# Why do some people think that conductors are overrated?



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

I have heard people scoff at the cult of conductors and I understand that to a degree but I've heard recordings of Jochum, Klemperer and Bohm - all with big-name orchestras - give readings which are utterly forgettable -- the very same orchestras that could give awesome performances of the very same works.

At such times, I feel conductors have a big part to play. Some people criticize Rattle for being too micromanage-y or Klemperer of lugubriosity.

I suppose the question is: Is the hulla-baloo over conductors justified?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I generally don't think about conductors. I recall memorable _performances_ that certain famous conductors just happened to be at the helm _a lot_, such as Klemperer's fantastic Mahler 2 with the Symphonieorchester des Bayerischen Rundfunks.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I agree with the OP. Conductors are more often than not crucial for an unforgettable performance. Yes, I know that there are some fine chamber orchestras that do great work occasionally without a conductor but this is rare (for example, Orpheus have made some great records and many more awful ones) and even then they are only small orchestras. What they do, I guess, is the same that a quartet or quintet or sextet do and they seem to do it less well a lot of the time. So, it seems, the bigger the ensemble the more there is a need for a conductor, not only to keep everyone together but to avoid blandness. It must also make a difference that the bigger the ensemble, the greater the likelihood of regular personnel changes.

But I even prefer there to be a conductor in Mozart piano concertos - works that were, I believe, performed in their day with merely the pianist leading - as I think this is more likely to create the sense of a dialogue between the soloist and the orchestra. There are not too many schizoid pianists. 

At the same time, some conductors produce work I do not like and even the greatest sometimes seem to get it horribly wrong. I guess the presence of a good conductor is much more likely to lead to something distinctive. And blandness it the last thing I want in a performance of great music, especially these days when there are often so many options to choose from for most established music.


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

>>Why do some people think that conductors are overrated? <<

The same people would say that about sport coaches as well!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Ras said:


> >>Why do some people think that conductors are overrated? <<
> 
> The same people would say that about sport coaches as well!


Yes. And - here lies real controversy - managers. The trouble with managers, though, is that there is little recognition of which ones are good (= effective in getting the desired results) and not so good. Often perfectly sane companies and public corporations promote the bad. At least in sport and music we do tend to focus on the good and the great.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Is the hullabaloo over conductors justified? Not in my opinion. Yes, there have been some conductors who brings extraordinary understanding and musicality to performances and recordings. It's with good reason that collectors cherish recordings by people like Fritz Reiner, Pierre Monteux, Charles Munch, Serge Koussevitsky and others. A great conductor has some sort of magic - like ESP or something - that galvanizes a 100-piece orchestra into playing as one unit. But there are few of these people. If the CD era taught us anything, it's that you don't need a top-5 orchestra with a world famous conductor to make wonderful, exciting recordings. Look at the conductors who made a lot of CDs for Marco Polo, CPO, Hyperion, even Chandos. Fine music making, and no world famous conductor could do it any better. 

I've heard Mahler performances by world class orchestras and conductors which frankly were no better than performances by lesser organizations. The most astonishing Mahler 6th in my memory was in Tucson with George Hanson conducting. Pretty far off the radar, but that 6th is seared in my memory. Far more thrilling than what I've heard in Los Angeles or San Francisco with their supposed great conductors.

So yes, I think that by and large conductors are given far more attention, money, and power than they deserve. After all, isn't it the MUSIC that's supposed to be the important thing? When the conductor becomes more important that the music he/she is conducting, you have a problem. Norman Lebrecht wrote a book a long time ago, The Maestro Myth, which really exposes the con.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Overrated or over-mentioned? There are some undoubtedly great conductors, but with some there is a ridiculous cult. I single out conductors like Herbert Von Karajan who some seem to think can merely touch things and turn them into gold. Even on the lacklustre performances on YouTube, where he is an old coot well past his prime, there are people praising the performances to high heaven. Karajan obviously believed in the opinion of his worshippers too.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

When talking about recordings, no matter how important many elements like soloists, orchestras or recording engineers are, we often label their performances by the conductor surname to label it more easily. I would say that Georg Solti is not as responsible for the success of his recordings as the excellent engineers at Decca. If some conductors could be decisive in the form of a performance, I woudl think of Hans Knappertsbusch, Leonard Bernstein and, with reservations, Herbert von Karajan. I don't think there's any other that can conduct Wagner as Kna did, or Bernstein and Mahler. 

Then, in operas we could debate how much do we owe Richard Bonynge for the success of his recordings instead of dame Joan Sutherland. If we think of long-established musical partnerships.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Some conductors _are_ overrated. A good conductor knows more about the music being played than anyone else in the hall. And uses that knowledge to cajole the musicians into playing something that is as close to what the composer wanted/expected as possible. Sometimes he doesn't have the competence to do that -- or has bad taste. And sometimes he thinks it's all about him. And a lot goes into popularity that has little to do with musicianship. Is Lang Lang overrated? Andre Rieu?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

MarkW said:


> Some conductors _are_ overrated. A good conductor knows more about the music being played than anyone else in the hall. And uses that knowledge to cajole the musicians into playing something that is as close to what the composer wanted/expected as possible. Sometimes he doesn't have the competence to do that -- or has bad taste. And sometimes he thinks it's all about him. And a lot goes into popularity that has little to do with musicianship. Is Lang Lang overrated? Andre Rieu?


I agree that some conductors are overrated. And some under underrated. And many in between can turn in the odd great performance without making too much of a habit of it! But that has little to do with the question about whether a conductor is necessary.

But I disagree that the work of a conductor is to play something "that is as close to what the composer wanted/expected as possible". I don't think a conductor will necessarily expect to know what the composer wanted (or he might, like Beecham re Delius, claim to know better what Freddie wanted than Freddie knew himself). I think s/he will give us their artistic vision of what is in the score. I feel certain that performing is more creative than merely channeling a composer's wishes. Even composers who are gifted performers perform their works differently on different occasions and differently to what they wrote in the score.


