# Conducting - economy vs. abundance of movement



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

I have just watched a DVD of maestro Boulez conducting the Staatskapelle Berlin (Mahler Symphony no. 2).

Then I watched some fragments of Claudio Abbado conducting the Lucerne Festival Orchestra in three other Mahler symphonies.

It was interesting to notice the huge difference in amount of body movement from these two masterful conductors.

Boulez did not use a baton, and moved minimally, his hands didn't wave much, his face remained rather static. He seemed like a statue sometimes.

Abbado moved a lot, waved his hands all over, used a baton, his facial expression was rich, and he seemed to look at and communicate more with the musicians.

However both achieved spectacular results, at least in my humble opinion (I'm no expert and I'm out of my depth here).

For those of you who are conductors or musicians who have played in orchestras or cognoscenti of conducting techniques and orchestral playing, how do you explain the fact that Boulez, employing minimalistic body, arms, and hand movements, can achieve as good a result as the very expressive conductor Abbado?

I understand that the reading of the score and the rehearsing with the orchestra are very important factors for a conductor to achieve good results with an orchestra, but I'm focusing now on the body movement aspect.

Opinions?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I'm not really sure. One initial suggestion: perhaps Boulez is better at communicating his desires verbally in rehearsals, and so doesn't need to rely on elaborate gestures in the same way?


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I've often wondered about this. I would think that musicians could find it very difficult to have to acclimatize themselves to all the technique variations that guest conductors present to them.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

It an interesting thing, isn't it. 

In addition to these fellows, you also have Bernstein; he goes into a class of his own.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Klemperer was another very good conductor whose body movement whilst conducting was minimal, and yet he managed to achieve an incredibly good result in most of his recordings. I am basing this on videos that I have seen of him as the principal conductor of the Philharmonia Orchestra (1959-73) where he didn't appear to waste much physical energy in his conducting style. What he may have been like in his earlier days I do not know. On the other hand, another very great conductor, particularly of Beethoven orchestral works, Furtwangler, was all over the place, with his hands and arms behaving in a very peculiar puppet-like manner, and yet also he achieved top class results. 

Why this difference? I would hazard a guess that it may be due to their overall temperament. Some people in ordinary conversation seem to shout a lot, and get excited quickly, whilst others are laid back and nonchalant in how they express themselves. This sort of disctinction might map over into accounting for different conducting styles. But I don't really know, as I haven't studied this in any detail.


----------



## GoneBaroque (Jun 16, 2011)

Certainly most of the hard work of preparing a concert is done in rehearsal. If the conductor has managed, by whatever means, to adequately communicate his interpretation at rehearsal then what he does in the actual performance could be largely superfluous. It has been know in a number of instances for musicians to make things very difficult for a conductor they do not respect. How much of this abundance of motion is grandstanding for the audience? Personally I would rather watch someone like Boulez or Blomstedt in preference to a ballet dancer in tails.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I wonder if any of them put on a fraudulent show just for the sake of the audience. You know, like Lang Lang.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I wonder if any of them put on a fraudulent show just for the sake of the audience. You know, like Lang Lang.


 I get the humor, but seriously speaking, I think not. These movements did match the music a fraction of seconds before the sounds, and of course the maestro needs to keep the tempo. They were both doing that, just, Boulez did it with sparse motion and Abbado with abundant motion.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> I get the humor, but seriously speaking, I think not. These movements did match the music a fraction of seconds before the sounds, and of course the maestro needs to keep the tempo. They were both doing that, just, Boulez did it with sparse motion and Abbado with abundant motion.


It's interesting to watch masterclasses of conductors talking about this. I was at a masterclass once with Peter Stark who said that the conductor feels himself to be a master of his art, and a vessel of emotion, but that he should keep his movements to a minimum. Similarly, I saw an extract of a Haitink masterclass where he tried to control the wild movements of his students. I've never actually heard a conductor give an explanation for it though.

I'm convinced by Artemis's suggestion - I imagine it has a great deal to do with personality, rather than any solid foundation of reasoning as to which is better.


