# Conductors: The Geniuses behind the Podium



## Notung (Jun 12, 2013)

Just wondering if anyone here thinks that the best conductors can be geniuses in their own right, or if they are simply coordinators?

I like to think of the former (Karajan comes to mind).


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

From personal experience, I can say that I've admired few others more than I have admired conductors. Yes, they are coordinators, but they are musicians like no other. Instrumentalists play 1 or more instruments. Conductors play an ensemble. They envision what they want, and see to it that it happens. The really great conductors not only command influence, but also great respect from their performers. It takes genius to be a great conductor. Consequently, it can be frustrating to be working with one who isn't good on both the musical and people fronts.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The good conductors are geniuses. The mediocre ones are coordinators.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Notung said:


> Just wondering if anyone here thinks that the best conductors can be geniuses in their own right, or if they are simply coordinators?
> 
> I like to think of the former (Karajan comes to mind).


I think condcutors are highly skilled & talented musicians who have to work with other musicians to produce great music. So they have to work with the people they've got and also take in mind things like the acoustic and space in a hall.

But reading opinions of conductors, many of them don't know exactly what it is they do. Its not a perfect art at all, an imprecise science at best. I suppose it probably comes down to gut feeling, or a lot of it does. One can have a technically flawless (or almost!) performance that lacks what one could call soul. On the other hand you can have a performance with mistakes (or say, battling a poor acoustic and having to make modifications for it) and yet it can be seen as a good performance by the conductor, his musicians and the audience as well.

There's an anecdote related about William Walton, the British composer. During a rehearsal for a recording of his choral work Belshazzar's Feast, he took a break while the assistant conductor continued rehearsing the piece. Towards the end of that, Walton came back to resume his spot on the podium, and was amazed by the sound that this assistant was seemingly able to garner with ease from the choir (difficult techincal bits that they where ironing out). After hearing that, Walton asked the choir in an almost desperate tone "Why couldn't you do that for me?"

I read a lot about these types of things. I don't think there's an answer, or a clear answer. Sure there must be workmanlike conductors but given the chances they can do great work. Let's not kid ourselves that those we call the best conductors had or have the best orchestras on the planet at their disposal.

Other thing is, regarding what Huilu's post suggested. Isn't it funny that you got these antisocial bullies that where indeed great conductors, they where able to somehow get a result even though it seems that even doing something simple like serving them a cup of tea could be difficult, let alone playing Beethoven or something! But on the other hand there are these quiet achievers, conductors many of us hear live in our communities or cities (that are not Berlin or Vienna or New York, maybe, but nonetheless have fantastic and dedicated musicians). There are also conductors again, not as famous as a Karajan or Solti, but they where so good at working with people, they could travel anywhere and get good results (Antal Dorati was one of these, so too Eduardo Mata).

So rather than geniuses they're just people. Highly skilled and talented, but people all the same!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Dorati was one of the top conductors of his day. He wasn't second to Solti in any way, shape or form.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Genius or not, a lot of people give conductors short shrift. As Leinsdorf (a curmudgeon and a know-it-all) wrote, it's more than just waving your arms. Quite simply, a good conductor "should" know more about the piece of music than anyone else in the hall: All the notes; what notes the composer actually wrote vs. typos and copyist errors that have been unthinkingly preserved; what notes the composer might not have written because of now nonexistent instrumental limitations (and the judgment to decide whether or not to add them); what all the expressive marks mean in the context of performance practice of the time and of all the composer's other works; how something should be phrased (determined in the strings by bowing and in the winds by breathing); what the appropriate tempo is, the allowable variation based on acoustics and skill level, and what the relationship among all a work's tempi should be . And that's just for starters. Playing "what the composer intended" means all of the above and more -- plus informed musical judgment and communications skills.


----------



## davinci (Oct 11, 2012)

Muti said in an interview with Charlie Rose that a great orchestra makes a conductor's job easy, thus making him appear that much greater. Then there are orchestras where the Conductor has his work cut out for him and his talent and personality needs to bring out his vision of the piece.


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

The word "Genius" is bandied about far too often in modern society in my opinion.

If anyone writes a couple of hit pop tunes - she's a genius.
If anyone likes a couple of films by a director, he is a genius.
etc etc


And when you start hearing people calling Ricky Gervais a genius (and I do find his work funny) you realise that the term Genius has been devalued and come to mean not much at all.

I think Mark Elder (to pick an example) is a superb conductor and he has reinvented the Halle orchestra - rekindled past glories. But surely that is as much down to hard work over the course of years than to some inherent Genius in the man.

As Sid James above says - Highly Skilled - Highly Talented and I'll add Hard Working people.

The term Genius should be limited to the truly deserving - Bach, Beethoven, Einstein, Da Vinci.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

bigshot said:


> Dorati was one of the top conductors of his day. He wasn't second to Solti in any way, shape or form.


