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.

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 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....

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 :D

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 :P )

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

The conductor is an integral part of a large ensemble, for reasons many have already stated. The conductor provides an individual interpretation of the piece of music as a whole... it is the job of the conductor to scrutinize the piece he or she is conducting and figure out exactly how he or she would like it to be played. Once they interpret the music, it is then the job of the conductor to use visible (and sometimes subconscious) cues in order to procure the desired sound from the ensemble. The shape of the torso, facial expressions, speed of hand gestures, shape of the hands, fluidity/rigidity of movement, all help control the band and shape it into one ensemble rather than 100 individual players.

The purpose of the conductor is to show you how to play the notes on the page. Tempo and cues are all secondary at the higher level... any decent ensemble can play in time and come in at the right moments (although it's difficult at fermatas). The conductor, in short, shows all of the music that isn't written on the page.

I will be joining a string orchestra in the summer which will have no conductor. We are all experienced players and will use our principle violinist for tempo. The plan is to resolve interpretation issues democratically, and where that fails the 5 section leaders will have the final say. Principle violin, of course, will be in charge and act as a kind of conductor but in essence we will be a bloated string quartet. Should be great fun and I'll let you know how it works!

That String Orchestra will be relatively small - 4 or 5 desks per instrument plus a couple of double basses - so that is what should make the lack of a conductor workable. Any more than 40 or 50 people and you will lose the cohesiveness, and that is when a conductor is needed. Also, a conductor is there to give a single unified interpretation - this string orch I talk of will not be successful if we cannot decide how the is meant to be played.

Conductors are also important for giving rehearsals vibrancy and keeping everyone enthused. A dull rehearsal is not enjoyable, and therefore closes people down to the interpretation and nuances that the conductor should be coaxing from the players they have availible.