Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know plenty of classical musicians who could easily pick out the Cleveland Orchestra in a blindfolded test. They are of an elite calibur. I similar thing can be said about the Milwaukee Repertory Theater and the May Festival Chorus. Every city of a reasonable size has a fairly decent artist community, but some cities to still have relatively small, but elite institutions. Milwaukee has the best Theater, Cleveland has the best Orchestra, and Cincinnati has the best Choir.
None of this is to say that any of these cities are similarly progressive in that field. Even though the Milwaukee Rep has the best theater, I would argue that Steppenwolf in Chicago is the most avant garde and progressive. Kansas City is doing amazing things with it's orchestra. I'm not really sure who's pushing choral music into the 21st Century though...
The same thing can be said for Art Museums. The Taft Museum in Cincinnati and the Menil Collection in Houston and the Getty in Los Angeles are elite art galleries, but the Cleveland Museum of Art is really pushing the world of art galleries into the future with Gallery One.
I know plenty of classical musicians who could easily pick out the Cleveland Orchestra in a blindfolded test. They are of an elite calibur. I similar thing can be said about the Milwaukee Repertory Theater and the May Festival Chorus. Every city of a reasonable size has a fairly decent artist community, but some cities to still have relatively small, but elite institutions. Milwaukee has the best Theater, Cleveland has the best Orchestra, and Cincinnati has the best Choir.
None of this is to say that any of these cities are similarly progressive in that field. Even though the Milwaukee Rep has the best theater, I would argue that Steppenwolf in Chicago is the most avant garde and progressive. Kansas City is doing amazing things with it's orchestra. I'm not really sure who's pushing choral music into the 21st Century though...
The same thing can be said for Art Museums. The Taft Museum in Cincinnati and the Menil Collection in Houston and the Getty in Los Angeles are elite art galleries, but the Cleveland Museum of Art is really pushing the world of art galleries into the future with Gallery One.
Location: Cleveland, OH USA / formerly Chicago for 20 years
4,069 posts, read 7,313,074 times
Reputation: 3062
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorman
Oh yeah, okay... I bet money if you were blindfolded and escorted into either Severance Hall or Music Hall and weren't told whether the Cleveland or Cincinnati orchestra was seated--and then, in turn, the two orchestras performed the same piece of music--you'd automatically be able to tell which orchestra was performing, right?
I'm still trying to figure out who is in charge of "ranking" orchestras anyway, as well as what criteria they use and how objective it is.
Location: Cleveland, OH USA / formerly Chicago for 20 years
4,069 posts, read 7,313,074 times
Reputation: 3062
Quote:
Originally Posted by projectmaximus
To cows, my point was that it's ridiculous to disregard all art and music that isn't contemporary since studying the past is a significant part of arts development and creation. It's a rarity to find any professional artist who would not list a number of artists from the past as inspiration...
I definitely agree with that. I can remember back in 7th-grade Music class (a very long time ago, back in the '70s) when we were studying classical music and one kid in the class objected: "Why can't we study rock-n-roll instead?"
The teacher's answer: "Because, if classical music had never existed, there would be no rock-n-roll."
Every new development in the arts and music builds on what previously went before, even if it changes the rules somewhat. And of course any professional artist knows this.
However, it's important to remember that "studying the past" is not the same as living in it.
I'm still trying to figure out who is in charge of "ranking" orchestras anyway, as well as what criteria they use and how objective it is.
It's extremely subjective and a source of great debate and consternation. But separating symphonies that are in very different tiers is much more easily accepted. And Cleveland and Chicago, by all metrics both subjective and objective, separate themselves clearly from their midwestern counterparts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew61
However, it's important to remember that "studying the past" is not the same as living in it.
I can't say I have the pulse of any arts scene. It's just not my thing. However, Cleveland and Cincinnati have a much older overall population than Columbus (I don't know Milwaukee's average age). Since youth tends to translate into trends, the poster may very well have a point...
In these two aspects (bold print), I must agree, but also challenge. From time immemorial, youthful art has most certainly "translated into trends" (no debate necessary; any discussion of early 2Oth-century European painters or writers would suffice), but claiming that Columbus is, somehow, connected to such futuristic artistic trends is debatable, especially when one poster, alone, presents merely grandiose and questionable claims, accompanied by no verifiable evidence, and all polished off by laughable misconceptions of youth, age, and his own immaturity.
Every major city in the nation, from much-hyped Austin to its Midwestern-wannabe, Columbus, to "oldster-ridden enclaves" like Cleveland and Cincinnati, host countless youthful music-venues warbling and banging away in nameless living rooms, rented store fronts and back alleys, and warehouses throughout their cities, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. A very few of them may just produce heart-felt vocals accompanied by engaging instrumental backups, but even most of them will be shortly be forgotten. (Same as it ever was...)
After all, one of the most terrible curses of the young...is to believe that youth, alone,HAS (1) reinvented the wheel; that (2) youth should possess a vital key or say in anything; that (3) anyone 35-or-old either listens or cares; or that (4) what youth says or does, in anyart-form, is significant and worthy of recognition and remembrance.
Recently (in either Austin, Columbus, Cleveland, or Cincinnati) has anyone passed this test? (Or, in the case of Columbus, has any "art-critic" realized that Nationwide Arena may have made all the difference?) I dunno, everyone must decide for themselves--after all, it's all...very "subjective."
