# Conductors: Do We Really Need Them?



## Majed Al Shamsi

Sure, we need them to help an orchestra practice and learn their parts, individually and as a whole.

But why do conductors have to be around during the performances?
During that time, it feels like they do the least, compared to the orchestra's musicians, and yet it seems like they get most of the credit and glory.

It is especially annoying when people start applauding, and the conductor points at the orchestra, as if to say "Thank you, but please give these highly trained monkeys some appreciation, not because they deserve it, but because I like to make myself appear a humble prick."

Am I missing anything here?


----------



## starthrower

Yes. I've never played in an orchestra, but it's quite obvious that someone needs to be in charge and give the ques. Am I wrong?


----------



## Vaneyes

If there isn't a conductor, there's almost always a leader. Otherwise, the music would always be atonal.


----------



## Majed Al Shamsi

There are many orchestras that are self-conducted, though.
Not to mention that an orchestra spends a great deal of time practicing. They pretty much know the sheet music backwards by the time they perform for the public.
Would that serve as a counter-argument?


----------



## Stavrogin

The same orchestra would play two different versions of the same work with two different conductors.
Yes most of such work is done during rehearsals as opposed to the actual performance I guess, but why not give credit to the guy who decided how to interprete the work, instructed them how to do so, and led them to that interpretation in such a way that they could play it without him?

In other words I think that the fact that an orchestra is in theory able to perform without the conductor is a conductor's credit rather than diminishing him.


----------



## KenOC

The Orpheus plays without a conductor. Also I seem to remember that the Symphony of the Air played conductorless for a while in its last years.


----------



## Majed Al Shamsi

Stavrogin - By that logic, the amount of credit given to both the musicians and the conductor would amount to nothing, compared to the amount of credit we ought to give the composer, without whom the entire performance wouldn't happen.

Here's another way to look at it:

If the day of the performance arrives, and the orchestra performs horribly, nobody cares what the composition should have sounded like, or the amount of effort put into the whole thing by the conductor. The evening would be ruined.

The musicians are the ones who really end up pleasuring our ears, no?


----------



## PetrB

Because neither the first violinist or the first flute player can at all hear the balance of all the instruments from where they sit (that flautist is right in front of the brass sections, for example) and not any one player on stage has a fixed point reference of what the sound is like as it travels out to the audience who receive it, and because many newer works have temporal notations far outside the realms of simple metric pulse groups in two or threes, conductors are needed.

When the piece is over, the trained monkey conductor takes command of focusing the praise from the untrained monkey audience first on himself, and then re-directs it the trained monkey players in order to remind the untrained monkey audience of who it was, most directly, who brought that score to life just then.

Of course, the untrained monkeys who have even less training than the trained monkey conductor or the trained monkey players onstage -- i.e. the audience -- don't know much or any of that, so the question in the OP tends to come up often enough.

Hope that helped


----------



## Stavrogin

Majed Al Shamsi said:


> Stavrogin - By that logic, the amount of credit given to both the musicians and the conductor *would amount to nothing, compared to the amount of credit we ought to give the composer*, without whom the entire performance wouldn't happen.
> 
> Here's another way to look at it:
> 
> If the day of the performance arrives, and the orchestra performs horribly, nobody cares what the composition should have sounded like, or the amount of effort put into the whole thing by the conductor. The evening would be ruined.
> 
> The musicians are the ones who really end up pleasuring our ears, no?


As for the bolded part: yes, definitely. I for one do so.

Also, I've never heard a bad performance whose blame was not put on the conductor rather than on the orchestra.

As for the rest, I think PetrB replied convincingly


----------



## Majed Al Shamsi

But some of those monkeys might argue that, after months of practicing, the violinist would know exactly when to come in, and so would the flutist, by ear, even if what they hear is different from what said monkeys hear.

Also, is it really how you describe it?
The conductor is closer to the musicians (some musicians more than other musicians) than the audience is. What makes his/her position a good point of reference?


----------



## Majed Al Shamsi

Stavrogin said:


> Also, I've never heard a bad performance whose blame was not put on the conductor rather than on the orchestra.


Sure, I imagine a conductor would get blamed for managing terrible rehearsals.
But being blamed for waving his wand (not that one :lol the wrong way while screaming 'wingardium leviosa'? I don't think that has ever happened.


----------



## hpowders

Yeah, but those highly trained monkeys can and have ruined performances of conductors they didn't respect.

