# What do you actually conduct when you conduct?



## Pianoorchestraguy (Jul 15, 2014)

Everybody knows that the professional orchestras can play on, even without the conductor. They know how to play together, how to interpret, they know the repertoire etc. 
So what is the role of the conductor? Just to say you are a bit too loud, you are covering the flutes etc. in the rehearsals? Or just to begin a piece?

I was also thinking, if they do not really need you as a conductor, then what do you actually conduct? Just showing the character of the music? Well, everyone who knows how to listen to the music can understand the character of the music. No need for a conductor for that!
Any thoughts on that?


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Pianoorchestraguy said:


> Everybody knows that the professional orchestras can play on, even without the conductor. They know how to play together, how to interpret, they know the repertoire etc.


They can play on, but can they stay together? I doubt it.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

One way to look at it is that it's the difference between a pianola and a professional pianist. The pianola makes the notes sound, but the pianist _makes the notes sound._

One could say that an orchestra is different because of all the human thoughts and emotions that make up a musician's interpretation. A symphony orchestra on its own will not interpret a piece of music successfully without a leader, too many brains to settle one idea! Whereas conductors (who are incredibly useful in rehearsals _and_ performances because of this) will end up working with the orchestra to create a sound that they may all agree on (or at least the vast majority, the others just have to follow regardless!). Everyone in an orchestra knows how to interpret and each member of an orchestra has the ability to come up with their own ideas of how a piece should go, but it is up to the conductor to make an interpretation work for everyone.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

GreenMamba said:


> They can play on, but can they stay together? I doubt it.


The Orpheus Chamber Orchestra and some other smaller ensembles play without conductor. Among full-sized orchestras, the Symphony of the Air played without conductor for a few years, and quite well. I believe they were playing as they had under Stokowski.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> The Orpheus Chamber Orchestra and some other smaller ensembles play without conductor.


_*Chamber*_ and _*smaller*_ being the operative words


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

The act of conducting is the end-product of days/weeks of rehearsing and during those rehearsals the conductor interprets the work. The conductor could for instance inform the string players that a certain section should be an "ostinato" and that they are playing it wrong (there's so much more to it than that, of course). Don't look at it as someone on a stage waving his hands around in the air, the entire performance is the end-product of the conductor's interpretative decisions (and the orchestra's playing, of course). In summary, look at the conductor more as an *interpreter* of music rather than merely a conductor.

*- The great Carlos Kleiber rehearsing Der Freischütz and Die Fledermaus*





*- Karajan rehearsing with the Berliner Philharmoniker, Schumann Symphony No. 4*


----------



## chalkpie (Oct 5, 2011)

[video]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/06/arts/music/the-connection-between-gesture-and-music.html?_r=0[/video]

Check this out....pretty cool stuff with Alan Gilbert.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

What shall we opine on Gilbert Kaplan? A shoddy conductor. It's easy to tell when a conductor is truly bad especially when conducting the top professional orchestras in the world. Kaplan is a prime example of this....compare his Mahler 2 with someone like Bernstein with the same orchestra.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> What shall we opine on Gilbert Kaplan? A shoddy conductor. It's easy to tell when a conductor is truly bad especially when conducting the top professional orchestras in the world. Kaplan is a prime example of this....compare his Mahler 2 with someone like Bernstein with the same orchestra.


His Mahler 2 is horrendous. It has no sense of pacing or phrasing beyond the very immediate demands of a given moment. Without a top-flight orchestra, he would be nothing at all.

Compare with any even half-decent Mahler conductor on any orchestra, even a second-tier one, and the difference is obvious.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Let's remember that Kaplan is an amateur who has bought his way into conducting engagements. His training seems to be limited to waving his arms in a not totally nonsensical way. Wiki sez, "Kaplan's conducting has attracted criticism: in December 2008, The New York Times reported that New York Philharmonic musicians had complained that his recent performance with the orchestra was a "woefully sad farce", and that he should not be allowed to conduct them again. Private Eye magazine claimed that Kaplan had only been allowed to conduct leading orchestras after paying them large amounts of money."

That said, it does sound like fun for Mr. Kaplan. Good for him! Wish I could afford that. Just wait for my Missa Solemnis!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

But Thomas Beecham pretty much also did come into conducting by buying his way into it without training too! At least he was GOOD! :lol:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> But Thomas Beecham pretty much also did come into conducting by buying his way into it without training too! At least he was GOOD! :lol:


True enough!


