And I was like, "Why you so obsessed with classical conductors?"

Hmm....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/06/orchestral-conductors-pay-cut

The myth of the maestro

Philippa Ibbotson guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 6 October 2009 21.30 BST

Few people remain unaware of the exorbitant rewards enjoyed by many bankers and executives. Fewer still can have failed to hear of the astronomical salaries earned by some celebrity presenters. So the announcement this month that Bruce Forsyth has accepted a 15% pay cut from the BBC is a small but welcome change. It may even have set a precedent. For, as Brucie himself graciously conceded, "entertainers get paid far too much". Still, there are worlds less prominent than his where vast fees cause hardly a murmur. Take that, for instance, of classical music.

Conductors are a mysterious breed. Oozing self-belief, elevated on a podium, they are endowed by critics and public alike with magical abilities. As the writer Elias Canetti observed: "There is no more obvious expression of power than the performance of a conductor." Yet for all this power, what they actually do remains an enigma. In fact, it is one of the most frequently asked questions of an orchestral musician.

You might say that while orchestras can play unaided, it is helpful if someone can follow a score and beat time clearly. That if they can also manage musicians with respect, as well as help shape a performance, so much the better. There are some who achieve this, whose passion is inspiring, whose insights provoke, reveal, or enhance. And there are a few who are great. They are usually the ones who place themselves wholly at the service of the music, who make working for them feel like a joyful, collaborative experience.

But how much difference does the average conductor make? What can be said is that music, given players sufficiently accomplished, speaks for itself. Even in the case of the talented few maestri, the skills on offer are subject to an indefinable alchemy of charisma and self-belief. And as is the case with any dictator, what seems paramount is the ability to inspire confidence in their powers.

You do not have to be a musician to wonder if such a nebulous yet omnipotent job description might be dangerous. Nor might you be surprised to learn that Margaret Thatcher was a notorious devotee of Herbert von Karajan. You might even speculate whether, just as with the bankers, it is this very lack of scrutiny that may be contributing to the orchestra's demise. For, one way and another, conductors' fees have escalated over the years out of all proportion. Even three years ago, names such as Lorin Maazel were making more than $2m (£1.25m) a year, and Michael Tilson Thomas and James Levine in excess of $1.5m. Lesser conductors nowadays regularly receive fees that are at least 100 times more than those of the musicians they conduct.

In London, the resident conductor for a major symphony orchestra receives £25,000 per concert. Rank-and-file players, meanwhile, typically earn £107 for a rehearsal and concert. Conductors jostle with one another for enormous salaries. And while it might be argued that bigger names sell more seats, it is inconceivable that any such increase could justify these huge rewards.

Yet maestros are human, and few can resist the hype. Many demand star treatment, and fragile orchestral budgets teeter under the strain. UK managements, meanwhile, feel powerless to resist. Conductors, they say, are part of a global market. They fear that they will simply stop coming. And so it goes on.

Such self-belief, of course, is enthralling. Even the sternest critics can be seduced, reverential before the wild-eyed maestro's authority – in fact you could be forgiven for discounting the serried ranks of players behind him altogether. And yet while every one of the great man's gestures is seen as critical, the reality, as players see it, is different.

The truth is that almost the last place you look as a musician is towards the conductor. There simply isn't time. The notes fly past and the brain is in overdrive, busy processing vast amounts of information on the page. Your entire physical being is occupied, focused on the music and your instrument, the wash of sound, the interweaving voices of your colleagues. The conductor remains, for the most part, in your peripheral vision. Occasionally, with luck, you might spare him a glance. You look up at the pertinent moments – at the start and finish, for example – much in the same way that you would check a speedometer or rear mirror while driving. To assume that the conductor is largely responsible for the music is a bit like believing an air-traffic controller should take most of the credit for a Red Arrows display.

As one principal player said: "The difference between a very good performance and a great one is, more often than not, in the hands of the player. No conductor should take the credit for that."

So what can be done to debunk the maestro's image? In the US, orchestras are challenging the status quo – the Chicago Symphony has announced a cut in its 2010 fees for guest artists and conductors. Perhaps British orchestras should do that, too. What is to stop musicians challenging, together, a zeitgeist in which it is routine for celebs to receive such large slices of a dwindling cake?

