Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Are Orchestral Conductors Superfluous?


Recommended Posts

A very odd article claiming orchestras can do without conductors. Ms Ibbotson is a violinist (I did a Google search) and writes articles usually, but not exclusively, about music for The Guardian, though she isn’t listed as one of their music critics.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...ductors-pay-cut

I find this a very odd piece as I never thought any orchestral player would ever argue against the role of the conductor and for some reason she fails to mention the most important aspect of the conductor’s job: the work done in rehearsals. Opera, where the conductor’s role is most vital isn’t referred to at all. The other argument about whether the maestro is overpaid, I have some sympathy with as the discrepancy in pay between conductor and rank & file musicians is far too wide.

This set me wondering about just who in the music world deserves a huge salary and who doesn’t. The great conductors of the past are long gone and the really good ones around today are few and far between with more and more specializing in a particular type of repertoire, and the only star conductor I can think of as a tip top old-style all-rounder is probably Bernard Haitinck. Anyone have any views on this?

Link to comment
I find this a very odd piece as I never thought any orchestral player would ever argue against the role of the conductor and for some reason she fails to mention the most important aspect of the conductor’s job: the work done in rehearsals. Opera, where the conductor’s role is most vital isn’t referred to at all. The other argument about whether the maestro is overpaid, I have some sympathy with as the discrepancy in pay between conductor and rank & file musicians is far too wide.

This is indeed odd! Strange that a player would say that . I'm not a musician so I can't comment too much on the technical aspect of this but just from my experience I would think that in fact a conductor would be pretty much a necessity. I think your point about rehearsals is a good one.

As far as opera, hmm, I don't see how that would work. Some opera houses still use prompters and I suppose they could give the singers cues based on tempi established in rehearsals but I could see how that could fall apart real fast! And a lot of opera houses have done away with prompter boxes anyway.

And a conductor also can be involved in "building" the orchestra. Maybe James Levine's greatest legacy at the Met Opera is how he has improved the quality of the orchestra's playing. They play well for him and this quality is also evident with other conductors that come in to lead performances. But maybe going back to the point made in the article, it's sometimes said that when say a conductor is thrown in at the last minute, the orchestra manages to play "on their own"

We do have the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra here in NYC which performs without a conductor but even they admit that there are "leadership" roles which are rotated. I imagine that's how they organize rehearsals.

This set me wondering about just who in the music world deserves a huge salary and who doesn’t. The great conductors of the past are long gone and the really good ones around today are few and far between with more and more specializing in a particular type of repertoire, and the only star conductor I can think of as a tip top old-style all-rounder is probably Bernard Haitinck. Anyone have any views on this?

As far a salaries, that's a loaded question, isn't it? But a name conductor will get a salary based on supply and demand. And of course marketing and promotion, ever present in the arts (as elsewhere!) today. We are seeing a huge amount of this kind of promotion here in the US with the arrival of Gustavo Dudamel to take over the reins of the Los Angeles Orchestra. There was an absolute frenzy to get tickets for his "welcome" performances of the Verdi Requiem. He has become an instant "star"

Mashinka, you used the word "odd" in your post twice, I can certainly see why, it seemed a very odd article to me too! But interesting, certainly.

Link to comment

When I studied in a music conservatory as a teen, I had an amazing teacher-(Miss Gema Alicia Alfonso, RIP)-of History of Music. I vividly remember the day when she went on to talk about the post-soviet revolution trend of the "Orchestra without conductor", a new then practice for musicians to play without the guidance of a conductor, feeding off their own energy and drive. This happened during the early 1920s. An orchestra without conductor was viewed as a more democratic, less authoritative way of expression in the post-tsarist Russia. There was even a quote...something like "Just as the government doesn't need a Tsar, the orchestra doesn't need a director" . Pretty interesting, ah...? :FIREdevil:

Link to comment

Personally I think this is little more than sour grapes. Her statement:

"In London, the resident conductor for a major symphony orchestra receives £25,000 per concert. Rank-and-file players, meanwhile, typically earn £107 for a rehearsal and concert."

says it all to me.

Besides without a conductor, who pray tell would decide for any given passage such things as: fast vs slow, loud vs soft, sweet playing or dramtic playing, what the music is attempting to communicate, inspiring the players, and fundamentally be the one who says "No, that's not right" vs "Now you've got it".

