What London must learn from Munich’s new hall
NewsSimon Rattle’s plan was for London to spend half a billion pounds on a new concert hall, a stone’s throw away from the old.
Munich has built a $46 million temporary structure in an unfashionable part of the city where black-tie patrons cannot park their cars.
First reviews are outstanding.
Watch video here.
Imagine the fiasco if the new concert hall is acoustically inferior to the new Isar Philharmonie. If the latter has such good acoustics, why not make it a permanent venue?
The Isar is in shoes box… It’s easyer to have a good sound. And it’s less expensive. But the problem with this kind of concert hall is that you can be away from the orchestra and you don’t have the opportunity to see just before you the conductor. If you want to build something not expensive quickly that’s the best way to act. me I prefere the vineyeard because everybody has the opportunity to be close to the orchestra and you can see the conductor. But you don’t have to put too much rows behind the orchestra. If you are far behind you don’t hear well the singers
A concert is not for watching but for listening. Music is an aural art form. For art watching, there are museums and galleries.
Exactly. Also what‘s the point being closer to the orchestra, but having funny sound, horns blaring directly into your face, singers or solo pianos being almost inaudible. Enough with the nonsense. Ideally music is enjoyed with the eyes closed.
(and I hope Karajan burns in musician hell, for starting that vanity trend to build circus halls with concert viewers all around the circus director aka conductor.)
Sorry, there is a big visual element to a concert. That’s one reason I sit up in the cheap seats – so I can see the entire orchestra.
Wrong it’s an set of things
Hear, hear!
Rubbish! It’s a shared experience and watching the musicians is, for many, as much part of that experience as listening. As a teenager I used to go sit behind the orchestra so that I could watch the great conductors – Bernstein, Guilini, Tennstedt, Haitink, Klemperer. That was as much a visual experience as an aural one. Nowadays, sitting out front, I enjoy watching the players exchange glances, smiles, communicating what they are playing. If it’s purely an aural experience you want, you don’t need to leave your home sound system.
I agree with you. The visual aspect helps you to understand the music better too. “La musique se voit aussi,” Stravinsky once wrote.
When I have to go to a concert, I’m glad there’s something to see too, otherwise I would be bored to death.
Sally
Surely the visual aspect is relevant in the concert experience. At times more, at times less.
The crucial question is, how much of good acoustics should be compromised for that.
Some of the modern halls go much too far in compromising acoustics for better visuals.
The most expensive joke ever there is the Elbphilharmonie Hamburg.
For me it’s overwhelmingly aural experience. The natural sound of a good concert beats a good hi-fi system anyday. Recorded sound often has artificial qualities.
On the other hand, if watching is so important, don’t videos provide more detail than a good (visually) concert hall seat?
Because, as discussed earlier on a parallel thread, it is only an “Interimsgebäude”, a provisional building with a shorter shelf-life, and destined to be dismantled and maybe used somewhere else later.
The terms of the build/lease on the plot of land are, moreover, set out clearly by the municipal authorities.
A long term future for this location would mean massive changes to infrastructure in the venue’s immediate environs.
From the center of town, the Marienplatz, it is apparently only 7 mins by underground train, but then 5 mins’ walk, fine at the moment, but a factor when the rain is pouring down. The nearest bus stop is 1km away. But there is it seems a shuttle service from the Blumengroßmarkt to the hall. All in all a great pro tem solution, for the next 6 years at least.
There are new concert halls in shoes box which are not provisional and which look very interesting the one of Dortmund for example is magnificent but for me if you want something bigger than 1500 it is still better to have the vineyard. The problem is that with the vineyard you take the risk with the sound (Paris was ok Hambourg was not) and you can be accused of being pretentious and doing something too expensive. Doing a vineyard concert hall is a kind of gift for the people who hate classical in a first time.
The idea of building a concert hall for people who hate classical music seems to have been the motivation behind many architects’ designs. There are ‘modern’ concert halls in the shape of an alien space ship in which the music feels eerily displaced.
Well the Paris Philharmonie is more than a 5 min walk to enter, even though it is next to a Metro station! Same for the Southbank Centre and more for the Barbican in London! 1km to the bus is a bit far however…
Sorry – what is a vineyard hall? By the way, Göteborg has one of the best halls I’ve experienced.
A vineyard hall is a concert hall with a generous offering of drinks before, during, in the interval, and after the concert. The idea is that audiences are more perceptive if saturated with good spirits.
I wondered the same thing, but it’s probably not built to last, with far less onerous permitting and infrastructure requirements as a temporary facility.
First reviews are always outstanding…
You are right or there’s the case rare of the concert hall everybody wanted to bash before the opening night like in Paris Philarmonie
Did the Gasteig ever get good reviews for its acoustics?
The barhrooms are nice there for warming up the voice.
