# Conductor should be able to play every instrument in the orchestra???



## zombywoof

On a thread on another site, I saw someone (supposedly a conductor) post that a conductor should "optimally...have experience playing EVERY instrument in the orchestra". 

Is it actually common (or even realistic/possible) for a conductor to have (meaningful) experience playing EVERY orchestral instrument??

I am relatively new to classical music, but this seems like quite a bold claim to me - I'm genuinely curious to hear what you all think.


----------



## Fugue Meister

I'm no expert myself but I've always heard this was pretty close to being the case. I'm also relatively sure they didn't have to be and great at playing every instrument however... 

Also I see this is your first post.. welcome to TC. :tiphat:


----------



## Mesenkomaha

I always wondered if the great composers knew how to play every instrument.


----------



## Serge

I think this is like saying that a movie director should be able to play every role in the film. No, they need to have a "vision".


----------



## opus55

I would think it's better use of time for a conductor to study the score than to try to be good at every instrument in the orchestra. I do think a conductor should master at least one instrument. All of these is simply my guess


----------



## OldFashionedGirl

It would be extremely difficult to the director to learn every instrument of the orchestra, and it is not necessary. The important thing for a conductor is to have a big knowledge and comprehension about music. I think at least the director should know the characteristics of each instrument to bring the best of them. I don't a expert, neither. I just write what I think.


----------



## Lukecash12

Typically, in their music education, those who conduct, orchestrate, and compose are expected to learn a number of instruments. It is considered necessary for comprehension, so that their expectations are realistic and their ideas innovative, because the musicians aren't doing something magical that they don't really understand. A conductor that didn't even understand the technicalities of playing strings, for example, wouldn't have any idea of all of the possibilities or the difference between up strokes and down strokes.

While it's not really realistic for them all to have to learn every instrument, conductors without any intimate knowledge of some or most of the instruments, and without great education about the rest, are just average music lovers paid because they are good at keeping tempo, imo.


----------



## dgee

No need to play everything! However, a conductor must have knowledge of how the orchestra works to rehearse and direct effectively - similar study to orchestration, what do instruments sound like, how are they played (in theory), characteristics, special/extended techniques etc. Sound knowledge of bowing is probably desirable, but in general it's the orchestra's job to do the technical work to realise the conductor's vision. 

Proof of the pudding here should be the number of conductors who are pianists. This perception may have come through junior band, where a lot of wind multi-instrumentalists (a special breed indeed) are often band leaders


----------



## brotagonist

Yeah, and you should be able to do all of the mechanical repairs on your car in order to be permitted to drive it.


----------



## arpeggio

Within the context of the question of the opening post the short answer is no.

I have never played for a conductor who had the ability to perform on every instruments. It is possible for a conductor/musician to know how all the instruments work without being proficient on them. 

Music education majors are required to take class strings, woodwinds, brass and percussion classes in order to understand how all the instruments work. We even took voice and piano lessons. Even though I was a woodwind player, I still had to know enough about playing brass and strings to be able to teach elementary and middle school students who to play these instruments.

Classical Saxophonist submitted a post about a new symphony by the very talented young composer John Mackey. I read about him and learned that he is not proficient on any instrument.

The only composer/conductor I know of who was proficient on every instrument was Hindemith. There are probably a few others.


----------



## Sunhillow

zombywoof said:


> On a thread on another site, I saw someone (supposedly a conductor) post that a conductor should "optimally...have experience playing EVERY instrument in the orchestra".
> 
> Is it actually common (or even realistic/possible) for a conductor to have (meaningful) experience playing EVERY orchestral instrument??
> 
> I am relatively new to classical music, but this seems like quite a bold claim to me - I'm genuinely curious to hear what you all think.


I think in theory 'no', but in practise they would have a very good understanding about every instrument, being classically trained. No doubt there's one (group of) instrument(s) he's very good at. Most people that have been trained at a conservatoire know their way around several instruments. My girlfriend e.g. is a cellist, but no stringed instrument are strange to her, she's quite good at the keyboard, and occassionally tried out some drums and wind instruments.


----------



## KenOC

Composers, even the best, often consult with performing musicians about the limits of instruments, the playability of certain passages, and so forth. A conductor is in an great position to do the same -- unless he/she thinks that will damage their authority, of course.


----------



## Piwikiwi

Lukecash12 said:


> Typically, in their music education, those who conduct, orchestrate, and compose are expected to learn a number of instruments. It is considered necessary for comprehension, so that their expectations are realistic and their ideas innovative, because the musicians aren't doing something magical that they don't really understand. A conductor that didn't even understand the technicalities of playing strings, for example, wouldn't have any idea of all of the possibilities or the difference between up strokes and down strokes.
> 
> While it's not really realistic for them all to have to learn every instrument, conductors without any intimate knowledge of some or most of the instruments, and without great education about the rest, are just average music lovers paid because they are good at keeping tempo, imo.