I think she has now stumbled on the reason she is only making £107 :FIREdevil:.

Link to comment
When I studied in a music conservatory as a teen, I had an amazing teacher-(Miss Gema Alicia Alfonso, RIP)-of History of Music. I vividly remember the day when she went on to talk about the post-soviet revolution trend of the "Orchestra without conductor", a new then practice for musicians to play without the guidance of a conductor, feeding off their own energy and drive. This happened during the early 1920s. An orchestra without conductor was viewed as a more democratic, less authoritative way of expression in the post-tsarist Russia. There was even a quote...something like "Just as the government doesn't need a Tsar, the orchestra doesn't need a director" . Pretty interesting, ah...? :FIREdevil:

Oh, and also, let me add that I read somewhere that there are musicians trying to revive this trend in Russia, and concerts are being done this way.

Here, an interesting article.

http://www.pko.cz/orchestra_en.asp

Link to comment

Hey, I've got an idea! Let democracy prevail!

Let's have ballets where the dancers (however many chose to show up) mill around a stage or rehearsal hall. Then without a choreographer let them dance. No need to remember any of it either: each independent dancer can express their democratic freedom at the performance by either sticking to what was rehearsed or by inventing some new direction. Why live any longer under the tyranny of some prideful choreographer who does little more than suck the creativity out of the dancers by telling them all the time what they are doing wrong, and forcing them to follow the same steps over and over again. Besides choreographers are paid way too much compared to the dancers. It is the dancers after all that we the paying public see on stage. Forget the choreographer.....who needs them??

Link to comment
Here, an interesting article.

Interesting indeed. There are 2 short quotes I'd like to give from this article that belies this entire concept:

"Prague Chamber Orchestra"

Note the word "Chamber" in their name.

".....orchestra's coordinator passes to the concert master. This is why the players select him very carefully as he gives the whole ensemble's performance the definite expression. At present, the orchestra's concert master is Antonin Hradil."

Welcome to the world of conducting Mr Hradil.

Link to comment
This set me wondering about just who in the music world deserves a huge salary and who doesn’t. The great conductors of the past are long gone and the really good ones around today are few and far between with more and more specializing in a particular type of repertoire, and the only star conductor I can think of as a tip top old-style all-rounder is probably Bernard Haitinck. Anyone have any views on this?

No, I don't think 'really good ones are few and far between', and think that conductors are one thing that have remained excellent. Just as musical performers. As in dance, it's the creators who aren't as compelling and writing music and dance that stirs us in all ways the way they did before. Of course, there's no Franz Liszt scene for even the best pianists, but then there wasn't any time in the 20th century to that degree. Ditto maybe no Toscanini, but there are great conductors, I don't need to name them.

I do think salaries like that seem pretty ridiculous, but I guess I just think 'well, that's life'. TV stars get ludicrous salaries. Better Gergiev, whatever his is, than Suzanne Somers (I choose her because of her going about her need for millions back in the early '3's Company' days, she 'had to keep up', yeah, that's true, but who cares.) Opera singers are seemingly overpaid, but that's part of the scene, the big money, just as with movie stars, the fans want them to be rich.

I believe it's in Leonard Bernstein's very old 'The Joy of Music', going back as far as late 50s or early 60s, there is some talk about how the conductor is not really needed; Bernstein, as always, very eloquent. In a technical sense, this is true of conventional music, in that top-flight players can 'get through it all valiantly'. But it's clear enough that an ear like Levine's is able to draw out what HE must hear. And that's what a great conductor does.

Link to comment

" the wild-eyed maestro's authority " Oh dear, it sounds to me as if perhaps Ms Ibbotson has been called out one too many times for being flat!

I see the financial issue as a universal one that has come into focus with the current economic crises. There is an ever widening gap in compensation between those at the top, and those at the bottom, whether it's Wall Street, or Walmart. Paying a premium for a name that sells tickets is much like the banks that were bailed out justifying the huge bonuses as necessary to keep "top" executives. This situation exists in almost every field, education for example. Some university football coaches salaries and perks are many times that of professors, because winning teams bring in alumni donations.

Never having played in an orchestra, I can't speak to that, but I will say I can't imagine a ballet co. orchestra managing without a conductor. For one thing, the conductor often takes cues from the stage, starting a variation when the dancer is in place, holding at the end for applause etc. Most importantly, tempos are always a huge issue for dancers. Subtle differences are crucial to dancers, more so than musicians. This is what most of the orchestra rehearsal is about. A bad tempo can literally make it physically impossible to do the movement. I guess if symphony orchestras do away with conductors, they will all have to work for dance companies!