----------



## Gordontrek (Jun 22, 2012)

It's a common socio-psychological phenomenon in my opinion. People have egos, and when a high-paying job looks easy, people like to think they can do those jobs just as well or better than the ones who have them. I like the analogy of sports coaches here. How many times have I heard disgruntled football fans say "Our play calling is terrible, _I_ could do a better job than our offensive coordinator." They don't realize, of course, that play calling, in addition to being way more difficult than they think, is just the tip of the iceberg in an OC's job. Which is why those who manage to get those jobs tend to make the big bucks.

Conductors are no different. Most people only ever see them at the concerts, where they might seem extraneous. They're just waving a stick fancily at 100 perfectly capable musicians. "Why are they paid so much for that? _I_ can do that in my sleep!" Once again, without realizing that's the tip of the iceberg in a conductor's job (in addition to being vastly more complicated than they think). Anyone who's actually played in an orchestra can tell you how indispensable they really are. It's true that you don't need them for everything, but the larger the group, the harder it is to manage without them. Good luck playing Mahler 2 without a conductor!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Yes, conductors are necessary. Some are inspiring. Many are not. And most of what the conductor does is behind the scenes both in rehearsal and studying scores. For many conductors, actually conducting is only 40% of the job - there's a lot of other things the successful conductor must take care of. BUT - there are a lot of frauds. Guys who don't know the score, don't listen, can't balance a chord, cannot maintain tempos, won't or can't get players in tune. There are bozos who screw up in concert and the orchestra saves their butts. When a concert is great, patrons give credit to the maestro. When a concert sucks, those same patrons blame the orchestra. There is a lot more to conducting that getting up there and waving a stick...I wish more conductors knew that and took the job seriously and put in the effort and time that it deserves. Then there's the money issue. James Levine was taking $27,000 per PERFORMANCE at the Met. That is outrageous. Conductor salaries are out of line given the precarious finances of many orchestras.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

For me, the conductor is relatively way more important than the orchestra. I have more tolerance for less than stellar orchestral playing (which is already at a very high level for any orchestra with a name), than lesser imagination of conductors. That is the reason I rarely go to any concerts. I've collected all the performances (or more like interpretations) that I like the most, and feel disappointed with familiar works that receive something less than mind blowing or very provocative or insightful. I don't care about the sound quality or precision of the playing, but nothing can beat Talich's Dvorak New World Symphony for me, Dutoit's Ravel (which is with great sound and playing, a bonus), Mvravinsky's Tchaikovsky Symphonies, Hatink's latest Brahms, Klemperer's Mahler, Boulez or the composer's Rite of Spring, etc. I've wasted enough money on alternate versions that don't interest me as much already.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

From an interview with violinist Nigel Kennedy: "I think conductors are completely over-rated anyway, because if you love music, why not play it? Why wave around and get off on some ego ****? I don't think the audience give a ****** about the conductor. Not unless they've been pumped full of propaganda from classical music writing or something. I mean," he rants on cheerfully, "no one normal understands what the conductor does. No one knows what they do! They just wave their arms out of time."

Isn't he friends with any conductors? Kennedy looks scandalised. "I wouldn't hang with conductors, man. I've got standards!"


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Nice to know that Kennedy still insists in trying to fool us with his bogus dumbed-down working-class persona.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> Is the hullabaloo over conductors justified? Not in my opinion. Yes, there have been some conductors who brings extraordinary understanding and musicality to performances and recordings. It's with good reason that collectors cherish recordings by people like Fritz Reiner, Pierre Monteux, Charles Munch, Serge Koussevitsky and others. A great conductor has some sort of magic - like ESP or something - that galvanizes a 100-piece orchestra into playing as one unit. But there are few of these people. If the CD era taught us anything, it's that you don't need a top-5 orchestra with a world famous conductor to make wonderful, exciting recordings. Look at the conductors who made a lot of CDs for Marco Polo, CPO, Hyperion, even Chandos. Fine music making, and no world famous conductor could do it any better.
> 
> I've heard Mahler performances by world class orchestras and conductors which frankly were no better than performances by lesser organizations. The most astonishing Mahler 6th in my memory was in Tucson with George Hanson conducting. Pretty far off the radar, but that 6th is seared in my memory. Far more thrilling than what I've heard in Los Angeles or San Francisco with their supposed great conductors.
> 
> So yes, I think that by and large conductors are given far more attention, money, and power than they deserve. After all, isn't it the MUSIC that's supposed to be the important thing? When the conductor becomes more important that the music he/she is conducting, you have a problem. Norman Lebrecht wrote a book a long time ago, The Maestro Myth, which really exposes the con.


I'm going to have to go ahead and agree with you on this. I firmly believe that some lesser known conductors and orchestras have turned in performances equal to the more famous ones. I have some box downloads of lesser known romantic piano concertos mostly by obscure orchestras and conductor, I don't think they could be any better no matter who did them.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Well, Kennedy's in tune with pianist Stephen Kovacevich, who says "Conducting is the last bastion of quackery outside of the medical profession." :lol:


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Well, Kennedy's in tune with pianist Stephen Kovacevich, who says "Conducting is the last bastion of quackery outside of the medical profession." :lol:


Love that quote! Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2018)

Herrenvolk said:


> *[Why do some people think that conductors are overrated?]*
> I have heard people scoff at the cult of conductors and I understand that to a degree but I've heard recordings of Jochum, Klemperer and Bohm - all with big-name orchestras - give readings which are utterly forgettable -- the very same orchestras that could give awesome performances of the very same works.
> 
> At such times, I feel conductors have a big part to play. Some people criticize Rattle for being too micromanage-y or Klemperer of lugubriosity.
> ...


I'm not sure I wholly follow your OP. That is, I'm not sure whether _you _think that conductors are overrated and want to know if we agree, or you don't think they are overrated and are asking why some people think they _are _overrated.

As with all areas of endeavour with a public component (in other words where rating of any kind exists) some public figures seem to attract an excess of praise - but, of course, only in comparison to what I think they merit. There is no public agreement on 'overrating' (although for some strange reason, there does seem to be near-universal opinion here that Rattle is overrated).

