MOTUnation.com

This might be considered off-topic, except it could have an impact on choices people make in trying to get works heard.

It's generally accepted that people with even the slightest amount of ear training can instantly tell a singer, and often a player, just as we can recognize tiny low-res photos of people we haven't seen in 40 years or similarly recognize them from a distance.

But here's something I've been noticing with increased regularity lately, if I am streaming classical radio while working from home or doing bookkeeping and the like: I appear to be able to almost instantly recognize the conductor of a piece of music (often the orchestra as well, but less so than years ago when most were rigid about which makes they allowed and thus there were unique sonic signatures of many symphonies).

Case in point right now is Sir Charles Mackerras conducting Mozart. I knew within five seconds. How? Similarly with Sir Colin Davis, Sir Neville Marriner, even former piano wizard Vladimir Ashkenazy (whose recorded output as a conductor isn't very large). The list goes on, and the orchestras are diverse as well as the works, and usually not readings I've heard before.

Is it possible that a conductor can have "signature traits" that cross over periods, composers, and even the handling of different sets of musicians? If so, are these traits similar to ones that allow us to recognize the styles of singers, players, etc.?

Taking it further, are there lessons to be learned in preparing our own works, knowing when enough is enough (regarding score revisions), etc.?

Absolutely true and not mysterious. Conductors (great ones) have individual ways of interpreting works, just as any instrumentalist does. Once you have a good sense of how someone "plays" an orchestra and interprets music in their own voice, you can get pretty good at spotting them on a recording.

The late Sir Maccarras is a personal fav. Vernon Handley (Royal Phil) is very high on my list as well. He tackles works like Bax' "Spring Fire" that many won't touch. If you don't know that piece I highly recommend it. There are two recordings I've heard and the interpretations are like night and day. One is "a little" too slow but it is a difficult work. I was able to purchase a Xeroxed copy of the o my existing, hand written manuscript for $35 several years ago. If it weren't for the r Handley's version I wouldn't be interested in the work at all. But I digress.

In school (1970s), a number of us would hang out and listen to the local classical station. This station would broadcast the ID of the piece after it was played. We would try to guess the conductor and orchestra. At first, I'd be amazed at how good some of them were; after awhile, I became one of the good ones. Guessing right on the conductor happened far more often than guessing the correct orchestra.

It works two ways. You might love the way a conductor handles, say Mozart and Italian opera—crisp and precise—while disliking the way he conducts Wagner just a quarter tick to slow (the extra 15 minutes somehow feels like an eternity).

Herbert von Karajan recorded four Beethoven cycles plus additional recordings of a few. Did he ever sound like anyone else?

Yes, I think it makes sense. The other day I heard Marin Alsop conduct a piece I had never heard before, and even though I have only heard her four or five times, I said to myself instantly, "I bet that's Alsop" and sure enough!

The point about Karajan's four Beethoven cycles is an interesting one too, because it reminds me that many of us can still recognize the conductor right away even when they are revisiting a work with an apparent complete re-think from earlier interpretations. It seems that their character still shines through regardless.

Perhaps an analogy would be David Bowie, who constantly revised his works for live presentation, and yet his personality was instantly recognizable and definable even through all the revisions of singing and playing style.

I have become more aware of this "conductor identity" concept lately though, due to my own work, and realizing that I am a "MIDI conductor" in a sense, as well as of course always being the effective if not official music director of every project I am involved in for live, theatre, and film.

It will be interesting to see whether friends are able to identify this identity on my albums -- especially if I end up replacing some tracks here and there with other musicians.

I study like crazy, regardless of genre or instrument -- ethnomusicology has long been my passion. But of course there are instruments I can't play myself, even poorly, such as violin. Does it affect how I use it in my works? Most definitely. Hence, the desire to study more.

Not many know that Mozart was a fine violinist before he picked up keyboards, and it is why his violin works are so amazing and personal -- not as well known overall but amongst my favourites in his oeuvre. Was his strong violin background an influence in his orchestrations? Most definitely. But we'll probably never know how it affected his conducting... or maybe we could guess.

