Conducting...

Hello,
Is a conductor a good thing?

What makes a good conductor?

Discuss. I just started lessons, lol.

i don't know if this is neccesarily off topic, but... when you have a large ensemble, someone to look to for tempo, dynamics, cues, etc... is almost always necessary. They also tie the ensemble together most of the time. I don't know why, but the techniques of conductors seems to bring out different sounds in large ensembles. So yeah, I'm pretty sure conductors are a good thing. I guess clarity of intention should be the most vital skill of a conductor. Good luck in lessons!

Conductors are so important for the reasons listed above. It also gives a face to the orchestra, thats always a good thing. Ive been thinking about studying conducting lately.

i don't know if this is neccesarily off topic, but... when you have a large ensemble, someone to look to for tempo, dynamics, cues, etc... is almost always necessary.

The Vienna Phil don't need a conductor for the above reasons. They need a conductor so that the interpretation is coming from one person rather than 200. So that they play a certain note at a certain dynamic rather than 200 peoples interpretation of dynamic. It is get get the piece into one persons idea (though they all have input), rather than chaos of ideas.

I truly and honestly believe that sometimes a conductor may Over exaggerate a cue or something because he/she is just musicgasmly excited or just to impress the audience. The great Victor Borge, a comedian, would conduct entire pieces hilariously, he would hold the orchestra until he'd find a "missing" page to the conductor's score or break instruments in the orchestra (violins) by "accident".

Simon Rattle is another that may do simply ridiculous cues for instruments. He really enjoys his conducting.

Overall though, yes a conductor is a good thing, and what I believe makes a good conductor is one who can sucessfully execute the orchestra throughout a concert and have fun at the same time...no one likes a conductor with puny little cues or tiny virtually invisible time signature patterns.


Goodluck with lessons violinfiddler!

Originally Posted by Romanticist

I truly and honestly believe that sometimes a conductor may Over exaggerate a cue or something because he/she is just musicgasmly excited or just to impress the audience. The great Victor Borge, a comedian, would conduct entire pieces hilariously, he would hold the orchestra until he'd find a "missing" page to the conductor's score or break instruments in the orchestra (violins) by "accident".

Simon Rattle is another that may do simply ridiculous cues for instruments. He really enjoys his conducting.

Overall though, yes a conductor is a good thing, and what I believe makes a good conductor is one who can sucessfully execute the orchestra throughout a concert and have fun at the same time...no one likes a conductor with puny little cues or tiny virtually invisible time signature patterns.


Goodluck with lessons violinfiddler!

I agree, conductors should make ridiculous gestures at all times and appear completely immature and out of control on the podium.

Yeah, that isn't annoying or distracting at all. But hey, as long as the bandos like it....

Originally Posted by gms5287

I agree, conductors should make ridiculous gestures at all times and appear completely immature and out of control on the podium.

Yeah, that isn't annoying or distracting at all. But hey, as long as the bandos like it....

haha...but on the other hand, there is choir conducting. Haha, it's so good to have a passionate conductor in ANY form of group that requires cues/tempo control/dynamic swells etc...and even more so, a conductor that can pull faces to keep the spirits of their orchestra/group up is one i love. The reason i mentioned choirs though, is that i have had my experiences in choir where the conductor has pulled a face so weird that i couldnt sing the song as i was laughing so hard. Its a good thing it wasn't a professional concert haha, but yes...it makes me not think about mistakes i may make throughout, and also a conductor seems to be one who helps with 'mind blanks'.

Conducting skills are always good for composers You have to practice your aural skills as well as your communication skills, both of which are really really important for composers (the latter one especially in rehearsals where you will be present). Also, being a composer is always a plus for a conductor. So yeah, go for it

As for what makes a good conductor, well, I guess you have to be able to hear the piece in your mind as you want it, be able to communicate what you want to the players, have a really good sense of rhythm (and a good ear too, to pick up the mistakes), be confident in front of both the performers and the audience, and, well, enjoy what you're doing (practice too )

Originally Posted by Yagan Kiely

The Vienna Phil don't need a conductor for the above reasons. They need a conductor so that the interpretation is coming from one person rather than 200. So that they play a certain note at a certain dynamic rather than 200 peoples interpretation of dynamic. It is get get the piece into one persons idea (though they all have input), rather than chaos of ideas.

I never thought of conducting in that light...but it does make a lot of(obvious) sense.

Originally Posted by Romanticist

The great Victor Borge, a comedian, would conduct entire pieces hilariously, he would hold the orchestra until he'd find a "missing" page to the conductor's score or break instruments in the orchestra (violins) by "accident".

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?