It’s a kind of Bavarian Barbican from the 80’s. If this place was perfect like the new Gewandhaus built at the same time or the Koln concert hall there would be no Isar Philarmonie I suppose.
That’s less than half the cost (£111million) of the most recent (2027) refurbishment of London’s RFH.
Partly because the RFH is a Listed building. Not defending that, it just is.
And the refurb did very little to the acoustic and because everything was put back almost exactly as it had been before, it was almost impossible to spot what the money had been spent on!
You could write a book about all of the cities that have built “performing arts center” that have struggled to be economically viable because the projected number of concerts and ticket sales never materialize, and the retail and restaurant spaces are almost always a bust.
And then on top of that, instead of going with shoebox design for the main hall which produces predictably good to great acoustics, the decision makers always opt for a novel design that almost always ends up having terrible acoustics, no matter how many reverberation chambers and adjustable ceiling tiles are installed.
A ghastly design of ‘functionalist’ style, like a metal burka. The intention was ‘to bring-down elitist high culture back to the people’, so: as unwelcoming and ugly as possible. It will be a closed-eyes venue. Hopefully Gergiev’s opinions about the acoustics are true, that is at least something.
Formally known as architectural “Brutalism”. A good reflection of the modern world, then.
It is an interim solution, for 6 years. Built (mainly) of wood, modules in fact. Within budget, on time, and more than a decent sound. So please stop carping.
OK, in that case, I find it only temporarily ugly.
It looks great but why do they put the seats one behind the other like in Baden Baden? They should put them so that the person behind is looking between the gap between the two people in front, if you follow, then you wouldn’t have to spend the evening craning your neck and annoying the people behind you.
When seats in the auditorium are placed precisely one behind the other, as regular as in a military parade, it looks more organised and gründlich. This helps to suppress chaotic stirrings in the collective subconscious.
Some of the best halls in the world, such as the Concertgebouw and the Musikverein, were built in the 19th century when little or nothing was known about acoustics. Since then, science has produced a mixture of acoustic marvels and disasters – you call that progress?
But the 19th also produced a lot of miserable sounding places, some still in use, many demolished.
It’s dangerous to generalize, but…
19th century halls with a shoebox design tend to have uniformly excellent acoustics. The older halls that are converted opera houses or have a fan shape layout like an opera house are the ones that are variable. Off the top of my head, Carnegie Hall is the only 19th century hall that’s not a shoebox with excellent acoustics.
Modern vineyard style halls are a lot more variable in quality in than modern shoeboxes. I mean, I cannot think of a recent shoebox design that has disappointed, while there are plenty of vineyard style that are terrible.
There are many old halls which are a pain acoustically. Pointing to the two best is a bit of a fallacy. And plenty of modern halls are excellent : the Philharmonies in Berlin, Köln and Paris, Walt Disney Hall in LA, Luzern… I’d be curious to know how the dozens of halls which have sprung up in the last 10-20 years in China sound like.
Luzern is good. Berlin Philharmonie and LA Disney are mediocre. (yes!)
Hideous…looks like a black box theater.
The brief to the architect was patently for a “Zweckgebäude” (a utility building). The budget was moderate, and the money was put where it was most needed. To coin an abbreviation: ITSS (like It’s The Economy Stupid). Just work it out.
For me a concert hall without seats in lateral and behind the orchestra is not a real concert hall. Something important missing. In this structur there are not enough. Something missing.
Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that cities want “groundbreaking” architecture, whatever that is. This pushes up the cost and doesn’t necessarily deliver the sort of building that people actually want and grow to like.
Strange that cities are happy to fill their centres with dozens of nondescript offices and apartments, but a concert hall has to be “groundbreaking”, and therefore rediculously overpriced. The result is a massive cost overrun, or no building at all.
“ridiculously”
Very true.
Those nondescript buildings destroy city scapes like a cancer.
The Germans invented a perfect word for such apartment boxes: ‘Die Selbstverkistung der Menschheit’.
Don’t worry about London having to ‘learn’ anything.Pretty soon only the rich will be able to afford to pay Mayor Khan’s £27.50 ULEZ charge,then find a £20 parking space.So before you step foot inside any London concert hall you will blow about 50 quid,then there’s the cost of your tickets.Oh and don’t forget to take out a 2nd mortgage if you intend to buy a G&T during the interval…….No sorry, our kids in the UK will never have the opportunity to listen to a live concert of Brahms or Beethoven ,our ignorant politicians will make sure of that.
So use public transport and try really hard to get by without a drink.
It isn’t that difficult, but if you’re determined to be negative and miserable …..
The ULEZ charge is £12.50, though I don’t pay it because my eleven year old 2 litre car doesn’t produce enough pollution.
The all-evening charge at the Barbican Centre is £9.
I really don’t see London EVER getting a world-class concert hall.
Please God that I am proved wrong…