orchestra conductors...what's the point?

[charade]

...the players are reading sheet music and surely must be familar with the pieces...so what's the deal?...style?

[Lobsang]

He synchronises everyone. If they were to just read their sheet music it wouldn't take long for them all to be out of synch and making a noise like a tin-cat fight.

[The Weak Force]

Pace and interpretation.

There has to be a leader who interprets the music, decides how fast each passage will go, and coordinates the orchestra accordingly; imagine trying to play with twenty to several hundred musicians, each of whom has his/her own ideas about the tempo and interpretation.

[RayMan]

I've often wondered, too, about orchestra conductors, and I hope my question isn't too off the point: What's the big deal about the conductors? Often, the conductor is world famous, and prominently featured as the most important part of an orchestra. Why? I understand the role a conductor plays in keeping everyone in sync. But don't the instrument players in the orchestra play a bigger role than the conductor? Isn't the conductor little more than a human metronome? Why is the conductor such a big deal?

[Reader99]

The conductor has a lot to say about how the musicians actually perform, maybe more obviously in rehearsal than during the actual public performance. He not only sets the tempo--and different conductors have different preferences regarding the same music--but decides when and at what volume to bring in and phase out the various sections of instruments. Some conductors are especially fond of prominent brass, others might emphasize the violins or the cellos in the same piece of music. The written score leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and the conductor is the guy who gets to do the interpreting.

Here's a concert review (not a very positive one) which specifically discusses choices made by the conductor:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38589-2004Feb13.html

[Reader99]

Previous link requires registration. Sorry.

These will serve as well:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/proms2003/story/0,13367,1005039,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/proms2003/story/0,13367,1040052,00.html

[Jpeg Jones]

From a purely mechanical standpoint, those of you wondering about the usefulness of a conductor have a point. After all, rock bands don't need a conductor.

In fact, one of the hallmarks of a good conductor is the ability to not interfere when it's not necessary. One of the worst things a conductor can do is to over-conduct.

But the type of music orchestras generally play are much more complicated than a simple march, for example. As said before, scores of players simply cannot coordinate subtle tempo changes or complicated meter changes as a cohesive unit without the guidance of a conductor.

Now to the "music" aspect. A highly skilled conductor can convey the whole range of human emotion with his hands and body at the same time as simple timekeeping. This is what is valued in a conductor. Essentially, the orchestra becomes a single instrument that is played by the conductor. Conductors must be perfectly clear and deliberate in their guidance of the interpretive aspects of a piece.

Rehearsal technique is also important. Especially in less mature groups, someone has to correct problems in an efficient and effective way. Time is money. A smart conductor knows exactly what to fix and how to fix it.

I don't know the upper limit on the number of players that can manage without a conductor. Part of it depends on the piece, of course. The largest group I can remember playing with unconducted was probably the Mendelssohn Octet (8 string players.) What happens in this type of situation is actually somewhat similar to a conductor, with the duties being shared among various players at different times. Generally, the person with the smallest note values (16ths, for example, when everyone else is playing eighths) will be in control of tempo.

[Nametag]

An orchestra conductor doesn't just walk up and start waving his baton -- if that was the whole job, musicians would be better served by a metronome. The conductor leads the orchestra during practice; he familiarizes them with his interpretation of the piece: how fast, how loud, how swift the crescendo will be; whether the violins or the woodwinds will dominate a given passage. Sure, the score says "allegro," but exactly what tempo does that mean? The conductor decides. During the performance he keeps time, yes, but he also makes sure that the tympani comes in at exactly the right moment, that the violins enter in unison, that the whole enterprise works as a unit.

The great conductors do more than this. The music score is only the bare bones of how a piece will sound. Every conductor works with the musicians to flesh out those bones, and a great conductor will inspire them to carry the piece to new heights. He may even rearrange those bones to suit his vision. There's more, but I'm tired.

[Starving Artist]

I've often wondered about this, too. My brother-in-law, who was in band in high school said it was because you often can't hear the other instruments. For example, if you're in the horn section it's likely the other horns are going to drown everything else out. Is this part of it, too?

[bibliophage]

Since the question is about music, I'll move this thread to our arts forum, Cafe Society.

bibliophage
moderator GQ

[aeropl]

I'm guessing that an orchestra with tons of practice playing the same piece will only need a conductor to start them off, and after that they should be fine. Is this generally correct?

[bienville]

I completely get the whole conductor and sheet music thing for large scale orchestral concerts. But, post-rehearsal period, is it really necessary when you're just playing one song with Guns n Roses???

