Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: PCCraig on March 07, 2014, 09:17:45 AM
-
A golden age golf course gets roughed up by well intended but misguided Green Committees in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's. Trees (hundreds, maybe thousands) are planted, fairway lines changed, greens have shrunk, bunkers rebuilt with flashed sand faces, bunkers removed & grassed over, and the tee boxes warped. Otherwise, the design and lay of the land is unchanged.
Many classic clubs across the country could be lumped into the case study above. Many hired architects to come up with "Master Plans" and to consult through a "restoration"/"renovation."
It would seem to me the majority of restoration work is common sense...cut down trees, widen playing corridors, restore the greens to their original size, and rebuild the bunkers & tees. The remaining would be up to construction or in-house team with the guidance of a few aerials.
So, what exactly does an architect add to the process of restoring a classic golf course?
-
They coordinate the restoration and keep it on track.
What is common sense today was common sense yesterday.
A qualified architect stops the cycle of willy nilly improvements.
IMO, this is more important then channeling dead guy intentions.
-
I can in some ways see your point. Tree clearing, etc are certainly things an experienced super and pro might be able to lead.
However, I would think I would feel better about an archie being involved in green resoration for sure, and likely with the bunkering aspect. These are two very important pieces that I don't know that I could trust it would be done in the way that would translate to the change in todays game. It is very possible that the bunker that is needing restoration might not even be a factor for todays game and need to be changed and/or moved.
I am surprised at the Master Plan process. I won't elaborate much further.
-
If committees screwed up courses in the 60's 70's 80's and 90's why all of a sudden can they get it right today????
When does a Master Plan fail at a private club? When committee members start giving their input, and trying to make architectural decisions. I've seen it happen! The plan will always fail...
When are master plans successful? When you hire a talented architect and listen to him…. Let him direct the project, free of personal agendas… "my father planted that tree", "in my normal saturday group I usually throw a press at them on this hole we can't make this easier for my opponents", "thats my aiming tree!", "you just want to make the course easier"…. etc.
-
Don, I couldn't agree more. We are in the midst of a master planning process with Brian Silva. I just got off the phone with a member asking me why do we need an architect and why can't we use a 15 year old plan. I asked him if much has changed in his business during the same period. I would add that a good architect keeps the green committee motivated and excited to create movement.
-
It sure seems to me that there is also a lot of technical knowledge and experience that needs to be brought to bear about what happens in and under the ground. I think most of us (non-architects) on this site tend to discuss 'architecture' as though it was all about just what we 'see', about the pictures. From my little bit of experience in observing an architectural change, there is a surprising amount of stuff that needs to be thought through and that is quite important that one doesn't really see once it's finished.
-
A golden age golf course gets roughed up by well intended but misguided Green Committees in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's. Trees (hundreds, maybe thousands) are planted, fairway lines changed, greens have shrunk, bunkers rebuilt with flashed sand faces, bunkers removed & grassed over, and the tee boxes warped. Otherwise, the design and lay of the land is unchanged.
Many classic clubs across the country could be lumped into the case study above. Many hired architects to come up with "Master Plans" and to consult through a "restoration"/"renovation."
It would seem to me the majority of restoration work is common sense...cut down trees, widen playing corridors, restore the greens to their original size, and rebuild the bunkers & tees. The remaining would be up to construction or in-house team with the guidance of a few aerials.
So, what exactly does an architect add to the process of restoring a classic golf course?
In your first sentence lies your answer
-
Peace of mind for the members as they're going to be the ones paying for it.
Peace of mind for the Super, as sans architect, he's going to be the one paying for it.
-
Pat -
An architect does so much more than just the master plan.
