Music conductors on stage: are they really necessary?

[Skwim]

I was watching an orchestra on TV and it occurred to me that the conductor wasn't indicating any noticeable directorial changes to any of the players. He was simply keeping tempo with is baton and that was all, and even the tempo he was keeping didn't change one wit. So, my question is; is he only on stage to represent the work he did in rehearsals, and to serve as a focus for the part he played in doing so, OR is he really leading the immediate performance? (I do recognize that a conductor is needed to start a piece with the down beat.)

FWIW. As I recall from my high school band days, once we learned a piece that's how we always played it, with the band director being pretty superfluous from then on.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think it depends on the composer, the orchestra, and the piece, and variations can be heard in performances of the same piece under different conductors. However, I do think that most of the time the conductor is little more than an expected element of the orchestra, and that the conductor is there more for the audience than the musicians.

 

[Skwim]

I think it depends on the composer, the orchestra, and the piece, and variations can be heard in performances of the same piece under different conductors. However, I do think that most of the time the conductor is little more than an expected element of the orchestra, and that the conductor is there more for the audience than the musicians.

That's my current conclusion as well.


EDITED TO ADD: That is, when the conductor is on stage. Off stage during rehearsals he's vital to the performance.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it depends on the composer, the orchestra, and the piece, and variations can be heard in performances of the same piece under different conductors. However, I do think that most of the time the conductor is little more than an expected element of the orchestra, and that the conductor is there more for the audience than the musicians.

A conductor who adds nothing personal to the performance would be a failure.

 

[Jainarayan]

Single point of focus, last man standing. The conductor actually does give subtle cues to the orchestra members. The conductor has the complete score of a work, each performer has only his or her part of the score. The conductor does set the tempo and keep things together. A small musical ensemble of 3 or 4 performers can keep together, but a symphony orchestra of upwards of 90-100 members would quickly descend into chaos and cacophony without a conductor.

 

[Skwim]

Single point of focus, last man standing. The conductor actually does give subtle cues to the orchestra members. The conductor has the complete score of a work, each performer has only his or her part of the score. The conductor does set the tempo and keep things together. A small musical ensemble of 3 or 4 performers can keep together, but a symphony orchestra of upwards of 90-100 members would quickly descend into chaos and cacophony without a conductor.

Interesting. Anyone here with an orchestral background to substantiate this?

 

[Jainarayan]

A conductor who adds nothing personal to the performance would be a failure.

He actually does make the musical piece very personal. There's a story about Maurice Ravel and Toscanini getting into it for the way the Toscanini conducted Boléro (my absolute all-time favorite piece of music I might add... and not because of the movie 10 ). Toscanini said the way he conducted it, way faster than Ravel had written it, was the only way the piece would work. But that was Toscanini's interpretation.

 

[Revoltingest]

He actually does make the musical piece very personal. There's a story about Maurice Ravel and Toscanini getting into it for the way the Toscanini conducted Boléro (my absolute all-time favorite piece of music I might add... and not because of the movie 10 ). Toscanini said the way he conducted it, way faster than Ravel had written it, was the only way the piece would work. But that was Toscanini's interpretation.

Aye, for conductors the orchestra is the instrument.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Interesting. Anyone here with an orchestral background to substantiate this?

I don't have experience in an orchestra, but classic music being one of my preferred genres, yes, that is what a conductor is for. Especially in larger orchestras, a conductor is just what the title implies. She has the entire piece, and she keeps the individuals players together as one unit, signalling tempo, time changes, volume, and other aspects that individual musicians would have a difficult time with on their own, if not finding it impossible. They are pretty much just as necessary as the arrangement of instruments.

 

[Skwim]

I don't have experience in an orchestra, but classic music being one of my preferred genres, yes, that is what a conductor is for. Especially in larger orchestras, a conductor is just what the title implies. She has the entire piece, and she keeps the individuals players together as one unit, signalling tempo, time changes, volume, and other aspects that individual musicians would have a difficult time with on their own, if not finding it impossible. They are pretty much just as necessary as the arrangement of instruments.

Boy these signals are awfully discrete/subtle then. I never picked up on a one of them.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't have experience in an orchestra, but classic music being one of my preferred genres, yes, that is what a conductor is for. Especially in larger orchestras, a conductor is just what the title implies. She has the entire piece, and she keeps the individuals players together as one unit, signalling tempo, time changes, volume, and other aspects that individual musicians would have a difficult time with on their own, if not finding it impossible. They are pretty much just as necessary as the arrangement of instruments.