I know there are conductors I enjoy watching and others who I don't - but as a consumer, I only get to see their public performance and so much of my judgement is influenced by their physical presence and presentation. So, I like Haitink's restraint and reserve - but whether that contributes to the performance of the orchestra is anyone's guess!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> From an interview with violinist Nigel Kennedy: "I think conductors are completely over-rated anyway, because if you love music, why not play it? Why wave around and get off on some ego ****? I don't think the audience give a ****** about the conductor. Not unless they've been pumped full of propaganda from classical music writing or something. I mean," he rants on cheerfully, "no one normal understands what the conductor does. No one knows what they do! They just wave their arms out of time."
> 
> Isn't he friends with any conductors? Kennedy looks scandalised. "I wouldn't hang with conductors, man. I've got standards!"


I don't myself hang out with middle class people who put on phony working class accents either! Or give their idiot opinions to whoever hack might be listening. I think I might have more chance of an intelligent conversation with Rattle than with Kennedy.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I pay little attention to conductors unless they seriously mess up a work--usually by adopting a clearly idiosyncratic tempo.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Nigel is a phenomenal musician and far more informal than average, to say the least. His Bach floats so effortlessly. He also smokes pot and doesn't care who knows. He's known for his honest music and views.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Great musician, bit of a twonk though.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Larkenfield said:


> Nigel is a phenomenal musician and far more informal than average, to say the least. His Bach floats so effortlessly. He also smokes pot and doesn't care who knows. He's known for his honest music and views.


His violin playing is remarkable but he has never got over his teenage rebellion. It would be annoying if he was 16 - at his age his affected talk is insufferable.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_<<I suppose the question is: Is the hullabaloo over conductors justified? >>_

Yes, it's justified for a simple reason: classical music purchasers make buying decisions based on the performer, not the music -- the opposite of popular music. There might be 500 different recordings of Dvoark's New World symphony or Beethoven's 5th; which one do you buy? That's one reason making discerning decisions about conductors is important.

Another is from experience. Once you listen to 1,000 recordings and 10-15 different recordings of your 20 favorite pieces of music you will come to an idea of how you like them done. You'll find certain conductors don't do it that way. You may wonder why some people find their ways preferable.

Another is simply the classical music PR machine and how it affects us in the world. It lionizes people, makes them far more famous than their talent deserves.

The question I always had about Daniel Barenboim was: why doesn't everyone recognize that he is a mediocrity as a conductor? I knew many Chicago Symphony season ticket holders who thought so. I thought so almost every time I heard one of his recordings. He tried to be Furtwangler reinvented but was, by my reckoning, bland most of the time. Yet I read over and over what a great musician and conductor he was.

Another reason is even more simple: it is fun to take shots and express your opinion. It also helps you think of yourself as having some mastery over the issue.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

larold said:


> _<<I suppose the question is: Is the hullabaloo over conductors justified? >>_
> 
> The question I always had about Daniel Barenboim was: why doesn't everyone recognize that he is a mediocrity as a conductor? I knew many Chicago Symphony season ticket holders who thought so. I thought so almost every time I heard one of his recordings. He tried to be Furtwangler reinvented but was, by my reckoning, bland most of the time. Yet I read over and over what a great musician and conductor he was.
> 
> Another reason is even more simple: it is fun to take shots and express your opinion. It also helps you think of yourself as having some mastery over the issue.


I bet there were more Chicago Symphony season ticket holders who adored Barenboim. I think he has always been underrated as a musician. There are few pianists alive who surpass his Beethoven sonatas. While I wouldn't put him in the very top tier of conductors, I find his performances to be, on average, of high quality.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Here's an example of a brave and talented conductor. Conducts while facing off with Yuja Wang in the Mozart Concerto #10 for 2 Pianos. Btw, it is rare to see YW use piano sheet music and she doesn't use a turner!


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Let's say you've been invited to make your debut with the Vienna Philharmonic as a conductor, or the Royal Concertgebouw , the London symphony orchestra , the Chicago symphony O. or any of the world's greatest orchestras . 
And you don't know the score and have barely studied it . You have a lousy conducting technique and 
can't maneuver any of the tricky tempo or metrical changes in the music on the program . 
You can't correct faulty intonation or faulty balances . You make a lot of mistakes yet you blame the musicians and yell at them . You don't know how to organize rehearsal time efficiently and you wast too much time and you talk too much and are condescending to the musicians . 
After the concert or concerts, you will never be invited back to conduct them again ! The musicians can recognize an incompetent jerk within minutes . It's impossible to fool them . 
The conducting profession tends to weed out the incompetents , at least at the highest level .


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

From what I understand, conductors mostly control dynamics and tempo. That may seem like not much, but anyone who's ever listened to the same piece a lot of times will note how radically differently we can respond to differing tempos, or to the balance of the instruments. Although it seems to me that most of a conductor's work is done during rehearsal, as every time I watch a live performance the players' eyes are almost always glued to the sheet music and not to the conductor. I'd love for someone to correct me on this, though.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> From what I understand, conductors mostly control dynamics and tempo. That may seem like not much, but anyone who's ever listened to the same piece a lot of times will not how radically different we can respond to differing tempos, or to the balance of the instruments. Although it seems to me that most of a conductor's work is done during rehearsal, as every time I watch a live performance the players' eyes are almost always glued to the sheet music and not to the conductor. I'd love for someone to correct me on this, though.


While there are probably exceptions depending on the orchestra and conductor, I think that, more than not, that is true.


----------



## Gordontrek (Jun 22, 2012)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> From what I understand, conductors mostly control dynamics and tempo. That may seem like not much, but anyone who's ever listened to the same piece a lot of times will not how radically different we can respond to differing tempos, or to the balance of the instruments. Although it seems to me that most of a conductor's work is done during rehearsal, as every time I watch a live performance the players' eyes are almost always glued to the sheet music and not to the conductor. I'd love for someone to correct me on this, though.