The temperamental New York Philharmonic players of the 1960's were known for this.

Those monkeys refused to play second banana to any conductor they didn't like.


----------



## Mahlerian

Majed Al Shamsi said:


> The conductor is closer to the musicians (some musicians more than other musicians) than the audience is. What makes his/her position a good point of reference?


It's closer, sure, but the conductor's position vis a vis the various sections of the orchestra is more or less proportional to the audience's. The various players of the orchestra can hear everyone's part fine, but they can't necessarily tell how the balances will work out from the audience's perspective. If the clarinets can hear their own part just fine, how are they to know that the audience can't hear them because of the horns, unless someone with the correct perspective can tell them?

Also, you would probably be surprised how many orchestral players don't really know the entirety of the piece they're participating in.


----------



## scratchgolf

My wife had asked this same question as we've watched recordings of symphonies. She sees many musicians take no notice of the conductor throughout the performance and asks me while he's even necessary. I'm certainly no expert in the field but I recognize most of the hard work has already been completed at this point. Perhaps it's a traditional and symbolic gesture of giving recognition to the conductor after weeks/months of work and preparation. Plus. if the conductor happens to be the composer, then it's quite fitting that he/she take center stage.


----------



## Vaneyes

hpowders said:


> Yeah, but those highly trained monkeys can and have ruined performances of conductors they didn't respect.
> 
> The temperamental New York Philharmonic players of the 1960's were known for this.
> 
> Those monkeys refused to play second banana to any conductor they didn't like.


Which reminds me of the VPO and its guest conductors.


----------



## DavidA

When you hear a work niter pretend if different ways by different conductors you realise the difference a conductor makes.
I wonder what Toscanini, Szell, Reiner et al would have made of the OP's question!


----------



## Vaneyes

And I think the question has been reasonably answered with millions of concerts and recordings.


----------



## joen_cph

"Persimfans", a conductorless and democratically revolutionary orchestra of the earliest USSR days, represents one of the most interesting cases in that respect. It existed for 10 years, 1922-32, but disagreements and the icier cultural policy of Stalin resulted in its abolishing.
http://www.trivia-library.com/b/history-of-the-greatest-conductorless-orchestra.htm
Unfortunately, there doesn´t seem to be much information about this orchestra on the internet.

But as others said: the extreme variety inherent in works when led by different conductors should clarify the OP question .


----------



## GioCar

I used to sing in a choir performing a cappella works. 
We were about 50 to 60 singers, i.e. 13/15 for each voice. I was in the bass-baritone section. 
My experience is that without our conductor it would have been quite a mess at every concert.
Of course we were well prepared before facing the audience, making a lot of rehearsals at separate sections and all together, but we could't have made without him.
It's not just a matter of balancing the voices (I remember I couldn't almost hear the sopranos) or taking the right tempo or the right entrance... Our choirmaster was absolutely fundamental for the "artistic" outcome of the performance.

Does anyone have some experience of playing in an orchestra?


----------



## Majed Al Shamsi

Mahlerian - Hmm. You do have a point there, with the whole proportionality issue.
It makes more sense now, having the conductor around during the performance.
If I'm not being too stubborn though, I still think the distribution of the applause and credit given is a bit unbalanced.

A few quick comments:

hpowders - But that's exactly my point. It's just as unfair for the conductor to be blamed during a performance as it is for him to receive more appreciation than the musicians who are performing.
In other words, the musicians bare more responsibility than the conductor, in my opinion, after listening to what everyone here had to say.

Scratchgolf - Yeah, I read somewhere that it was more of a tradition.
I think, that, I can understand and appreciate, so long as the audience (the other untrained monkeys) know that it's just that.

Vaneyes - Please refer to the comments of both KenOC (first page) and joen_cph (right above mine).
Just because orchestras performed well with a conductor around does not necessarily mean they couldn't perform just as well without a conductor around.


----------



## GioCar

DavidA said:


> When you hear a work niter pretend if different ways by different conductors you realise the difference a conductor makes.
> I wonder what Toscanini, Szell, Reiner et al would have made of the OP's question!





Vaneyes said:


> And I think the question has been reasonably answered with millions of concerts and recordings.





joen_cph said:


> But as others said: the extreme variety inherent in works when led by different conductors should clarify the OP question .


Well, the OP question is slightly different:



Majed Al Shamsi said:


> Sure, we need them to help an orchestra practice and learn their parts, individually and as a whole.
> 
> *But why do conductors have to be around during the performances?*


and I think I answered with my post based to my experience. I say it again, I would be quite interesting to read the experience of someone else who plays or used to play in an orchestra...


