What is Digg?77 Comments
- travisty17, on 10/26/2009, -3/+19The boy moves stick well and ends up getting his. No surprises here, people.
- trisweb, on 10/26/2009, -2/+17Conducting is really harder than it sounds, trust me - I led my high school orchestra in a few rehearsals once and it was crazy difficult. The whole orchestra is following your every move and expression, so you have to know the music better than the musicians do (including all of their parts, not just one) and show them exactly how you want it played, how it should sound, how each part should balance, how it should progress through the whole piece, and most importantly how it should feel. The difference between a good and great orchestra is in large part due to the conductor.
- brianpeiris, on 10/26/2009, -0/+15Video of him conducting: http://s3.amazonaws.com/rmnvideo/112208_rivas.mov via http://www.rockymountainnews.com/videos/detail/ily ...
Relevant video on TED about the role of a conductor: http://www.ted.com/talks/itay_talgam_lead_like_the ... - kitsua, on 10/26/2009, -4/+17Great, but no video?
And to all the philistines who are downplaying his talent; conducting classical music is one of the most complex and subtle and intellectually demanding creative endeavours it's possible to do. It is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do properly and anyone who knows anything about the subject would never reduce it to 'a guy with a stick' or 'glorified dancing'. - trisweb, on 10/26/2009, -2/+15True in part. An exercise we always used to do was to have the conductor just start the piece and walk out of the room. That forces the musicians to pay more attention to each other, but all kinds of problems in balance, tempo, and control arise. We would never do that in performance; some kind of conductor is necessary, and the good ones will lead with intention and purpose and not just for show.
- TheBifman, on 10/26/2009, -1/+10I've been in over 20 ensembles and taught high-school music. Maybe i hyperboled a little, but my point was that a conductor is nothing without good musicians in front of him/her.
- jerryjamesstone, on 10/26/2009, -2/+11I too move stick well, make pretty and unicorns everywhere. brownies good! now...shhhhh, do you smell it?
- codyman, on 10/26/2009, -1/+9There is a lot of composers, particularly for film, whom do not conduct as they either do not like to or feel someone else can do better... it's not just a walk in the park / wave the stick around like a drunk harry potter fan
- ultraseamus, on 10/26/2009, -1/+6A title like that and I actually made it in here before that stupid bear?
- Gnar04, on 10/26/2009, -3/+7bifman, have you ever been in an orchestra?
- Shipyaad, on 10/26/2009, -0/+4No conductor here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orpheus_Chamber_Orche ... - trisweb, on 10/26/2009, -0/+4I think you said it best Shipyaad - "and most of them really can't" - I completely agree. Most conductors don't live up to their job, they don't communicate the music like they should or help the players in playing it other than being a common tempo and to get some cues here and there. I have experienced good conductors as well, or better ones, and it is really pretty amazing how when the guy in front of you knows the music better than you do how it affects the coherence of the whole thing.
And of course, the best conductors will do this without the players even noticing it's going on. - shroominbal, on 10/26/2009, -0/+4wouldn't a small youtube save all these pages of talking?
- kitsua, on 10/26/2009, -0/+4It's not just about playing your own part. It's about every person in the orchestra playing together in the right way. When you're dealing with a piece of abstract music that can last for well over an hour, with structures and themes that develop over that time in incredibly complex ways, it needs a central figure to conceptualise and communicate that interpretation through each of the players so that the orchestra transcends being a group of people into being a single instrument, focused and with a single mind. It takes one person to pull everything together to do that and it's a very, very difficult thing to do properly, let alone very well.
The overage lay person often seems to have this opinion that a conductor is useless, even though the people who play and make this music for a living seem to continue to think they're rather important. - kitsua, on 10/26/2009, -3/+6Only someone who has no clue about this subject could say anything so retarded.
Aside from the fact that many composers *were* famous conductors in their own right, there are plenty of world-wide famous conductors. Toscanini, Bernstein, Rattle, Barenboim, Furtwangler, Karajan...*****, I could go on for hours.
Because it takes (arguably) more skill to compose a piece of music, it's somehow a worthless achievement to be the lynchpin of a hundred people trying to play that piece? Stop talking with your rectum. - CrunchyDeluxe, on 10/26/2009, -1/+4Never mind the fact that the more talented musicians are typically complete asses to deal with. If I'm conducting an orchestra/band/choir, etc. I don't want a group of self-absorbed egomaniacs who each thinks he/she is somehow god's special gift to music. Give me a group of less talented, yet more determined people, and I'll give you a group that can play in time, with correct dynamics, etc.
