首页 » 古典音乐论坛

哈，孔祥东也说过，除了维也纳、柏林和巴伐利亚广播，其他的欧洲乐团都比不过美国五大，甚至是一些美国的二流乐团（例如巴尔的摩、亚特兰大、圣路易斯和洛杉矶爱乐等）都有很强的实力理由是美国善于吸收外来文化，优秀演奏家多。

不过美国乐团中，克里夫兰和波士顿我还是比较喜欢的。相较之下，纽约、费城和芝加哥就感觉一般。现在克里夫兰稳坐美国头号交响乐团宝座，而纽约常常被认为是美国五大中最差的（引用一句名言就是，纽约爱乐的每个人都认为自己是独奏家，他们当中的有些人是，但有些人却不是）

我自己喜欢的乐团的前三名是柏林、克里夫兰和伦敦交响。

我只是赞同文章说的前三名，后面的不敢苟同。

乐团的好坏要听现场，而且在好的演出场所才能真正听得出来。不过中国的爱乐人大都没有这个条件。光从唱片上听到的感觉，也来试排一排：柏林爱乐，维也纳爱乐，伦敦交响乐团，阿姆斯特丹音乐厅，克里夫兰，芝加哥，波士顿，爱乐乐团。

柏林爱乐也有它的缺点：冷。在我最喜欢的交响乐唱片中，柏林爱乐并不占大多数

大家似乎忘记了前苏联的交响乐团。莫斯科交响乐团，列宁格勒交响乐团，全苏广播交响乐团等等从技术层面上说并不比西欧美国的交响乐团逊色.

听录音说不准的，要听现场！

就现场听过的欧洲乐队，个人认为柏林爱乐、阿姆斯特丹音乐厅乐团最棒。我不太赞同除了少数几个乐团，现在美国的乐队普遍比欧洲乐团要好。衡量乐团的水平，不能单纯看乐团的技术。美国乐团比欧洲乐团经常比欧洲的吊儿郎当些。

如何给交响乐团排名？凭听唱片？还是在音乐厅听现场演奏？如果听唱片，那录音的真实性大打折扣，所评出的排名1、2、3……有点滑稽，如果听现场乐团的演奏那是最真实的，可贵乐迷所列出的交向乐团有几个来过中国？更何况来过广州？
世界之大，乐团之多，只有心中喜欢的，和不断增加新喜欢的乐团就已足吁。
能在星海经常欣赏到交响乐的演出，最好欣赏到有名气的乐团演出心以满足。

所谓客观性是需要的，但是也不能说没有完美的客观，就干脆什么也不干。正如同文艺评论家遗憾没有永恒的文学作品，那么文学家们是否都什么都不写了？
对于乐团评论来说，尤其如此。甚至，我们都没有一个公认的客观标准。
要说到‘现场’，那么所谓的现场演奏至少还包括以下几个因素：
一，现场说那里？是否以各乐团的‘老巢’为准？VPO的声音显然不能以人民大会堂的演出为基准。而各个音乐厅的声学结构各异，音乐厅是否先需要排名？如果说皇家音乐厅声音世界第一，那么是否所有交响乐团必须都去那里现场演奏作为衡量基础？
二，就算第一点讨论有结果，接下来是：是曲目演绎，还是纯展示技巧？曲目来说各个乐团各自有千秋，这怎么客观得到协调？柏林七十年代的布鲁克纳，那声音是人类颠峰，但是我更喜欢幕尼黑切利的演绎。那么就布鲁克纳来说，那个乐团更好？怎么评论？
三，一切都客观化之后，谁来指挥？
就算一切都解决了，怎么客观化评论家的观点？如何把美学感受指标化？
其实，单独乐器的国际比赛客观化程度已经很有可疑，而不存在代表人类音乐（和声音乐）最高美学的交响乐团的竞赛，就是因为根本无法做到客观化和统一观点。
所以，如同鲁迅所说：与其防破绽，不如忘破绽。录音当然有失真影响，但是如果只看到每个乐团最大的特点，不是录音和场地，作品和指挥所能掩埋的，就足够--而且应该认识到‘彻底的客观真实’是不存在的。而且，最重要的是：每个人都有自己心目里的名单，这所有名单都不必也没可能统一。正如西谚所说：口味无争执。我们的眼界其实很窄，很多优秀的乐团我们连名字都没听到过，也许在欧洲是非常著名的。这需要在欧洲的朋友们多介绍，也需要它们多录音，多巡回演出。
不过，就普遍现象来看，好象不把柏林放在名单前三位的还不多。这应该代表一种虽然是没有准确定义然而却有某种核心价值的美学观点的表现，一种普遍表现。这也是为什么卡拉杨被我认为是最伟大的大师之一的原因。他代表一种交响乐的最高美学。
至于我列出的八个乐团，就我所知，只有伦敦爱乐和巴瓦广播没来过中国。

