# Why do others conduct after the composer conducts?



## voyaging (Jul 25, 2009)

Why do other conductors conduct a composition after a composer conducts it himself for a recording in the modern era? For example, after Stravinsky's Rite of Spring which he conducted and recorded, what was the point of making any future recordings? The composer obviously has the best capability to conduct the song closest to the way he intended it to be performed.

Is it simply a matter of sound quality? The recording quality wasn't as good back in that year as it is now. If it is just a matter of sound quality, if we ever reach a point in our technology where there is no difference between the recording and a live performance, would the composer's conducting of his piece be the single and final recording?


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

> The composer obviously has the best capability to conduct the song closest to the way he intended it to be performed.


Nope. First of all, conductors are conductors, and composers are composers. It's very rare that a composer is a brilliant conductor and vice versa. Also, if, for example, Beethoven would suddenly rise from the grave to conduct and record his Symphonies, and for some reason I wouldn't really like that record - I won't care that it's the composer himself conducting it. Music is very open to interpretations and while the composer has a somewhat unique view of his piece, it doesn't automatically say that his view is the only one. There are no "ultimate" and correct interpretations, they're all different in their own way.


----------



## voyaging (Jul 25, 2009)

nickgray said:


> Nope. First of all, conductors are conductors, and composers are composers. It's very rare that a composer is a brilliant conductor and vice versa. Also, if, for example, Beethoven would suddenly rise from the grave to conduct and record his Symphonies, and for some reason I wouldn't really like that record - I won't care that it's the composer himself conducting it. Music is very open to interpretations and while the composer has a somewhat unique view of his piece, it doesn't automatically say that his view is the only one. There are no "ultimate" and correct interpretations, they're all different in their own way.


Well in the sense that a composition is a creative work by the composer to get a certain idea across, going through a different conductor is kind of like going through a middleman to sell a product. Some of the profit is lost.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

voyaging said:


> ...after Stravinsky's Rite of Spring which he conducted and recorded, what was the point of making any future recordings? The composer obviously has the best capability to conduct the [piece] closest to the way he intended it to be performed.


To begin with, I really was a fan of the Stravinsky recordings- I had a two-platter set, back in the age of vinyl.

But (having said that) the idea that a composer may have the best vision of their work should be performed doesn't necessarily translate into an ability to effectuate that vision.

Then, of course, who's to say that the composer even has the last word on his own creation? There's some anecdote somewhere that Rachmaninoff felt eclipsed by Horowitz upon hearing Horowitz' renditions of Rach's Piano Concertos.

Point taken on the "newer" vs. "older" recording issue. One more reflection to add, though- and that's the musicianship of the performers involved. To return to our Stravinsky example, one could sensibly claim that they'd rather hear the Concertgebouw than the Columbia Symphony Orchestra...


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

voyaging said:


> Well in the sense that a composition is a creative work by the composer to get a certain idea across, going through a different conductor is kind of like going through a middleman to sell a product. Some of the profit is lost.


Middleman, huh? Score -> conductor, then it's played through the orchestra, then (let's take a recorded music example) it's recorded - microphones, mixer, pre-amps, engineers, then mixed, then mastered, then played on a particular piece of equipment with a certain sound, and only then you hear the piece. And your perception of it depends on the mood, on your experience in music, on how much classical and other music have you listened, on your overall type of character, etc., etc. There are lots of middleman.

But my main point is - music is open to interpretation. And an interpretation by composer himself isn't automatically becomes the best one. What, for example, if one prefers a somewhat "edgy" scherzo in the symphony N, even if the composer didn't intend that?


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

nickgray said:


> Middleman, huh? Score -> conductor, then it's played through the orchestra, then (let's take a recorded music example) it's recorded - microphones, mixer, pre-amps, engineers, then mixed, then mastered, then played on a particular piece of equipment with a certain sound, and only then you hear the piece. And your perception of it depends on the mood, on your experience in music, on how much classical and other music have you listened, on your overall type of character, etc., etc. There are lots of middleman.
> 
> But my main point is - music is open to interpretation. And an interpretation by composer himself isn't automatically becomes the best one. What, for example, if one prefers a somewhat "edgy" scherzo in the symphony N, even if the composer didn't intend that?


Nick, I'm just following you with agreement!

As a composer myself, once the composing is done, I don't consider it my music anymore (unless I take it in for revisions). It is the performers work, then the audiences. I could perhaps conduct, and might even do a very good job, but that doesn't mean it will be the best version.

At least, I certainly hope not!

This is the tradition - the way it has been built. Classical music for the most part is cooperative art.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

And besides, truly great works of art have so many dimensions to them that no one interpretation--no, not even the composer's own--can quite encompass all of them.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

This is a good topic that's not discussed much.

Like what has been said already, a composer conducting his own composition doesn't always mean that it's going to be the final say. Each conductor has his own interpretation of a work. A composer does have an insider's knowledge of piece obviously, but this certainly doesn't mean that it's the "definitive" version. There are no definitive versions of a composition.

A good example would be go listen to Aaron Copland's conducting of his "Applachian Spring," then go listen to Bernstein's or Michael Tilson Thomas' take on the piece. It's like night and day, which is a good thing. This reason alone is why I have acquired so many different versions of the same piece. The same conductor can even change their approach as they get older. A good example of this could be Abbado's Mahler recordings or Gunter Wand's Bruckner recordings. Both conductors approaches have grown with that composer over time. We get older we learn new things, we bring new naunces to a piece.

There are so many reasons why I think it's important to acquire as many versions as you can of a piece you love so much, because every conductor, if they show a passion for the composer, will bring a fresh perspective and will enable you to love that piece all over again.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well, it's true there have been some great recordings done by composers of their own works, besides Stravinsky, I can think of Tippett, Walton & Hindemith. & we all know that many conductors actually came from a background of composing, like Furtwangler, Dorati & Bernstein. But the bottom line is what others have said before, conductors - whether they were composers or not - bring different insights into the music which they have studied and have an in-depth knowledge of.

Of course, it helps if they have had an association with the composer, like Antoni Wit with Penderecki, Robert Craft with Stravinsky, Yevgeny Mavrinsky with Shostakovich. But this is just an added bonus, it certainly isn't mandatory for a conductor to know the composer for a good recording to result. In any case, as others have pointed out above, most of the classical composers being recorded today died long ago...


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

NEVER assume the composer really got what he wanted when he conducted a recording.

dj


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

david johnson said:


> NEVER assume the composer really got what he wanted when he conducted a recording.
> 
> dj


Even if he did it doesn't mean that the end result can't be bettered by another conductor who may well be better at this task vis-a-vis the composer in question.

I think that the issue which is really bugging "voyaging" is set out in his reply at post #3 where he says:



voyaging said:


> Well in the sense that a composition is a creative work by the composer to get a certain idea across, going through a different conductor is kind of like going through a middleman to sell a product. Some of the profit is lost.


The notion that going through a middleman involves a loss of "profit" to the seller is often incorrect. "Middlemen" exist in all spheres of activity, and their involvement in the production "chain" doesn't usually result in loss of profit. On the contrary, increased welfare all round usually results from the process by which every participant specialises in that activity in which they have a comparative advantage.

To take another example, suppose a brilliant composer composed a marvellous cello sonata, and happened to be able to play the cello quite well. This doesn't mean that a more famous Cellist couldn't do a far better job of that piece than the composer might achieve if he/she played the cello part.

It's all a matter of "horses for courses", to use the English saying.


----------

