Conducting...

Originally Posted by EnigmusJ4

You were saying this as an example of "over the top" conducting, no? Well, as you said, Mr. Borge was a comedian and did these things not for the musical interpretation, but for the audience to laugh at the absurdity. Rattle, on the other hand, was serious. How are you comparing a comedian with a serious conductor?

I'm not comparing them, I am showing examples of people who conduct out of the norm...whether one is serious or one isn't.

A conductor's job is to se the over-all picture of the music he is conducting.

An orchestral musician's job is to play the notes in front of him.
Very few orchestral musicians actually have a full understanding of all parts of a symphonic work. (notice I said "very few" not "none")

Anyone who thinks all a conductor does is beat time, or dictate tempos and dynamics, does not understand what it is a conductor does. There's a LOT more involved.

A conductor hears the music from a different perspective than an orchestral player who is in the middle of a section.

The conductor might decide to bring out specific details that that single oboist might not have thought of bringing out since he's just in the middle of a bunch of other woodwinds. Or the second clarinet part, or a fourth horn part....

In something modern if the piece is very complex or has lots of moments where entrances are needed then you can have a conductor even if it's 5 or 6 instruments, sometimes less.

The same piece with different musicians may not need a conductor though, sometimes. So it really depends, when writing something for chamber ensemble, considering a conductor is not a bad idea if there's a high probability that a lot of rehearsal time is going to go out the window in getting the instruments to actually play together properly. A conductor helps streamline this greatly.

In some cases like the above a conductor can be more of an organizational need than someone who gives any sort of interpretation. Specially if he's directing solo musicians~

I saw a conductor conduct a quintet before

Originally Posted by maelstromtempest

someone to look to for tempo, dynamics, cues, etc... !

Especially for youth / ammature orchestras, but remember, not all orchestras require this, look at videos of Vallery Gergiev and the LSO, (one of the worlds best conductors). Professional orchestras need more work on phrasing and the overall sound. Conductors are also really important to rehearse orchestras.

Originally Posted by Romanticist

I saw a conductor conduct a quintet before

I've seen a conductor conduct a soprano and piano only before. It was more of a broadcast rehearsal though - an opera rehearsal.

Originally Posted by Romanticist

I saw a conductor conduct a quintet before

I'm conducting my most recent (completed) piece, which is a sextet. The reason for that is that it would be really hard to do otherwise, especially without a year or so of rehearsals.

Originally Posted by Jamie Whitmarsh

I'm conducting my most recent (completed) piece, which is a sextet. The reason for that is that it would be really hard to do otherwise, especially without a year or so of rehearsals.

Which piece if you don't mind my asking?

Insights into Transience for Chamber Ensemble


I only recently finished it, and I haven't posted the finished version cause I'm not super happy with it yet, but I can't keep changing it because the performance is this Friday. It's not mega difficult, but there are some funky rhythms and time signatures that having a conductor makes everything better.

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.