Well said - Dorati´s recordings are often among the best available.


----------



## TrevBus (Jun 6, 2013)

There are so many that can be called Genius. However, the One I call, THE GENIUS BEHIND THE PODIUM, was Bernstein. I like to look at him as the Renaissance Man of Music from the 20th century, classical or other wise.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

davinci said:


> Muti said in an interview with Charlie Rose that a great orchestra makes a conductor's job easy, thus making him appear that much greater. Then there are orchestras where the Conductor has his work cut out for him and his talent and personality needs to bring out his vision of the piece.


 It is well known how awkward the New York Philharmonic and the Vienna Philharmonic could be in their attitude to conductors.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

TrevBus said:


> There are so many that can be called Genius. However, the One I call, THE GENIUS BEHIND THE PODIUM, was Bernstein. I like to look at him as the Renaissance Man of Music from the 20th century, classical or other wise.


Fine,you look at him that way--others may well look at him in other ways.


----------



## TrevBus (Jun 6, 2013)

moody said:


> Fine,you look at him that way--others may well look at him in other ways.


What ways would that be? He said rather "sarcastically and tongue placed firmly in Cheek but trying not to be too CHEEKY"


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MagneticGhost said:


> The word "Genius" is bandied about far too often in modern society in my opinion.
> 
> If anyone writes a couple of hit pop tunes - she's a genius.
> If anyone likes a couple of films by a director, he is a genius.
> ...


People like your post, you must be a genius.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Conductors are coordinators
Composers are geniuses


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I totally disagree with some of the opinions expressed here, which try to relegate the role of the performer to a purely technical and mechanical task. Interpreters also have moments of inspiration, of intensity, and, why not, of genius.


----------



## TrevBus (Jun 6, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Conductors are coordinators
> Composers are geniuses


What if they are both? Like say; Bernstein, just for an example.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I think a lot of the downgrading of the importance of performers is due to people being jealous that they have never made the effort to play an instrument and perform. Armchair theory.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

TrevBus said:


> What ways would that be? He said rather "sarcastically and tongue placed firmly in Cheek but trying not to be too CHEEKY"


I found him hysterical in his approach,a poor orchestral disciplinarian, self indulgent and not particularly convincing in his presentations of the great compositions.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

TrevBus said:


> What if they are both? Like say; Bernstein, just for an example.


Bernstein was all genius.

Edit: Ha! I posted this at the same time as Moody's post. Moody is wrong in this instance of course (and of Karajan to a lesser degree of wrongness) Everyone has a blind spot. My own blind spots include Haitink, Brendel and Bartok.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

TrevBus said:


> What if they are both? Like say; Bernstein, just for an example.


Bernstein conducting his own music would be a man coordinating a work of genius. 
Still, it depends on if people think Bernstein was a "genius" composer, or perhaps a "genius" conductor.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Bernstein was a genius person.


----------



## TrevBus (Jun 6, 2013)

moody said:


> I found him hysterical in his approach,a poor orchestral disciplinarian, self indulgent and not particularly convincing in his presentations of the great compositions.[/QUOTE
> OK, then. Now I know how you feel.


----------



## TrevBus (Jun 6, 2013)

bigshot said:


> Bernstein was a genius person.


Big time in agreement here. Just try and not let some posters know that. Kind of came back bit me some.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Bernstein was a genius person.


Are you becoming a groupie ?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

I don't like the use of the word "genius" but there is no doubt at all that certain conductors would usually make all the difference to a performance. Sometimes not to its advantage.
But we can hear in Beecham's Berlioz something wonderful,Bruno Walter's Mahler equally so and therefore talk of coordinators is demonstrably ridiculous.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Aren't conductors "on" the podium, rather than behind it?

Personally I disagree entirely with the assertion that the word genius is over-used, although it is certainly used poorly. Genius doesn't mean "super cleverness", rather it means the inner spark of creative intelligence, that unique factor that all of us have the potential to exploit. Saying they have a genius for conducting, composing, writing pop songs or comedy, whatever it may be, instead acknowledges their talent. Calling someone a genius is a meaningless compliment and obscures the fact that they are a fallible human like the rest of us.

What is genius when it comes to a conductor? Coordination is a major factor in what both good and bad conductors are supposed to do, bringing together all the forces at one time to produce music. Some have the genius of creative insight, to show something new in old music, others have the genius of a medium, able to channel the composer without getting in the way. A genius for bringing the best out of of their performers is just as important, as is finding beauty in overlooked composers.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Karajan used to say that a young conductor does not learn his trade properly by conducting a a first rate orchestra. Rather give him a fourth rate orchestra and see whether he can make it into a second rate orchestra. Of course, he knew that by experience having started in a small provincial opera house.


----------