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> ...Boulez did it with sparse motion and Abbado with abundant motion.


Abbado is Italian - have you ever seen Italians arguing? Seeing them talking makes you believe they are arguing, seeing them arguing is not believing what you're seeing 
On a more serious note, some people say more with their eyebrows, than some people with words. I'm no expert in conducting, of course, but I think that the analogy between conducting and talking is valid, since conducting is one of many means of communication. I'd say I'm on the same page with Artemis on that one.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think that whether a conductor is fairly static or animated not only depends on various factors discussed above (eg. personal style, culture, the type of audience, etc.) but also things like what musicians a conductor is working with, whether the conductor & orchestra have worked together before (eg. know eachother's cues, abilities, strengths & weaknesses, etc.), & also the venue (eg. in terms of space for the orchestra, in a more crowded space the conductor has to do more "crowd control," eg be very specific with their movements). These issues I have raised with musicians I know, and it is an interesting topic for many music lovers.

But the bottom line is, as have some people pointed out already, the importance of rehearsal. & also the conductor, with his/her understudy/assistant conductor, playing through the score of symphonic works on two-piano reductions, to get ready for the actual rehearsal with the full orchestra, to know what possible trouble spots are ahead & what trouble shooting has to be done as a result. If all these things are done beforehand, it is possible that the orchestra can play through the most complex music and not even shed much of a glance at the conductor. I saw this on tv over 20 years ago, with Maestro Karajan conducting the Berlin Philharmonic live in R. Strauss' tone poem _Zarathustra_. Scarcely any of the players in the orchestra looked much at the conductor, even one of my parents said they noticed that straight away, & that's stuck in my mind ever since (although I've seen a variety of other styles/approaches/methods of playing & conducting since then)...


----------



## itywltmt (May 29, 2011)

Yes, rehearsal is important, but in my mind a conductor "in performance" has the prime responsibility of keeping musicians "in sync", be it through keeping the beat, or (in rare instances) managing the performance (e.g., specific interventions, etc.). I somehow can`t believe musicians expect an overt `cue`for a cymbal crash, for instance...

Also, conductors are often in the `worse spot`to hear the orchestra, and that also plays a role in how a performance goes.

Some of it is psychology - I remember Dutoit talking about a rehearsal he had with Karajan (either as an apprentice or a violist, he didn`t say) and students trying the initial downbeat of Beethoven`s Fifth, with mixed results. Karajan simply stood up, stared at the musicians, and subtly dropped the baton and achieved the required unison!

A good friend of mine, who studied and played at McGill with their wind ensemble told me it was `very hard`for musicians (amateurs here) to work with conductors who didn`t use a baton, or were overly expressive with their body movement. I think that has to do with my above points about `performance management`.

The other thing I find intriguing is the use (or not) of scores. Many conductors conduct works from memory, and some like Eugene Ormandy also conducted works with soloists without a score, which appears to be the minority. Again, it goes to the point of rehearsing and `performance management`...

Finally, as pointed out by many of you, the conductor is a musician too, and he is "performing". Noot too say that conductors are all hot-digs, but some get carried away, entranced by the music - Bernstein is a fine example.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Interesting question. I would say history is your answer. Take a look at the 18th century. Conducting in the modern sense did not exist, and yet Mozart was still able to direct (usually from the keyboard and also perform in many cases) his own piano concertos, symphonies and of course his own operas without waving his arms with body gestures etc. on a "full time basis". If the performance was to be good, they must have rehearsed and knew the music pretty damn well. And you can also read of many concerts noted that were essentially crap because they didn't rehearse sufficiently. So, the body movement aspect has more to do with the conductor himself/herself today than anything else.


----------



## itywltmt (May 29, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Interesting question. I would say history is your answer. Take a look at the 18th century. Conducting in the modern sense did not exist, and yet Mozart was still able to direct (usually from the keyboard and also perform in many cases) his own piano concertos, symphonies and of course his own operas without waving his arms with body gestures etc. on a "full time basis". If the performance was to be good, they must have rehearsed and knew the music pretty damn well. And you can also read of many concerts noted that were essentially crap because they didn't rehearse sufficiently. So, the body movement aspect has more to do with the conductor himself/herself today than anything else.