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Haven't we recently been through this? I've played lots in pro orchestras so here's some thoughts:

A conductor is the most efficient way of imparting a single view of the programme to a large number of people and lead them through performances. This is good as a standard orchestral programme is put together on about 18 hours rehearsal and often less
Yes, a conductor is very useful for keeping everyone together and rehearsing and shaping individual moments and some orchestra building stuff, but the key point is that they manage the overall interpretative architecture of a whole work - that's the really important skill
They can also supply a bit of intangible magic or charisma and do things in performance which give it a bit of extra energy and vitality
Think about how important a conductor is for interfacing between a soloist and an orchestra!
Orchestras can kinda play without a conductor. Tempo changes and transitions will be messy and uncoordinated, time will often be lost as players listen to each other rather than following the beat. Orpheus and some others can do it as they are smaller, there are clear leaders and they carefully select repertoire


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Conductors exert influences on the music that the public is unlikely to see or recognize. For example, they make minute decisions about the performances of string sections, asking for specific bowing patterns. Over the rehearsals for an upcoming performance, the orchestra librarians will often be busy at every break penciling these changes into the parts. Likewise, but less pervasively for wind articulations. It is not unusual for visiting conductors to travel with their own sets of parts with their preference for string articulations already entered.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

I've never heard Kaplan's Mahler. Interesting that The Economist was enthralled:

http://www.economist.com/node/12675794

A musician gives a much more negative view:

http://davidfinlayson.typepad.com/fin_notes/2008/12/some-words-about-gilbert-kaplan.html


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Reminds me of a performance of the Haydn 88th Symphony with Leonard Bernstein conducting the Vienna Philharmonic in the final movement....except he didn't. He just stood there communicating with his eyes and smiling....the ultimate compliment to a great ensemble.


----------



## Pianoorchestraguy (Jul 15, 2014)

Yes, exactly this is what I had in mind. Someone - like Bernstein - who in the very end does not even need to "conduct". About the interpretatory things the others wrote it is OK. I understand it myself and certainly this is the main task of a conductor, to shape a piece of music musically with the orchestra since he does not have any technical problems by himself.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

I would assume that sitting out for one movement of Haydn is a lot different than doing without a conductor for a full Mahler symphony. And I believe that was the only time Bernstein pulled that stunt, which is telling.


----------



## xria (Aug 4, 2014)

I would say conductors unite the expressions of the performers together?


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Reminds me of a performance of the Haydn 88th Symphony with Leonard Bernstein conducting the Vienna Philharmonic in the final movement....except he didn't. He just stood there communicating with his eyes and smiling....the ultimate compliment to a great ensemble.





Pianoorchestraguy said:


> Yes, exactly this is what I had in mind. Someone - like Bernstein - who in the very end does not even need to "conduct".


@Pianoorchestraguy, Ok, but please note that that's not something that happens often, not at all (plus the fact that Bernstein was not what you'd call a conventional conductor!). As hpowders wrote, it was the ultimate compliment to a great ensemble. The actual act of conducting *is* still necessary, notwithstanding the example of Bernstein with the Vienna Philharmonic.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

With two rehearsals per work, the conductor is little more than a live metronome. Watching the rehearsal footage that's available with famous conductors, I've always been struck by two things: one, they apparently have to go on about the most basic stuff. I speak as a non-musician. But the conductors, even when they're working with exquisite orchestras, seem to be teaching a band of amateurs. It is staggering to me how much basic work they're doing. Two, the ultimate goal of the conductors, so far as I can tell, is to make themselves superfluous, that is, to turn the orchestra into a chamber ensemble, where everyone is listening to everyone else. Perhaps the latter does not apply to all conductors I've seen rehearse, though. But it nonetheless seems to be a common ideal.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

When I conduct at home, it's usually chamber music, such as the Mendelssohn String Quartets-something intimate.
I never have the desire to conduct orchestral music.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Reminds me of a performance of the Haydn 88th Symphony with Leonard Bernstein conducting the Vienna Philharmonic in the final movement....except he didn't. He just stood there communicating with his eyes and smiling....the ultimate compliment to a great ensemble.


Or that he conducted the piece in a very different way. Kyrill Kondrashin, for instance, abandoned the baton (somewhat, not totally) and used facial expressions more frequently.


----------



## BRHiler (May 3, 2014)

dgee said:


> Haven't we recently been through this? I've played lots in pro orchestras so here's some thoughts:
> 
> A conductor is the most efficient way of imparting a single view of the programme to a large number of people and lead them through performances. This is good as a standard orchestral programme is put together on about 18 hours rehearsal and often less
> Yes, a conductor is very useful for keeping everyone together and rehearsing and shaping individual moments and some orchestra building stuff, but the key point is that they manage the overall interpretative architecture of a whole work - that's the really important skill
> ...


The Orpheus Chamber Orchestra can perform pretty much anything they want without a conductor. They have a whole disc of Stravinsky's music, and I don't know how they play the Octet w/o a conductor, but they do, and do it well. They also have a disc called "Points of Departure" of late 20th century Americans (Gandolfi, Druckman, Lerdahl, and Bolcolm). I don't own scores to the music, but I'm sure most people would do those pieces with conductors. Also, a disc w/ the chamber version of Appalachian Spring. I know that score inside and out, and it's not easy even with a conductor. All of those CD's are top notch, and I'm always looking for more discs of theirs to buy.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Pianoorchestraguy said:


> Everybody knows that the professional orchestras can play on, even without the conductor. They know how to play together, how to interpret, they know the repertoire etc.
> So what is the role of the conductor? Just to say you are a bit too loud, you are covering the flutes etc. in the rehearsals? Or just to begin a piece?
> 
> I was also thinking, if they do not really need you as a conductor, then what do you actually conduct? Just showing the character of the music? Well, everyone who knows how to listen to the music can understand the character of the music. No need for a conductor for that!
> Any thoughts on that?