1. Project coordinator
2. Manages contractors
3. Selects shapers
4. Presents to membership
5. Hopefully consults for your club for 10 years+
6. Takes the politics out of the situation
7. Adheres to a budget
8. Knows the difference between a strategic tree and an "emotional" tree.
9. Reestablishes grassing lines (not just widening corridors)
If you follow a strategy of using:
A. In-house resources exclusively
B. "Friends" of the super to do work
C. Corner-cutting tactics to save $
You will get a product that your club deserves and one that will continue to fuel debate, controversy and member dissatisfaction.
Let the pros do their work and get the super and the G&G committee out of the way. Establish a sub-committee to select and interview architects.
If you choose to so things as you discuss above, (IMO) you will be ensuring that the project has 4 masters, 3 directions, 6 priorities and close to Zero % chance of success. AND it may end of costing you more $$ because your construction contractor will manage your project instead of the architect managing the construction.
-
Pat -
An architect does so much more than just the master plan.
1. Project coordinator
2. Manages contractors
3. Selects shapers
4. Presents to membership
5. Hopefully consults for your club for 10 years+
6. Takes the politics out of the situation
7. Adheres to a budget
8. Knows the difference between a strategic tree and an "emotional" tree.
9. Reestablishes grassing lines (not just widening corridors)
If you follow a strategy of using:
A. In-house resources exclusively
B. "Friends" of the super to do work
C. Corner-cutting tactics to save $
You will get a product that your club deserves and one that will continue to fuel debate, controversy and member dissatisfaction.
Let the pros do their work and get the super and the G&G committee out of the way. Establish a sub-committee to select and interview architects.
If you choose to so things as you discuss above, (IMO) you will be ensuring that the project has 4 masters, 3 directions, 6 priorities and close to Zero % chance of success. AND it may end of costing you more $$ because your construction contractor will manage your project instead of the architect managing the construction.
well stated
-
Pat - take a look at the following holes at Oak Ridge for the danger of doing it without an architect:
6 - Back tee is at the wrong angle and screws up interesting strategic options that existed before
- tree removal on left looks goofy and, as a result, some new trees have been planted.
10 - pond expansion has limited options off the tee and tree planted beyond the pond intrudes into the line of the 2nd shot which is difficult enough without the tree.
18 - for some reason there is a new WILLOW TREE short left of the pond. Why anyone would plant a willow tree on purpose on a golf course, particularly on a hillside is incomprehensible to me.
These changes were under my watch as co-green chair and I think we did more good than harm overall. However, I suspect a good architect would have avoided these mistakes.
-
Pat -
An architect does so much more than just the master plan.
1. Project coordinator
2. Manages contractors
3. Selects shapers
4. Presents to membership
5. Hopefully consults for your club for 10 years+
6. Takes the politics out of the situation
7. Adheres to a budget
8. Knows the difference between a strategic tree and an "emotional" tree.
9. Reestablishes grassing lines (not just widening corridors)
If you follow a strategy of using:
A. In-house resources exclusively
B. "Friends" of the super to do work
C. Corner-cutting tactics to save $
You will get a product that your club deserves and one that will continue to fuel debate, controversy and member dissatisfaction.
Let the pros do their work and get the super and the G&G committee out of the way. Establish a sub-committee to select and interview architects.
If you choose to so things as you discuss above, (IMO) you will be ensuring that the project has 4 masters, 3 directions, 6 priorities and close to Zero % chance of success. AND it may end of costing you more $$ because your construction contractor will manage your project instead of the architect managing the construction.
All the above is very true.
But PCraig is right that GCA is no Nuclear Physics, its pretty straightforward intellectually compared to the other jobs I have held.
That makes it so surprising that so many well meaning and seamingly intelligent people can get it so wrong
-
Seems pretty simple to me - it's the same reason you wouldn't go to court without an attorney - which I am not.
-
Thank you for all of your replies.
Take a look at the below, which links to a document written by Bruce Hepner. Would Mr. Hepner's list of suggestions, if followed, not cure many of the basic issues associated with restoring classic golf courses? Assuming you had the technical expertise in-house and a low budget, could you not just use the below as a roadmap of sorts for 90% of pre-WWII golf courses?
http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/mitgc/article/199389.pdf
-
Pat, probably a lame analogy, but consider:
Why does a football team need a coach?