现在的美国乐团有个通病，就是声音及其漂亮，但是在乐团的个性与演奏不同时期与作曲家的作品的风格上来讲，则不能和欧洲传统老店相比。记得是BOULZE曾经说，在欧洲指挥，即使是VPO这样的超一流乐团，在演奏诸如象STRAVINKY， BERG， SCHOEBERG等20世纪作曲家较复杂的作品时，仍需要至少一次的排练时间来解决技术上的问题。而美国乐团则在第一次通奏的时候，可能在技术上就能让指挥五话可说。然而，欧洲的乐团则总是抱着一种不断学习的态度来和指挥一起工作，而不是象美国乐团那样当指挥头一次的赞美过后就飘飘然了。所以，在欧洲，从排练到演出，指挥与乐团更象是在为了音乐与艺术方面的不断进步而工作，而美国则是大部分的商业气息。

初次之外，我最喜欢的乐团声音是：1：CELIBIDACHE晚年棒下的MPO与FURT二战时的BPO，VPO；2， KARAJAN，60年代至70年代后期的BPO与80年代晚期的VPO；3， KLEMPERER60年代的爱乐乐团。至于美国的乐团，我觉得CLEVELAND60年代后期在SZELL棒下那段时间是美国乐团的黄金岁月。当然，REINER50年代后期的芝加哥也是数一数二的。

我总觉得排出“十大”来很困难，我们都对“十大”一词太专注、迷信了。很多乐团实难做比较，正如以上Dupre先生所说的，很多乐团在不同时期由于领导者的变更，其国际地位、音响风格都不断起伏。以下纯粹各抒己见，磨出来三支乐队，比较肯定：
1。柏林 2。维也纳 3。皇家音乐厅

排名不敢说，但有三个乐团（肯定不止三个）绝对是不可替代的，BPO，Concertgebouw和Czech PO

美国乐团是敬业居多，欧洲乐团是爱乐居多。可惜指挥不能靠业余爱好者求名求利。

第一还是BPO，第二我觉得VPO、MPO、CSO、CONCERTBOUW都可以。不过我觉得这种排名比较没意思，还是具体地说版本吧。
随便举个例子，你愿意听K. RICHTER棒下的MUNICH BACH OCHESTRA演奏的BACH MISSA IN B MINOR还是SIMON RATTLE的BPO的？

楼主所列举的八个乐团有六个用马勒交响曲来证明，可见楼主对于马勒的了解与喜爱，但楼主却不提两个演绎马勒作品最重要的乐团：（皇家）音乐厅乐团与（新）爱乐乐团，我实在不能理解。

最关心的是国内交响乐团，因为只听外国乐队的CD来定名次，远比不上亲耳在音乐厅聆听乐队的演奏，CD为虚，耳听为实。国内的交响乐队都会有现场欣赏，我听过的乐团排名：香港管弦乐团，爱乐，国交，上交，广交，厦交，深交，小交（香港），澳交（澳门）等，以上乐团都有正常的演出，大都听过。还有是有名无实的乐团不在此列。
此排列，诸高手同意吗？

Furtwangler在一篇纪念WPO一百周年的演讲里面谈到很多有关他对乐团的理解. 虽是原文， 姑且贴出来先.

The Vienna Philharmonic
A Speech Given on the Occasion of
Their Hundredth Anniversary

By Wilhelm Furtw&auml；ngler
Provided by WFSA member Andrew Kimbrell
Translated by WFSA member Hanni Raillard， assisted by her sons
Upon the publication of this speech by Wilhelm Furtw&auml；ngler， 200 copies were printed on authentic Bütten-paper and autographed by Furtw&auml；ngler.

