmentary construction. Or, that is how things were in early 2005.

I see. Thanks for the info. I wish that I had seen the towers while
they were there. The photos, taken from NY, Kennedy Airport, etc. show
them to be SO much taller than the next tallest buildings that I have
trouble imagining how they must have looked from ground level.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

Harry Lavo wrote:

Well, I've heard a fair number of good halls and have never heard one
better
(although Boston is as good, but "different"). But outside those two,
the
others have not measured up. I would write this off to my necessarily
limited exposure relative to the number of concert halls in the country,
much less the world...except that people (musicians) with much wider
exposure than I and whose opinions I trust feel the same way.

Even more so if you're basing your opinion on the opinion of others,
the following statement has been very much rule of thumb for a long
time:

"Symphony Hall in Boston, Massachusetts
is widely considered to be one of the two
or three finest concert halls in the world,
alongside Amsterdam's Concertgebouw
and Vienna's Grosser Musikvereinssaal."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_Hall,_Boston


Unlike the so-called Big 3, Carnegie is shaped more like a square box
(compared with a shoe box) and is a bit too large so that its
acoustical quality ends up compromised to a great enough degree,
meaning that its sound is dry and fuzzy enough to make it less
compelling.


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.

WHich is exactly how I experienced Carnegie. Now, Avery Fisher Hall on
the other hand....

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Soundhaspriority" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com...

Soundhaspriority wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

om...
In article ,
"Soundhaspriority" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

y.com
...
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
The Schermerhorn is finally open. It's a stunning hall and it's
reported to have incredible acoustics. It's very similar to both
Boston Symphony Hall and the Concertgeboux in terms of volume,
layout
and seating capacity. The acousticians tried to combine the best
of
both halls, the volume and projection of the Concertgeobux
combined
with the clarity of the Boston. Everything has been factored in,
from
the seat padding to the design of refracting and reflecting
surfaces.
The hall itself is separated from the "outer box" by a three (or
is
it
two?) inch acoustic gap and all of the mechanicals are isolated
in
the
outer box.

Here's the fact sheet:
http://www.nashvillesymphony.org/res...-31.pdf#search
=%22S
che
rmerhorn%20acoustic%20design%22

Compare to Verizon Hall in Philly. Verizon Hall is separated from
the
"outer box" via a 10 foot space. The outer box stands free within
the
Kimmel Center, which also houses the smaller Perelman Theater.
Unfortunately, it appears to have serious problems. See
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15291303.htm for a
description
of
the
problems.

The ambitious design is described by the acoustic architectural
firm
he
http://www.artec-usa.com/03_projects...enues/kimmel_c
enter
/ve
rizon_hall_kimmel_philadelphia.html,

"Verizon Hall may be the only concert hall in the world to be
shaped
as
a
cello, a design proposed by the world-renowned architect, Rafael
Viñoly.
In addition, the hall includes 260,000 cubic feet of coupled
reverberation
space, motorized adjustable acoustical banners, and a three-piece
vertically moving acoustical canopy system, which hangs above the
stage
area. The moving elements can be adjusted to tailor the room,
visually
and
acoustically, to the needs of the performance."

See
http://blogs.ocregister.com/mangan/a...08/post_6.html

Is Boston's Symphony Hall, that plain rectangular box, still
America's
favorite symphony hall?

It is still right up there with the old Carnegie (and some would
argue
also
the new Carnegie) as the best sounding in this country.

I've not had the pleasure of hearing Symphony Hall, but I can testify
that Carnegie is the best hall that I've ever heard, from a variety
of
audience seats and from the conductor podium, bar none. It's not
even
close to anywhere else in my experience.

Jenn, how do you get to Carnegie Hall?

From 17th Ave, turn west on W 57th St. and you're right there!

I just want to point out a slight error forgiveable to any out-of-towner:
It's 7th Avenue. There is no 17th Avenue.
By subway, from Penn Station:
Exit Penn Station on the east side at 32 Street. Cross 7th Avenue, walk
east
one block, and enter the Herald Square subway station. Take the N,R,Q,orW
to
57th Street.

Oh, OK.....

Jenn, how do you get to Carnegie Hall?

PRACTICE! (and be very lucky)
and good!

Hey SOUNDHASPRIORITY:
Question to whom I presume is a NYC local:
If I looked down 7th Ave (away from Central Park, Lincoln Center, etc,
toward the Broadway theater area), would the sky there been filled with
the WTC towers? Just trying to get my bearings. I had such a
wonderful NYC trip, but time didn't allow for a "Ground Zero" visit,
regrettably.

