Conductors

[jas]

I've never played an orchestral instrument -- well, except a short-lived stint as a clarinetist in my school orchestra before I had any comprehension of what a transposing instrument was, but we don't talk about that -- so this may seem like a ridiculous question, but I'm gonna ask it anyway...

I saw a thread somewhere on this forum about Karajan and someone else, and what people think of them, and it got me wondering what an individual conductor actually brings to an orchestral performance. I couldn't tell one conductor from another if my life depended on it, unless I recognised the actual performance. How much does a conductor influence what the orchestra plays? I know they set the tempo and other performance-related nuances, but in actual performance how much of what we hear is down to the conductor rather than the musicians in the orchestra?

Also, when I see a conductor up in front of an orchestra, I'm usually at a loss to see what it is that the orchestra is getting out of it... I've never seen a conductor move his arms in time to the rhythm. He/she might do little mousy movements to denote "piano" and a bit of energetic arm-flailing to denote "forte", but that's all I can see that makes any sort of musical sense. Does the conductor come up with certain hand signals or arm movements to mean certain things beforehand, or is there a universal way of doing it?

I think my idea of how a conductor works is a little too dependent on Mickey Mouse's cute baton-wielding in Disney's Fantasia. Does anyone care to throw the proverbial bucket of cold water over my head?

Jas

[pianistimo]

i think it's an innate understanding of each of the instruments.  after all - if you are having a rehearsal and u can't exactly put into words what u want - it's a dead loss for the orchestra.  only a few people in the world understand all these intractacies to the detail that certain of these genius conductors do.  also, they can remember the scores (all the parts) and know what's missing - or how to mold and shape things. 

i would say christopher o-reilly is truly an 'up and coming' in the area of giving expert advice to so many instruments.  how he ever got all this knowledge is a prune of a problem to me - but i think it is growing up with instruments all around u.  sort of like the way clara schumann assimilated all that stuff from her famous father wieck.   

it's almost like they read the music like a newspaper.  not that it's boring -but they understand each section and have worked with the orchestra enough to get across their particular way of conducting.  the most beautiful thing is to see an orchestra and conductor that love each other.  it's like being in charge of an army and getting everyone to respond to cues.  on the other hand, if you have a very good conductor who is conceited - you might not get the responsiveness and a true image of their conducting skills because everyone is ignoring him/her.

[elspeth]

Conductors tend to look like they're just waving their arms if you've never worked with one... they have two primary functions, artistic and practical.

The artistic one often starts with choosing the repertoire, which is an art in itself. Picking music that will make a good programme and suits your orchestra and that you can reasonably expect to sell a hall-full of tickets for requires a lot of knowlege of repertoire, particularly if you're not just going to play the famous stuff. Then, having picked the pieces, the conductor will set the tempo, set the dynamics, and generally the way the piece is played will be the way the conductor hears it.

The practical stuff involves running rehearsals, answering every question the musicians can come up with. and often a degree of input into things like reheasal scheduling and administration, choosing and recruiting new players, working with soloists... In the arm-waving department, some of the primary things you need a conductor for are so you all start and finish at the same time, waving cues at people (I'm a piccolo player, you spend an awful lot of time counting sixty-bar rests to play a couple of quavers and losing count!), getting the time changes right and consistent... a lot of it's not so much about telling your musicians what to do as making sure they all do it in the same dynamic at the same time! Consistency to the conductor's vision of the piece is what matters.

It's like directing a play or film, you're not actually acting but you can see a good director's stamp all over any play they've worked with - like any Hitchcock film is immediately and obviously a Hitchcock regardless of the actors and the script, or any Spielberg action film is obviously a Spielberg. With practise you can make a reasonable stab at naming the conductor and orchestra in any recording.

It's also worth mentioning the differences between working with different sorts of orchestras - symphony (the big orchestral repertoire), sinfonia (smaller scale works), opera (specialising in accompanying singers), ballet (specialising in working with dancers), and so on. Opera and ballet conducting requires yet another set of skills because it's not just about conducting the orchestra, it's about getting them to play precisely the same every time, coming in with the dancers, conducting the singers on the stage as well as the orchestra in the pit, knowing what position the dancer has to be in before you can start the next piece... nightmare! And the orchestra can't do any of that for themselves in a theatre as they're underneath the stage and facing the wrong way...