The sheet tells you what NOTES to play. The conductor communicates HOW to play it. The conductor gives it direction and purpose. - Minivolt, on 10/26/2009, -0/+3It's because everyone has to work together. Sure a musician can have one of the most brilliant interpretation of a score. But it would sound really bad if everyone has their own interpretation. So that's why they have to follow the conductor to the letter to produce something coherent.
- Fuzi, on 10/26/2009, -2/+5and what is a orchestra without a conductor?
- taokr, on 10/26/2009, -0/+3kitsua is right on. There are plenty of famous conductors, going back to the 1800s. Heck, even some famous composers, e.g. Mahler, were better known as conductors in their day.
- kitsua, on 10/26/2009, -1/+4I don't really understand your point. Conducting orchestral music is a phenomenally difficult thing to do well. Creatively, intellectually, physically, artistically, it's one of the most sophisticated activities you can attempt. Not that you can't hack away and get by, but that's true of anything.
Memorising an entire score that might be well over an hour in length, every entrance, dynamic, phrasing and technical detail, being able to communicate that to each player whilst bringing over a hundred musicians together, all while being able to conceptualise the piece and interpret what the composer was trying to achieve and bring it out of an orchestra is a mind-blowingly difficult task and massively underrated in terms of artistic 'worth'.
I think it's one of the most brilliant and difficult things a person can do, artistically speaking. - CrunchyDeluxe, on 10/26/2009, -0/+3Frankly, conducting is like chess. Easy to learn, VERY difficult to master. Once you get past keeping steady time, you really have to focus on conveying every little nuance of the music to the group being conducted. Trust me... that ain't easy.
- ElAmo, on 10/26/2009, -2/+5@Fuzi: A good orchestra does not need a conductor, so... still an orchestra
- kitsua, on 10/26/2009, -1/+4Wow, you used to play in a band when you were a kid? That makes your arrogant and ignorant statement about a whole artistic discipline completely authoritative!
People are so quick to say things that are so full of ***** but so confident in their own self-importance it's crazy. - ninetimes, on 10/26/2009, -1/+4I've often wondered, how important is the conductor? They make it seem like he's the important one, and the orchestra is just his toolbox, but I have a hard time imagining it. How well could an orchestra play without a conductor? Is he really just a glorified human metronome?
- Conguent, on 10/26/2009, -0/+3I would agree. Your comment proves such.
- kitsua, on 10/26/2009, -0/+2lol :-)
- ummagummas08, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2Basically, conductors provide a bit of dynamic knowledge; when a certain section of the ensemble should be louder, or softer, and queuing other sections to come in at certain parts and whatnot.
Obviously these dynamics are contained within the individual pieces of music, but it really helps to have someone conducting; because if you've ever played on stage, you know that you're mostly thinking in terms of notes, and not as much in terms of dynamics.
That's just my view.
- pr0lixity, on 10/26/2009, -1/+3I think the only people who should criticize the role of the conductor are musicians, and those select few who have had the strange experience of knowing your music inside out but trying to effectively run a rehearsal without one.
I've sung in numerous choirs, and there have been times when the conductor couldn't make it. Every other rehearsal the notes and rhythms are almost automatic when I sing, but without a conductor, an ensemble becomes way more disjointed and confused than they think they'd be. - Shipyaad, on 10/26/2009, -1/+3First of all, that video doesn't tell me anything other than that this kid can wave his hands around. I have no idea if he ran the rehearsals - conducting is 90% the art of preparation. Not only that, but I'm not sure if the orchestra is even looking at him.
Secondly, Ital Talgam is yet another victim of the cult of personality that surrounds many of the so-called "great" conductors. An informal poll of professional orchestral musicians done by Don Neuen (choral director at UCLA, former orchestral studies director at Eastman), shows that they would overwhelmingly prefer clarity to vague arm waves. - Shipyaad, on 10/26/2009, -2/+4Oh, come on. I've been a player and a conductor for many ensembles, and I'd never say that it's just "a guy with a stick," but let's not buy into the myth that the conductor is somehow special just because he has the score in front of him.
- AndrewDB, on 10/26/2009, -1/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conducting
- Puppytwo, on 10/26/2009, -1/+3D.. Do I conduct with my penis?