----------



## joen_cph

This is Mravinsky in Tchaikovsky´s 4th, the finale. It would not be possible to do this without a conductor.
(at times a poor transfer soundwise)


----------



## Majed Al Shamsi

GioCar - Thank you for clearing that up and sharing your experience.
The trouble with anecdotal evidence though is that you can find conflicting anecdotes.
I think you genuinely mean it when you say you couldn't perform without a conductor, but how would we explain other orchestras who could get by just fine?
Perhaps they had more time to practice?

joen_cph - Why would it not be possible?
Also, thanks for sharing that link.
I know what I'll be listening to on repeat for the next decade. :tiphat:


----------



## Vaneyes

Majed Al Shamsi said:


> ....Vaneyes - Please refer to the comments of both KenOC (first page) and joen_cph (right above mine). Just because orchestras performed well with a conductor around does not necessarily mean they couldn't perform just as well without a conductor around.


The proof is in the pudding. Sorry, the millions of *conducted* concerts and recordings (versus next to zilch) do mean what you don't want it to mean. :tiphat:


----------



## PetrB

hpowders said:


> Yeah, but those highly trained monkeys can and have ruined performances of conductors they didn't respect.
> 
> The temperamental New York Philharmonic players of the 1960's were known for this.
> 
> Those monkeys refused to play second banana to any conductor they didn't like.


A superb musician can, perverting their skills, make another musician look bad 

This is true of a soloist 'vs' the ensemble and / or conductor, the orchestra 'vs' the conductor, an orchestra 'vs' a soloist, etc.

What many do not realize is how much of the conductor's shaping of a piece was done in rehearsals. The conductor, no matter how dramatically the 'show' in the actual performance, is there doing next to nothing compared to what has been done in the preparation prior the performance.


----------



## Majed Al Shamsi

Vaneyes said:


> The proof is in the pudding. Sorry, the millions of *conducted* concerts and recordings (versus next to zilch) do mean what you don't want it to mean. :tiphat:


On the contrary. If there was but one orchestra out there that could perform without a conductor, it would prove that having a conductor around is not necessary. :tiphat:
I choose my words carefully.
"Not necessary" does not mean "not advisable".
A conductor may or may not improve a performance. That's debatable.


----------



## Bulldog

There are times when I think that solo piano artists could use a conductor. Yesterday I was listen to Schumann's Davisbundlertanze from Claire Desert on the Mirare label; she needed a conductor keep the rhythm intact.


----------



## Vaneyes

Majed Al Shamsi said:


> On the contrary. If there was but one orchestra out there that could perform without a conductor, it would prove that having a conductor around is not necessary. :tiphat:
> I choose my words carefully.
> "Not necessary" does not mean "not advisable".
> A conductor may or may not improve a performance. *That's debatable*.


If you want to continue to debate it here (without me, of course), that's fine...but it's way past debate in the world forum. Over and done. The pro-conductor verdict has been in for ages. All the best. :tiphat:


----------



## hpowders

PetrB said:


> A superb musician can, perverting their skills, make another musician look bad
> 
> This is true of a soloist 'vs' the ensemble and / or conductor, the orchestra 'vs' the conductor, an orchestra 'vs' a soloist, etc.
> 
> What many do not realize is how much of the conductor's shaping of a piece was done in rehearsals. The performance and baton waving are, now matter how dramatically done, next to nothing compared to what has been done in the preparation of that performance.


Yes. I've seen rehearsals and they can be incredibly technical. For example, a covered up bassoon plays B natural instead of B flat and the conductor taps for the orchestra to stop and the conductor says "second bassoon, that should have been a B flat."

Yes, a lot more to it than simply waving a stick.


----------



## Majed Al Shamsi

Vaneyes said:


> If you want to continue to debate it here *(without me, of course)*, that's fine...but it's way past debate in the world forum. Over and done. The pro-conductor verdict has been in for ages. All the best. :tiphat:


See ya. :tiphat:


----------



## hpowders

So many pianists try to conduct and play Mozart concertos from the keyboard. Most of the time, simply having a conductor would improve the performance dramatically.