Published by the Vienna Philharmonic

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the start of the centenary of the Vienna Philharmonic， on March 28， 1942， Dr. Wilhelm Furtw&auml；ngler， the leading conductor， gave the opening day speech in the Grand Music Society Hall [Musikvereinsaal]. His speech — which is a document of particular significance — is in its style and presentation so essential that it should no longer be withheld from an interested public.

It was not easy to get Wilhelm Furtw&auml；ngler’s approval for its publication， since Furtw&auml；ngler was not fond of appearing as a “speaking” musician. Finally， attempts to overcome his reservations were successful， and the oft expressed desire of music-lovers， -especially of the multitude of our conductor’s admirers， was fulfilled as this speech appears in print.

We wish to offer， in sincere admiration， our special， deeply felt thanks to Dr. Wilhelm Furtw&auml；ngler for making possible this publication.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One would suppose that those who know a thing from the ground up， I mean those who are personally involved with it， could also talk about it the best. But experience shows this is not the case at all. On the contrary， one frequently finds that the finest speeches originate from those whose relationship to their theme is theoretical， even purely “rhetorical，” and that speaking gets accordingly more difficult the more one is an active practitioner in the subject， that is， the more one stands in the midst of it.

Thus you， my esteemed audience， may be assured it will not be at all easy for me， who has been associated with the Vienna Philharmonic for many years as their leading conductor， to talk about them. When I do it， however， you should not expect that I will reiterate what has already been sufficiently said by everyone else. Thus I am not going to repeat or add to the usual hymns of praise about this extraordinary orchestra. That here， in Vienna， one considers the Philharmonic as the best orchestra in the world is quite natural. But the people of Amsterdam assert the same thing about their orchestra — we will soon have the opportunity to settle this question for ourselves.*

And elsewhere too， in Berlin， Dresden， Munich， and in Paris， London， Milan one finds a similar local patriotism， to say nothing of America. Let us just try to clarify what makes the Vienna Philharmonic distinct from other -orchestras.

To begin with， there is something external:

The musicians of the Vienna Philharmonic， as you know， choose their conductors themselves. This is something extraordinary — especially today， in this era of the authoritarian state. Nevertheless， it is no coincidence that the Vienna Philharmonic’s prerogative was conceded to them， even in the new Germany. In art， there is a peculiar thing regarding the principle of authority: If the outer -authority is not joined by an inner one， which is based purely and simply on the mastery of genuine art， then the desired and expected achievements will not come， because these are not possible without the inner readiness of the entire artistic team.

When I first came to Vienna， one of the leading conductors of that time described the Vienna Philharmonic to me， an orchestra that he himself conducted and knew well. He said it was a decidedly nasty orchestra， full of malice and deceit， which lived with their conductor in a constant state of seemingly inherent animosity. For an orchestra， this is surely a strange， not exactly complimentary judgment. Nevertheless， it allows one to come to the conclusion that these musicians are used to taking an active stance towards their conductor. I myself cannot corroborate this judgment from my own experience， although that should not be taken to mean that the gentlemen of the Philharmonic are particularly easy to handle as individuals. But one thing they are: they are all born -musicians， passionate about their work. As long as a -conductor allows the natural language of living music to speak， no member of the Philharmonic will ignore the conductor’s will. If they sound differently under different conductors， this doesn’t speak against them； it is only -natural. If， occasionally， the sound is such that you cannot believe， much as you’d like to， that you are listening to the renowned Vienna Philharmonic， that is also not their fault — or at least the blame is not theirs alone. To a greater degree than most， this orchestra expresses an individuality per se， taking its own position and expressing its own -opinion. By this， I don’t even mean the conscious attitude of the individual members， but something quite unconscious， which addresses itself primarily to the characteristic -musicality of the individual conductor， and which prompts the orchestra to instinctively and automatically take a stance for or against him.
When I first came for a longer time to Vienna — over 20 years ago — it was as conductor of the Vienna Tonkünstler Orchestra， which doesn’t exist anymore today but was an excellent orchestra then. I often attended the concerts of the Philharmonic， which at that time were conducted by Weingartner， and I was especially impressed by the strangely luminous， ethereal sound of the strings. Those “in the know” — who are commonly acknowledged to be quite numerous in Vienna — assured me this was caused mainly by the good instruments that the Philharmonic played. For their concerts they used， as they still do today， string instruments by the violin-maker Lemb&ouml；ck. Therefore， I approached this gentleman. Herr Lemb&ouml；ck very gladly entrusted me with the quintet of the Philharmonic instruments， for my Tonkünstler， and I had the means and the hope of now bringing my orchestra up to the same beautiful sound as the famous Philharmonic.