These are leading questions and question begging.

Here is a good video on what a conductor does, inasmuch as Beethoven's Fifth, First Movement at least:






And a really good way to illustrate the difference a conductor makes, watch these videos of students being taught by masters:











Also, I believe if you've ever played in an orchestra, it should be quite apparent that conductors can make quite a difference in the performance and interpretation of the music.


----------



## EHO (Aug 31, 2014)

This is quite interesring reading, considering I study conducting myself. It is an ingeresting time for us, because of more focus on chamber music, and greater value put on applying the same ideas to a larger symphonic setting. A cobductor cant have the same dictatorial tendencies as the great conductors of yeasteryear, now it is more about giving the musicians what they need to enact the conductors interpretation, which, as mentioned before, is a large part of a conductors work. 

That means that as someone said earlier, the conductors job is to make him/herself superfluous. Or rather, make the conductor as a time keeper superfluous. It is really hard for an orchestra to play the subtle tempo-changes and phrasing that for example Brahms needs as precisely without as with a conductor. 

As to playing things without a conductor successfully, it is really only a viable method in chamber orchestras and the like. And they aren't really playing without a leader, he is just hiding behind a violin and calling himself "concert master". That was actually how orchestras generally were led until after the death of Beethoven, when the need for interpretation of his works, and the complexity of others made having a leader not also busy playing a part becane practical. 

Also, the Octet, and alot of Stravinskys smaller works can be played without a conductor, but that requires more time and better musicians that with a conductor. I conducted it with professional musicians on a masterclass earlier this month, and they certainly needed one. Sacre, on the other hand...


----------



## Animato (Dec 5, 2013)

Andreas said:


> With two rehearsals per work, the conductor is little more than a live metronome. Watching the rehearsal footage that's available with famous conductors, I've always been struck by two things: one, they apparently have to go on about the most basic stuff. I speak as a non-musician. But the conductors, even when they're working with exquisite orchestras, seem to be teaching a band of amateurs. It is staggering to me how much basic work they're doing. Two, the ultimate goal of the conductors, so far as I can tell, is to make themselves superfluous, that is, to turn the orchestra into a chamber ensemble, where everyone is listening to everyone else. Perhaps the latter does not apply to all conductors I've seen rehearse, though. But it nonetheless seems to be a common ideal.





EHO said:


> That means that as someone said earlier, the conductors job is to make him/herself superfluous. Or rather, make the conductor as a time keeper superfluous. It is really hard for an orchestra to play the subtle tempo-changes and phrasing that for example Brahms needs as precisely without as with a conductor.
> 
> As to playing things without a conductor successfully, it is really only a viable method in chamber orchestras and the like. And they aren't really playing without a leader, he is just hiding behind a violin and calling himself "concert master". That was actually how orchestras generally were led until after the death of Beethoven, when the need for interpretation of his works, and the complexity of others made having a leader not also busy playing a part becane practical.


I totally agree with Andreas. (Greetings from Germany to Germany via this forum!) For the result of all rehersal, namely the concert, the conductor is not really necessary. He is nearly superfluous. And sometimes, when the movements of the conductor are too imprecise, at least the violins are looking for their concert master, still today! You are right, EHO !

I once saw a documentation in TV about the rehersals with Ferenc Fricsay, rehearsing Smetana's Moldau. It was a professional orchestra, nevertheless I was amazed how imprecise the flutes were playing at the beginning. It was hard work for Fricsay to make the flutes produce an impression of the source of the Moldau. Therefore I am convinced: a conductor is absolutely necessary for symphonic music.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

*OP, disregard everything you've read up till now. All you need is this video.* (from ribonucleic in another thread)


----------



## nightscape (Jun 22, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> What shall we opine on Gilbert Kaplan? A shoddy conductor. It's easy to tell when a conductor is truly bad especially when conducting the top professional orchestras in the world. Kaplan is a prime example of this....compare his Mahler 2 with someone like Bernstein with the same orchestra.





Mahlerian said:


> His Mahler 2 is horrendous. It has no sense of pacing or phrasing beyond the very immediate demands of a given moment. Without a top-flight orchestra, he would be nothing at all.


Well, he's a gimmick. And the public loves a gimmick. The only reason he's even moderately successful is that his story is sort of interesting: A business man taking up conducting as a side job after falling in love with Mahler's 2nd, and dedicating a portion of his life to that work? Good for him, but none of that stops him from totally sucking.


----------



## Aaconn (Oct 22, 2014)

A professor I have conducts with the Toledo Symphony, the Detroit Symphony, and all around the world. He told my class that his job an imposter can do and get away with, except when it comes to setting up the rehearsals, that takes years to accomplish.


----------