----------



## dgee

A few thoughts that may be useful (I've played a lot with professional orchestras for many years and worked with a number of well known conductors)

Conductors are there for technical and interpretative purposes. They rehearse the orchestra and their rehearsal technique can make a big difference to the technical and interpretative aspects of performances. If you go and see you local pro or semi-pro orchestra they've likely had 8-12 hours rehearsal and that time can be used well or not
Key technical aspects are tempo and tempo changes, cueing (everyone can count rests but it's a useful backstop and establishes a bit of contact), volume and balance (the orchestra and conductor have plenty of knowledge of how it needs to sound where they are to have it sound good out in the audience) and articulation
Bigger "shape" is where they are highly important - when you're in the detail (ie playing) it's hard to think about this
Indulge me here - many orchestras can get through a Haydn symphony (say) without the tempo flagging, too many ragged edges or anything going too wrong because it has modest orchestral forces, chugs along nicely and the interpretative approach is well known. Brahms 3 (say) would be prohibitively difficult without a conductor due to larger forces and more adventurous use of them, greater flexibility required and bigger "shapes". However, a good orchestra could probably mash through some pretty massive rep without a conductor - it just wouldn't be very tidy or compelling. And there would always have to be someone leading
As an aside, during an open rehearsal for schools and the public a conductor showed off by beginning one of the fast Enigma variations (the one about the dog IIRC) by dropping his wallet on the stand - we started crisply and got to the end with vigour and a steady tempo. Wow - who needs a conductor? Easy enough with a short piece in one breezy tempo, but try that with Nimrod!
There's also something about a conductor's "manner" that can influence how the orchestra sounds - a performance will reflect something of the conductor's personality and the relationship the have with the orchestra (good or bad)
On the night, a conductor can give a good or not-so-good performance that will materially affect the show

So, you can do all sorts of things without a conductor but adding their technical acumen, interpretative vision and unique personality gives you a better show. That said I'm still all in support of playing leaders where this can be done well, but I don't suspect you'll ever see Stephen Hough leading the Brahms 2 PC from the stool or a concertmaster striking up the band for Shos 5!


----------



## superhorn

The Persifams orchestra was able to perform without a conductor , but it needed an enormous amount of rehearsal time to prepare
for concerts because of this . In effect , the concertmaster was the de facto conductor and was (sort of) able to
start the orchestra and keep it together . So the orchestra could not play a lot of different programs in a season .
It would be utterly impossible for a major orchestra today ,playing a different program every week from September 
until May , to function like this . There are so many details to be taken care of in rehearsal that it would be impossible
to prepare a program adequately this way .
In many ways , the conductor is like the director of a movie or a play . He or she has countless different details to
deal with during a rehearsal . So does the director of a movie . An actor does a monologue, and the director tells him or her
how to deliver the lines . 
The conductor has to keep the orchestra together, which is far from easy at times, with all the changes of tempo within a
piece , make sure the musicians are playing in tune, keep the different sections of the orchestra balanced . 
The brass as the loudest instruments in the orchestra , and if the ocnductor is not careful, they can easily drown out
the rest of the orchestra in the loudest passages . And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to a
conductor's duties . It's a very,very tough job .
Persifams was an acronym in Russian for "First symphonic ensemble ".


----------



## schuberkovich

When you watch orchestra videos and see the players not directly watching the conductor that's because they can see the conductor's arm movements in their peripheral vision above their music.


----------



## PetrB

The few remotely successful ensembles 'without conductor' still have a leader and sectional leaders, and what is decided is done very much in the same way one conductor works with the section leaders.

There is this, too, when everyone adds their own little edge of performance to a piece, it effectively becomes art by committee, and when it comes to art by committee, most of the world already knows of the more than predictably usual less than scintillating results.

If you consider that the piece of music is from one person, one distinct personality, and that person's point of view, a conductor is their to re-animate a very like dimension to the performance of the piece. Without, the absence is so palpable that many an otherwise good ensemble consistently pulls reviews of 'tight playing, but the interpretation sounds unfocused.' -- because without a conductor, even with a world-class ensemble of players, that is what happens.

An orchestral work composed by an individual needs a singular point of view, not collective sets of points of views


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> The few remotely successful ensembles 'without conductor' still have a leader and sectional leaders, and what is decided is done very much in the same way one conductor works with the section leaders.


Stated as fact, but do you know it as fact? "The Orpheus Chamber Orchestra (founded 1972) is a Grammy Award-winning classical music chamber orchestra based in New York City. It is known for its collaborative leadership style in which the musicians, not a conductor, interpret the score."