I don't remember the exact user or thread, but one reply not too long ago stated that the conductor's job is essentially to make himself unnecessary by the time of the concert. This hits the nail on the head in my opinion. A good orchestra is made up of malleable people with fine musicianship. If the conductor has done a good enough job teaching them a faithful rendition of a work, they'll remember how to do it with or without him, including balance, dynamics and tempo. Of course, it isn't always that simple, because fermati/pauses/fluctuating tempos are a lot easier to pull off with a conductor. But nearly all of what goes on in between has already been rehearsed and fleshed out by the conductor beforehand (if he's done his job), meaning the group _could_ theoretically do without him and be fine. Basically, he made himself unnecessary. But he's there because he deserves to take part in the final product as much as the members of the orchestra do.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

You wanna know the difference a conductor makes?
Watch the rehearsal video of Celibidache doing Bruckner 7 with the Berlin PO in 1992.
Each time, the same 8 bars transforms into something a little different than the BPO previously played the symphony with Karajan or Maazel or whoever.
Also funny to see someone stop the BPO after the first 2 bars of the piece and shake his head. But then, by 1992, there was probably no-one left from the previous time he conducted them 38 years earlier...
cheers,
Graeme


----------



## Madiel (Apr 25, 2018)

Granate said:


> I would say that Georg Solti is not as responsible for the success of his recordings as the excellent engineers at Decca.


maybe we should start a thread about the myth of Decca's engineers 
Solti's recordings rarely appeal to me, Solti's live conducting that I have seen were among the best, a gross director with a lot of energy (studio) versus masterful orchestrating (live concert) - different approach? I don't know
As for the OP, I'd say the cult of conductors, being a cult, it's a legend but just like every legend it's born from a little bit of truth, orchestras don't play by themselves, conductors make a difference even with Strauss' waltzes played by the VPO every first of January, at the same time there is no conductor who rules them all, there never was.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

A lot of people sticking it to conductors. Some often post that this or that performance is great and seem to have their favourites. No-one is posting examples of "great" conductorless recordings. It seems to me that you can often identify a great conductor who you know well on hearing one of their recordings "blind" so they must be doing something. Yes, there are cults for certain maestros and, yes, they are often not earned. And, yes, some fine musicians - many of them, though, with a history of mental instability (no slur - only sympathy - intended, here) - are on record as criticising these cults and the unpleasant working habits of certain conductors. It is also true that _some _conductors with no big following or cult can also (and have also) produce great results. That is unfair but it doesn't mean that conductors are a waste of space. Reputation does sometimes fall where it is not deserved and sometimes fails to land on those who deserve it. But we are not talking about individual reputations, here.

When you listen to the recorded results - and the regularity with which these have been excellent or more over decades - of conductors like Furtwangler, Walter, Solti, Bernstein .... can you really say conductors don't matter and expect to be taken seriously?! You may not like what some of them do - Bernstein (from my list of four), in particular, is controversial and became occasionally indulgent in his later years (albeit often with worthwhile results) - but that, also, is a way of saying they matter. And, if a conductor can ruin a piece for you, why is it so hard to acknowledge that another one can also take you to heaven with it?


----------



## Guest (Jun 8, 2018)

I was listening to a recording of Sir Thomas Beecham conducting the London Phil in a performance of Sibelius' 4th Symphony. What struck me was that, apart from the poor quality of the recording (1937, transferred to vinyl in the 50s or 60s, I think) the orchestra was nothing like the standard of most orchestras widely active today. It was quite poor, I thought.

That prompts a thought that perhaps the standard of musicianship in orchestras is so much better today that conductors don't have to do quite so much to conduct the basics.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> .....Although it seems to me that most of a conductor's work is done during rehearsal, as every time I watch a live performance the players' eyes are almost always glued to the sheet music and not to the conductor. I'd love for someone to correct me on this, though.


OK, stand corrected...
Musicians must always watch the stick[conductor]...one eye on the music, one eye on the stick...of course, you are listening to other sections so that you can be playing right together, but if things get a little off, you have to quickly go by the stick...also - eye contact is critical between conductor and musician...this is pretty subtle and mostly invisible to the audience, but it is ever-present...


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Madiel said:


> maybe we should start a thread about the myth of Decca's engineers
> Solti's recordings rarely appeal to me, Solti's live conducting that I have seen were among the best,


Yes, Solti's live performances were amazing, magical, and recordings rarely do them justice...some of the Solti/Decca recordings are outstanding - Bruckner, Mahler, Tchaikovsky, etc, but Decca engineers were also guilty of a lot of "knob-twiddling" - gain-riding, control board gimmicks, etc....this was also true of their Mehta/LAPO recordings.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Heck148 said:


> OK, stand corrected...
> Musicians must always watch the stick[conductor]...*one eye on the music, one eye on the stick.*..of course, you are listening to other sections so that you can be playing right together, but if things get a little off, you have to quickly go by the stick...also - eye contact is critical between conductor and musician...this is pretty subtle and mostly invisible to the audience, but it is ever-present...


How... is that even possible? My eyes don't work that way.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

What it really is is the use of peripheral vision. You place your music between you and the conductor, who should be elevated on a podium. With experience, you can read the music and watch. In really difficult passages you spend more time on the page, on tricky entrances, and places with ensemble problems, you focus more on the conductor. Memorizing passages is common and easy.

Are the musicians who don't watch? Of course, and usually it's the conductor who creates that problem. There are too many so-called conductors who have no idea what a baton can do and how to use it. They really conduct with their arms or fists; they just hold a stick thinking it makes them look professional. Solti was a horrible stick technician. Reiner was one of the best. Some conductors are so bad that you don't watch because you've learned that they can screw you up. I know one who thinks he's great at cues. But cuing after the entrance is useless - just grandstanding. A good conductor does his work in rehearsal and then should be able to stand back and just offer guidance during a performance. Unfortunately, too many conductors and audience members think that dancing and prancing around, waving your hands like a lunatic, or acting like you're channeling the Divine, make one a great conductor. 

