|
The conductor of my orchestra recently took some of us for a couple of conducting lessons.
One of the things he told us that has stuck in my mind is that "the easiest group in the world to conduct is the Berlin Philharmonic, while conducting your school band is one of the hardest things you'll ever do as a conductor".
The way I look at this is to say that the more confident the performers are, in themselves, their abilities and in the piece they're playing, the more subtle the role of the conductor becomes. That's not to say that the Berlin Philharmonic does not need a conductor, it merely says that for a conductor to live up to a role conducting them, that person must have an exceptionally good sense of musicality so that they can bring an incredibly good orchestra up to an even higher level for a concert.
I therefore believe that a conductor is necessary, but for reasons that most people outside who aren't exceptionally gifted musicians cannot see. I have to trust a conductor when I see one conducting a good orchestra - that what they are doing has hidden purpose. Despite this, I do not think that good conductors in such roles deserve the exceptionally high pay levels they receive compared to the players they are conducting. (But that is a seperate issue).
Returning to the school band, this is a case where a conductor is equally needed, but in a different way. Sometimes the role of a conductor is just to keep time and there is nothing wrong with that. Whatever is needed to guide a group to the highest level of performance is the role of a conductor, so for a school band, keeping time is enough.
So whatever their role, I believe that a conductor is a necessity in music performance, unless their presence stifles musical expression.
By the way, my conductor also made the point that sometimes even at a high level, keeping time is all a conductor should do (he saw James Levine on DVD doing just that with New York Metripolitan Opera performing Wagner.) Sometimes the role of a conductor is to keep things simple.
|