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Stated as fact, but do you know it as fact? "The Orpheus Chamber Orchestra (founded 1972) is a Grammy Award-winning classical music chamber orchestra based in New York City. It is known for its collaborative leadership style in which the musicians, not a conductor, interpret the score."


I wasn't going to name them because, along with their many successes (and N.B. this is a small chamber group) this is the prominent conductor-less group who also garner exactly those reviews which state some of their recorded performances sound unfocused and too arbitrary from part to part, or overall due to lack of a singular point of view. -- of course, those not so great squibs are not the ones cherry-picked for promotion or printed on the liner notes of their recordings.

I've heard (and owned) a handful of their recordings, some quite fine, others fall directly and precisely under the ax of that specific criticism (which I have found myself agreeing with as to several of their recordings), i.e. too many cooks, but no chef


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> I've heard (and owned) a handful of their recordings, some quite fine, others fall directly and precisely under the ax that specific criticism, i.e. too many cooks, but no chef


Well, opinions vary -- obviously! 

Which doesn't address my original question: You said, "The few remotely successful ensembles 'without conductor' still have a leader and sectional leaders, and what is decided is done very much in the same way one conductor works with the section leaders."

My question: Do you know that as fact? Your opinion of any group's playing is not relevant.


----------



## PetrB

GioCar said:


> I would be quite interesting to read the experience of someone else who plays or used to play in an orchestra...


Okeedoh: pianist of many years, have worked as accompanist, member of (conductor-less) chamber ensembles, in the earlier post-conservatory years I played in the pit while conducting the musicians and the singers in musicals, and have played with orchestras as both orchestral player and soloist. I.e. I've been in music and worked with musicians the majority of my life, and that was not a hobby 

Now, while all that and the fare gets me on the bus, same as you, you still might want to reconsider any points I've made with that little bio nugget in mind.

I may as well say here, that once in a while I will hear the following, or read it in posts:
A classically trained player of a certain disposition grumbling about 'following the score exactly" / the same voicing displeasure in "not being able to freely interpret or play their part the way they would like because the conductor has something else in mind."

What is a real marvel about that sort, and in the context of having signed up and worked to become a classical performer I do find them at least a little bit 'a real piece of work,' is they have apparently missed the part, all the way through decades of training and then signing up for these professional gigs, where it is understood that the individual player -- _which includes the super-star soloists_ -- *is there to serve the score, the composer's wishes, and the conductor if their is one.*

That said, many players are _relied upon_ by the star soloists and conductors for not only their skills and applied musicianship, but often enough their opinions.

To the more stubborn who will and do keep on about those above complaints, I have a stock response: If you cannot get over yourself and accept this fundamental requirement that you subsume your ego to the appropriate degree in order to serve the piece and / or the ensemble of which you are a part, _then it is time to switch your career to work in a genre where you are allowed and expected to improvise, or compose for yourself the music you will play._


----------



## Itullian

Without the conductor, who would drive the train and blow the whistle?


----------



## KenOC

Itullian said:


> Without the conductor, who would drive the train and blow the whistle?


The engineer I suppose. The conductor takes tickets and so forth -- like the usher at a concert with his flashlight.


----------



## Woodduck

PetrB said:


> The few remotely successful ensembles 'without conductor' still have a leader and sectional leaders, and what is decided is done very much in the same way one conductor works with the section leaders.
> 
> There is this, too, when everyone adds their own little edge of performance to a piece, it effectively becomes art by committee, and when it comes to art by committee, most of the world already knows of the more than predictably usual less than scintillating results.
> 
> If you consider that the piece of music is from one person, one distinct personality, and that person's point of view, a conductor is their to re-animate a very like dimension to the performance of the piece. Without, the absence is so palpable that many an otherwise good ensemble consistently pulls reviews of 'tight playing, but the interpretation sounds unfocused.' -- because without a conductor, even with a world-class ensemble of players, that is what happens.
> 
> An orchestral work composed by an individual needs a singular point of view, not collective sets of points of views


I think this is the heart of the matter.