It's not that hard to be a routine, average conductor. It really isn't. Being good is a much harder thing. Being great - that's something that cannot be taught. It comes from within and either you have it or you don't. Some undeniably great conductors had horrible baton skills, even lousy ears. But boy could they inspire people to play. Like Koussevitsky, Stokowski, Beecham. Some of the guys with fabulous ears and amazing skill with a baton, like Maazel and Boult, could produce fantastic results sometimes, but they aren't among the elite of the greats. The notes, rhythms, phrasing are all perfect, but that last bit of inspiration cannot be calculated or forced.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

*Replying*



MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure I wholly follow your OP. That is, I'm not sure whether _you _think that conductors are overrated and want to know if we agree, or you don't think they are overrated and are asking why some people think they _are _overrated.
> 
> As with all areas of endeavour with a public component (in other words where rating of any kind exists) some public figures seem to attract an excess of praise - but, of course, only in comparison to what I think they merit. There is no public agreement on 'overrating' (although for some strange reason, there does seem to be near-universal opinion here that Rattle is overrated).
> 
> I know there are conductors I enjoy watching and others who I don't - but as a consumer, I only get to see their public performance and so much of my judgement is influenced by their physical presence and presentation. So, I like Haitink's restraint and reserve - but whether that contributes to the performance of the orchestra is anyone's guess!


Why does my take matter?

Also, Rattle is a supreme conductor. DCH performances can attest to that. Perhaps people dislike his interpretations of classic Austro-German repertoire.

__

Moving on, I find it utterly baffling that people would think that conductors are on ego-trips or don't contribute much or are vastly overrated. There's so much tinkering that is possible in music that I wouldn't possibly understand how you can think that all there is to music is to play it. First of all, we won't _really_ know what Mozart or Beethoven or Bach wanted - or how their music sounded, so trying to reach there is pointless.

Second, most orchestras are incredibly talented. They all sound amazingly great. I think then that it is the conductor who makes or breaks a performance. You listen to Beethoven's symphonies by Berliners under different conductors and you get the idea. How can you argue against the importance of the conductor? 

You have Rattle's ultra-fast, stripped down Beethoven on one end and Karajan's ultra-thick, towering Beethoven on the other. Then there's Rattle mess of a Schumann cycle on disc and his live version of Schumann's Fourth Digital Concert Hall which is my favorite 21st century performance of the work. Would people say that 30-150 musicians are simultaneously having a good or a bad day?

You have Rattle's just confounding, bewildering take of Fidelio's overture played by the BPO and the Karajanesque version with Karajan. I really have no idea what the hell was Rattle doing in that overture. What touches he put? It's the most bizarre interpretation of a piece that I have ever heard.

Celibidache slowed down his MPO players. Klemperer made granitic sounds with PO. Gardiner makes Schumann all flexible and HIPstery in his LSO recording.

Orchestras are vessels for where the conductor will take them. You can't really tell me that these wild variations aren't worth noting - worth rewarding.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

The greatest conductor of them all:


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2018)

Herrenvolk said:


> Why does my take matter?


Because I wanted to understand the question, and it seems courteous to ask the OP and not just presume.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> Because I wanted to understand the question, and it seems courteous to ask the OP and not just presume.


OK, I apologize. I, myself, completely agree with the importance of conductors but thought that maybe I was naive about the matter at hand and they pull a con-job. However the amount of variations that can exist with the same orchestra prove otherwise. I think perhaps those who think that conductors merely co-ordinate or the real worth of a performance is defined by the orchestra/good day don't listen to recordings as obsessively as I or record collectors do.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

There have been many conductorless orchestras and performances. It's possible to play without one. Some ensembles can manage just fine. There's a special open freedom. Instead of relying on the conductor the musicians rely on each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conductorless_orchestra











Why having one can be useful.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

About 80 years ago in the former Soviet union, there was a full sized conductorless orchestra called the "Persifams " orchestra, short form in Russian for "First symphonic ensemble . " Basically the idea was about orchestras in the Soviet Union needing to be egalitarian and dispensing in this case, of a conductor . This was, I believe , in Moscow . The musicians said they weren't opposed to conductors per se, just bad ones . 
The orchestra was able to play concerts without a conductor , but basically, the concertmaster was the de facto conductor , gesturing to start the beginning of a work and other things . But the orchestra couldn't do the regular schedule of concerts by other orchestras around the world, because it needed 
a lot more rehearsal time than usual in order to prepare a program . 
The rehearsal process , unlike with a chamber orchestra such as Orpheus , was very slow and cumbersome . Actually, the Orpheus CO also needs more than the usual rehearsal time, too , but it was far more difficult with this long defunct Moscow orchestra . 
It would be absolutely impossible to do this with a full time orchestra such as the New York Philharmonic, which plays a different program every week from September to May .


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

superhorn said:


> About 80 years ago in the former Soviet union, there was a full sized conductorless orchestra called the "Persifams " orchestra, short form in Russian for "First symphonic ensemble . " Basically the idea was about orchestras in the Soviet Union needing to be egalitarian and dispensing in this case, of a conductor . This was, I believe , in Moscow . The musicians said they weren't opposed to conductors per se, just bad ones .
> The orchestra was able to play concerts without a conductor , but basically, the concertmaster was the de facto conductor , gesturing to start the beginning of a work and other things . But the orchestra couldn't do the regular schedule of concerts by other orchestras around the world, because it needed
> a lot more rehearsal time than usual in order to prepare a program .
> The rehearsal process , unlike with a chamber orchestra such as Orpheus , was very slow and cumbersome . Actually, the Orpheus CO also needs more than the usual rehearsal time, too , but it was far more difficult with this long defunct Moscow orchestra .
> It would be absolutely impossible to do this with a full time orchestra such as the New York Philharmonic, which plays a different program every week from September to May .