[Tash]

yeah the crucial thing (for our choir anyway!) is to bring the various parts in (sometimes we forget haha). and in rehearsals they tell you to bring out certain parts- it's kind like what your piano teacher does when they nark at you to bring out the melody or make something sound more majestic, except they have to tell a whole orchestra and get everyone to work together- you need a leader in everything or it just gets chaotic and falls to pieces- like in sport- all sports teams have a coach, the team doesn't do it on their own.

join a choir and you'll see what they do!

[Waldszenen]

Most amateur musicians won't be able to tell the difference between a good and bad conductor, or even between different conductors at all for that matter.

Differences between conducting are far more subtle than playing an instrument, but there are differences. Certain conductors are associated with particular styles and yes, interpretations, however similar they may sound.

[prometheus]

As far as I know the the actual conducting is the least important thing the conductor does.

[mycrabface]

Most amateur musicians won't be able to tell the difference between a good and bad conductor, or even between different conductors at all for that matter.

Differences between conducting are far more subtle than playing an instrument, but there are differences. Certain conductors are associated with particular styles and yes, interpretations, however similar they may sound.

My band was under a bad conductor once.. He didn't really care about our playing. Another time, do you know how another conductor would conduct?? Ok band... He gives one bar for nothing... Then we start playing.. And he walks away while we play on our own. I don't really mind that, because the start of our song (the one that we were doing at that time) was pretty rhythmic, but when it got to the emo part, we needed a conductor to make sure that everyone comes in at the right time! And he was just sitting on the chair! And everytime we had to buy him drinks so he would drink in the room, despite the 'no drinking in the band room' rule. Also one day, we were out for sectionals. When we came back, we saw him sleeping on the chair.

[timothy42b]

You all know I play trombone with several groups.  Normally an orchestra will use 3 trombones, and a wind ensemble sometimes more. 

Well, one rehearsal the conductor was ill, and I volunteered to fill in.  They could function with one less trombone for one night.  I thought it didn't go too bad, but there's more pressure up there than I realized and it seems like things go faster.  I was sweating. 

The next week I returned to my section, and the first thing the other two trombones said was, "Hey, where were you last week? Hope you weren't sick or something." 

[prometheus]

The actual waving with the arms or with their baton is for the audience only. It's not like a orchestra doesn't know how to play.


The point is that he is the person is charge, he decided what music is played and how it should be done. He leads the orchestra through the rehearsal.

It's just that the nature of our society demands the leader of the orchestra to be on the stage in front of the orchestra. Imagine he is just sitting in the audience. No, they put him in front of the orchestra and make the audience believe he is doing something super-important. The audience likes that.

[pianogeek_cz]

Is it just my impression, or is Prometheus being slightly cynical/nihilistic/conspirational at times?

As for the conductor job, as far as I know, what elspeth said sums it up nicely and accurately. The most impressive conducting feat I've ever seen was Ilan Volkov doing Messiaen's Chronochromia. There is NO WAY this piece could hold together without a conductor...

[prometheus]

Strange, since I said exactly the same thing as Elspeth. All the work done by the conductor is done before the performance. She or he goes through the piece with the orchestra several times and makes sure it is played the way she or he wants at the performance. The conductor is the person in charge. If everyone just does what they think is right then that will be chaos. The best solution is to make one person focus solely on all these issues.

The actual waving of the hands during the performance is largely meaningless.


I don't see how the things I say can be seen as cynical. Let alone nihilistic. And conspiratorial. Huh Whoa? I hate conspiracy nonsense.

[elspeth]

The arm-waving is only meaningless to a point. Any decent orchestra can quite happily play without a conductor. But, on the other hand, you've got to have someone to start the piece so everyone starts at the same time, even if they can reliably get to the end by themselves - and then someone to wave the end of the final chord so everyone comes off together. A conductor is also incredibly helpful for cues - being a piccolo player I'm well used to 60-odd bar rests and losing count somewhere in the middle. The other major function of the conductor in performance is to maintain consistency - all those musicians can play the piece but between them you'd probably find a selection of opinions on how fast it ought to go, how to interpret a particular dynamic.

