The Times was by no means alone in using it. At least by the mid-1960s, soon after I had started to follow classical music, the term had become common coin in discussions of the American orchestral scene. And it proved remarkably persistent, even as the mighty handful started to suffer setbacks and other orchestras grew in budget and artistic stature, notably the St. Louis Symphony, the Los Angeles Philharmonic and the San Francisco Symphony.  Ernest Fleischmann, executive director of the Los Angeles Philharmonic from 1969 to 1998, argued for recognition of a big six. And the San Francisco Symphony, celebrating its centennial in the 2011-12 season under Mr. Pastreichâs successor, Brent Assink, found a creative way to imply the existence of a big seven if not proclaim it, presenting each of the Big Five and the Los Angeles Philharmonic in brief residencies at its home, Davies Symphony Hall.  Plausible notions both, though neither caught on. Yet it is true that while the idea of the Big Five may still exist in the public imagination, you no longer hear talk of it in the profession except from Big Five members, when, occasionally, they find it useful.  A century or so ago, when classical music thrived in a nation of immigrants, orchestras were a powerful force, flagship institutions that helped to put American cities on the cultural map. And the Big Five, when it coalesced, helped, with its cumulative weight, to put American orchestras firmly on the international map. No other country could boast of such a constellation.  But this landscape has changed greatly over the last half-century, much as the countryâs economic, demographic and cultural landscape has, and in many of the same ways. The economic fortunes of the flagship ensembles have changed with the fortunes of their cities.  âThe notion of the Big Five just doesnât exist today,â Thomas W. Morris, the chief executive and artistic director of Spring for Music, a festival of North American orchestras at Carnegie Hall, says in a video on the festivalâs Web site.  The idea of the Big Five was largely created and popularized by journalists, although the member executives started to hold their own meetings. The concept was certified, in a way, by 1969 and 1972 analyses commissioned by, er, the Big Five suggesting that perhaps only the Big Five would survive.  âThere is a natural tendency in any field to want to identify and celebrate the best,â said Jesse Rosen, president and chief executive of the League of American Orchestras, a service organization, whose annual conference opens Tuesday in St. Louis.  The problem is establishing criteria. In sports, the best can usually be identified by hard and fast quantities: timings, distances, scores, percentages. In music, as in other arts, the issue is quality, and that is not so easily determined or compared.  In fact, the criteria of membership in the Big Five, never firmly established, began with quantities. They included size of budget, number of recordings, amount of touring (especially stops in New York), presence on radio and television, and number of year-round musicians. Quality, it was more or less assumed, would follow the numbers, with more-prosperous orchestras able to attract better players, conductors and guest artists.  But those quantities were always squishy, and the balances shifted. The Cleveland Orchestra, for example, with the smallest budget by far, got its foot in the door of what some thought of as a Big Four Plus One mainly on the strength of its artistic achievement under George Szell, its music director from 1946 to 1970, before gaining full recognition.  Vague though it was, the notion of a Big Five carried real meaning and impact for a time. âIf you go far enough back, 30 to 40 years,â said Gary Hanson, the Cleveland Orchestraâs executive director, âthe defining element of success had a lot more to do with an institutionâs ability to compete for talent than anything else. In that competitive environment, there was a direct relationship between reputation and quality.â  The major orchestras competed for recording contracts, players, major conductors. Today, with recording contracts rare, more orchestras employing their players year-round and geographical mobility a way of life, the market is more diffuse. Climate and cost of living are as likely to figure in a musicianâs choice of employer as an orchestraâs historic renown.  Mr. Hanson acknowledged that the Big Five orchestras benefit slightly from a âresidual reputational momentum.â  âBut today,â he added, âthe ability to maintain a viable orchestra and pursue greater quality depends almost entirely on philanthropy. It depends on the ability of the local community to fund its orchestra.â  Cleveland is a particularly difficult case, with so many corporations having fled the city. But with Franz Welser-MÃ¶st as music director, the Cleveland Orchestra has retained its lofty artistic profile while relying on major gifts and on residencies in Miami, Vienna and elsewhere.  In another stressed city, the Philadelphia Orchestra filed for bankruptcy in 2011. But it, too, seems to have weathered the storm in fine artistic fettle, thanks to the interim efforts of Charles Dutoit as principal conductor and Yannick NÃ©zet-SÃ©guinâs arrival last year as music director.
The notion of the âBig Fiveâ American symphony orchestras seems to have lost its relevance in an ever more international music world.