We all know the desired outcome is simply scoring more then the other team, how hard is that? Based on your personnel you structure an offense/defense/special team and go win. What is the big deal?
The big deal is it takes someone who knows how to organize all the personalities, structure a season plan, structure a game plan, teach it all, and review and adjust it all.
Knowing what to do is the easy part - most of the time - although plenty still get it wrong.
Going thru a classic course renovation is like letting the players coach the team. If you have really great players who can all put aside their ego and follow one of their own, then yes, it is possible.
If you owned an NFL team, is that what you would do?
In your scenario, a member owned club with decentralized decision making is going to have a very tough time finding that one guy everyone will listen to. And that one guy would need to be an incredible politician, architectural/construction expert and have enough skills to develop, communicate, and implement the plan. Until one actually goes through that, I don't think they can really understand all it entails.
Now, if you are a single owner who doesn't have to deal with all the members and politics, have some architectural skills and some construction know how, and can just fix or adjust if you get something wrong, then I believe it is completely doable.
-
Pat - I've thought the same thing once or twice before, my thinking being that in cases of 'restoration' of a classic, someone like me or you (who know nothing really about architecture/design and have no illusions about our talents) might atually be better at it than a professional architect (who would no doubt have many 'ideas' - and the skill and experience to put those 'in the ground'). But then I think: 'well, a restoration is never a true resoration' -- if not least of all because some of these old classic probably had a few holes that didn't drain very well and a few greens that didn't work very well and a few fairways that were/are too close together -- and so an acutal architect is needed to both restore and improve.
Peter
-
Here's the part I struggle with:
Does hiring an architect actually stop political infighting and committee/board member input into decisions?
My club is considering whether or not to begin a master plan adoption process, which would include interviewing architects and hiring the right one. We're mostly doing it because we don't want our superintendent to be pulled in 100 different directions by 100 different members. I guess I'm just not convinced an architect's mandate will carry any more weight than a mandate written by the greens committee and adopted with the board's approval.
Considering our budget and the guys on our greens committee, I really have no worries about what the committee would write into its 10 year plan. I simply wonder how well our superintendent would be allowed to follow it, even at the expense of the whims of influential members who might want to divert the big picture budget for the sake of keeping the rough bright green during the summer.
-
I think I know what Pat is trying to say.
The problem with many of the suggestions is thinking that every architect will do the right thing. They may do what they think is the right thing BUT...is it? So much is opinion in this business.
For example: one archie may come in and tell a membership they need to eliminate a greenside bunker on the right side of a green so that members can approach it easier from the cartpath. Another may look at the same area and say that ODG#1 wanted that bunker there and we need to move the cart path...another may push for steeper grass faced bunkers saying it eliminates maintenance and then another comes in a says face the bunker with sand because it is easier to rake the sand than flymow the grass.
I think where a good archie will really help is in incorporating water movement that most never realized was there to begin with...JMO
-
On my recent visit to Streamsong our host stood up at our opening dinner and proclaimed that we were blessed by the presence of a GolfWeek Rater and that he would be available to answer any questions that we had concerning the design of the courses. He was a little embarrassed but gave us all a confident nod assuring us that we are in good hands.
I would hazard a guess that Pat is now in the same boat, or throne, depending on your perspective. A young member from the big city with blue ribbon credentials. I see no reason why he can't guide his club to a successful restoration. What's the worst thing that can happen, cut down one too many trees?
If I was on a board and had a young member who has and does rate for various magazines I would trust him with such simple work. But then again, I would never serve on a club board.
-
On my recent visit to Streamsong our host stood up at our opening dinner and proclaimed that we were blessed by the presence of a GolfWeek Rater and that he would be available to answer any questions that we had concerning the design of the courses. He was a little embarrassed but gave us all a confident nod assuring us that we are in good hands.