[timothy42b]

The arm-waving is only meaningless to a point. Any decent orchestra can quite happily play without a conductor.

I totally disagree.

Playing the notes is not making music.  That's just mechanics, a starting point.  To make music you must interpret and express.  It is simply impossible for 45 to 100 players of varying backgrounds and musicality (though high technical skill) to agree on interpretation.  That is the conductor's job.  It may not look like much but it is. 

[elspeth]

Yes, that's what I said if you keep reading!

[prometheus]

The conductor doesn't do that with arm movements.

[timothy42b]

The conductor doesn't do that with arm movements.

So how then does he do it?  The conductor of any major symphony defines the sound and style, and it is fairly easy to recognize recordings of the standard classical repertoire by who conducted it. 

I have played frequently in wind ensembles and occasionally in symphony orchestras over many decades, and always had the impression the conductor was telling me something waving the baton. 

[prometheus]

Why would he tell someone something with a baton during a performance if there are much better ways of communication and much more convenient times to do so?

[mephisto]

Why would he tell someone something with a baton during a performance if there are much better ways of communication and much more convenient times to do so?

Prometheus you are so annoying at times. The conductor starts by using his hands, he doesn't talk, it is only body language; so there the hands and body of teh conductor AFTRER the performance is also vital. Of course the rehersals before the actual performance are EXTREMELY important, the conductors does things with his hands and body under the performance wich are extremely important. Naturally a lot of it is just acting but not all.

[prometheus]

I may be extremely annoying to you but it seems that not a single word of me can be missed. You basically are agreeing with me here and talking around it.

The conductor tells the orchestra before the performance how the piece should be played. So the conductor uses language, not the baton. And it is done before the performance, not  during it.

So most of the arm movements you see are 'acting'.

Those things that cannot be missed can be done by the concertmaster.

[timothy42b]

The conductor tells the orchestra before the performance how the piece should be played. So the conductor uses language, not the baton. And it is done before the performance, not  during it.

I have played for conductors many hundreds of times.  Probably many thousands.  In my experience, you are simply wrong. 

A conductor will sometimes make some explanatory verbal comments and sometimes not.

That is extraneous to the real work.

The conductor no more communicates music with words than you do when you sit at your piano.  Yes, at a concert sometimes the performer will talk briefly about the piece or the composer before playing, but then he will communicate to the audience using the piano.

In a similar way the conductor "plays" the orchestra just as a soloist plays a piano, communicating the musical ideas of the composer to the raptly listening audience.  At least, that is the way it is supposed to work. 

[mephisto]

So MOST of the arm movements you see are 'acting'.

Yes.

[timothy42b]

Why would he tell someone something with a baton during a performance if there are much better ways of communication and much more convenient times to do so?

Ah.  Maybe I see the confusion.

Because it must be done in real time. 

That makes all the difference. 

It is neither acting nor showmanship when done right.  It is true that if he died suddenly any good orchestra could finish without him.  They would then finish without his interpretation as well.  A sophisticated listener can tell the difference. 

It is the difference, actually, between live and recorded music.  Would you play a CD as your recital?  If you'd made it yourself, why not?  Because live is not recorded. 

[Bob]

The conductor's job is to create the performance.  Study the piece ahead of time, create their interpretation of it, and then create that in reality with a group.  Communication is a large part of their job -- with words, with gestures, singing, whatever gets their point across.  There are some things that words and talking cannot express. 

During a performance, the conductor needs to do the basics -- keep the ensemble together, keep things uniform -- but they also need to draw out the best from the ensemble.  There are movements for basic time keeping, cues, etc.  And then there is the expression -- a conductor communicates all the times, like anyone.  With their posture, with their bearing, with the motion that goes along with the gesture.  They show what the performer is supposed to play.  And they have to be thinking ahead of the ensemble to do that.  During the performance they can keep the group together and push the group to create the nuances just right.  In some ways, they can give the ensemble more confidence.  Or "forced" confidence too -- they can "will" the group to perform a certain way.