But above all, surely, it is time for our conductors to search their conscience and to follow the admirable lead, say, of Bruce Forsyth.[/i]

but...it's the guy up front, in the fancy suit, waving his hands and controlling everyone else! he has to be important, right!?

http://www.lileks.com/bleat/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/fant4.jpg

LOL

the author of this was on radio 4 and some i think canadian conductor called in to talk about it. i think it's probably just one aspect of a larger problem tbh. a norm of one rehearsal for a full orchestral performance sounds deeply fucked to me (disclaimer: i am not and have never been a professional classical musician.) mb they need to unionize

You saw that "Alex" docu on C4 last night?

As I've never been the producer of an orchestral show myself, I'm no authority on this subject. But the facts in this article seem to be pretty misleading.

First: most pro orchestras in North America and Britain are unionized, and well taken care of. That figure of 107 GBP for rehearsal + performance? I don't know if it's actually like that in the UK, but there is no way a professional orchestral musician in North America would be working for such a small amount. I've worked with semi-pro players in Hungary and Czech Republic that make more than that.

Second: It is true that many concerts, at the professional level, are put on with a single rehearsal. This article wants to convince us that this may be the result of expensive conductor's fees... and it may be true. But in my experience, the conductor's fee is insignificant compared to the cost of renting the room and paying for the players.

The idea that a conductor is just a timekeeper is about as stupid as the idea that a basketball coach is just a guy who stands on the sidelines chewing gum and yelling.

IAWTC

This entire article is a gigantic pile of bullshit propping up a massive case of salary envy. You can argue that conductors get paid too much simply by pointing out their salaries; you don't have to make up bullshit about how their jobs aren't important.

The truth is that almost the last place you look as a musician is towards the conductor. There simply isn't time. The notes fly past and the brain is in overdrive, busy processing vast amounts of information on the page. Your entire physical being is occupied, focused on the music and your instrument, the wash of sound, the interweaving voices of your colleagues. The conductor remains, for the most part, in your peripheral vision. Occasionally, with luck, you might spare him a glance. You look up at the pertinent moments – at the start and finish, for example – much in the same way that you would check a speedometer or rear mirror while driving. To assume that the conductor is largely responsible for the music is a bit like believing an air-traffic controller should take most of the credit for a Red Arrows display.

This entire paragraph explains very handily why this woman is a freelance violinist and does not have an orchestra job, btw.

i was kind of waiting for someone to say that.

owen p: the consensus on the radio did seem to be that british musicians were somehow in a shittier situation than others. i don't really know the historical cause for it (it was a pretty short item).

mark g: what documentary?

(btw, in the print edition this was put in the slot the guardian tend to use for their most who-gives-a-shit opinion column)

lmao

The truth is that almost the last place you look as a musician is towards the conductor.

I would SERIOUSLY love to witness a perfomance of Mahler 8 without a conductor, it would be the funniest fucking thing ever.

If all you ever do is play chamber music and on old REM albums, I can understand how you could come to believe conductors aren't that important.

way to google ~

how come you thought fables of the reconstruction was more ridiculous a thing for her to have played on than this record?

http://bnl.samediff.net/covers/reload.jpg

(it was on the duet with cerys matthews on 'baby it's cold outside', if anyone's bothered.)

hahahaha I didn't look at the discography past the REM record! (which btw is pretty good)

Well. Let's not get carried away here. Crummy article, yes, but she be no shabby violinist.

My point was really that if most of the music you do doesn't require a conductor, it's very easy to jump to the conclusion that NO music requires a conductor, not that she was a terrible violinist.

Still lolling at the Tom Jones credit though, and I say this as someone who sang a whole bunch of inaudible "ooohs" on the oh-so-memorable "Mystic River" soundtrack.

Meanwhile off in LA it's Dudamel time!

http://www.latimes.com/media/alternatethumbnails/photo/2009-10/49760243-09073127.jpg

That article is full of shit. Conductors (and star soloists) are way, way, way overpaid but anyone who has attended or listened to an orchestral performance with any attentiveness should know that the interpretation of the score by the conductor is a massive determining factor in what you're hearing.

