Confession of the orchestra conductor

I didn't perfectly grasp Carlos's emoticon, it's probably a "prayer" that should try to respond to the cliché of seeing the conductor as (the) omnipotent one

I see it more as something like: "Even we orchestra members have our own musical idea," but to say it, we use satire; otherwise, it's a pain...

I agree with TheSimon, it's a shame though that in the end everyone remembers the interpretation of that Conductor... who led the orchestra professors. Then it is up to the conductor's intelligence to understand how good an idea is, even if it comes from an orchestral player

Eh eh... it is indeed

Setting aside irony and clichés for a moment, remembering the interpretation of one conductor or another is quite normal, given that it is precisely the conductor's task to coordinate an ensemble from a musical standpoint. A great orchestra, even if composed of supreme musicians, will need to be coordinated by a single musician; this is demonstrated by the fact that the same orchestra (even one of great value and with great traditions) performs the same pieces many times under the guidance of different conductors, achieving results that are sometimes opposites. The fact that individual instrumentalists have a musical idea is sacrosanct, but it is not possible to indulge them all, and therefore there must be a person who decides, whether one likes it or not. It is not a matter of being omnipotent or not, but the figure of the conductor has historically consolidated precisely due to the growing need for a single musical reference and the increasing complexity of scores. It is therefore not a question of "intelligence" in recognizing the validity of one idea over another. The issue is very different: the conductor has an overall vision that an orchestral instrumentalist cannot have, and knows the score in a way that is totally different from how individual musicians can know it, even those who have played that score many times. In this regard, one should consider the fact that often and willingly, orchestral instrumentalists (even from great orchestras) who dedicate themselves to conducting do not achieve results proportionate to their own value as instrumentalists. Where the conductor and the instrumentalist confront each other is in the presence of particularly demanding or musically extremely significant "solos," but even in that case, setting aside instrumental difficulties (if any) that may affect the choice of a more or less sustained tempo, in the end, the last word belongs to the conductor—not because they are omnipotent, but because that is the responsibility of their role. I do not know which of you has experience in chamber music. If you do, you will know that with three musicians or more, it is always more complicated to reach a unity of purpose and compromise is necessary. A dominant figure emerges, however and always, who finds themselves naturally taking the reins of the situation. Imagine what an orchestra, even of reduced size, could mean when rehearsing, say, Beethoven's Eroica without a conductor (to mention a score written when the figure of the conductor was in its infancy). We are not talking about late Romanticism nor, heaven forbid, opera (not to mention, in opera and in scores from the late Romantic repertoire, the objective impossibility of playing without a guide). I guarantee you that this is a much more articulated discussion than simply deciding "how good an idea is, even if it comes from an orchestral player," and, naturally, we can continue to talk about it, if you wish.

Of course! I think we are all aware of the importance of the conductor in an orchestra; however, this seemed to me to be just a satire to be taken with a smile, highlighting the thoughts of a hypothetical orchestra member who sometimes finds themselves playing things that do not account for certain stylistic choices of the conductor. Besides, you also said that one finds oneself playing the same things which can even have opposite results, and in that particular case of mediocre performance, perhaps the orchestra member might have been right. Certainly, it is obvious that bringing 100 musicians into agreement requires someone to unite them and who also takes on the responsibility of responding to criticism, so hats off to them.

However, it is right to also give space to ideas seen from other perspectives, in this case, why not, even in a funny way using satire by an orchestra member...

Carlos wrote:

A large orchestra, even if composed of supreme musicians, will need to be coordinated by a single musician; this is demonstrated by the fact that the same orchestra (even one of great value and with great traditions) performs the same pieces many times under the guidance of different conductors, achieving results that are sometimes opposite. The fact that individual instrumentalists have a musical idea is sacrosanct, but it is not possible to indulge them all, and therefore there must be one person who decides, whether they like it or not.

(...)

the conductor has an overall vision that an instrumentalist in the orchestra cannot have and knows the score in a totally different way from how individual musicians can know it, even those who have played that score many times.

Which is exactly what I was trying to say in 2 words.

Carlos wrote:

I guarantee you that this is a much more articulated discussion than simply deciding "how good an idea is, even if it comes from an orchestral player" and, naturally, we can continue to talk about it, if you wish.

I add to and reiterate what Carlos has already written: the instrumentalist's idea may concern their part, or at most their section in the case of rehearsal management with collaborators.

But in the end, the idea must be unitary. Perhaps the only exception is the presence of a soloist, where they have, at most, a preferential path in the relationship with the conductor himself.

I am also convinced that Dino's writing is more goliardic than anything else...

GoffredoLiguri wrote:

I am also convinced that Dino's writing is more playful than anything else...

But yes, that seems to be exactly the case...

Carlos is the only likable director I know.