First off, let me say I'm no conductor. I conduct the community concert band at a local music school, but that doesn't make me a conductor (if you know what I mean). I sorta got stuck with the job.

Anyway, this past year they had a student conductor who worked with the band. Woohoo! I got some time off. A few weeks before the school's annual "big show" the head of the school asked me to work with the band for a bit because they were sounding "stiff" as she put it. I worked with them for a bit and they sounded fine to me. They just needed to focus on some rough spots (which we did). They were sounding great. As soon as they went back to the student conductor, however, they went back to sounding stiff.

I can't explain it. They are the same musicians. All I did was flail like a mad man for a while, but for some reason it makes a difference - even with a rank amateur conductor like me. It seems a conductor has more influence over the music than I had previously thought.

Phil

A good conductor keeps time and provides interpretational details. Great conductors do that too, but they also inspire passion for the work - often with new eyes and ears.

I'm guessing you are actually more of an inspiration than you give yourself credit for.

Anyway, this past year they had a student conductor who worked with the band. Woohoo! I got some time off. A few weeks before the school's annual "big show" the head of the school asked me to work with the band for a bit because they were sounding "stiff" as she put it. I worked with them for a bit and they sounded fine to me. They just needed to focus on some rough spots (which we did). They were sounding great. As soon as they went back to the student conductor, however, they went back to sounding stiff.

The usual problem with student conductors is that they often don't understand who's in charge. This leads to such time wasting efforts as apologising for stopping and correcting, for making tempo changes, asking if it's alright to... (fill in the blank).

When I was the bass principal with the Santa Clara Symphony, we had many students from Santa Clara U. and the few conducting majors got to work with us. More than once, I took someone aside and had the "Dude, When you have the stick, you are in charge. Stop apologising. Make decisions and conduct us—this is what we want conductors to do." talk. Done right in an encouraging manner, the next rehearsal is always better.

That orchestra was eventually absorbed into the university, I left to take a touring gig and the last guy I had that talk with is now the conductor.

Well, when I'm conducting there's absolutely NO question who's in charge. Flautists in the front row teasingly call it the "strike zone." I'm considered the toughest teacher at the school, but no one ever complains about it. In fact, students tend to brag that they got through my lessons. It's a feather in my cap really.

But I think the real difference was body language. Watching this gal conduct, she LOOKED stiff. I guess I'm just more comfortable doing it. Dunno.

Phil

I'm guessing you are actually more of an inspiration than you give yourself credit for.

What he says.

mikehalloran wrote:

I'm guessing you are actually more of an inspiration than you give yourself credit for.

What he says.

Then again, like Bernstein, maybe he's just a good dancer? LOL

Thanks for the kind words, guys, but my point was that I have personally experienced the difference a conductor can make, and prior to that I thought the difference was mainly what the conductor did at rehearsals. You know, all that stuff that goes on behind the scenes. But now I'm beginning to realize that the performance itself is intimately tied to that mysterious bond between conductor and musicians. In other words, if I'm having a bad day, the band is going to sound like dog poop.

As to the original question, "How (why)?"...umm magic?

Phil

I've only conducted a handful of orchestras but most importantly the musicians need to respect the conductor and trust he will have at least the level of skill in his craft as they have in theirs. In new works, score preparation is also a big factor. The last thing you want is someone in the orchestra raising their hand to ask what is s meant by the notation or if a given note is "correct."

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:In new works, score preparation is also a big factor. The last thing you want is someone in the orchestra raising their hand to ask what is s meant by the notation or if a given note is "correct."

Agreed. I personally like scores in concert pitch for that reason. You can quickly look down the page and see the harmonies. Lately I've seen more and more scores written with transpositions in place, forcing you to do the transpositions in your head (which I suck at). But what the •••• do I know. Like I said, I'm a rank amateur.

Phil

Frodo?

Yes, where has that little hobbit been lately?