Sorry but that is simply not true. Most composers I know only know one instrument or two at most. It's simply a waste of time, you are better off if you study the limitations of each instrument and ask a lot of questions to the musicians you are working with/writing for.


----------



## brianvds

If a conductor has to be able to play every instrument, he'd be so busy practicing he wouldn't have time to conduct. But I would think a conductor should have a very thorough knowledge of performing on instruments, what each instrument is capable of etc. It's difficult to see how a conductor could conduct a string orchestra, for example, if he does not know what terms like vibrato means, or doesn't understand symbols for up bow and down bow, etc. I.e. he should have a theoretical knowledge of performance on every instrument but does not need to be able to do it all himself.

I would think that in practice, most conductors start out as instrumentalists and learn to play two or three instruments, and at least one to virtuoso level.


----------



## Guest

The original quote, "optimally...have experience playing EVERY instrument in the orchestra" is quite different, however, from what the OP has altered it to. It's only the latter that's been addressed so far in this thread. Curious.

What does anyone who has already responded think of the original quote?

[N.B., I'd also like to know if the word "every" was all capped in the original or if that was added for this thread.]


----------



## dgee

That's an interesting distinction some guy. What would this experience add? IMO, whatever it would add would be far, far less important than good general musicianship, conducting technique and interpretation in nearly all situations. Specifically, I don't think it would make much difference to this optimal conductor if they were conducting a professional orchestra, it might help a youth orchestra conductor have a feel for the challenges each of the young players are facing, and it would be awesome for junior band or orchestra helping little Susie with her tuba fingerings, sorting out bowing, tuning the timps and other assorted technical help 

In short, I don't see what professional musicians would get from a conductor with experience of every instrument and I don't know what it would add to interpretation


----------



## CyrilWashbrook

The original thread on Reddit.


----------



## dgee

That Reddit thread is not a discussion being had by serious professional musicians. It's a wish list for a journeyman amateur conductor. The every instrument thing seems to be a high school band carry over - but I think I've said my piece!


----------



## ArtMusic

zombywoof said:


> On a thread on another site, I saw someone (supposedly a conductor) post that a conductor should "optimally...have experience playing EVERY instrument in the orchestra".
> 
> Is it actually common (or even realistic/possible) for a conductor to have (meaningful) experience playing EVERY orchestral instrument??
> 
> I am relatively new to classical music, but this seems like quite a bold claim to me - I'm genuinely curious to hear what you all think.


I think Telemann the Baroque composer was one who could play well many instruments of his day which was why he wrote all sorts of concertos for many diverse instruments, combinations of them, suites etc. Yes it does help if you are a composer to understand the instrument. Think of Mozart's popular bassoon concerto, clarinet concerto, piano concertos. He understood each instrument.


----------



## Polyphemus

No. It really does not need 15 characters to say this is a dumb question.


----------



## arpeggio

Polyphemus said:


> No. It really does not need 15 characters to say this is a dumb question.


This is unfair. For a person who has never played in an orchestra or band it is a legitimate question.

The person who raised this in the other forum made a very misleading observation.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Its unnecessary - it reminds me of the anecdote that when Berlioz went to Russia, he was expected to play for the entertainment of a committee before he was allowed access to a concert hall for a pre-arranged performance. Berlioz famously couldn't play and the committee refused to accept that he couldn't play an instrument. Honour was saved when he threatened to play a bass drum for them for a lengthy period. 

But that was 150 years ago - are there STILL people who believe a conductor should know how to scrape, hammer, blow etc?


----------



## superhorn

Paul Hindemith , who was also active as a conductor , not only of his own music , is supposed to have been able to play
virtually every instrument of the orchestra to some extent . He was both a violinist & violist , preferring the viola , and 
a good pianist .
Some time ago , DG put out a three CD set of Hindemith conducting his own music ,mostly with the Berlin Phil . 
Hindemith also recorded soem of his works for EMI with the Philharmonia , including the classic recording of te horn concerto with the ill-fated Dennis Brain.
I don't know if the DG set isw swtill available, but the EMI recordings are probably still gettable .(Is that a real word ?)


----------



## Lukecash12

Piwikiwi said:


> Sorry but that is simply not true. Most composers I know only know one instrument or two at most. It's simply a waste of time, you are better off if you study the limitations of each instrument and ask a lot of questions to the musicians you are working with/writing for.