[GorillaMan]

Even with a very familiar piece, each performance is a new interpretation, so the conductor's role is still valid and necessary.

As for backing music for Guns and Roses and the like, I suspect the orchestra would be unable to hear the other musicians properly in order to keep together with them, and the conductor may well have an earpiece feeding him the full mix.

[Uncivil]

From a purely mechanical standpoint, those of you wondering about the usefulness of a conductor have a point. After all, rock bands don't need a conductor.

But the type of music orchestras generally play are much more complicated than a simple march, for example. As said before, scores of players simply cannot coordinate subtle tempo changes or complicated meter changes as a cohesive unit without the guidance of a conductor.


You've got it. To clarify slightly, the reason a rock band doesn't need a conductor is because the rythym section of a band keeps everyone in time, and the music is more simple.

There was in interesting program on UK TV a little while ago - Faking It. They got a punk singer to conduct an orchestra. They had about a month to train him, and the idea was to pass him off as a real conductor in a competition. He did pretty well in the end, although I think most of the judges identified him as the impostor he did fool at least one of them. But it did take him a full month to get anywhere with the orchestra, when he started they just couldn't keep in time. And he was only learning how to conduct a single piece of music.

[Uncivil]

I'm guessing that an orchestra with tons of practice playing the same piece will only need a conductor to start them off, and after that they should be fine. Is this generally correct?

Don't think so no, they really need the conductor to keep them in time. Especially on pieces that fade to almost nothing before starting off again.

[Eureka]

One of the other things to remember is that people, in general,(at least when playing handbells, which isn't exactly the same as an orchestra) associate slow with quiet and fast with loud. This means that someone keeping a consistant beat contributes to people staying together.
Also, in many groups, some of the instrumentalists don't play at all for large stretches of music. Any stretch longer than about 3 measures is very difficult to count and stay together with a group that has kept playing without you. The conductor gives you something to watch and help you stay in rhythm.

Anecdote: In West Lafayette, IN, at least when I lived there, part of the July 4 celebration is a competition among kids for conductor. The song the band plays is Sousa's "Stars and Stripes Forever" , which the band could play in their sleep by ear. They play a long stretch while several judges pick out the 3 or 4 best kid conductors. The kids are each given a chance to conduct a 6 or so measure stretch and then the winner conducts the whole song. The last time I was there, one of the judges gave the winner this hint "Start waving your arms when the music starts and stop when they stop playing". I had to chuckle, because it is supposed to be the other way around, the band following the leader.

[CairaJade]

Originally posted by aeropl
I'm guessing that an orchestra with tons of practice playing the same piece will only need a conductor to start them off, and after that they should be fine. Is this generally correct?
Others have already mentioned the conductor's role during rehearsal. During the performance, one of the roles of the conductor is to indeed keep everyone together in tempo. What you may not realize though, is how many tempo changes most symphonic pieces have. They can't just get up there and start the orchestra off, then take a break until it's over. There are parts when it slows down (ritardando, rallendando), then resumes the previous tempo (a tempo). There are complete time signature changes in the middle of pieces. There are times it may speed up (accelerando). There may be a solo section that ends in a cadenza, where the solist may be very free with the time siganture, and only the conductor can bring the rest of the orchestra back in at the same time. A handful of examples, but unlimited time signature possibilites. Keeping the orchestra together is only a portion of what the conductor does, I just wanted to mention that because no one had addressed it yet.

[Saintly Loser]

The conductor certainly does have a role to play in symphonic music, as many here have pointed out. One can verify this easily by listening to different recordings of the same piece of music, with the same orchestra, conducted by different conductors. Believe me, you will hear the difference.

But (there's always a "but") symphonic music can be performed without a conductor. Classical music fans will certainly be familiar with the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra, a highly regarded orchestra that does not work with a conductor. They're fantastic, both on record (which is probably easier to get away with) and in concert.

[tdn]

Others have already mentioned the conductor's role during rehearsal. During the performance, one of the roles of the conductor is to indeed keep everyone together in tempo. What you may not realize though, is how many tempo changes most symphonic pieces have. They can't just get up there and start the orchestra off, then take a break until it's over. There are parts when it slows down (ritardando, rallendando), then resumes the previous tempo (a tempo). There are complete time signature changes in the middle of pieces. There are times it may speed up (accelerando). There may be a solo section that ends in a cadenza, where the solist may be very free with the time siganture, and only the conductor can bring the rest of the orchestra back in at the same time. A handful of examples, but unlimited time signature possibilites. Keeping the orchestra together is only a portion of what the conductor does, I just wanted to mention that because no one had addressed it yet.

Good post.