You know the problem that I see with those who think that the importance of conductors are exaggerated is that they seem to think playing a piece of music is simply about execution. I am not saying that performing Beethoven without a conductor is impossible. I am saying that what you get with Klemperer differs to what you get from Gardiner.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> What it really is is the use of peripheral vision. You place your music between you and the conductor, who should be elevated on a podium. With experience, you can read the music and watch. In really difficult passages you spend more time on the page, on tricky entrances, and places with ensemble problems, you focus more on the conductor. Memorizing passages is common and easy.
> 
> Are the musicians who don't watch? Of course, and usually it's the conductor who creates that problem. There are too many so-called conductors who have no idea what a baton can do and how to use it. They really conduct with their arms or fists; they just hold a stick thinking it makes them look professional. Solti was a horrible stick technician. Reiner was one of the best. Some conductors are so bad that you don't watch because you've learned that they can screw you up. I know one who thinks he's great at cues. But cuing after the entrance is useless - just grandstanding. A good conductor does his work in rehearsal and then should be able to stand back and just offer guidance during a performance. Unfortunately, too many conductors and audience members think that dancing and prancing around, waving your hands like a lunatic, or acting like you're channeling the Divine, make one a great conductor.
> 
> It's not that hard to be a routine, average conductor. It really isn't. Being good is a much harder thing. Being great - that's something that cannot be taught. It comes from within and either you have it or you don't. Some undeniably great conductors had horrible baton skills, even lousy ears. But boy could they inspire people to play. Like Koussevitsky, Stokowski, Beecham. Some of the guys with fabulous ears and amazing skill with a baton, like Maazel and Boult, could produce fantastic results sometimes, but they aren't among the elite of the greats. The notes, rhythms, phrasing are all perfect, but that last bit of inspiration cannot be calculated or forced.


Very enlightening! Thanks for the clarification.

Given this: "too many conductors and audience members think that dancing and prancing around, waving your hands like a lunatic, or acting like you're channeling the Divine, make one a great conductor." I'm guessing you don't think too highly of Valery "flop-sweat" Gergiev?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

No, I think Gergiev is excellent - he lives the music and the music flows through him. Most of the conductors who were and are considered great probably deserve the accolades, the biographies and adulation. Most of the great ones with international reputations have earned those reputations through hard work and ability. The conductors I refer to are those 2nd-3rd raters who inhabit the podiums of our smaller, regional, even community orchestras who can't come to terms with the fact that they aren't among the top tier of conductors and they never will be. So they compensate by pretending to be Leonard Bernstein with their on-stage antics. It was Bernstein's style and he got the results. But these poseurs are irritating and foolish looking. As Boult said, they're the "sweaty ones". I can name dozens of them but since I don't want to get sued or get talkclassical in trouble I'll keep my mouth shut. But ask any performing musician if they've had wannabe conductors who are laughable - you'll hear a lot of stories.

Bottom line is this: being a showboater works for some, but there are many more conductors who weren't flashy or volatile and got equally terrific results. Like Muti, Reiner, Ormandy, Dorati, Abbado, Leinsdorf, Sanderling, Jarvi, Boult, Previn, and dozens of others I've seen.


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> No, I think Gergiev is excellent - he lives the music and the music flows through him. Most of the conductors who were and are considered great probably deserve the accolades, the biographies and adulation. Most of the great ones with international reputations have earned those reputations through hard work and ability. The conductors I refer to are those 2nd-3rd raters who inhabit the podiums of our smaller, regional, even community orchestras who can't come to terms with the fact that they aren't among the top tier of conductors and they never will be. So they compensate by pretending to be Leonard Bernstein with their on-stage antics. It was Bernstein's style and he got the results. But these poseurs are irritating and foolish looking. As Boult said, they're the "sweaty ones". I can name dozens of them but since I don't want to get sued or get talkclassical in trouble I'll keep my mouth shut. But ask any performing musician if they've had wannabe conductors who are laughable - you'll hear a lot of stories.
> 
> Bottom line is this: being a showboater works for some, but there are many more conductors who weren't flashy or volatile and got equally terrific results. Like Muti, Reiner, Ormandy, Dorati, Abbado, Leinsdorf, Sanderling, Jarvi, Boult, Previn, *and dozens of others I've seen.*


...and worked with? I'm assuming from your posts that you've personal experience from the orchestra-side of the podium (sorry, I couldn't see where you were clear about that.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

mbhaub said:


> No, I think Gergiev is excellent - he lives the music and the music flows through him.


Have you enjoyed his recent MPhil recordings?


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> Instead of relying on the conductor the musicians rely on each other.


with great conductors, they encourage this to happen all the time - make the musicians listen to each other, "play chamber music" in the context of the full orchestra...


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> But ask any performing musician if they've had wannabe conductors who are laughable - you'll hear a lot of stories.


for sure, plenty of real hackers out there, some real _poseurs_....


----------



## James Mann (Sep 6, 2016)

To my estimation it is merely misunderstood


----------



## Ivan Smith (Jun 11, 2018)

sounds very electrifying


----------



## RogerExcellent (Jun 11, 2018)

can be


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Heck148 said:


> for sure, plenty of real hackers out there, some real _poseurs_....


The trouble is that some (maybe not many) of them frequently get excellent results. You can, it seems, be a less than admirable person and still be a great artist.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> The trouble is that some (maybe not many) of them frequently get excellent results. You can, it seems, be a less than admirable person and still be a great artist.


Do not confuse musical/conducting talent with being a nice or considerate person....some of the greatest conductors were pretty nasty, unpleasant human beings - Reiner, Szell, Rodzinski, Stokowski, etc...not very nice people, but they sure knew how to get great musical results...

a talentless hacker, who is a jerk as a person will go nowhere, and I've see it many times...they end up conducting some university program, or a community orchestra somewhere in East Jerkwater...


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> So they compensate by pretending to be Leonard Bernstein with their on-stage antics. It was Bernstein's style and he got the results. But these poseurs are irritating and foolish looking.


