Concerto Soloist—Conductor Relationship

[kippler]

After the discussion on "Who controls the orchestra, soloist or conductor?", what it boils down to is that the conductor is the accompanist. The instrumental medium of the accompanist is a large ensemble of live musicians, rather than a piano.

Given this state of affairs, what differences would there be, if any, in the relationship between the soloist and the accompanist when the accompanist is the conductor?

Personally, I prefer accompanying to solo performing, and I find it fairly easy (personality issues aside) to simply be the accompanist whether I am at a piano or on the podium. But would a soloist have different expectations of a conductor than of a piano accompanist?

To start off, as a conductor, I would look for the soloist to present an integral and cohesive vision of the work to be performed. After initial meetings and explorations, should that turn out not to be the case, I would chip in with what what I would hope would be received as constructive comments.

What would you, soloist, expect of the conductor, and how would you develop the dialogue?

[krystellle]

I think that depends on what concerto you're playing.  If you're playing one of the chopin, I guess you could say the conductor is an accompanist.  But if you're playing mozart, prokofiev, or, actually any other concerto, it's really like chamber music on a large scale.  Yes, the piano is the soloist, but so are lots of other instruments during the performance.  I haven't played that much with an orchestra, but the few times I did, I actually found it easier then playing solo.  I just felt like part of the orchestra.  For example, the beginning cello solo of the second movement in the tchaikowsky:  I remember looking at him as I played and falling in love!!!!  And the conductor saved my life that time in one point in the first movement when I came in too soon.  So really, it's like 2 people in control - one at the piano, and one at the head of the orchestra.  Playing together.