Conductors are vital.  If they weren't, they wouldn't be up there.  You'd have someone in the front row cuing the start and stop like they used to.

[prometheus]

Conductors are vital.  If they weren't, they wouldn't be up there.  You'd have someone in the front row cuing the start and stop like they used to.

Why?

[Bob]

Conductors evolved into existence.  If they weren't needed, no one would pay them, etc.

They have a technical role, (cuing, beat tapping, etc.) but the expression and interpretation is very important.  They are the leader of the group.

In a professional group, the individual performers find their own score and study their part in relation to everyone else.  In most groups though, the conductor is only one who has access to all the parts.  They are the only person who can really interpret the score.

In any group someone has to be the leader.  Music is not a democracy -- Someone has to have the final say on the way things should be.

If you want to expand the role of conductor, you can have more ears in the audience and people to work with the group on specific things -- technical things, expressive things.  And you do see that too.  Maybe it's the practical side that puts one conductor with one group.

Somehow I'm guessing Prometheus is just egging people on.  Interesting topic nonetheless.

[prometheus]

No, I was just amazed by the idea that if something is indeed useless, it would be discarded. I don't really observe this in actual life.

I already explained why I think conductors still exist.

[Bob]

You're saying conductors are up there just for audience entertainment?

[prometheus]

Yes, the orchestra needs to have a face on stage.

But the main point of my last post was; traditions aren't questioned.

[mephisto]

Let us say that an orchestra has learned Beethoven's 5th symphony, and are supposed to perform this symphony with a conductor, but on the day of the performance the conductor dies. So there comes a new conductor(let us call him "A") who will have no time at all to perform with the orchestra, but both he and the orchestra knows this symphony very well. The conductor will at NO point talk to any members of the orchestra exept after the performance is ended. Next week  - because A's performance was so good  - the orchestra will perform Beethoven's 5th symphony again. But sadly mr A dies on the day of the performance! So the totaly unknown conductor mr B will take over and perform with the orchestra.
So now we have a new conductor who will have no time at all to perform with the orchestra, but both he and the orchestra knows this symphony very well. The conductor will at NO point talk to any members of the orchestra exept after the performance is ended.


Both mr A and mr B conducted only by using their hands and body. Do you seriously not see how it is perfectly possible that their performances could be extremely different? I am not only talking about tempo, but everything from dynamic to prhasing and rits and crecendos and diminuendos. Only by using his body and hands the conductor is able to show the orchestra exactly what he wants.

[pianistimo]

mephisto, i totally agree with you.  and, yet, when i first read this - i thought it was a joke.  i mean - you did pick beethoven's fifth.  perhaps you are as psychic as people think i am.  the conductors keep dying when they perform beethoven's fifth really well.  yikes.

wanted to see ricardo muti so much last year - but he got the flu.  so neeme jarvi filled in.  i was thinking - yuk.  this is going to be a terrible thing for me.  i was totally PLEASANTLY surprised.  they have totally different styles of conducting and yet neeme jarvi's interpretations (perhaps less 'romantic' and passionate) showed a surprising amount of flexibility and willingness to go 1/2 and 1/2 with the orchestra.  i thought was he was AMAZING.  and you know what?!  at one point he did this really cute thing.  he just stopped moving his arms altogether and leaned his head and ear to one side to just 'listen' - it was cute because it was at a point where the orchestra was playing really well.  and everyone loved him for it.  he was showing appreciation for the ability of the orchestra to move without him - but he added such flair and pizzaz to it when he did conduct - that he showed how the conductor and orchestra can move with appreciation for each other and take cues from each other.  to me, neeme jarvi is like a thoroughbred racehorse.  he is so fully of energy and life and really expresses the innate rhythms of music as well as very small intricacies that most conductors would not think to bring out.  he was right ON time for cues - like clockwork.  if anyone WAS relying for precision - he gave it to them.

[prometheus]

Mephisto, your point is irrelevant. I never disputed that a person can express things using his body which the orchestra members will be able to use in their interpretation. But I never argued against that.