Link to comment
Hey, I've got an idea! Let democracy prevail!

Let's have ballets where the dancers (however many chose to show up) mill around a stage or rehearsal hall. Then without a choreographer let them dance. No need to remember any of it either: each independent dancer can express their democratic freedom at the performance by either sticking to what was rehearsed or by inventing some new direction. Why live any longer under the tyranny of some prideful choreographer who does little more than suck the creativity out of the dancers by telling them all the time what they are doing wrong, and forcing them to follow the same steps over and over again. Besides choreographers are paid way too much compared to the dancers. It is the dancers after all that we the paying public see on stage. Forget the choreographer.....who needs them??

Sandy, I saw that performance at a downtown loft concert in the 70s!

Link to comment

Thanks for posting this, Mashinka. You always come up with something interesting. It's going a bit far to suggest the conductor can be dispensed with entirely. Giant pay discrepancies are never a good thing but there are remedies. The Great Conductor Mystique can be overplayed, but there seems to be a human tendency to focus on the individual and not the group.

Link to comment

Orpheus Chamber Orchestra has been doing this conductor-less thing for many years now.

A section leader leads the rehearsals and the responsibilty is rotated througout the different sections.

Of course they are a small group, not a full symphony orchestra but they do manage this even with guest soloists.

So on some level it can be done, but I think pretty limited.

Not in an opera certainly and not in a ballet, although look at it this way, an orchestra without a conductor would be hard put to accomodate performance adjustments to accomodate dancers' needs but would STILL be more flexible than pre-recorded music!

Link to comment

There are some good conductors still out there. No one does Mahler like Abbado -- incredibly textured and nuanced though a bit sweet -- and there is the subtle Vladimir Jurowski with the London Philharmonic and Russian National Orchestra -- whose quiet and intricate hand gestures are endlessly fascinating to watch. It's not the goldenest of ages but pretty good.

Regarding differences in conductors, it was always interesting to hear what Klaus Tennstedt could get out of the New York Philharmonic that others couldn't -- struggling and calming their nervousness and nervyness to get the slow movements just right. The reclusive and demanding Sergiu Celibidache took the student orchestra from Curtis Institute and got an amazing sound from them, played like one person, at Carnegie Hall.

And Los Angeles Philharmonic seems to have been fortunate to have Dudamel succeed Esa Pekka Salonen and Carlo Maria Giulini, all with their own way of doing things.

Regarding the salaries, they're tiny compared to financial experts and bankers -- who have conducted some very bad music lately.

Link to comment
I do think salaries like that seem pretty ridiculous, but I guess I just think 'well, that's life'.

Even Glenn Beck makes $20 million a year!

Beck makes as much as he does because that's what the market will bear in his industry. I agree there is little point to annoyance on the part of the general public there. Orchestral players are in a different position vis-a-vis the conductor. And bloated salaries, fees, and other varieties of 'compensation' don't always have to be taken with a shrug of the shoulders. Musicians do have some collective clout and there is no reason for them not to use it if in fact the pay imbalance is blatantly unfair.

A quote from the article:

So what can be done to debunk the maestro's image? In the US, orchestras are challenging the status quo – the Chicago Symphony has announced a cut in its 2010 fees for guest artists and conductors. Perhaps British orchestras should do that, too. What is to stop musicians challenging, together, a zeitgeist in which it is routine for celebs to receive such large slices of a dwindling cake?

But above all, surely, it is time for our conductors to search their conscience and to follow the admirable lead, say, of Bruce Forsyth.

I wouldn't count on any conscience searching, myself. :)

So on some level it can be done, but I think pretty limited.

I agree.

Thanks for that link, cubanmiamiboy.

Link to comment

From the article:

"The truth is that almost the last place you look as a musician is towards the conductor. There simply isn't time. The notes fly past and the brain is in overdrive, busy processing vast amounts of information on the page. Your entire physical being is occupied, focused on the music and your instrument, the wash of sound, the interweaving voices of your colleagues. The conductor remains, for the most part, in your peripheral vision. Occasionally, with luck, you might spare him a glance. You look up at the pertinent moments – at the start and finish, for example – much in the same way that you would check a speedometer or rear mirror while driving. To assume that the conductor is largely responsible for the music is a bit like believing an air-traffic controller should take most of the credit for a Red Arrows display."

