Never known for a city that appreciates the arts, it's a pity that the quality of the Columbus Symphony Orchestra (CSO) continues to slide (along with the apparent quality of the audience). With a recent performance featuring a mediocre full-time conductor from a mediocre orchestra (the Pacific Symphony, which is certainly far more than "adequate," if not "respectful"), CSO sunk to a new low with presentations of works of Tchaikovsky and Brahms, all of which sounded nondescript, if not muddy (the orchestra did a more credible job of handling the Brahms work, likely because it was much more doable). The "bottom" of the capabilities seemed to rest with the brass instruments, and the excellent violins (especially those toward the top of the hierarchy) were quite good -- but not good enough to save this yawner of a performance, a portion of which featured a pianist who was, as they say in Texas, "more hat than cattle." Sad. Though planning for a new performing arts venue is in the works, given the track record of Columbus's supporting the arts (or anything else, other than Ohio State University football), it may be a while before the doors are opened. In the meanwhile the overly-large (and "over-the-top," in opulence) Ohio Theatre will have to do. A pity, given the enormous number of empty seats that CSO members face, when they do get around to a "run" of a couple of programs.
It's not surprising that the reputation (if not ranking) of the CSO has fallen behind smaller cities, including Dayton, to the point that the CSO is now believed by many to be the "fourth best philharmonic in the state of Ohio." What a pity. Why doesn't this city support the arts in a genuine and robust manner? read more