Klarinet Archive - Posting 001062.txt from 2000/10

From: rgarrett@-----.edu
Subj: Re: [kl] A conductor
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 06:50:04 -0400

At 11:33 PM 10/18/2000 -0700, you wrote:
[SNIP]
> ...anyway, he had magnificent facial expressions which (to my
>perception) said more than any hand waving or pointing could, and he
>used his arms often in the fashion of ballet to indicate the mood he
>wanted rather than to indicate the beat, without getting so ridiculous
>about it that he would distract the audience's attention. There were
>moments when he just stood there and let the orchestra play.
>
> My question for those of you who play in orchestras is: Is this
>the type of conducting under which you would rather play? Or not?

As Ed mentioned earlier, he was saving his reply to William's post for
later......and I indicated that I had done the same. Ed also mentioned
that most professional musicians have many thoughts about conductors, and I
have tons - most of which I will not share. However, some may be
worthwhile to a few people.

I really need to start out by saying that I don't care for most conductors.
That isn't to say that they are not important - they serve a very
important role. However, far too often they get in the way of what I and
others in the orchestra would like to do. While there are some brilliant
musician/conductors out in the working world, I find more that are simply
not very good musicians or who have never continued to evolve in their
musicianship. I also find that even if the conductor is a good musician
with excellent technical abilities, he is often very lacking in the ability
to motivate an ensemble. In order to get the kind of sound or response
that he wants from the ensemble, this kind of conductor often has to resort
to negative behavior designed to get personal with individuals in the
orchestra. I have watched more than several power struggles occur between
members of the orchestra and the conductor - both in rehearsal and outside
of it. It is always sad - an unecessary. What is lacking then is the
charisma and personality to lead others.

All that having been said, I would like to address the question that was
posed to the list.

As a teacher of two conducting classes each year (well, this year I had a
reprive from one of them), the most important thing we try to teach our
students (who we hope will eventually rise to a great level of conducting)
is to access their musicianship and to project their internalized concept
of the score/music to their ensembles - always. They need to do this in a
non-verbal way - not only with fantastic technique but with the power of
their personality. It is as difficult to do as it is to play an instrument
- with one exception: the conductor does not actually create sound. He
can inspire sounds, but he cannot create sounds. He is the only mute in
the orchestra! Beyond that, his conducting must have the most positive
impact possible - any negative can work the other way.

At the top levels of orchestral playing, with a great group and with music
that does not require major beat-keeping, transitional tempi, or mixed
meters that can create ensemble problems, the conductor can (and should)
get out of the way as much as possible. So, in that context, the original
post which asked the question, "Is this the type of conducting under which
you would rather play? Or not?...." is easy to answer. In my opinion, the
conductor can do anything he wants as long as it does not negatively affect
my or the orchestra's performance. In fact, if what he is doing actually
inspires some musical feelings from me and others, than that's great! Some
people may interpret the lack of beat, combined with the facial
expressions, to be an ego-boosting, coreographed opportunity to affect the
audience. More than likely however, the conductor was simply realizing he
was unecessary and put his energies into reinforcing the ensembles musical
needs. In one of the biographies about Leonard Bernstein, there were
members of the Vienna Philharmonic who were quoted as saying the reason
they loved Lenni was because of his passion. This was remarkable
considering the time in which Bernstein worked with an ensemble with an
anti-semetic history.

Time beating is important sometimes - but the best orchestras don't need it
- just look at the professional chamber orchestras that don't use
conductors, or the Chamber Music Northwest musicians - playing Appalachian
Spring without a conductor. Of course, the groups are smaller, but the
concept is the same: they listen carefully to each other and watch each
other. Less mature ensembles need the time beating, but they also need to
be trained to listen more carefully rather than watch more carefully.

Some people may ask, what about the ensembles that are not at the top
levels? The kind of conducting that was just descried can happen at any
level of playing - and it should (in my opinion of course), but the lower
the level of player/musician, the more "teaching" is injected into the
rehearsal routine. This is precisely why so many conductors continue to
want to find a better position - to do less teaching and more "conducting."
Good teaching should probably reinforce conducting, and good conducting
technique should probably reinforce teaching. Superior musicianship should
be present always. In the performance, the teaching goes away and the
motivation goes on overtime. Technique must reinforce the motivation -
otherwise, it may get out of hand.

Sorry for the long post........I have much to say about this (as I have
many skeletons in the closet!).

Sincerely,
Roger Garrett

Roger Garrett
Professor of Clarinet
Director, Symphonic Winds
Advisor, IWU Recording Services
Illinois Wesleyan University
School of Music
Bloomington, IL 61702-2900
(309) 556-3268

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org