Ah, and also Matteo Beltrami (with his little dog).

thallo wrote:

Carlos is the only likable conductor I know.

Imagine what it could mean for an orchestra, even a small one, to be rehearsing, say, Beethoven's Eroica without a conductor (to mention a score written when the figure of the conductor was in its infancy).

Open content (youtube)

Do you know how the "Spira Mirabilis" Orchestra rehearses? Because if you don't, this link is worth little. They do very long rehearsals and to prepare for a concert they sometimes work for a week, talking and discussing at length during rehearsals to compare their respective opinions. They are an (if you want, a very happy) exception, but that remains the case and in the end there is a leader (Lorenza Borrani, if you want to know the name) who has the orchestra in her hands (as can be clearly seen from the video); the orchestra is arranged so that all the principals can see her. From there, it's a short step to having a conductor on the podium. Thus, so that no one would think I hadn't studied...

Yes, I had read it on their site... A sort of expanded "chamber music."

Too bad most orchestras don't have the same amount of time to dedicate to rehearsals!

RedScharlach wrote:

Yes, I had read it on their website... A sort of expanded "chamber music."

Too bad that most orchestras don't have an equal amount of time to dedicate to rehearsals!

Well, you know, they are musicians who meet once every two/three months, work for a week on a "project" and then play (one piece for each program: so they play 40-minute programs and rehearse for a time that is at least double what an orchestra normally spends preparing a one-and-a-half-hour program; do the math...). They are not an orchestra organized in a normal way. Of course, other orchestras rehearse less (but not much less, actually), but it's a Catch-22: if you want to go without a conductor, you are forced to rehearse much more...

Anyway, I adore you because you manage to make even something that starts perhaps jokingly and without pretensions interesting

I have listened to several ensembles without a conductor, but they were small, dealing with Baroque repertoire and with the continuo player or the violinist giving the attacks.

I would like to see an orchestra playing Mahler's Symphony of 1000 without a conductor; then, yes, one could say that it can be done without one

Dino wrote:

In the meantime, I adore you because you manage to make even something that starts perhaps jokingly and without pretension interesting

Not at all! Besides, it is the only thing I can talk about with some degree of expertise, imagine if I let such an opportunity slip by...

Dino wrote:

I have listened to several ensembles without a conductor, but they were small, dealing with Baroque repertoire and with the continuo player or the violinist providing the attacks.

I would like to see an orchestra playing Mahler's Symphony of a Thousand without a conductor; then one could truly say that it can be done without one.

This, in itself, would be an excellent topic. In fact, one must not forget that the figure of the conductor as we know it has had a very long evolution and consolidated into the "classical" way for purely practical reasons. "Conductors" have been spoken of since the first half of the 1700s, but even JSB conducted (like Gluck and Haydn) from his position as first violin. Conducting from the harpsichord was the norm until Beethoven (who is in fact the first composer to conduct without playing), but for example, for Haydn's "The Creation," in 1785, five conductors were employed (five!!!) because there were so many performers and they were spread out so widely in Westminster Cathedral that it would not have been possible otherwise.

Aside from all this, however, one should also consider a more hidden aspect, which I mentioned above, regarding the musical direction of any piece. You have no idea how many times the classic question has been posed to me, namely: "but the conductor... what does he do? After all, the orchestra already knows what it has to play, right?". And there, you struggle to explain the nuances...

Peter Lichtental wrote, regarding the "1st violin conductor" (a figure that would lead almost naturally to the conductor on the podium, without a violin but with a baton), "does not need to be a concert performer [...] but must possess greater musical knowledge and feeling for art". And, mark my words, Lichtental was born in 1780. Consider that at that time, it wasn't even customary for those who began conducting from the podium and with a baton to use the full score... There were reductions (born specifically for the use of the first violin conductor who needed a guide to give the main attacks), but we have testimony of Angelo Mariani who, to conduct "Stiffelio," asked for the score, "because 'the principal' is used by the so-called shoulder first violin," where by "principal" it most likely meant the so-called "small score" or "leading violin," that is, the part of the first violin with guides for the main voices. This means that knowledge of the score was considered a faculty possible only for the composer (and indeed, a conductor's skills are very similar even today), while whoever conducted had a function that, up to that point, was only practical. This is why Lichtental's observation is significant: even at that time, the need for something deeper than a simple time-beater was beginning to be felt.

Anyway, to finish, I will tell you what explanation I have developed to explain to non-musicians what a conductor does. I use a pictorial metaphor and explain that an orchestra without a conductor would be as if Leonardo had made a pencil sketch of the Mona Lisa, then put down the brushes and colors and told seven or eight painters to paint one the left hand, one the right hand, one the face, one the hair, one the background, one the dress... but simultaneously and without anyone seeing what the other was doing. Of course, everyone had been told which colors should be used for each part of the painting, but... what would have come out?"