_The_ _art__ of playing music - of making music communicate something - consists not in __the mere playing of the notes but in the manner in which one plays them and moves from__ one note to another_. In doing this the performing artist is confronted with an infinity of choices, including tempo, dynamics, tone color, balance, and constant changes in all of these elements and more, which are not predetermined by what the composer has written on the page because they are literally too subtle for musical notation. How can a group of fifty or a hundred players be expected to arrive at unanimity in making these interpretive decisions? Common sense and the practice of musical performance shows, definitively, that they cannot. Someone - a single person with a considered, specific, unified conception of the music: a conductor - has to tell the players how the piece is to be played in a given performance, and the players have to come together and adapt their own conceptions of the piece to convey the conductor's conception. They may not agree with that conception, but it is their job to give it reality; the next conductor for whom they play that piece will have a different conception, and then they will come together and play the piece his way. Since there cannot be one right way to interpret any piece of music (even in the mind of the composer, it should be said!), a large-scale work needs not only a conductor but, over time, many conductors to realize the work in different ways. The alternative, by and large, would be bland, anonymous, least-common-denominator music-making which would encourage mere "correctness" and leave us all bored to death - or have us running to chamber music and solo recitals in pursuit of a real musical experience.


----------



## arpeggio

*Depends*

As an amateur I second what dgee and superhorn stated.

I would add that one learns how to position his eyes so he(she) can see the conductor and the music at the same time. Even though it appears that the musicians are just looking at the music, in reality they can still see the conductor.

I would also add that much depends on the piece of music. A Sousa March can easily performed without a conductor, while a Beethoven _Symphony_ needs a conductor, especially the _Ninth_.

KenOC,

PetrB is correct. I have played in both conductor and conductorless environments. The only time it has worked without the conductor is with a small chamber group like a woodwind quintet. Whenever I have had to prepare to perform a piece without a conductor it takes more work.

I recall one time where we were preparing to premier a new work for woodwind quintet. Some of the rhythms were so challenging that we had to do the performance with a conductor.


----------



## KenOC

arpeggio said:


> KenOC,
> 
> PetrB is correct. I have played in both conductor and conductorless environments. The only time it has worked without the conductor is with a small chamber group like a woodwind quintet. Whenever I have had to prepare to perform a piece without a conductor it takes more work.


You may well be right. But that wasn't the statement I was questioning.


----------



## arpeggio

*Maybe I don't play with the NY PHIL but...*



KenOC said:


> You may well be right. But that wasn't the statement I was questioning.


I may be right? Well thank you. 

By the way is there anything about classical music you do not know?


----------



## PetrB

Itullian said:


> Without the conductor, who would drive the train and blow the whistle?


Without the captain, who would steer the ship, a very large moving vessel with a lot of weight in momentum -- eighty to over one hundred crew members, each with their hand on the eighty to over one hundred tillers?

I think that collective captaincy concept lends a bit of extra gloss to the phrase, _"at sea."_ Lol.


----------



## ArtMusic

It doesn't look right without a conductor.

even with smaller HIP bands, there is always a leader of some sort - harpsichord player, or first violinist or other instrumentalist that leads the band.


----------



## joen_cph

Majed Al Shamsi said:


> joen_cph - Why would it not be possible?


Notice the degree of integration combined with the incredible speed. There´s roughly 100 people playing like one instrument. Impossible to do without someone directing the ongoings. The "Persimfans", though virtuosi, even had difficulties playing works for large orchestras, as described in the link.



> Also, thanks for sharing that link.
> I know what I'll be listening to on repeat for the next decade. :tiphat:


You don´t have to like the piece to get the point - even within a relatively short time, I think :tiphat:.


----------



## senza sordino

I can't imagine a large orchestra being able to perform together and coherently without a conductor managing all those parts. I just saw a concert yesterday that was lead by the concertmaster, no conductor. But there was only 6 first violins, 6 seconds, 4 violas, 4 celli, 2 bass and a harpsichord. Not too many moving parts

But a Mahler, Bruckner, Shostakovich symphony has many different parts that all have to come together as a whole. With more than one percussion player!

If a player isn't looking at the conductor, it's likely they still see the baton moving in their peripheral vision, it's a white stick for a reason. I watch the conductor a lot. 

It's quite typical that musicians do not know what other musicians are playing. They only know their own part. Our conductor today told the clarinet player to learn the music, listen to the cello solo. 

In any long form piece, there is plenty of rubato, changing tempi throughout. On the music it might say ritard. It means ritardando, slow down in Italian. We like to say that "we must follow the conductor so we can all get retarded together."