Another point is that the conductor generally shapes the music. There are thousands of unwritten accents, crescendos, rallentandos, etc. that a good conductor can convey with subtle gestures.

As to the point of rehearsal time = money, yes, a simple downward push of the left hand, for example, is much more efficient than stopping the orchestra and explaining "put an accent, but not a really big one, on the 3rd beat of measure 237."

Of course, this is all in theory. As I am a real conductor, I can tell you what the job actually involves:

I am a referee.
I am the collector of ulcers.
I spend many hundreds of hours reading scores, only to be told I'm nothing more than a metronome in a tux.
I maintain an account at Mr. Tux.
When things go right, I take no credit.
When things go wrong, I take the blame.
I have spent many thousands of hours refining the most subtle sign language ever invented. Only I have seen the end result. All others ignore it.
I am under the illusion that dynamics include fff, ff, f, mf, mp, p, pp, and ppp. This is my own personal fantasy. In reality, there are only two. They are fff and ffff.
Chorus members have no eyeballs, according to my best evidence.

and the best description of my job:

Does anyone here play trumpet? I'll pay you a kidney.

[tdn]

I don't know the upper limit on the number of players that can manage without a conductor. Part of it depends on the piece, of course. The largest group I can remember playing with unconducted was probably the Mendelssohn Octet (8 string players.)

Vivaldi's Four Seasons?

Ravel's Bolero?

[GKW]

The conductor is also the showman. Many people in the audience look to him for entertainment and help in understanding a piece. I was at a rehearsal where the conductor told the orchestra members ..."for this part ignore my left hand and arm - that is for the audience. You watch the right." His use of the left was much more exaggerated and flamboyant.

[tdn]

The conductor is also the showman. Many people in the audience look to him for entertainment and help in understanding a piece. I was at a rehearsal where the conductor told the orchestra members ..."for this part ignore my left hand and arm - that is for the audience. You watch the right." His use of the left was much more exaggerated and flamboyant.

Yes, but such people can hardly be called conductors. "Charletans" might be a better word.

[Zebra]

Rock Bands do have conductors, when they need them.

An example is Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band playing born to run. At one point the tempo stops and the band holds a chord for a while till Bruce counts them back in. (ONE TWO THREE FOUR! The highways jammed...)

Watch a live performance and you will see someone in the band leading the others through little sections of the music.

Then there is the sound engineer.

He is also doing one of the jobs of the conductor.

As Starving Artists asked the proper balance of volume of the various sections is constantly being adjusted by the conductor. With a rock band you have a the tech guy at the sound board adjusting the levels of the instruments. Usually set before the show but he can make adjustments on the fly if necessary.

Whenever two of more musicians play together someone will 'conduct' through any sort of tempo change. Maybe the 1st violin will nod his head or the pianist with get everyone though it or the lead guitar will do something to show where the next downbeat is going to be.



But Bienville asks



I completely get the whole conductor and sheet music thing for large scale orchestral concerts. But, post-rehearsal period, is it really necessary when you're just playing one song with Guns n Roses???

Yes, I'm sure the musicians union insisted that a conductor be there.


Now a great story about one of the greatest conductors of all time Toscanini.

He took his orchestra on a nation wide train tours. He was pretty famous for his temper and one day the second bassoonist was mortified to see that his instrument was damaged and that his low E Flat (IIRC) key was damaged. Since they were on the road, there wasn't time or qualified people to fix it. Terrified he told Toscanini about the damage to his instrument. Toscanini thought for a moment and said 'Don't worry, you don't have any low E Flats one the pieces we're playing today'.

In short the conductor knows the music. They know the entire piece. The various people in the orchestra may know their part but making all those parts add up requires a conductor.

[av8rmike]

I'm guessing that an orchestra with tons of practice playing the same piece will only need a conductor to start them off, and after that they should be fine. Is this generally correct?
Actally, aeropl, you're not too far off. LMM has already mentioned the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra (http://www.orpheusnyc.com), which is sort of a "music direction by committee." I've never seen one of their performances, but I wouldn't doubt they still require their concertmaster (an elected position, BTW) to start at the same time.

I did have the pleasure of watching the New York Philharmonic perform on TV for outgoing director Kurt Masur's birthday celebration. To open the concert, the orchestra performed Leonard Bernstein's Overture to Candide, as an memorial to the composer and former music director, without a conductor. In that performance, the concertmaster, Glenn Dicterow, simply started the group himself and sat down. Candide is a rhythmically complex piece with some odd time signatures, but this is the New York Philharmonic we're talking about.