Interesting to read what Cherubini and Meyerbeer thought of Beethoven as a conductor!


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I agree that the conductor's main work is during the rehearsal. During the performance the conductor's job is (one hopes) to inspire the musicians to do their best.
The gestures used don't really matter as long as they get results. But conductors who lack clear and precise beats can make life difficult for musicians. 
In Mozart's day it was much easier to keep the orchestra together, because music of the period was generally much simpler rhythmically. and orchestras were quite small (with the exception of the rare occasions where they used larger orchestras with doubled winds ).
But in the 19th and 20th centuries, composers began to write for larger orchestras and introduced more complex rhythms, changes of tempo within a movement, changing time signatures and meters etc. So it became necessary to have a conductor to co-ordinate everything. 
A work like Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, with its jagged irregular rhythms and constant changes of time signature, would be a nightmare for a conductorless orchestra, and is difficult enough even with one !
I know, because I've played in concert and gone through the rehearsals. 
The Orpheus chamber orchestra,based in New York , is a 26 member chamber orchestra which performs without a conductor. But rehearsing is a very laborious process because of this, and the orchestra can't function the way the major full sized ones do today, playing a different program every week.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Certainly something I don't know about but I'll throw in my nickel...unlike my good buddy Itywltmt suggests, if I were conducting an orchestra I would start by only employing players who don't need someone to keep their tempo...players who only need direction during rehearsal so that they know exactly how I want the piece to be played...the very point of rehearsal is to groom the orchestra into a well-oiled machine; one that doesn't need a conductor...come the night of the performance, the conductor can basically sit back and employ any style they desire; maybe just sit back and watch, even...I wanna be entranced by the music! If you've done your job as a conductor, a great performance can be achieved; if not, countless hours were wasted in the dressing room.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

In terms of what HC said about composers of old times conducting from the keyboard & partially talking to what superhorn said as well (eg. orchestras working without a conductor) - I think that good musicians are flexible to work with or without conductor, in either full symphony orchestra or chamber music setting. Eg. one of the "benchmark" recordings of Gershwin's _Rhapsody in Blue _was made by Leonard Bernstein at the piano & conducting the New York Philharmonic (in the 1960's). But I suppose it ultimately depends on the piece, it's okay to do this with that Gershwin or say Mozart (not only his concertos directed from keyboard or by soloist, but say symphonies directed by first violinist), Haydn, Beethoven, etc. but I don't think it's going to work with a much larger scale work, eg. a Mahler symphony (or say Beethoven's 9th), or say a Brahms concerto...


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

kv466 said:


> Certainly something I don't know about but I'll throw in my nickel...unlike my good buddy Itywltmt suggests, if I were conducting an orchestra I would start by only employing players who don't need someone to keep their tempo...players who only need direction during rehearsal so that they know exactly how I want the piece to be played...the very point of rehearsal is to groom the orchestra into a well-oiled machine; one that doesn't need a conductor...come the night of the performance, the conductor can basically sit back and employ any style they desire; maybe just sit back and watch, even...I wanna be entranced by the music! If you've done your job as a conductor, a great performance can be achieved; if not, countless hours were wasted in the dressing room.


And what would the repertoire for that orchestra be? Just about anything written after 1820 would be almost impossible to play without a conductor. Sure, a baroque band can get along rather nicely without a conductor, but if you were to play something as complex as romantic and later music, with full wind and brass sections, you need a conductor.
You are right in that much is done at rehearsal, but it would be practically impossible to rehearse the Rite of Spring to such an extent that the orchestra could play it without a conductor. But it is important to add that the conductor isn't just in charge of keeping things tight and in time; he is also responsible for the interpretation of the piece.

As for the original question, I agree with Artemis.


----------