Jenn, Soundhaspriority, aka me, aka Bob Morein, actually resides a bit NW of
Philadelphia, 72.07 miles from the WTC as the crow flies. I consider myself
a "virtual", cultural resident of the Big Apple, having made it the center
of my cultural affections many years ago. To compensate for the fact of not
being an actual NYC resident, I did some research with a mapping program,
DeLorme Topo 6.0. The WTC site is 4.10 miles from the intersection of 7th &
57th. That's about 21,000 feet. The towers were about 1400 feet high. From
7th & 57th, the towers reached about 3.6 degrees above the horizon. The
towers were more closely in line with 5th Avenue, two avenues toward the
east. So I doubt, and do not recall, that the towers would have been visible
from the intersection.

When I come out of Penn Station at 7th & 32nd, the Empire State building is
only two avenues east on 33rd Street. Yet it cannot be seen, because nearer,
but shorter buildings take up a much greater vertical angle.

The view of the Towers I remember best is from the New Jersey Transit train
as it approaches NYC from the south on the Amtrak Northeast Corridor. It
passes over miles of wetlands, of marshes of bullrush barely capable of
supporting a man and his dog (a quote, I can't remember from what), the same
land described in the beginning of The Great Gatsby. From this vantage, the
Twin Towers were a glorious symbol for the many foreign tourists who also
take that train. If Chicago is "the city of broad shoulders", NYC was known
as the city of skyscrapers and fast elevators. It was fun to play tour guide
on that train.

But now the towers are gone, anemically replaced by the Empire State, the
Chrysler Building, and, I think, one more building in the financial district
that I can't name. When the Towers stood, I had ambiguous feelings toward
them. I never went inside. Crossing the WTC plaza, they affected me with
inhuman scale, failing to warm the neighborhood, which relied still on
decrepit old buildings on side streets to provide the amenities that make
even a workday existence bearable.

But now they are gone. I miss them the way I miss the other trademark
aspirations to greatness that this country made before encountering the
limits of growth. I'm not sure why. It brings to mind all the contradictions
of being American: opportunities, some real, some virtual, some imaginary.
Patriotism that tries to imply kinship with strangers, yet cities full of
neighborhoods in which I cannot walk. Usenet newsgroups of vicious, hostile
people. Invitations to kindness, or evil. Real heroes who don't know they
are, and people who imagine themselve such.

On a day like this, I define myself by the illusions I choose to keep, the
hopes I cherish, and willing blindness toward omnipresent evil.

Bob Morein
(215) 646-4894

Thanks Bob; lots of useful information, eloquently stated.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

I see. Thanks for the info. I wish that I had seen the
towers while they were there.

I saw them a number of times, including once with my family. One time I was
in NYC on business, I stayed in the WT Westin hotel for the week.

The photos, taken from NY,
Kennedy Airport, etc. show them to be SO much taller than
the next tallest buildings that I have trouble imagining
how they must have looked from ground level.

They *were* that much taller than the surrounding buildings. However, I
don't think I saw them with the other really tall buildings in the complex
built up.

[Harry Lavo]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com

If I looked down 7th Ave (away from Central Park,
Lincoln Center, etc,
toward the Broadway theater area), would the sky there
been filled with
the WTC towers?

Not at all. Waaay too far away, 5 miles or more. Also, the canyon-like
situation on 7th Avenue doesn't even point at the twin towers. It ends
in
Greenwich Villiage.

The WTC is so far south that most streets aren't numbered or named in way
that is consistent with midtown. If they were, the WTC would be on like
minus-20th street, In the twin towers area, 7 th Avenue would be out in
the
Hudson river someplace.

The theater district is in the high 40s, and Central Park is above 58th
st.
The usual rule of thumb is 12 blocks per mile.

Just trying to get my bearings.

Check out Google Maps in "Hybrid" mode or Google Earth. It is easy to
find
the site of the twin towers - it is a few blocks North from the tip of
Manhattan on the West Side Highway. It is the big empty spot just inland
from the Hudson.

I had such a wonderful NYC trip, but time didn't allow for a "Ground
Zero" visit, regrettably.

I took the time last time I was there, and there was more than enough
emotional response to doing so. However to be factual, all there really
is
at the site is a hole in the ground, a fairly simple memorial display and
some fragmentary construction. Or, that is how things were in early 2005.

