If you build it, will they come?
Here's the review from the LA Times in today's paper, by Mark Swed. Besides praising the performers, Swed comments that the new hall was far from full.
"Segerstrom may be in its first season, but it appears no attraction," he writes, noting that there were plenty of $200 seats available. $200 seats?? Given that there's also the glitzy Disney Hall not far away, isn't that a bit much to expect of concertgoers?
It appears that the new Miami Carnival Center is also having some problems filling its glamorous new performing arts center -- although many concerts do sell out, its CEO recently wrote.
Is the proliferation of glamorous new halls just too much for the demand? And if Cincinnati built a new concert hall just for the CSO (frankly, I sort of like the idea of Frank Gehry-style titanium sails on the Banks of the Ohio) would people come??
posted by Janelle Gelfand at 10:51 AM
5 Comments:
at 4/24/2007 08:18:00 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 4/24/2007 01:13:00 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 4/25/2007 09:46:00 PM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 4/26/2007 01:15:00 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 4/26/2007 08:04:00 AM 
Anonymous said...
-
-
Post a Comment*Janelle, you missed the chance to quote the most flattering bit of Mark Swed's article: "Segerstrom is a hall that has already hosted great orchestras. But neither the New York Philharmonic barreling through Beethoven's 'Eroica' nor even the irrepressible Kirov playing Shostakovich had quite the visceral excitement of Cincinnati's 'Inextinguishable.'" That's strong praise, indeed.
As to concert halls, it seems that the proliferation is becoming ridiculous these days. More importantly, I get the impression that the communities involved have not significantly considered what they're doing when building new halls, particularly questions of why, how, and to what end. Miami (my hometown) has never adequately supported the musical arts, but in the past 10 years has become a visual art/graphic design hotspot. The city & county tried to drag a feeble music scene into that limelight and are failing miserably. Segerstrom Hall in the OC seems to be one the same route. Disney Hall, on the other hand, is a huge success.
Before we suggest that Cincinnati go the new hall route, somebody ought to be carefully analyzing the varied causes for what did and didn't work in these cases. Will a new hall, say in a friendlier location or with less cavernous space and fewer seats, really spark a rise in ticket revenue? What would happen to Music Hall and concerted efforts to change downtown (and how would that reflect on CSO in the eyes of public or city commissioners)? & so on. Will CSO gain enough in a new venture?
I'm inclined to believe that, whatever its flaws, Music Hall should remain the home of CSO. It's got class, it's got history, it sounds pretty good, and whatever people's qualms, parking across Central Pkwy in the garage and taking the bridge across to the hall has *never* felt unsafe. To chime in on other discussions here, the major change I would recommend for CSO is to change its marketing strategies. There are ways to make the average concert weekend seem more eventful without significantly changing its content (though like everyone else, I could add more than two cents on music I'd like to see added to the rotation). If Paavo is going to include 3-4 Nordic/Baltic-themed concerts per season, why not call it a series? If CSO is going to hire a variety of young soloists, that's a marketable point of view. The "Stravinsky Festival" scheduled next season speaks for itself (though I have little doubt that it will be under-promoted). CSO can do a better job selling itself.
I remember in the 50's when there was pressure to get rid of the 'old barn'. Fortunately Music Hall, along with Carnegie Hall, was saved from the wreaking ball. And thank goodness it was, because Music Hall has some of the best acoutics in the country, if not the world. Why does the CSO have a recording contract when many major orchestras do not? It's because of the great acoutics of Music Hall. I think the Hall size should be cut down from 3400 to around 2400, the size of Severance Hall in Cleveland. But the alteration should be done only after consultation with the world's best acoustic experts. I say go with history and keep the CSO in the new Music Hall.
CSO's recording contract has nothing to do with the accoustics of the hall.
-cso orchestra member
Music Hall does NOT have great acoustics, by any stretch of the imagination. Ask any CSO musician, any guest conductor that comes through, or just anyone that actually knows what they're talking about.
I have to agree with the previous posts-- Music Hall has mediocre (at best) acoustics. It has some ok spots, but that's it. Try this: sit house left balcony sections A or B, rows 1 or 2. It sounds somewhat acceptable here. Then sit opposite, in house right. The violins disappear into another room, the pianist's (if there is one, of course) left hand just disappears. Just one example of many. Then there's the stage's problems...
* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.
By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site.
<< Home