----------



## violadude

One of the reasons probably has to do with simple acoustics. The sound of the bass comes out a little bit slower than the sound of a violin. So with that in mind, a conductor would be necessary or else everyone would be slightly out of sync throughout the whole performance. Also, what if the violas have a cue from the cellos, but the flutes also need to take that cue from the cellos? The sound of the cello part will reach the flautists ears slightly later than it will hit the violists ears. A conductor would be helpful in this situation because the speed of light (the conductor's baton) travels faster than the speed of sound (the cellos) so the sight of the conductor will reach both the flute and the viola more "at the same time" relative to the sound of the cellos alone. Of course if you measured it to a tee, the sight of the conductor still reaches the flute later than the violas but it's less perceived than the difference in the cello sound reaching both.


----------



## Majed Al Shamsi

Senza Sordino - Since you have first hand experience, I'll phrase my question like this:
If an orchestra had more and more time to practice, would they be able to play without a conductor?



violadude said:


> A conductor would be helpful in this situation because the speed of light (the conductor's baton) travels faster than the speed of sound (the cellos) so the sight of the conductor will reach both the flute and the viola more "at the same time" relative to the sound of the cellos alone.


If there were 10 meters between the conductor and musician A, and 10 meters between musician B and musician A, then the light waves from the conductor would reach musician A in 3.33 x 10^(-8) seconds, and the sound waves from musician B would reach musician A in about 0.03 seconds.
Even though that's a huge difference, it doesn't count for much, because humans have to process that information.
0.03 seconds is a fraction of a fraction of a second. I doubt it's noticeable.
For there to be an actual difference, the distance would have to increase greatly, like the distance between the surface of Earth and the clouds (lightening/thunder).
So, I really don't find the light versus sound argument plausible.


----------



## violadude

Majed Al Shamsi said:


> If there were 10 meters between the conductor and musician A, and 10 meters between musician B and musician A, then the light waves from the conductor would reach musician A in 3.33 x 10^(-8) seconds, and the sound waves from musician B would reach musician A in about 0.03 seconds.
> Even though that's a huge difference, it doesn't count for much, because humans have to process that information.
> 0.03 seconds is a fraction of a fraction of a second. I doubt it's noticeable.
> For there to be an actual difference, the distance would have to increase greatly, like the distance between the surface of Earth and the clouds (lightening/thunder).
> So, I really don't find the light versus sound argument plausible.


In my experience playing in an orchestra, there is quite a difference. It's very hard as a violist to play perfectly in sync with the instruments more toward the back of the orchestra based on listening alone.


----------



## arpeggio

*The simple answer is still "yes"*

There are those of us who have had amateur, student and even professional experience who have stated that the simple answer to the do we need a conductor question is "yes".

For an uncomplicated, short piece, like a Sousa March, a group can learn to perform it without a conductor within a reasonable period of time.

For a piece like _The Rite of Spring_, forget it.


----------



## tahnak

Mahlerian said:


> Also, you would probably be surprised how many orchestral players don't really know the entirety of the piece they're participating in.


This sums up the answer to the question. The individual group players would not infuse the spirit cohesively or comprehensively. The conductor is more than the sum of all these parts put together. Also, the conductor will ignite the force of the spirit from the first note to the last based on how intense he devotes himself to the music he or she is interpreting and getting played.


----------



## Vasks

LOL! I've not read every post on this thread but anyone...*anyone* who for a moment believes that a 100 piece orchestra regardless that they're professional, regardless that they practice it a lot can perform a symphonic movement that has changing tempi and/or starts and stops (e.g. Tchaikovsky or Mahler) needs to be realize that it can't be done without a conductor.


----------



## bigshot

Conducting is a LOT more than just being a traffic cop for entrances and tempi.

Stokowski would work on technical issues at rehearsal, but the expression of the work was 100% in the moment. Other conductors might just wave a stick, but really good conductors are an integral part of the musicmaking.


----------



## PetrB

Majed Al Shamsi said:


> I'll phrase my question like this: If an orchestra had more and more time to practice, would they be able to play without a conductor?


 The finer orchestras can play, from memory and without a conductor, a fair amount of the standard orchestral rep. This is not a question, actually, except I know it is not generally known.

But, that power of personality, both composer and conductor, is just not possible without a single person guiding the shaping and nuances of a piece -- I would emphasize 99 percent of that is done in rehearsal prior performance, but all the acoustic realities of so many players, large piece, do much better with a conductor than without.

That power of personality is just a fact of western art, the personality of the composer or playwright, the musicians or actors, and a director, are what bring about the finer performances of large ensemble works, and the performers know all their work is preparation toward becoming a professional in order to best serve the composer's score, the playwright's script.