In these two aspects (bold print), I must agree, but also challenge. From time immemorial, youthful art has most certainly "translated into trends" (no debate necessary; any discussion of early 2Oth-century European painters or writers would suffice), but claiming that Columbus is, somehow, connected to such futuristic artistic trends is debatable, especially when one poster, alone, presents merely grandiose and questionable claims, accompanied by no verifiable evidence, and all polished off by laughable misconceptions of youth, age, and his own immaturity.
Every major city in the nation, from much-hyped Austin to its Midwestern-wannabe, Columbus, to "oldster-ridden enclaves" like Cleveland and Cincinnati, host countless youthful music-venues warbling and banging away in nameless living rooms, rented store fronts and back alleys, and warehouses throughout their cities, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. A very few of them may just produce heart-felt vocals accompanied by engaging instrumental backups, but even most of them will be shortly be forgotten. (Same as it ever was...)
After all, one of the most terrible curses of the young...is to believe that youth, alone,HAS (1) reinvented the wheel; that (2) youth should possess a vital key or say in anything; that (3) anyone 35-or-old either listens or cares; or that (4) what youth says or does, in anyart-form, is significant and worthy of recognition and remembrance.
Recently (in either Austin, Columbus, Cleveland, or Cincinnati) has anyone passed this test? (Or, in the case of Columbus, has any "art-critic" realized that Nationwide Arena may have made all the difference?) I dunno, everyone must decide for themselves--after all, it's all...very "subjective."
Keep in mind I wasn't really arguing that Columbus was or wasn't at the forefront of art/culture trends, because I don't know. Was just suggesting that the city's relatively young average age may be a benefit in this category. I also think every city, to some degree, has an art community doing innovative things. As to who might be ahead, no idea.
I'm not really familiar with Cleveland/Cincinnatti/Columbus, so I can't really comment on which has the best art scene (even though it's a bit off topic). I will say though, that in the past, I've heard the most about Columbus' art scene. But that is besides the point.
You can't claim that Cleveland obviously has the best arts scene because it has highly ranked institutions, because every large city has very similar cultural institutions. I'm sure I can see a Renaissance painting in any large city, or hear an orchestra, or anything else that is considered culture. A great art museum does not equal a thriving art scene, though. Artists don't move to cities for their art museum, they move to cities where other artists are living and making work and to be a part of a community of other creative people. Cultural movements often stem from a notable location in which new ideas are coming from. Obviously, great art can come from anywhere, but how can you honestly think that it's merely a coincidence that so many great artists and musicians live in places like Brooklyn today? I think that it's crazy to think that someone is more cultured because they go to a museum that is ranked higher than the museum that someone else in a different city might go to.
It's ridiculous how fast you all are dismissing CowsAndBeer's posts just because he doesn't favor Cleveland/Cincinnatti. There's far more to culture than going to a museum to see what's already been done by an established artist.
Thanks - I'm done commenting on this thread, because it's not meant to be about anything beyond Cincy/Cleveland/Milwaukee comparisons (though only one person with experience in all 3 has done a meaningful comparison), but I was baffled at the fact that people were simply not getting these fairly simple universal concepts relating to creativity and cultural vibrancy. At no point was I slagging either Ohio city, and even complimented them at times. I just think it's an important distinction - living culture vs. museum culture.
Thanks - I'm done commenting on this thread, because it's not meant to be about anything beyond Cincy/Cleveland/Milwaukee comparisons (though only one person with experience in all 3 has done a meaningful comparison), but I was baffled at the fact that people were simply not getting these fairly simple universal concepts relating to creativity and cultural vibrancy...
Nothing unworthy about your observations--but for two things: (1) Neither have you demonstrated that "Columbus artists" have elevated themselves or their city above the other "2-Cs;" and (2) neither have you demonstrated any superiority of youthful over mature artists. Please try again on both accounts; some of us are truly-educated individuals, well over 35-yrs. old, who question both your conclusions. In all due respect, no one's actually categorically saying you're in error, but just a few of us require some more proof--and nobody,including myself, is downgrading or denying the impassioned and powerful contributions of the young...oops, please excuse this interrruption...but I gotta' go listen to Joan Jett, on YouTube, singing "I Hate Myself For Loving You." So-o-o old-school, so-o backward, so primitive, I know--but then just think about Jett, playing Nationwide Arena, might sound. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad, but then, maybe again, she would be all "so yesterday." (Only the young can verify the future for sure--so I've been told.)
Regarding this absurd Ohio arts battle started by Cows and Cheese...
It's true that the Cincinnati music scene isn't what it was in the 90s when the Afghan Whigs and later Blessid Union of Souls were coming onto the scene. I have no doubt that Columbus has a better music scene right now.
The modern visual arts scene remains pretty strong and probably comparable to the other cities mentioned in this thread. I know that I can see good current art in old warehouses in dodgy neighborhoods or in yuppie/hipster gentrified area galleries or in museums.
In any case, I think that it doesn't make a huge difference which City the OP chooses. They are really very similar and have a lot to offer as far as urban living. I'd go to the one where my friends lived. If I didn't have friends in any, I'd choose randomly or based on climate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I bet money if you were blindfolded and escorted into either Severance Hall or Music Hall and weren't told whether the Cleveland or Cincinnati orchestra was seated--and then, in turn, the two orchestras performed the same piece of music--you'd automatically be able to tell which orchestra was performing, right? 