I see. Thanks for the info. I wish that I had seen the towers while
they were there. The photos, taken from NY, Kennedy Airport, etc. show
them to be SO much taller than the next tallest buildings that I have
trouble imagining how they must have looked from ground level.

The tops just sort of disappeard from street level. My company's offices
were just two short blocks due south of the complex, and twice I took
visitors up to Windows on the World for lunch (the observation deck was too
much for me...I have that fear of edges you read about...the floor length
windows were enough for me). It truly was scary looking "down" at the top
of 50 story buildings that from our offices looked "huge". Our own 20 story
buiding was pygmy sized. By contrast, it was actually fun to look out at
heliocopters flying thirty stories below the top of the buildings.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com

If I looked down 7th Ave (away from Central Park,
Lincoln Center, etc,
toward the Broadway theater area), would the sky there
been filled with
the WTC towers?

Not at all. Waaay too far away, 5 miles or more. Also, the canyon-like
situation on 7th Avenue doesn't even point at the twin towers. It ends
in
Greenwich Villiage.

The WTC is so far south that most streets aren't numbered or named in way
that is consistent with midtown. If they were, the WTC would be on like
minus-20th street, In the twin towers area, 7 th Avenue would be out in
the
Hudson river someplace.

The theater district is in the high 40s, and Central Park is above 58th
st.
The usual rule of thumb is 12 blocks per mile.

Just trying to get my bearings.

Check out Google Maps in "Hybrid" mode or Google Earth. It is easy to
find
the site of the twin towers - it is a few blocks North from the tip of
Manhattan on the West Side Highway. It is the big empty spot just inland
from the Hudson.

I had such a wonderful NYC trip, but time didn't allow for a "Ground
Zero" visit, regrettably.

I took the time last time I was there, and there was more than enough
emotional response to doing so. However to be factual, all there really
is
at the site is a hole in the ground, a fairly simple memorial display and
some fragmentary construction. Or, that is how things were in early 2005.

I see. Thanks for the info. I wish that I had seen the towers while
they were there. The photos, taken from NY, Kennedy Airport, etc. show
them to be SO much taller than the next tallest buildings that I have
trouble imagining how they must have looked from ground level.

The tops just sort of disappeard from street level. My company's offices
were just two short blocks due south of the complex, and twice I took
visitors up to Windows on the World for lunch (the observation deck was too
much for me...I have that fear of edges you read about...the floor length
windows were enough for me). It truly was scary looking "down" at the top
of 50 story buildings that from our offices looked "huge". Our own 20 story
buiding was pygmy sized. By contrast, it was actually fun to look out at
heliocopters flying thirty stories below the top of the buildings.

Very interesting, thanks. I have one friend who has described thus: "At
street level, I looked straight up at the Empire State and was awed. At
the WTC towers, I looked straight up and felt a little sick to my
stomach."

[[email protected]]

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

[Harry Lavo]

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

[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.

[Robert Morein]

In article , "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:


"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com...

Soundhaspriority wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

m...
In article ,
"Soundhaspriority" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
.
com
...
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
The Schermerhorn is finally open. It's a stunning hall and it's
reported to have incredible acoustics. It's very similar to both
Boston Symphony Hall and the Concertgeboux in terms of volume,
layout
and seating capacity. The acousticians tried to combine the best
of
both halls, the volume and projection of the Concertgeobux
combined
with the clarity of the Boston. Everything has been factored in,
from
the seat padding to the design of refracting and reflecting
surfaces.
The hall itself is separated from the "outer box" by a three (or
is
it
two?) inch acoustic gap and all of the mechanicals are isolated
in
the
outer box.

Here's the fact sheet:

http://www.nashvillesymphony.org/res/ssc_fact_sheet_10-31.pdf#search=%22
S
che
rmerhorn%20acoustic%20design%22

Compare to Verizon Hall in Philly. Verizon Hall is separated from
the
"outer box" via a 10 foot space. The outer box stands free within
the
Kimmel Center, which also houses the smaller Perelman Theater.
Unfortunately, it appears to have serious problems. See
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15291303.htm for a
description
of
the
problems.