Two of the finest conductors I ever played for - Walter Hendl and Boris Goldovsky - used very restrained gestures as a rule, but they gave very clear signals....at times, both conductors, would stop conducting, stop beating time, fold up their hands...let the orchestra play, which meant the musicians had to be listening to each other. of course, they were completely in control...listening, watching, very quick to "put a hand to the rudder" if things threatened to get off track...both were Reiner students, interestingly enough...they gave subtle cues - a nod, a shrug, a look...
Goldovsky made interesting comments about the role of the conductor - the conductor isn't there to mechanically beat out time in some pedestrian drudgery.."kappellmeister stuff" he called it...the conductor must go into the score - to find the flow, the direction, the lines....he/she must discover the secrets of the score - all the little details, and touches that should be brought out - a trill here, a dissonance, a passing tone, an accent, an interesting counter-melody....also, the conductor must determine what isn't so important to hear - the held harmonic half-notes in the horn, viola, basses, whatever - is probably not the most important idea occurring at that moment  - those features can be reduced, held down, to let the more interesting material through...
Bernstein, another Reiner student, liked to put on a show, no doubt....and musicians generally don't mind this as long as the conductor gives them accurate signals, and does not neglect his responsibility towards the orchestra...but Lenny could be very business-like when he chose - if you see his studio recording video of West Side Story [TeKanawa, Carreras, etc] he is all business with the orchestra and singers, no jumping around, wild gesticulations...of course, there's no audience!! and remember the video of Bernstein conducting the VPO in Haydn 88/IV - in which he stops conducting - stops beating time, that is....and just lets the orchestra play...of course, he's completely tuned in, subtle clues going on constantly...but his arms are immobile...


----------



## Mozart555 (Jun 17, 2018)

I feel there are no great conductors anymore. The last ones were Tennstedt and Celibidache, who both died in the 90s.


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2018)

Mozart555 said:


> I feel there are no great conductors anymore. The last ones were Tennstedt and Celibidache, who both died in the 90s.


What about Haitink? What separates him from them, if he's not 'great'? Or, more plainly, what makes them 'great'?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Heck148 said:


> ..they end up conducting some university program, or a community orchestra somewhere in East Jerkwater...


That sounds like a slam at one of my favorite cities.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Mozart555 said:


> I feel there are no great conductors anymore. The last ones were Tennstedt and Celibidache, who both died in the 90s.


With the death of Gennady Rozhdestvensky, the list of "great" conductors certainly has gotten shorter. Who's left? Haitink? Maybe Previn, but does he work anymore? To be sure, there are a lot of conductors today with tremendous technical skills. But I can think of only one who, in a couple of generations will be worthy of biographies - assuming there's even a reading audience for those. Looking over my large conductor bio collection: Boult, Dorati, Klemperer, Barbirolli, Koussevitsky, Beecham, Toscanini, Bernstein, Monteux, Szell, Reiner, Furtwangler, Karajan, Walter, Munch, Sargent....and dozens more. Who is there worthy to be placed next to those guys? A lot of is the time they live and work in, when classical is really at the margins of society. Some of it has to do with their training - coming up through the opera house seems to have really taught that older generation a lot. Nowadays, these young people go straight from the conservatory to the podium and expect to be adulated. I can see Valery Gerviev reaching that legendary status. Mehta, nope. Dudamel, probably not. Nonetheless, we are getting some fine recordings and excellent concerts. What we really need is someone with superb skills and a huge media personality (like Bernstein) to re-kindle interest in the classics. And we need potential listeners to put away the hip hop and lesser forms and give the classics a try.


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> With the death of Gennady Rozhdestvensky, the list of "great" conductors certainly has gotten shorter. Who's left? Haitink? Maybe Previn, but does he work anymore? To be sure, there are a lot of conductors today with tremendous technical skills. But I can think of only one who, in a couple of generations will be worthy of biographies - assuming there's even a reading audience for those. Looking over my large conductor bio collection: Boult, Dorati, Klemperer, Barbirolli, Koussevitsky, Beecham, Toscanini, Bernstein, Monteux, Szell, Reiner, Furtwangler, Karajan, Walter, Munch, Sargent....and dozens more. Who is there worthy to be placed next to those guys? A lot of is the time they live and work in, when classical is really at the margins of society. Some of it has to do with their training - coming up through the opera house seems to have really taught that older generation a lot. Nowadays, these young people go straight from the conservatory to the podium and expect to be adulated. I can see Valery Gerviev reaching that legendary status. Mehta, nope. Dudamel, probably not. Nonetheless, we are getting some fine recordings and excellent concerts. What we really need is someone with superb skills and a huge media personality (like Bernstein) to re-kindle interest in the classics. And we need potential listeners to put away the hip hop and lesser forms and give the classics a try.


Some conductors working today I think are remarkable seem to have broader interests than in simply rehashing 'the classics.'

Matthias Pintscher
Sylvain Cambreling
Susanna Mälkki
Daniel Harding
Kirill Petrenko
Pablo Heras-Casado
Eötvös

To name just a few (there are heaps of others who are championing new repertoire or a renewed interest in other repertoire I admire very much).

Perhaps 'greatness' should not be something we use to describe conductors. Perhaps it's better to think about what we personally love, the musicians who move us the most, rather than lament over a non-issue. Perhaps my elevating conductors of the past to such 'great' heights, it necessitates negative comparisons with the young and upcoming of today. Perhaps by feeding this negativity, we are stopping ourselves to explore and find conductors, musicians, repertoire that we think might actually be worth hearing, and that we didn't think about much before.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

There are still highly talented and recognizable principle conductors out there, such as Kent Nagano, Segerstam, Salonen, Rattle, Ivan Fischer, Barenboim, if one sorts through the names, and most of them have not finished writing the final chapter in their careers.

Perhaps it's great crisis that contributes to the lives of the great conductors, such as with the previous generations of two World Wars, great political upheaval, threats to their lives, racism, and so on that today's conductors are not having to contend with - and it's not the fault of today's generation. Whatever it is that continues to create depth in their art will have to come from something else, and everyone can be grateful that there's no longer a Nazi Germany.