I would hazard a guess that Pat is now in the same boat, or throne, depending on your perspective. A young member from the big city with blue ribbon credentials. I see no reason why he can't guide his club to a successful restoration. What's the worst thing that can happen, cut down one too many trees?
If I was on a board and had a young member who has and does rate for various magazines I would trust him with such simple work. But then again, I would never serve on a club board.
The case and discussion above has nothing to do with my home course. Even if it did, I'm not a member of the Green Committee or carry any weight whatsoever in any decision making regarding the golf course. Nor does my home course's situation mirror the above case study.
I have no idea what me being a Golf Digest panelist has anything to do with the discussion at hand.
My post should be taken at face value.
-
Architects are so hungry right now that you can hire a competent one for the cost of removing a few trees. This thread is purely ego based. Of course you hire an architect.
-
I am under the impression that both NGLA and Yale were restored by enlightened superintendents.
Did they need an architect?
-
I am under the impression that both NGLA and Yale were restored by enlightened superintendents.
Did they need an architect?
Open can, find worm.
-
I am under the impression that both NGLA and Yale were restored by enlightened superintendents.
Did they need an architect?
How'd they get to the point of needing a restoration?
Unenlightened superintendants?
-
If committees screwed up courses in the 60's 70's 80's and 90's why all of a sudden can they get it right today????
Terry,
What makes you think that "architects" weren't involved in those changes in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's ?
When does a Master Plan fail at a private club? When committee members start giving their input, and trying to make architectural decisions.
I've seen it happen! The plan will always fail...
Not necessarily.
Often good to great ideas emanate from within a membership.
To posture that all ideas/imput from members should be automatically discarded would be a mistake.
How do you think Aronomink was restored ?
Do you think that architects just drove in the driveway and made their suggestions ?
When are master plans successful? When you hire a talented architect and listen to him….
Under what basis would you hire an architect ?
Do you think you just call them in and give them carte blanche to alter the golf course ?
Let him direct the project, free of personal agendas… "my father planted that tree", "in my normal saturday group I usually throw a press at them on this hole we can't make this easier for my opponents", "thats my aiming tree!", "you just want to make the course easier"…. etc.
Those are suggestions/ideas that usually don't make it past the first meeting of a well structured committee.
-
I am under the impression that both NGLA and Yale were restored by enlightened superintendents.
Then, you're laboring under a false impression.
Did they need an architect?
YES
-
There are few reasons to consider:
It helps to have someone passionate about the original work explain why it should go back.
I've only seen one or two members ever with enough knowledge AND the ability to present it effectively.
Golf course work often requires approvals from outside agencies to do most work, you may not like drawings, but agencies sure do.
Half of all the clubs I work with can not remove a tree without some form of approvals!
Often the end results looks the same as the original, but the way they were rebuilt is different to lengthen the lifespan (particularly bunkers which have become quite complex in order to make them more stable and eliminate contamination
Restoration is not just putting something back, it's also making sure it will last
That does sometimes involve minor works around the features designed to collect or redirect water to address issues left from the past
The trick is hiding what your doing.
I obviously do a lot of restoration work.
I've only had one client in 25 years with 18 untouched greens.
The courses are not as intact as people think and often our role becomes "how far" or to "what date."
(for fun - just look at Merion and tell me what date you would choose - I can then argue effectively against any selection you make - so can the members)
It extends to budgets, images and even agronomy related issues.
Considering how little it (should) cost, why wouldn't you get someone to be sure everything is done right.
I've rebuilt a number of houses for friends and there really isn't anything I haven't done.
I own an Edwardian house with a beautiful Arts and Crafts interior.
I brought in a professional carpenter to do some minor restoration work for me recently, it cost me a little extra...
I certainly can do the work, but you can't see where he's been (and that mattered more than money).
-
Pat,
If a club retains an architect, they typically have a motive behind his retention.