[lissener]

Without a conductor, a piece of music performed by, say, 100 musicians would sound like a piece of music performed by . . . 100 musicians. With a conductor--a good conductor--an orchestra sounds like a single coherent unit.

If you listen to a single piece, as conducted by several different conductors, you will notice huge differences in the piece. It's those differences that make the conductor an artist, and not just a highly paid metronome.

A violinist plays a violin; a conductor plays the entire orchestra.

[Kizarvexius]

You might make a comparison between a conductor and the coach of a basketball team. Yes, each player out on the floor is highly skilled and knows damned well how to play the game. But no matter how good your players are, a good coach is crucial when you're aiming to win in a real competition. A coach has the power to call the shots, to have things done his way, to bring all the egos into line. He spots potential problems that the individual players might not be able to see from their limited perspective, and adjusts things as needed. A conductor who does nothing more than wave a stick is like a coach who send his team onto the floor with no instructions.

It is also quite true that musicians sitting in different sections of the orchestra may have a difficult time hearing one another. This is why they are supposed to count with the tempo instead of listening for their cues, and watch the conductor. The conductor is standing at the focal point for all of the sounds being made, and is in the best position (literally) to hear whether any section or individual is out of tempo or off key. There are some pieces of music, though, for which other members of the orchestra take over the leadership role – most notably concertos in which some individual instrument is the centerpiece. So an orchestra playing Rachmaninoff’s Piano Concerto No. 2 would watch the conductor only when the piano is silent, then take their cues from the piano for the rest of the piece.

[kunilou]

The Orpheus Chamber notwithstanding, the conductor plays a huge role in managing egos.

By the time a musician is symphony caliber, he or she has a pretty good idea of how to play a given piece. Unfortunately, that may not agree with any other musician's idea of how to play that same piece.

Remember USA for Africa's recording of "We Are the World" and Quincy Jones' famous order, "Check your egos at the door"? A conductor has to balance the musical skills (and egos) of the entire ensemble to prevent "creative chaos."

[Dragonblink]

Actors don't need a director to tell them what to say and when to get on and off the stage either -- that's all in the script. But the director makes crucial decisions about how stuff will be played, where people get on and off the stage, etc etc.

I am under the illusion that dynamics include fff, ff, f, mf, mp, p, pp, and ppp. This is my own personal fantasy. In reality, there are only two. They are fff and ffff.

Are you sure you're not missing a few issimos? :D

[BrotherCadfael]

Musical egos can indeed be huge, and individual musicians often have very strong opinions about the how a work should be performed. It is not surprising, therefore, that many conductors tend to be martinets, demanding total obedience, and having little tolerance for dissent. Thus, there is frequently little love lost between the conductor and the musicians.

This is reflected in the many, many jokes made about conductors:



What is the difference between an orchestra and a bull?

On a bull, the horns are in front and the asshole is in the back.



What is the ideal weight for a conductor?

Oh, about seven pounds, counting the urn.



A person called the main office of an orchestra one day and asked to speak to the conductor. He was told that the conductor had died unexpectedly that morning. He hung up. A few minutes later, he called again, asked the same question, and received the same response. A few minutes later he called again. And again. And again.

Finally, the receptionist asked why he kept calling back for the conductor. Hadn't he heard the conductor was dead?

"I know", said the man, "but I just love to hear you say it."

[Alto]

I've sung with some excellent conductors (and a few not so good), and I know I have learned a lot from the good ones--both about technique and about the music. With a complicated work--say the Missa Solemnis--I could (probably) have learned all the notes by myself and sung them loud and soft at the right moments, but I didn't really "get" the piece. I hadn't given much thought to why parts were the way they were, how they were interacting with other parts, what kind of effect a phrase could have, how to make difficult or strange parts work, things like that. I would have had to study the score for months just to get the piece as a whole with all the lines played by every instrument or voice into my head, and even then I wouldn't have known how to shape it. I'm always amazed at the depth of familiarity and understanding a good conductor has of a piece by the time rehearsals start.

[Nanook]

This question perfectly demonstrates why American music education is a disaster.

[klockwerk]

This question perfectly demonstrates why American music education is a disaster.

It's sad isn't it?

But he asked, and thanks to the SD, he's getting some great answers, and others are learning as well. I was quite shocked at first when I heard some people saying that orchestra should not need a conductor (in their opinions), claiming that rock bands and the like didn't need them, so why would anyone else need them? I realized that there are probably a lot of people who don't understand this, and I'm glad this topic came up so things could be clarified.