Unfortunately， however， this venture turned out to be a disappointment. In no way did the sound of my orchestra become more “philharmonic-like”. Finally， in the end， it was only duller and more lackluster than usual. We found ourselves forced to go back and pick up our own familiar instruments for the following concert. It is simply not the instruments that make the music — not even when we consider just the sound itself. It is neither the “school，” nor the expertise， but the human beings and their personal feeling for life that is responsible for the artistic expression， as the true working agents. Of precisely this the musicians of the Vienna Philharmonic， in their peculiarity， are a telling proof.

Now what is it that actually distinguishes this orchestra， in the final analysis， from others? What gives it its unique position in the world of European music? Since， during my career， I have had the personal opportunity to conduct almost all the top-rated orchestras on Earth， I can easily add a few words about this. What I see as the basis of the Philharmonic’s exceptional status — as paradoxical as this may sound at first — is that it is an exclusively Viennese orchestra. The individual members， as you see them here， are all， with precious few exceptions， bona-fide Viennese. Most were even born in Vienna. In any case， they’ve been brought up here and have been active here since their youth. Here it is the Viennese flute-， the Viennese oboe- and clarinet-school； here they are Viennese bassoons， Viennese horns， brass-winds， percussionists， Viennese strings. Without exception， the individual members of this orchestra descend from Viennese schools and traditions. This whole multifarious apparatus， this group of first-rate virtuosos， are all sons of one single region， of one single city. There is nothing like this anywhere else in the world. Within the population of no other city on Earth does music find such a wide field of possibilities； none has proven itself， as the popular expression goes， so music-productive as Vienna has. To be sure， specifically regional music — deeply rooted， if you will， in the soil — is also found elsewhere. In Paris they play music absolutely French， in Milan Italian， in Berlin German， partly North German. Such cities represent the musical focal point of large countries， and their orchestras piece their membership together out of the country’s entire population， hence the musicians come from highly diverse provinces and districts. Vienna， on the other hand， draws its strength exclusively from the native soil of the Ostmark [Austria]. Moreover， with regards to music， it is aligned to a high degree of uniformity， with a unique and definite stamp all its own. Indeed， the great pull that Vienna has had on musicians from around the whole world has always been downright uncanny. Haydn， Mozart， Beethoven， Schubert， Brahms， Bruckner， and now finally Richard Strauss — what other city in the world has such names to put on display! Yet， Vienna — in contrast to Berlin — has， as a musical city， never been what one calls a global city， a music market， or an international music stock-exchange. As manifold as its musical life has been， Vienna always remained an unusual music haven， which was formed by the same musicians even as it was forming them. This is no different even today. Once， when Brahms was asked why he lived just in Vienna， he reportedly said: “I can only live in a village!”