This statement is really surprising. It is hard to believe that the writer is actually a musician. I would like to see a full orchestra play Rite of Spring without a conductor ;)

Link to comment

Always a favorite "fireworks" number for pops concerts, in the overture to Bernstein's Candide the practice has been springing up in the last decade for the conductor to give the first downbeat, conduct a few measures, then casually walk off the stage, leaving the orchestra to negotiate the sometimes-tricky wandering time signatures, and when the piece is finished to walk just as casually to the podium and give the cut-off. I believe that the practice started with the 1988 revival, where the conductor does not enter formally, but hides from the audience, letting the concertmaster kick things off. The cut-off is given by Voltaire/Dr. Pangloss. The conductor assumes control for "Life is Happiness".

Link to comment

I have many musician friends who will complain now and then about conductors in "pick up" orchestras, and say that in desperation they sometimes all agree to take cues from the 1st violinist. Leadership is needed, it is usually the conductor. but if a work around is needed it is not "every person for themselves."

Link to comment

Had she stuck with her original subject, that mediocre house conductors make too much money compared to the players, she might have landed her point better. But then she quickly goes wild and wooly, working her way up to: "As one principal player said: 'The difference between a very good performance and a great one is, more often than not, in the hands of the player. No conductor should take the credit for that.'" NO conductor, really? I doubt she herself actually believes that statement.

Link to comment

Back in the halcyon days of quality television, Andre Previn who at that time was chief conductor with the London Symphony Orchestra; had his own TV series about music. In one programme he looked at the role of the conductor in his own highly amusing way. He started conducting a piece of music and turning to the audience he asked them to watch what would happen if he wasn’t there. So saying, he laid down his baton and went to sit in the audience, all the time making comments such as: “any minute now” or “they can’t hold out much longer”. But of course nothing happened and the musicians simply carried on without mishap through to the end. Previn then went on to explain that the main job of the conductor took place behind the scenes during the gruelling hours of rehearsal and that his presence on the podium was as a kind of aide memoire to the players.

The Orpheus Chamber Orchestra is an excellent ensemble, but it is telling that it doesn’t tackle the really vast orchestral works of say Bruckner or Richard Strauss. As a great lover of the baroque my idol is William Christie, but in many works he leads from the harpsichord, as indeed many of the composers at that time did. He does not however employ that other early conducting technique of banging on the floor with a big stick. As one composer of the period once missed the floor and stabbed himself in the foot, later dying from the injury, I consider Christie very wise to ignore that method of keeping an orchestra together.

Link to comment

I thought I'd add some of Anthony Tommasini's review of Gustavo Dudamel's inaugural concert with the Los Angeles Philharmonic. It touches on some of the points discussed above. The concert consisted of the premiere of John Adams' "City Noir" which Tommasini found "riveting" but whose architecture was a bit elusive, and the Mahler First ...

Like Mr. Dudamel’s Beethoven Ninth at the Hollywood Bowl, the Mahler performance was not what you might expect from a young conductor. For all the sheer energy of the music-making, here was a probing, rigorous and richly characterized interpretation, which Mr. Dudamel conducted from memory ...

In the rustic second movement, he captured the music’s beery, galumphing charm, and milked the Viennese lyricism with the panache of a young Bernstein. He and his players uncovered the slightly obsessive quality of the songful slow movement, with its droning repetition of tonic-dominant bass patterns. And he viscerally conveyed the fits and starts of the mercurial finale, building to a brassy climactic fanfare almost scary in its ecstasy.

The musicians were with him all the way, though the playing was rough at times, with patchy string tone and scrappy execution. For all the important accomplishments, of Mr. Dudamel’s predecessor, Esa-Pekka Salonen, he was not the most gifted orchestra builder. The vitality of the playing was always inspiring. No one wants the slick virtuosity that some orchestras are content with. Still, Mr. Dudamel and his players may have work to do.

... Mr. Dudamel returned to the stage again and again. But he never took a solo bow from the podium. Instead, he stood proudly with his players on stage.

This concert will be broadcast in PBS’s Great Performances series on Oct. 21; check local listings.

Los Angeles Glows ...

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...