Certainly, any of the players and the conductor will be pleased to know they are appreciated, their concentrated work for decades in order to become skilled enough to render music acknowledged. _What I think is misunderstood is that the highest praise which satisfies the performers is that you heard only, say, Beethoven_, and while that was going on, you did not think of the performers _at all._ Because that is what many performers in action are solely concentrating upon -- bringing you the music, not their egos 

I have more of a hunch that a lot of these notions of collective playing have much to do with wanting to discount individuality and emphasize the goodness and abilities of a collective group of souls, but I think the argument that the composer was an individual, and that the piece still requires one individual's point of view for its best chance of success are pretty undeniable.

I should interject for those with no experience ever, of even singing in a group socially, or performing in a choir with or without conductor, that when there are two or more musicians performing together, the feeling, (a kind of proof, if you will) the participants get _of being a part of something the sum of which is far greater than its collective parts_ has been noticed and commented upon countless times by both the players and many in the attending audience.

The goal then, _is transcendence,_ and not self-glorification.



Majed Al Shamsi said:


> So, I really don't find the light versus sound argument plausible.


All you have to do to prove it to yourself is attend a concert in a large hall, or watch a broadcast of one and sit far back to the rear of the hall. You will notice that the sound you hear lags behind the beat -- as you see it -- given by the conductor to the musicians. As slight as it is, take that aspect of physics to the stage where the musicians are sitting, add all the acoustic phenomena happening in that space, and what seems slight or unimportant becomes critical -- it is the difference between a sloppy everyone "sort of around the beat" to everyone being on the beat, and all of that arriving in sync to the listener. It takes very little of a piece rendered out of sync (western music, anyway) before it sounds well off, the momentum splattered, the sound unclear.


----------



## Vasks

bigshot said:


> Conducting is a LOT more than just being a traffic cop for entrances and tempi.


Of course. A conductor is allowed to interpret during a performance and quite frankly by so doing he/she keeps the players attention on the conductor.

On the flip side, I once witnessed orchestral hornist Dale Clevenger admit that if the players of the orchestra disliked the conductor's rehearsal interpretations, that the players, in the performance, would do it their way


----------



## bigshot

The orchestra wouldn't ignore the conductor and just play their way if the conductor was Reiner!


----------



## PetrB

Vasks said:


> Of course. A conductor is allowed to interpret during a performance and quite frankly by so doing he/she keeps the players attention on the conductor.
> 
> On the flip side, I once witnessed orchestral hornist Dale Clevenger admit that if the players of the orchestra disliked the conductor's rehearsal interpretations, that the players, in the performance, would do it their way


That 'do it their own way' may sound petty, may be petty, but there is a professional level, (Clevenger, Chicago Symphony Orchestra) where if differences are enough, there is more than an aesthetic difference at the heart of the matter, but the player's professional reputation is involved.

The Chicago Symphony is one of those ensembles known to have standard rep pretty much from memory (An ukase from the then newly appointed Frizt Reiner, "You will memorize your parts for all Beethoven symphonies, etc. -- being the start of that.) Soloist or orchestral member all can play more freely and respond more readily to any in-performance situation if they are not reliant upon looking at their part.

As I said, the right musician(s) can make a soloist playing with them -- or their conductor -- look bad, and the fault will be seen and heard to have been the soloist's.


----------



## Vasks

bigshot said:


> The orchestra wouldn't ignore the conductor and just play their way if the conductor was Reiner!


LOL! No, nor any other powerful permanent conductors. I'm pretty sure he meant "guest" conductors.


----------



## Couac Addict

I'm guessing you've never had the privilege of watching an orchestra self-destruct on stage. Someone needs to be in charge. It can't be me because I've got a trombone slide whacking me on the back of my head. 

The bigger the orchestra...the harder it is to hear (maybe if I took the earplugs out).


----------



## Varick

I was going to add something until I read PetrB's last post. Both of his longer posts pretty much said it all. Great points!

Settles it for me (not that I ever entertained the notion of doing away with conductors during a concert).

V


----------



## Rhombic

Firstly: People applaud because they enjoyed the music, the musicians AND how the conductor worked with it. His work needs some recognition too.
Secondly: Just in case.


----------



## joen_cph

Just stumbled across a very recent article in _Moscow Times_ about contemporary attempts at reviving the Persimfans at the Moscow conservatory

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/arts_...simfans-sees-contemporary-revival/499181.html


----------