You got the pronoun wrong because.....wait....are there female conductors?

 

[Alceste]

I don't have experience in an orchestra, but classic music being one of my preferred genres, yes, that is what a conductor is for. Especially in larger orchestras, a conductor is just what the title implies. She has the entire piece, and she keeps the individuals players together as one unit, signalling tempo, time changes, volume, and other aspects that individual musicians would have a difficult time with on their own, if not finding it impossible. They are pretty much just as necessary as the arrangement of instruments.

Also, it is not easy for a large group of musicians to hear one another. Having a visual on someone who hears everybody is quite helpful.

I have no orchestral background, but a lot of choral experience. The more complex a piece and the larger the group, the more helpful it is to follow a conductor.

 

[Sha'irullah]

If there is no conductor then who else will flutter their arms wildly on stage? The cellists?

 

[Alceste]

If there is no conductor then who else will flutter their arms wildly on stage? The cellists?

Lol. Noone would flail aimlessly but the overall sound would be slightly crappier.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Lol. Noone would flail aimlessly but the overall sound would be slightly crappier.

Wait wait wait, you mean to tell me that a conductor has a purpose? Why is this not int he CIA fact book?
I am a massive lover of the fine tunes of Vivaldi and Mussorgsky and I always thought conductors were like producers. They have nothing to do with the product but ironically make the most money from it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Boy these signals are awfully discrete/subtle then. I never picked up on a one of them.

Let's consider piano players. If you watch a great one & a mediocre one, they both have
fingers & hands bouncing all over the place, & might not look that different from each other.
But the sound is different. The same is true with conductors. When you hear a piece conducted
by different artists with their own takes on the music, they can sound strikingly different.

I have no musical qualifications.
But I can see & hear stuff.

 

[Alceste]

Wait wait wait, you mean to tell me that a conductor has a purpose? Why is this not int he CIA fact book?
I am a massive lover of the fine tunes of Vivaldi and Mussorgsky and I always thought conductors were like producers. They have nothing to do with the product but ironically make the most money from it.

Ha, no, they keep everyone in time and greatly influence the collective energy and dynamics. Even in a small group, there's always someone who speeds up, or forgets the crescendo, or plays over someone else's solo. A conductor provides visual cues for all that stuff.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Boy these signals are awfully discrete/subtle then. I never picked up on a one of them.

It's a matter of knowing what you are looking for. I've seen a few sheets with different gestures, and if you don't know them it does seem like esoteric and possibly useless, but I can assure you they serve a very necessary purpose.

Wait wait wait, you mean to tell me that a conductor has a purpose? Why is this not int he CIA fact book?
I am a massive lover of the fine tunes of Vivaldi and Mussorgsky and I always thought conductors were like producers. They have nothing to do with the product but ironically make the most money from it.

The conductor is just what the name says. The conduct the performance, guiding what can be a large ensemble into a singular, cohesive unit. If each musicians was left on their own, especially in larger orchestras, they may not be able to hear themselves and make themselves too loud or not loud enough, someone may start or stop ahead of the rest of the group, and different people would attach different instruments (the ones the can more easily hear) for timing. So, to get around the many complications and confusions of 10-100+ players, the group looks towards the front to the conductor, who is a leader, to guide them along and handle the stuff they can't really manage on their own. Without a conductor, I can only imagine that any orchestra would doomed to sloppy and poor renditions of all but the most simple of pieces (if even that).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Also, it is not easy for a large group of musicians to hear one another. Having a visual on someone who hears everybody is quite helpful.

I have no orchestral background, but a lot of choral experience. The more complex a piece and the larger the group, the more helpful it is to follow a conductor.

I've played in a few bands with three to four people. That is hard enough as it is. I can easily see the more musicians, the larger the boulder that must be pushed up-hill. I don't think I'd want to even attempt playing in an orchestra without a conductor, especially if you can't have a metronome clicking along to help keep people in rhythm.

 

[Alceste]

I've played in a few bands with three to four people. That is hard enough as it is. I can easily see the more musicians, the larger the boulder that must be pushed up-hill. I don't think I'd want to even attempt playing in an orchestra without a conductor, especially if you can't have a metronome clicking along to help keep people in rhythm.

I've instructed a large group of seniors in jug band music, resulting in a rather large ensemble performing at local fairs. The cacophony into which they would descend without the instructors providing clear visual and auditory cues beggars belief.