Does an orchestra absolutely need a conductor? No. But it certainly helps in many different ways. I play in a wind band and an orchestra, and believe me, I don't know where we'd be without our conductors. Don't be so quick to judge, some people spend years studying to become conductors too, in fact, the director of concert bands here spend years and years (and plenty of cash) getting his Doctorate degree in the practice.

[Eonwe]

I highly recommend going to the library or somehow getting ahold of Leonard Bernstein's Young People's Concerts (http://www.leonardbernstein.com/studio/element2.asp?FeatID=5&AssetID=24), which are by no means only for the young.

While I don't know that he ever addresses directly the issue of the conductor (I haven't seen all of them), it certainly gives one an oportunity to see a master conductor at work with an orchestra in a very intimate way.

People have also made the excellent point that even in small ensembles of all types (classical, jazz, rock), there is generally one person (or the role may rotate) who 'conducts', or who the other musicians look to for cues and such.

Working most often with rock bands, I can say that I definitely 'conduct' as well as play, using my body, my voice, my facial expressions, who I choose to look at at a given time, even how I use my hands on the keyboard. Group music rarely just comes together without musical leadership.

[Club 33]

This question perfectly demonstrates why American music education is a disaster.

Not to mention the rest of our education system but that's another thread.

The sad thing is that unless music is incredibly simplistic, it just isn't popular. And the people that enjoy this music don't even realize how dumbed down it is. Given the most rudimental understanding of music, people become bored with the crap that is put in our faces and tend to gravitate towards music that is a bit deeper and intellectual. Learning about music also has been proven to improve understanding of mathematics, which is all the more reason that it should hold more importance in our school systems.

Hopefully, a thread like this might cause someone to listen a little more carefully to a classical piece and try to hear all of the layers and how they are interacting. The conductor's role in the process is pretty darn important.

[AwSnappity]

Generally, the person with the smallest note values (16ths, for example, when everyone else is playing eighths) will be in control of tempo.
That's not right. The person who keeps the beat is generally the person with the steadiest beat (be it repeated quarters, eighths, whatever) and/or the slowest notes. A lot of players have the tendency to rush the fast notes like mad.



Shout out to Eureka: I used to live in WL too!

[Marathon]

I did have the pleasure of watching the New York Philharmonic perform on TV for outgoing director Kurt Masur's birthday celebration. To open the concert, the orchestra performed Leonard Bernstein's Overture to Candide, as an memorial to the composer and former music director, without a conductor. In that performance, the concertmaster, Glenn Dicterow, simply started the group himself and sat down. Candide is a rhythmically complex piece with some odd time signatures, but this is the New York Philharmonic we're talking about.

The Candide overture does have a few tricky time changes, but the pulse doesn't really change (except for that one point where there's a pause before the last minute and a half or so of the piece). As long as the players know how to listen and can keep an inner beat (both qualities which should be no less than expected of a player in a high-profile orchestra like the NYP), this overture isn't that hard to pull off without a conductor.

The one time I've played that overture, we in the orchestra were all better served *not* to watch the conductor, as he threatened to ruin the whole thing. It's a shame when conductors rely on the orchestra for the beat, instead of the other way around!

[Marathon]

Oh, and I forgot. For tdn: Would you care to name a few conductors in particular that you respect, idolize, enjoy, and/or have been influenced by?

[Kizarvexius]

One of the reasons that operatic singers as a class of people have such a reputation for overblown egos is that in performance, a soloist has complete freedom. The conductor has to watch them, adjust to any changes in tempo that they decide to throw in on the spot, and keep the orchestra together. Having the privilege of lording it over the God-on-earth conductor will go to just about anyone’s head, but it really is the bed way to handle it.

A couple of years ago, the gentleman my Gilbert & Sullivan company had hired to conduct the orchestra during our performances of The Mikado was forced to withdraw his services during the second week of the show. So our vocal director Jim stepped in as a guest conductor. And completely disregarded the unwritten rule that the vocalists take their own lead during solos. His idea of the proper tempi were mystifying – some way too fast and others waaaay too slow. And it practically took a court order to get the guy to cooperate and let us choose our own pace. My ex was singing the role of Yum-Yum (the female lead), and Jim was conducting the orchestra at a very brisk pace through her big solo number, which is a SLOW song. When the members of the orchestra realized that they had finished the first verse about twenty seconds before the soloist, they (as a group) disregarded the conductor, waiting for her to catch up, then played at her pace. Jim was furious but our director finally ordered him to stop being such a horse’s ass or we’d be performing to a piano the next night and he’d be out on his ear.

That was Jim’s last year with our company.

[Zebra]

I've always liked this piece (http://www.harrogateband.org/humour40.htm) about orchestra's by Garrison Keillor.