Thus it is precisely this uniformity of the population’s composition that makes the Vienna Philharmonic a prototype of a people’s orchestra in the truest sense， the embodiment of an entire German region. And this same uniformity also creates and shapes the typical features of this orchestra’s musical physiognomy. Herein lies the basis of that particular fullness， roundness， and homogeneity of sound that really no other orchestra is able to exhibit， neither in Europe nor in America. How the nature of the sounds produced by the various instruments play off one another! How these woodwinds melt themselves together with the strings， these French Horns with the other brass-players， into a single whole of exceptional tenderness and grandeur! How clearly comes into expression — in every single phase — the shared musical feeling for life， which inspires each individual member of the orchestra! Just think how patched together in their various parts other orchestras usually are. To be sure， in the orchestras of Berlin — the Berlin Philharmonic and the Berlin Staatskapelle — there are also native-born Berliners， but they are the exceptions. Berlin was never a city like Vienna， which has produced year after year generations of musicians from out of whose ranks could be selected those required by such an elite orchestra. In other cities， Dresden， Munich， and the other European capitals， insofar as they can make a claim to a native musical life， it is no different. The greatest contrast， however， to the type of orchestra represented by the Vienna Philharmonic， is formed by those orchestras of international virtuosos， especially as they have appeared in the New World during the last few generations， whose members have been deliberately gathered from all over the world. There the woodwinds are mostly from the French school， the strings predominately from Bohemia or Austria， the brass-players from Germany. For plenty of money the best and most preeminent musicians from around the world are engaged together in order to form — at least with regards to technical skill — a most thoroughly accomplished ensemble. However many advantages such an orchestra may possess， in my experience none of them attains the distinctive warmth， tender fullness， and — as I have already mentioned — the homogeneity of sound of our Viennese. This is also understandable； the sound of the Philharmonic is a natural product. Nor can it be gained via subsequent sound-adjustments， or by technical drills， and thus it cannot be replaced by such means. By this I don’t want to disparage other orchestras， because great orchestras are， so to speak， individualities. Each of them， like this one， has their own strengths and weaknesses. One really should not compare them with one another.
Here I only want to point out the peculiar features of the Viennese. One can say that while an American -orchestra demonstrates in the highest sense what can be had for money， for a great deal of money， our Vienna Philharmonic — the way they are — is something that even with all the money in the world would be impossible to make， to have， to replace. I am told that it is a characteristic of a born Viennese never to leave Vienna except under extreme -duress. Perhaps it is thanks to this fact that Vienna was in the position， up till now， to create and maintain such an orchestra from its very own “stock.” In any case， experience shows that it’s always extremely difficult to persuade a Viennese musician， whoever he may be， that one could live elsewhere， too — that elsewhere， too， good music would be made.
It is not only the Philharmonic musician’s sound， itself， that is conditioned by the ethnic and scholastic -uniformity of their make-up. This uniformity is also noticeable in the unity of feeling， in the alignment of the musical impulses. There is in this orchestra a remarkable sureness in all those things that might be characterized as belonging to the purely vital sphere of music-making， an inborn strength and naturalness of the instinctive musical reactions. Herein lies the reason why one encounters all that is overly mental and excessively intellectual in music with hesitation and obvious misgivings — and why one rejects with a quiet but unwavering steadfastness all that is forced， merely willed， merely thought， all that wants to be more “progress” than music. If Vienna is sometimes -criticized by the outside world for an extremely conservative attitude in musical matters， this has — as one sees — also its good， also its positive side.

Perhaps it seems I haven’t remained true to my intentions， that I have only praised “my” Philharmonic after all. One will say that I — especially I — should have also perhaps mentioned the other side， the downside of the advantages — for all advantages have their downside — that I should have said that even an orchestra like the Vienna Philharmonic shouldn’t look down with derision on the discipline that has made other orchestras great， and that basically without top-notch artistic discipline truly nothing is gained； and that one shouldn’t confuse naturalness of feeling and instinctive certainty with that sort of complacency that is likewise so frequently seen in Vienna， which is only aware of times gone by， of sufficient possessions， and which confronts all that is new or somehow unusual with a consistent， often downright obstinate animosity. Perhaps one might conclude that in Vienna it is all too easy to fall into the danger of praising oneself， of being pleased with oneself. Regarding this I want to emphasize: artistic discipline， in the high sense， is best demonstrated I believe， when we — the Philharmonic and I — play music together， in our regular concerts. Everything else I’ve said so far about the musicians of the Philharmonic is not even primarily addressed to Vienna and the Viennese. They don’t need to be told who their Philharmonic is. Rather， it is to the rest of Germany， and the musical world of today， where it needs to be repeated and emphasized: What is needed， more urgently than ever in our present jeopardized state， is the sort of music making of this orchestra — which， in spite of all its loftiness and beauty， is yet so down-to-earth， instinctively confident， and flowing forth from natural sources. Especially in the new Germany， one should be conscious of what an incomparable treasure we possess in the Vienna Philharmonic and how， at the same time， we have taken on the obligation to preserve this gem， and to make it ever more effective.

May the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra， in this sense， fulfill still for a long time their indispensable and grace-endowing mission within the life of European Music.