- GhettoHmbrglr, on 10/26/2009, -1/+3How come they need to be told every time though? I'm not a musician so I could be completely wrong, but one would think that after reciting a song several times the musicians would be able to play the song without a conductor, it's just a matter of knowing your part.. Just like a normal band.
- somnus, on 10/26/2009, -0/+2The conductor could walk away from a performance and the orchestra would likely finish up flawlessly, but you can thank the concertmaster leading the strings and hours of rehearsal for this. The conductor is more than the guy waving the stick; as said above, the conductor is a diplomat, motivational speaker, an expert on the composer and the score, and deeply familiar with the intricacies, strengths, and weaknesses of each instrument. That is, of course, assuming they are any good.
I've been a part of an city youth orchestra where we literally went to McD's during slow movements (a brass version of protest) and the conductor would not notice. Every French Horn was named "Sarah" even though the only Sarah had left 2 years ago. When we were led for a few weeks by a *real* conductor the difference was astounding because he brought the skills out of us by making us care. We also played with the city professional orchestra for a couple of pieces and the difference was even greater with professional musicians.
The point is, if it wasn't a conductor, someone is needed to lead rehearsals and guide the orchestra into a vision of that composer. Sure, the orchestra can lead itself in a performance, but it is a magnitude better and more cohesive when there is a pro waving his arms. - Minivolt, on 10/26/2009, -1/+3Well you got it all wrong. You might play well, but the conductor is there to make sure everyone plays well together. And sometimes even if you're a really good instrumental player, you may be out of tempo with everyone else, so that's why you need a conductor to guide you.
- magus_melchior, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2@FightTest: Although I shared your disdain of one's high school music teacher (who was more of a band guy than an orchestra guy, though doubtless he'd played in both), that sort of hubris will show in auditions, and unless you're exceptionally talented (which isn't likely, I'm afraid), no ensemble will take you seriously.
- kitsua, on 10/26/2009, -1/+3Yes, but you're talking about the reception of certain conductors by the public and the cult of come personalities. I'm talking about the skill involved in conducting well. People here seem to be arguing (from a position of ignorance - though not yourself) that conducting is pointless and easy, which is blatantly not.
Yes, day-to-day conducting can be a utilitarian, practical job that requires a certain amount of simple technical ability, but to be a great conductor, an Artist, takes so much more. You're right in that an orchestra will likely know of a conductor's worth sometimes before you've even played a note. However, this just goes to prove that it's so much more than just waving your arms about. Like you say, it's preparation, rehearsal technique, diplomacy, a whole host of other, subtle talents, on top of all the musical ones I listed above. That's why it's such a difficult thing to do well.
Just because there are bad or lazy conductors, does not mean that the art of conducting is not incredibly advanced, sophisticated and ultimately essential to the performance of classical music when held to its highest standards. Otherwise, why would it continue to be the absolute and universal standard of how it's done? The orchestra has evolved over hundreds of years into a finely-honed artistic machine and the conductor has his relevant and important place in it as much as any of the players.
Their presence brings musical COHESION. When you have over a hundred players performing a piece that takes a long time and lots of notes, it's essential to have a central figure that can visualise the piece and it's intricacies as a whole, as well as acting as a conduit for the personalities and musical contributions of each of the members that feeds back into the orchestra and out into the audience. - trisweb, on 10/26/2009, -0/+2I dugg you up because it's a good question.
Playing music is more than just reading a part. kitsua explained it very well. As an example, may I direct you to please listen to a computer-generated MIDI file of a classical piece. Each of those instruments is playing its part more perfectly and exactly than any human player could, but there is no music created. Some measure of that precision and organization of all the parts is necessary (part of the job of a conductor), balanced against the individual human expressive abilities of the players and their ability to play the part as the conductor wants to fit within one coherent musical sound and performance. - Shipyaad, on 10/26/2009, -1/+3What you describe has to do with the process of score study, which we all have to do anyway. I have been to many rehearsals where it was blatantly obvious that the "great conductor" in front of me had only a cursory knowledge of the score. His musicianship and years of experience helped a lot, certainly, but the fact is that he didn't know the score.
Conceptualizing the piece and interpreting it, knowing what everybody is doing, communicating the composers intent, keeping everything together, sharing it with an audience.... these are all things that THE PLAYERS DO. The conductor can inspire his musicians, he can cue them, he can talk to them in rehearsal about what he things the composer wanted. But the one thing he doesn't do is make a single noise in the performance.
I'm sorry, but conducting - on a real, pragmatic, day-to-day basis - is more about leadership and rehearsal process than high-fangled artsy concerns.