[timothy42b]

Mephisto, your point is irrelevant. I never disputed that a person can express things using his body which the orchestra members will be able to use in their interpretation. But I never argued against that.

You have, however, argued that the conductor is basically useless and irrelevant.

How, then, does musical expression happen?  As a trombone player in an orchestra, it is not uncommon for me to count 412 measures rest and play a whole note.  How can I play that note musically on my own?  without a sense of where it fits in a coherent whole?  The other  45 players are basically in the same situation.  And yet an orchestra does interpret, and does make music beyond playing the notes at the right time.  That is the conductor's job.  (and they're fairly well paid for it!) 

[mycrabface]

  also, they can remember the scores (all the parts) and know what's missing - or how to mold and shape things. 

No way.. Not all of them.. I asked one of the conductors how he wants me to play something, and he goes: What? Which part is that??

I may be extremely annoying to you but it seems that not a single word of me can be missed. You basically are agreeing with me here and talking around it.

The conductor tells the orchestra before the performance how the piece should be played. So the conductor uses language, not the baton. And it is done before the performance, not during it.

So most of the arm movements you see are 'acting'.

Those things that cannot be missed can be done by the concertmaster.

Partly correct. The conductor glares at us when we're performing. And one time we hadn't had enough time to master one of our songs, then she was trying so hard not to scream at us... You should have seen her face! During the song I remember her gesturing frantically at the timpani because he forgot to hold the note (it wasn't written in the score).

In a professional group, the individual performers find their own score and study their part in relation to everyone else. In most groups though, the conductor is only one who has access to all the parts. They are the only person who can really interpret the score.

Excuse me! Don't forget the librarian!

[timothy42b]

The conductor glares at us when we're performing. And one time we hadn't had enough time to master one of our songs, then she was trying so hard not to scream at us...

I am going to guess you are talking about a student organization.

Conducting in a classroom is an entirely different situation.  I have not played in that kind of band or orchestra for many decades and I will not claim I remember much about it.  The conductor has a different purpose than focusing on interpretation.

In a professional or semi-professional ensemble, the conductor really does have the responsibility to make music and this does really take a lot of work on his/her part.  The individual performers are expected to know their part and how it should be played without asking, and to count rests and come in on time without cues, and to check the score when there are problems with note errors and not waste rehearsal time with their questions.  The conductor directs the music - with his arms.  It is not acting.  Take a conducting class sometime, you'll see. 

I would never, ever, expect a conductor to cue me in, no matter how many hundreds of bars of rests I've had to count.  If an entrance has ever been problematic, I will often see a conductor glance quickly my direction about two bars early.  They will always see that the trombone has come off my knee and is up in playing position, then they know they don't have to worry.  (Conductors try to avoid looking at the trombone section;  they fear encouraging us to play loudly, which can be a problem.) 

[mycrabface]

I am going to guess you are talking about a student organization.

Conducting in a classroom is an entirely different situation.  I have not played in that kind of band or orchestra for many decades and I will not claim I remember much about it.  The conductor has a different purpose than focusing on interpretation.

In a professional or semi-professional ensemble, the conductor really does have the responsibility to make music and this does really take a lot of work on his/her part.  The individual performers are expected to know their part and how it should be played without asking, and to count rests and come in on time without cues, and to check the score when there are problems with note errors and not waste rehearsal time with their questions.  The conductor directs the music - with his arms.  It is not acting.  Take a conducting class sometime, you'll see. 

I would never, ever, expect a conductor to cue me in, no matter how many hundreds of bars of rests I've had to count.  If an entrance has ever been problematic, I will often see a conductor glance quickly my direction about two bars early.  They will always see that the trombone has come off my knee and is up in playing position, then they know they don't have to worry.  (Conductors try to avoid looking at the trombone section;  they fear encouraging us to play loudly, which can be a problem.) 

That's correct! I belong to two bands, one outside of school. This band I'm referring to is the school band. I feel closer to them, and its more lively. Our band has a lot of rubbish going on. The other band, however, consists of people who are just interested in music and want to follow their dreams by coming together every weekend to play pieces. But they're all so old. They're adults. Gah. We go for concerts too!