I have heard some superb concerts by today's conductors, and so I do not lament the past while still enjoying it. There is still abundant talent out there, and there are many more concerts to come that can reveal the depth of their worth. I look forward to hearing them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_principal_conductors_by_orchestra


----------



## Urban Strata (Jun 15, 2018)

Mozart555 said:


> I feel there are no great conductors anymore. The last ones were Tennstedt and Celibidache, who both died in the 90s.


But what is "great?"

I'd suggest we're too obsessed with calling certain conductors, ensembles, or soloists "great," as if that's some kind of inherent quality in them. I vehemently disagree. There are only great _experiences_. On any given night of the week, any of the extraordinarily talented musicians in the world can be "great." By the same token, on any given night of the week, the same musicians can fall flat.

Here in LA, I've heard Gustavo Dudamel and Esa-Pekka Salonen conduct the LA Phil countless times in incredibly moving performances. Are they "great?" Perhaps. But I've also been moved to tears by the lesser-known, Costa Mesa-based Pacific Symphony under the baton of Carl St. Clair. Maestro St. Clair's Mahler 2 was frankly better than Mahler 2's I've heard by Michael Tilson Thomas in SF, Gerard Schwarz in Seattle, and Yoel Levi in Atlanta. Are Maestro St. Clair and the Pacific Symphony the "greatest" of them all? Or just a tremendous artists doing the best they can, and succeeding, on that particular night?


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

mbhaub said:


> With the death of Gennady Rozhdestvensky, the list of "great" conductors certainly has gotten shorter. Who's left? Haitink? Maybe Previn, but does he work anymore? To be sure, there are a lot of conductors today with tremendous technical skills. But I can think of only one who, in a couple of generations will be worthy of biographies - assuming there's even a reading audience for those. Looking over my large conductor bio collection: Boult, Dorati, Klemperer, Barbirolli, Koussevitsky, Beecham, Toscanini, Bernstein, Monteux, Szell, Reiner, Furtwangler, Karajan, Walter, Munch, Sargent....and dozens more. Who is there worthy to be placed next to those guys? A lot of is the time they live and work in, when classical is really at the margins of society. Some of it has to do with their training - coming up through the opera house seems to have really taught that older generation a lot. Nowadays, these young people go straight from the conservatory to the podium and expect to be adulated. I can see Valery Gerviev reaching that legendary status. Mehta, nope. Dudamel, probably not. Nonetheless, we are getting some fine recordings and excellent concerts. What we really need is someone with superb skills and a huge media personality (like Bernstein) to re-kindle interest in the classics. And we need potential listeners to put away the hip hop and lesser forms and give the classics a try.


Uh...Gardiner, Jacobs, Chailly, Young, Alessandrini, Gielen, Chung, Pinnock, Minkowski, Herreweghe,,...


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2018)

I forgot Arturo Tamayo. I guess he is best known for his Xenakis recordings, but he has been terrific in a lot of contemporary music.

One of my favourite Berio works, conducted by Tamayo in 1993 when it was more 'new'


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> With the death of Gennady Rozhdestvensky, the list of "great" conductors certainly has gotten shorter. Who's left? Haitink? Maybe Previn, but does he work anymore? To be sure, there are a lot of conductors today with tremendous technical skills. But I can think of only one who, in a couple of generations will be worthy of biographies - assuming there's even a reading audience for those. Looking over my large conductor bio collection: Boult, Dorati, Klemperer, Barbirolli, Koussevitsky, Beecham, Toscanini, Bernstein, Monteux, Szell, Reiner, Furtwangler, Karajan, Walter, Munch, Sargent....and dozens more. Who is there worthy to be placed next to those guys? A lot of is the time they live and work in, when classical is really at the margins of society. Some of it has to do with their training - coming up through the opera house seems to have really taught that older generation a lot. Nowadays, these young people go straight from the conservatory to the podium and expect to be adulated. I can see Valery Gerviev reaching that legendary status. Mehta, nope. Dudamel, probably not. Nonetheless, we are getting some fine recordings and excellent concerts. What we really need is someone with superb skills and a huge media personality (like Bernstein) to re-kindle interest in the classics. And we need potential listeners to put away the hip hop and lesser forms and give the classics a try.


Dutoit and Jarvi are 2 of my fav conductors of all time. I never bothered going to a concert after Martinu's 4th in Detroit by Jarvi. I was never so impressed with the ones that came here to Toronto in the few select concerts I went to.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

If you think conductors are "overrated " and not really all that important, just think about this :
Can YOU read an orchestral score , which may have about 20 to 30 different instrumental parts shown simultaneously , study it to the appoint where you know every detail in it ? 
Could YOU stand up there in front of an orchestra and rehearse it , detect errors in intonation and balance etc .? Would you know how to organize a rehearsal efficiently so no time is wasted ?
Do you know enough about strong instruments to make suggestions about whether they should play down or up bow etc and any given place in a score ? 
Do you know enough about woodwind, brass and percussion instruments etc or harps , to conduct ?
Do you know the score well enough to correct misprints in the individual parts of musicians ?
Do you know how to beat time clearly , and can you manage tricky gradual changes in tempo , as well as tricky changes in meter etc ? 
Or if you're conducting an opera , do you know enough about singing to work with opera singers , guide them through long and difficult roles ? Can you coordinate an orchestra, the singers and a chorus and keep everything together ? Can you keep the orchestra from drowning out the singers , and can you choose tempos which are neither too fast nor too slow for them ? Can you work with the singers at rehearsals or work with them to prepare them before the rehearsals ? 
Conducting is an incredibly tough and demanding job and requires a staggering amount of knowledge and technical skill .


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

^^ Good one. Way I see it is interpretation. which is essential to any piece of music, all depends on two factors performers can change, timing and dynamics variation. When it comes to an orchestra, there has to be a more singular view or interpretation, than every part doing their own separate.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Conductors have filled the vacuum created by the absence of living, canonical composers. The famous, Great Conductor is a kind of stand in for the long dead composer--he's a "Vicar of Beethoven" or Mozart, Wagner, etc., as the case may be.


----------