It's not a spontaneous situation where an architect is lost and randomly drives through the front gate.
The club usually has a concept in mind.
Then, the selection process begins. It can be a short or a lengthy process.
Once selected, in many to most cases, the architect is given a predetermined "mission statement" as opposed to a carte blanche approach where the architect has complete, unrestricted/unrestrained artistic license.
I am aware of some clubs that feel that their course is mediocre at best, and as such, they want it reinvigorated, ergo, an architect is brought in and given ample creative freedom.
Each situation is different, but, you specifically referenced a "classic" golf course.
If the club had made the decision to embark on a "true" or 'pure" restoration, and historic aerial and ground level photos were abundantly available, I could see the project being an "in house" project.
But, I'd still recommend the hiring of an architect for a variety of reasons.
-
I am under the impression that both NGLA and Yale were restored by enlightened superintendents.
Then, you're laboring under a false impression.
Did they need an architect?
YES
GJ is correct in that the current superintendent at Yale is responsible for the lion's share of the current restoration endeavored over the last ten years.
-
We are in the middle of one and politics never goes away. It is too bad the architect can't send the members away and let us come back and see the finished product. Everyone loves what is happening, but then they get certain areas they think are untouchable.If I was an architect and could live without renovations for member owned clubs I wouldn't touch one. Everybody has some idea they think is better. It is the same people who want to give a pro a golf lesson.We have a patient architect and will get a better result than we deserve.
-
great post Mike
-
A golden age golf course gets roughed up by well intended but misguided Green Committees in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's. Trees (hundreds, maybe thousands) are planted, fairway lines changed, greens have shrunk, bunkers rebuilt with flashed sand faces, bunkers removed & grassed over, and the tee boxes warped. Otherwise, the design and lay of the land is unchanged.
Many classic clubs across the country could be lumped into the case study above. Many hired architects to come up with "Master Plans" and to consult through a "restoration"/"renovation."
It would seem to me the majority of restoration work is common sense...cut down trees, widen playing corridors, restore the greens to their original size, and rebuild the bunkers & tees. The remaining would be up to construction or in-house team with the guidance of a few aerials.
So, what exactly does an architect add to the process of restoring a classic golf course?
Pat:
I think the value of expert advice is still greatly underrated.
But I would agree with you that many restorations are much more complicated than they need to be. I think more than 75% of everything we recommend to clubs is something I could tell them on the first walk around. I wish they would just pay us fairly to do that, and move on ... but instead they want a $30,000 Master Plan with multiple visits to let the members have their say and feel confident in the process, because that's what everyone else is selling them.
-
I've rebuilt a number of houses for friends and there really isn't anything I haven't done.
I own an Edwardian house with a beautiful Arts and Crafts interior.
I brought in a professional carpenter to do some minor restoration work for me recently, it cost me a little extra...
I certainly can do the work, but you can't see where he's been (and that mattered more than money).
Is the is the Canadian way of saying you cannot hit the nail on the head with a hammer? ;D
-
Pat:
I think the value of expert advice is still greatly underrated.
But I would agree with you that many restorations are much more complicated than they need to be. I think more than 75% of everything we recommend to clubs is something I could tell them on the first walk around. I wish they would just pay us fairly to do that, and move on ... but instead they want a $30,000 Master Plan with multiple visits to let the members have their say and feel confident in the process, because that's what everyone else is selling them.
That would have been a better use of our money than what we did hire an architect for - a proposed redesign of our putting green that everyone knew we would not spend the money to do but had the plans drawn up anyway because a vocal minority wanted to flatten the thing.
-
Pat -
It would be ideal if a club would do exactly as Tom says above. Perhaps there are those enlightened establishments where such logic could prevail. It would certainly save time, money and make the entire process more efficient.