Which is why most of the greatest composers in the Western tradition are from the 40's and back, when it wasn't so uncommon to learn several instruments. There is a difference between understanding limitations and asking questions, and comprehending on a deeper level the instruments and how to do something innovative with them.

Of course I'm not talking about composers and conductors as if they "have to" do this. But it really is ideal. Just look at the results. Schubert's unfinished symphony is a great example of a composer not only knowing what an instrument can and can't do, but what it's best at, when we hear the beautiful woodwind solos in the piece.

Maybe people can come to comprehend the instruments on such a deep level without playing them, but that seems a tenuous proposition to try and do. Like someone already mentioned, Berlioz was reputedly quite the conductor, and clearly quite the composer, but he couldn't play. However, I'm sure that doesn't mean that he wouldn't have benefited from learning to play.


----------



## hpowders

Composers should be able to play piano plus at least with rudimentary ability, one stringed instrument, one woodwind and one brass.

Conductors should be able to play piano at a decent level and perhaps, be able to sing.
One already has experts on all the instruments in the orchestra. Therefore, the conductor need not have more than a basic knowledge of each instruments' capabilities.


----------



## brianvds

hpowders said:


> Composers should be able to play piano plus at least with rudimentary ability, one stringed instrument, one woodwind and one brass.


Well, Beethoven had a rudimentary ability on the piano, but could he play any woodwinds or brass?


----------



## hpowders

What the conductor needs is perfect pitch and to be able to hear one wrong note played by one musician among 100.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

hpowders said:


> Conductors should be able to play piano at a decent level and perhaps, be able to sing.
> .


have you ever heard Sir Thomas Beecham's attempts at singing? His piano playing was a bit better .... his conducting was immensely better


----------



## hpowders

brianvds said:


> Well, Beethoven had a rudimentary ability on the piano, but could he play any woodwinds or brass?


Who knows? Perhaps he could. We don't know what went on behind closed doors.


----------



## hpowders

Headphone Hermit said:


> have you ever heard Sir Thomas Beecham's attempts at singing? His piano playing was a bit better .... his conducting was immensely better


Toscanini; Bernstein. Neither were going to win a contract at the Met. It wasn't necessary, but I would have respected them more if they were decent singers.

I know I am demanding a lot....but I am after all, hpowders.


----------



## PetrB

zombywoof said:


> On a thread on another site, I saw someone (supposedly a conductor) post that a conductor should "optimally...have experience playing EVERY instrument in the orchestra".
> 
> Is it actually common (or even realistic/possible) for a conductor to have (meaningful) experience playing EVERY orchestral instrument??
> 
> I am relatively new to classical music, but this seems like quite a bold claim to me - I'm genuinely curious to hear what you all think.


A very few conductors have had this ability. Paul Hindemith was one, being able to pick up virtually any orchestral instrument, band, woodwind, string, and play it to a professional level. The ability is rare, and not a requirement for conductors.

What is completely necessary for both composer and conductor is a deep familiarity with the instruments, their physical capacities and limits, and what exactly is demanded of the player to render any part -- this includes what is demanded of the player of embouchure, air control, fingering, bowing, etc. All composers and conductors fully study orchestration, which includes much of this, and the best texts, as taught by the best instructors, are still not complete -- ergo the frequent and repeatedly given advice of _regularly directly consulting with competent players._

Conductors, to complete a master's degree, are required to sight-read at the piano from the score of a piece they have never seen or heard, and at a glance play a viable reduction of that full symphonic score at the keyboard -- this includes their making any and all necessary transpositions for those instruments written 'transposed' (the written note in the part is not the concert pitch heard.) This, and knowing enough about the actual technicalities of playing the instruments is all part of a conductor's skills, a_part_ from interpretation and actual podium technique.

Boulez, until his later years, conducted entire programs, including long and complex modern and contemporary pieces, and, for example, Mahler, from memory, not relying upon a score.

George Szell was a pianist of concert capability and had in memory the piano part to virtually each and every common practice period bit of repertoire; piano concerti as well as the accompaniments to lieder and chansons, instrumental sonatas with piano accompaniment, chamber works, etc.

Dimitri Mitropoulos, conducting rehearsals of Alban Berg's suite for _Lulu,_ which he had just learned within the previous week or two, also conducted that from memory, was another who could as easily solo in a Prokofiev piano concerto as conduct one.

Without the truly extraordinary feats of skill already mentioned, the 'basic' skill set required of a conductor is already in the realm, I think, of "extraordinary."


----------



## Piwikiwi

hpowders said:


> What the conductor needs is perfect pitch and to be able to hear one wrong note played by one musician among 100.


You mean good relative pitch


----------