德国才2个，英美5个······

很难说排名，我只想说说我自己比较喜欢的，也就是见了会心动的吧
柏林爱乐
音乐厅管弦乐团
莱比锡布业会堂
北德广播
爱乐乐团
此外还有有些乐团虽然可能有些“偏”但个人以为也还是一流的
捷克爱乐
列宁格勒（圣·彼得堡）
纽约爱乐

肯定还有不少，不过暂时只能想出这些

VPO也算一个，不过表现不太稳定

维也纳爱乐：充满激情，丰富的音色变化和表情。
柏林爱乐：牛！弦乐组天下无敌，够冷峻。
巴伐利亚广播交响乐团：喜欢这个乐团大多数原因是小克莱伯。
皇家音乐厅管弦乐团：亲切

一直不知道是否要把BBC算上，从我听过的录音看来，丝毫不逊于Philharmonia，不过录音不是很多

其实现在乐团质量出现均质现象，大师丛生和媒体焦点，观众热烈的的年代一去不复返，所谓的欣赏口味一旦该艺术进入衰退期，就开始模糊起来.黄金年代已经过去了.但是，我相信就记录下来的资料来看，基本上一流乐团还是我们说的这几个.

如果进行一次全世界交响乐团大排榜的话，维也纳爱乐乐团百【VPO】分之百要排在龙头老大的位置上，这是不容置疑的，因为这个有百年历史的乐团曾受过许多作曲家的亲自指挥与指导，像马勒，理查。施特劳斯，这一点是最值得维也纳爱乐骄傲的，同时指挥这个乐团也是众多指挥家对自己事业的承认，所有指挥家也把他当作自己走向世界舞台的试金之地.

为何楼主都那马勒来说事？好的乐团不见得全擅长马勒吧？
我选的话：
1.奥斯陆爱乐！
其他的就没有了。

更不见得全擅长西贝

VPO前5名都排不上
真正没有缺点的就是BPO和ACO

sometimes VPO can be the only one in the world which nobody else can compete if under the baton of Furtwangler, Carl Schuricht, Clemens Krauss, Karajan and Knappertsbusch... but also they can be the worst among the famous orchestras if under the direction of James Leviene and Lorrin Mazzel sometimes.

个人认为VPO应该排第一。音响色彩的感染力和乐手之间的配合默契，没有哪个乐团可以与之匹敌。BPO固然也不错，但总觉得乐队的整齐度和配合稍微逊色。美国的乐团少了点庄重，多了些流行的味道，不是很喜欢。

柏林爱乐应该和其他乐团区分开，他是一个现象

其他乐团各有所长，个人认为，德国众多乐团便可代表欧洲。

真要排名应该把维也纳和柏林去掉，这两个乐队没有任何一个乐队可以比。柏林从来都比维也纳要宽容得多，所以什么指挥都可以去那里施展自己的想法。而维也纳不是，他们只演奏他们认同的音乐，这也就是我们听唱片的时候维也纳时好时坏的主要原因。不是什么指挥都能把那个乐队玩转。现在能把维也纳改变的指挥太少了，梅塔 杨松斯 阿巴多 幕蒂都属于胜任维也纳的，而我们平常当成大师的一些指挥到维也纳往往是惨败。至于欧洲和美国乐团的比较，我想可以用库特马祖尔的一句话最好，马大师接任纽约总监时，有记者让他谈谈欧洲和美国乐团的不同，他这样说：“美国的乐队技术太棒了，不管多难的作品，一遍就没有问题，所有细节都准确干净，声音极其富有魅力，而欧洲乐团则不同，他们总是需要两次到三次解决技术问题和声音问题，而且总是会出一些错，但欧洲乐团错都错得都是那么美，那么迷人，那么艺术！”

最好的乐团是阿巴多的琉森音乐节乐团

愚人较喜欢BPO，LSO，VPO，CSO，CONCERTBOUW，PHILHARMONIA O，ST.PERTERBSBURG PO，BIRMINGHAM SO
除了上述乐团 愚人认为ROYAL PHILHARMONIC ORCHESTRA和卢瑟恩节日乐团也不错

BPO是最好的，无论什么指挥上去，甚至没有指挥的时候，BPO的表现
都不会有什么缺失，精确、洗练、各声部之间完美的配合，大型乐队的辉煌音色和室内乐般的高超演奏技巧的完美结合，这就是BPO的传
统，至今保持的传统。VPO也有它自己的传统---典型的维也纳之声，
这种音色是其他乐团无法模仿的，具有极高艺术格调---但这种格调
并不一定适合于演奏所有类型的作品。例如，VPO的铜管音色透明但
比较薄，若演奏如俄罗斯传统作品或者美国现代派作曲家的一些作品
时就会显得味道不够地道。

如果要我评出我自己最喜欢的乐团音色的话，我会毫不犹豫地选出：
Abbado指挥下的BPO的音色是最好的

Beijing Philarmonic Orchestra?