Gilbert Kaplan's recording of Mahler 2 with Vienna has been widely acclaimed as being one of the best performances of that work ever. Trouble is, it's all *****. The recording is great because it's the Vienna Phil, not because of anything he's done. I've seen Kaplan in rehearsal... ineffective, slow, he doesn't know how to address problems... and while he suffers a great deal of criticism for this, the real reason he gets slammed is because his work is indicative of conductors in general. Most conductors only really know ten or fifteen pieces. Most conductors have no idea how to assist wind, brass, or percussion sections in rehearsal or performance. Most conductors, in fact, ignore those sections because they're so busy in the strings.
From a player's standpoint, you've got five minutes to prove to me that you can conduct and that you have useful things to say and show about the music. If you can't do that (and most of them really can't), I'll be buried in the music.
If you want to see real leadership on stage, real interpretation, watch the concertmaster. More often than not, he'll be the one running the show. - trisweb, on 10/26/2009, -1/+3@ElAmo: A good orchestra thinks it does not need a conductor. Have you seen an orchestra without a conductor stay an orchestra for very long?
@Bifman, that's very true. The musicians are an integral part of the music. But that doesn't make the conductor unimportant, as you should know. The two are not mutually exclusive. - magus_melchior, on 10/26/2009, -0/+2Chamber music (small ensembles like most rock/jazz bands) does fine without conductors, primarily because it's up to the individuals to not only know their own part, or how it fits in the piece as a whole, but also the other parts as well.
But when you start getting into groups of groups, which orchestras and symphonies are, now you've got to coordinate those individuals into playing synchronously, and think as a group. You might be able to pull it off without the conductor if you rely on the concertmaster, but the difference between a good performance and an awesome performance is often the conductor. Even with exceptional performers it's a real challenge to try to play a symphony without a conductor. - DulcetTone, on 10/26/2009, -0/+2A good conductor is just someone with a tolerance for music, a love of the spotlight and an aptitude for light aerobic exercise.
- taokr, on 10/26/2009, -0/+2I think all the conductor bashing has to do with the fact that the the general audience probably gives the conductor too much credit for the performance of a piece of music, making them somewhat overrated. However, all the bashing here swings way too far in the opposite direction, not giving conductors *enough* credit for all they do throughout the rehearsals and performance...
- ElAmo, on 10/26/2009, -0/+1@trisweb: yes, indeed i have. when i said "good", i meant extremely good. and that is true. ideally an orchestra *shouldn't* need a conductor (but of course it is very useful).
- magus_melchior, on 10/26/2009, -0/+1A symphony orchestra without a conductor would be a more compelling example:
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/orchestra-without-c ... - Tarhish, on 10/26/2009, -1/+2Not only that, but anyone who has really played any instrument from their soul can tell you that any piece of classical music sounds heart-wrenchingly different depending on the mood being projected by the player. A good orchestra can take those cues from the motions and expressions of the conductor.
- yammy1688, on 10/26/2009, -1/+2That and the fact that you have to know the score for every instrument for a piece. It's hard.
- Shipyaad, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1@kitsua:
You are right that the art of conducting is a difficult one. My issue with conductors in general is that among professional conductors (both good and bad), there is a real tendency to ignore the fact that the players are the ones who create the sound. Sure, they'll all pay lip service to that, but it's generally a bunch of hot air.
Personally, I don't feel that a conductor is necessary... in performance. Rehearsal, on the other hand, is a different beast entirely. You need some kind of leadership - the problem with the Persimfans Orchestra was that it took them weeks to make all the decisions required for a performance. You need someone to make decisions quickly and move on. With three or four rehearsals before the concert, there's just no time. But... if the orchestra is properly prepared, then the presence of the conductor isn't really necessary. Sometimes they can inspire the performance to a higher level, sometimes not.
I find that the best conductors are the ones who know what they want, know how to ask for it, and stay out of the way. We're not looking at them most of the time - we see them in the periphery and maybe give them a glance before an entrance just to make sure. There's just too much going on.
Yes, musical personality, yes, cohesion, yes, a unified concept of the piece... but all that's done in advance. Making a bunch of arcane gestures from the podium doesn't really help us, in fact it hurts us.
My favorite conductor is Boulez. He knows what he wants and he is very precise in his conducting. No fancypants loopy *****, just clear intent and musicianship. - magus_melchior, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1@Puppytwo: Hopefully in the privacy of your home...
-
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is