But a master plan ( to me at least) serves as a way of memorializing the goals of hiring a professional architect so that the ( 10 year) recommendations and implementations transcend myriad club presidents, grounds and greens chairs, etc. so no arm- chair hobbyist who reads golf books, carries a single digit and lurks here thinks he knows what to do on hole # 4.
It can also flesh out long term budgets and plan long term improvements from new irrigation, practice area enhancements, tree strategies, to new greens, new bunkers, etc.
$30k is worth preserving the course from meddling members who think they know best because they've been playing at the club for 30+ years. Go ahead and implement it yourself if you dare. But use the blueprints produced by a pro.
-
Did Cypress do bunker work in house? I vaguely recall that being mentioned.
-
I am under the impression that both NGLA and Yale were restored by enlightened superintendents.
Then, you're laboring under a false impression.
Did they need an architect?
YES
Ran didn't mention the architect in his review.
"A primaryreason that The National Links playsexceptionally well today is because of the work performed by its last two Green Keepers. Firstly,beginning inthe late 1980s, Karl Olsonbegan reversingseveral decadesof neglect by clearing trees and brush, restoringfairway width and playing angles to the course, and recapturing lost bunkers and green sizes."
"Then, with the full support of the club boardbehind him, Bill Salinetti, who replaced OlsononFebruary 1st, 2003, has taken the course to the next level by focusing on how the courseactuallyplays. Gone are the days where the fairways played slow and where practically the only way for a ball to end in a bunker was if it went in on the fly. Fast and firm playing conditions are the rule now with the ball bouncing every which way on both the fairways and the greens. When coupled with many ‘new’ vexing hole locations that haven’t been used in years, The National now has plenty of teeth. For instance, in the 2003 Singles which annually comprises one of the strongest amateur fields in the country, only three players broke the par of 73."
Perhaps you can help us with Ran's oversight.
-
Ran is a Gentleman. Gentlemen do not always reveal everything they know. I thought it was common knowledge who the "consulting" architect was. Sorry, but not really, that Garland is out of the loop.
-
I thought it was common knowledge who the "consulting" architect was. Sorry, but not really, that Garland is out of the loop.
John:
Rees Jones has been the consultant at NGLA for several years. However, much of the restoration work was done by Karl Olson before Rees became involved, and before the club had any consulting architect.
-
I am under the impression that both NGLA and Yale were restored by enlightened superintendents.
Then, you're laboring under a false impression.
Did they need an architect?
YES
GJ is correct in that the current superintendent at Yale is responsible for the lion's share of the current restoration endeavored over the last ten years.
Tim,
Garland is NOT correct.
The superintendent did the construction work, others, such as George Bahto and Geoff Childs were responsible for the conceptual work.
-
Pat -
It would be ideal if a club would do exactly as Tom says above. Perhaps there are those enlightened establishments where such logic could prevail. It would certainly save time, money and make the entire process more efficient.
But a master plan ( to me at least) serves as a way of memorializing the goals of hiring a professional architect so that the ( 10 year) recommendations and implementations transcend myriad club presidents, grounds and greens chairs, etc. so no arm- chair hobbyist who reads golf books, carries a single digit and lurks here thinks he knows what to do on hole # 4.
Ian,
The premise of this thread had it's foundation rooted in the restoration of a classic course.
Ergo, no need for a Master Plan.
It can also flesh out long term budgets and plan long term improvements from new irrigation, practice area enhancements, tree strategies, to new greens, new bunkers, etc.
Creating new greens and new bunkers has nothing to do with restoring a classic course.
$30k is worth preserving the course from meddling members who think they know best because they've been playing at the club for 30+ years. Go ahead and implement it yourself if you dare. But use the blueprints produced by a pro.
Restoration work isn't that complicated.
Aerials from the 20's, 30's and 40's can serve as a detailed roadmap to restoration.
Archival documentation can supply you with all the details and plans you need.
-
Just a wild guess here, Pat.
An architect is to a fine golf-course restoration as a conductor is to a fine orchestra.