The ambitious design is described by the acoustic architectural
firm
he

http://www.artec-usa.com/03_projects/performing_arts_venues/kimmel_cente
r
/ve
rizon_hall_kimmel_philadelphia.html,

"Verizon Hall may be the only concert hall in the world to be
shaped
as
a
cello, a design proposed by the world-renowned architect, Rafael
Viñoly.
In addition, the hall includes 260,000 cubic feet of coupled
reverberation
space, motorized adjustable acoustical banners, and a three-piece
vertically moving acoustical canopy system, which hangs above the
stage
area. The moving elements can be adjusted to tailor the room,
visually
and
acoustically, to the needs of the performance."

See
http://blogs.ocregister.com/mangan/a...08/post_6.html

Is Boston's Symphony Hall, that plain rectangular box, still
America's
favorite symphony hall?

It is still right up there with the old Carnegie (and some would
argue
also
the new Carnegie) as the best sounding in this country.

I've not had the pleasure of hearing Symphony Hall, but I can testify
that Carnegie is the best hall that I've ever heard, from a variety
of
audience seats and from the conductor podium, bar none. It's not
even
close to anywhere else in my experience.

Jenn, how do you get to Carnegie Hall?

From 17th Ave, turn west on W 57th St. and you're right there!

I just want to point out a slight error forgiveable to any out-of-towner:
It's 7th Avenue. There is no 17th Avenue.
By subway, from Penn Station:
Exit Penn Station on the east side at 32 Street. Cross 7th Avenue, walk
east
one block, and enter the Herald Square subway station. Take the N,R,Q,orW
to
57th Street.

Oh, OK.....

Jenn, how do you get to Carnegie Hall?

PRACTICE! (and be very lucky)
and good!

Hey SOUNDHASPRIORITY:
Question to whom I presume is a NYC local:
If I looked down 7th Ave (away from Central Park, Lincoln Center, etc,
toward the Broadway theater area), would the sky there been filled with
the WTC towers? Just trying to get my bearings. I had such a
wonderful NYC trip, but time didn't allow for a "Ground Zero" visit,
regrettably.

Jenn, Soundhaspriority, aka me, aka Bob Morein, actually resides a bit NW of
Philadelphia, 72.07 miles from the WTC as the crow flies. I consider myself
a "virtual", cultural resident of the Big Apple, having made it the center
of my cultural affections many years ago. To compensate for the fact of not
being an actual NYC resident, I did some research with a mapping program,
DeLorme Topo 6.0. The WTC site is 4.10 miles from the intersection of 7th &
57th. That's about 21,000 feet. The towers were about 1400 feet high. From
7th & 57th, the towers reached about 3.6 degrees above the horizon. The
towers were more closely in line with 5th Avenue, two avenues toward the
east. So I doubt, and do not recall, that the towers would have been visible
from the intersection.

When I come out of Penn Station at 7th & 32nd, the Empire State building is
only two avenues east on 33rd Street. Yet it cannot be seen, because nearer,
but shorter buildings take up a much greater vertical angle.

The view of the Towers I remember best is from the New Jersey Transit train
as it approaches NYC from the south on the Amtrak Northeast Corridor. It
passes over miles of wetlands, of marshes of bullrush barely capable of
supporting a man and his dog (a quote, I can't remember from what), the same
land described in the beginning of The Great Gatsby. From this vantage, the
Twin Towers were a glorious symbol for the many foreign tourists who also
take that train. If Chicago is "the city of broad shoulders", NYC was known
as the city of skyscrapers and fast elevators. It was fun to play tour guide
on that train.

But now the towers are gone, anemically replaced by the Empire State, the
Chrysler Building, and, I think, one more building in the financial district
that I can't name. When the Towers stood, I had ambiguous feelings toward
them. I never went inside. Crossing the WTC plaza, they affected me with
inhuman scale, failing to warm the neighborhood, which relied still on
decrepit old buildings on side streets to provide the amenities that make
even a workday existence bearable.

But now they are gone. I miss them the way I miss the other trademark
aspirations to greatness that this country made before encountering the
limits of growth. I'm not sure why. It brings to mind all the contradictions
of being American: opportunities, some real, some virtual, some imaginary.
Patriotism that tries to imply kinship with strangers, yet cities full of
neighborhoods in which I cannot walk. Usenet newsgroups of vicious, hostile
people. Invitations to kindness, or evil. Real heroes who don't know they
are, and people who imagine themselve such.

On a day like this, I define myself by the illusions I choose to keep, the
hopes I cherish, and willing blindness toward omnipresent evil.

Bob Morein
(215) 646-4894


Sorry guys, forgery.

Robert Morein
Shop "N Bag, Penn