The musicians, lacking the conductor, could and would make beautiful music -- but it would lack some of the grace notes that the conductor elicits.
God is in the details (as a great architect observed).
-------------------
Jason --
I'd be interested in learning more about No. 10 at Oak Ridge.
What was the process that led to that tree's being planted there? (I'm pretty sure I objected to it on first seeing it. And I'm pretty sure you agreed with me.)
What was the thinking behind that tree? (Obviously, there was NO THINKING behind that willow. Sheesh!)
-
To the initial question, the answer is...no...
You don't need an architect to restore a course any more than you need a dentist to complete a crown. That said, there probably aren't many who will be very happy with a self made crown. I would strongly recommend both the dentist, and the architect, if you care about the result.
-
Just a wild guess here, Pat.
An architect is to a fine golf-course restoration as a conductor is to a fine orchestra.
The musicians, lacking the conductor, could and would make beautiful music -- but it would lack some of the grace notes that the conductor elicits.
God is in the details (as a great architect observed).
Very nice. A question: if that fine orchestra was a baroque orchestra, and needed a conductor to oversee its upcoming performance of Handel's Messiah, would the musicians and the music itself be better served by a knowledgable amateur (who understood only that a period-correct rendition would use 15 musicians and the same number of singers) or by a world-leading and highly talented and experienced professional conductor with dozens of ideas for bringing Handel's Messiah 'up to date', including doubling the size of the orchestra and choir?
-
Yes you should always hire an architect. My only rebuttal is tree removals, if a tree is impacting turf heath then cut it down. I am not sure you need a golf course architect for that purpose. That being said, if the membership is unwilling to cut down trees and needs some coaxing from an architect than so be it.
Steve Blake
-
Just a wild guess here, Pat.
An architect is to a fine golf-course restoration as a conductor is to a fine orchestra.
The musicians, lacking the conductor, could and would make beautiful music -- but it would lack some of the grace notes that the conductor elicits.
God is in the details (as a great architect observed).
Very nice. A question: if that fine orchestra was a baroque orchestra, and needed a conductor to oversee its upcoming performance of Handel's Messiah, would the musicians and the music itself be better served by a knowledgable amateur (who understood only that a period-correct rendition would use 15 musicians and the same number of singers) or by a world-leading and highly talented and experienced professional conductor with dozens of ideas for bringing Handel's Messiah 'up to date', including doubling the size of the orchestra and choir?
I love you. I can't comprehend anything on the same level as you, but the love still exists.
Next time, for me, could you use, say, the rock group 38 Special as an example and tell me the nuances of whether the use of two drummers actually made the music better or if it was all for show? Or, if you need to stay true to Canada, you can analyze April Wine.....(tempted to use a smiley face emoticon, but Dan Kelly may be watching).
Joe
-
Just a wild guess here, Pat.
An architect is to a fine golf-course restoration as a conductor is to a fine orchestra.
The musicians, lacking the conductor, could and would make beautiful music -- but it would lack some of the grace notes that the conductor elicits.
God is in the details (as a great architect observed).
Very nice. A question: if that fine orchestra was a baroque orchestra, and needed a conductor to oversee its upcoming performance of Handel's Messiah, would the musicians and the music itself be better served by a knowledgable amateur (who understood only that a period-correct rendition would use 15 musicians and the same number of singers) or by a world-leading and highly talented and experienced professional conductor with dozens of ideas for bringing Handel's Messiah 'up to date', including doubling the size of the orchestra and choir?
I love you. I can't comprehend anything on the same level as you, but the love still exists.
Next time, for me, could you use, say, the rock group 38 Special as an example and tell me the nuances of whether the use of two drummers actually made the music better or if it was all for show? Or, if you need to stay true to Canada, you can analyze April Wine.....(tempted to use a smiley face emoticon, but Dan Kelly may be watching).
Joe
I love a good bromance.
-
I'm beginning to think Mahaffey is the smartest guy in the room.
Bogey