Let alone PLAYING in one of these performances! This is the part that's blowing my mind so much.

otm

hi. I agree that she is mostly wrong, and that conductors are important and necessary - but any experienced orchestral musician will have witnessed enough dumb behavior by conductors to develop a pretty low opinion of them. Today's conductors do so much non-musical work (esp. PR and fundraising) that it's not surprising that the famous ones are not necessarily the most competent. I've had some experience in this area, and it frequently brings to mind the hoary old classical musician joke: Q: what's the difference between a bull and an orchestra? A: The bull has the horns in the front and the ass in the back.

Well yeah, no one is saying there's no such thing as a bad conductor!

I mean, just to throw out my own pet peeves (which may be unfair given I worked with them when they were old), how the hell did Andre Previn and John Williams become famous as conductors?

anyone who has attended or listened to an orchestral performance with any attentiveness should know that the interpretation of the score by the conductor is a massive determining factor in what you're hearing

I'm really not close enough with classical to know how correct this is, but my assumption was always that a lot of the star-power and salary and attention paid to conductors was based on their names actually attaching to some mode of interpretation, some kind of aesthetic -- that you could hear lots of presentations of the same piece but you'll get excited about hearing So-and-So's. Which, you know, does create some legitimate value in the name (even if it does start distorting or overrating how much a given conductor actually brings to the table).

That is definitely how things used to work; I'm not entirely sure if that's still the case with the newest generation of conductors but it is certainly true of the Levine/Ozawa/etc generation.

how the hell did Andre Previn and John Williams become famous as conductors?

Well, the thing is you really WILL hear vast differences between, say, Monteux's recording of Daphnis et Chloe and Abbado's with the same orchestra, it's not just something you wish yourself into hearing based on the aesthetic you associate with that conductor's name. And those are both fairly 'objective' 'just the score please' conductors!

see also: Fellini's Orchestra Rehearsal.

okay so Previn has always been terribad

(as a conductor I mean, that sketch is fantastic)

Well, the thing is you really WILL hear vast differences between, say, Monteux's recording of Daphnis et Chloe and Abbado's with the same orchestra, it's not just something you wish yourself into hearing based on the aesthetic you associate with that conductor's name. And those are both fairly 'objective' 'just the score please' conductors!

― Stillborn birth of a display name (Jon Lewis), Friday, October 9, 2009 6:41 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark

^ otoh you might hear differences between two recordings with the same conductor & orchestra, and what you put down to aesthetic difference and what you put down to chance is a fuzzy line ~

i don't seriously believe conductors don't bring anything, though, i do agree that's a fairly ludicrous assertion

has there ever been a case of someone releasing a recording of conductor x conducting orchestra y on work z like, five times in a month?

Yes. There are recordings of Furtwangler/Berlin Phil performing Beethoven's 5th + 6th on two consecutive days in 1947. I only have the first day, but reviewers who I trust say that while there aren't big interpretive differences there is a real difference in intensity of the performance between the 2 days. But Furtwangler was notoriously one of the most spontaneous and re-thinking conductors of the century.

I totally agree w/you that differences btw Conductor A/Orchestra X vs. Conductor B/Orchestra Y (or Cond. A/Orch X/Monday vs. Cond. A Orch X/Tuesday) are not all down to intention. There's an alchemy between orchestra/hall/conductor/god knows what else...

see also: Fellini's Orchestra Rehearsal.

― skordalia, Friday, October 9, 2009 6:49 PM (57 minutes ago) Bookmark

Fellini's best film! My favorite, at least, but mainly, the one I think about the most.

this article's pretty ridiculous, and Owen's metaphor about the coach is right on. The work happens during the rehearsals. Listening to Tilson Thomas walk his orchestra through a Charles Ives' piece and translate what many players would see as a completely impossible, unexecutable score as an opportunity for non-stop collisions and fun makes the difference between Ives sounding 'difficult' and Ives sounding like the best american composer of the 20th century

Lesser conductors nowadays regularly receive fees that are at least 100 times more than those of the musicians they conduct.

I cannot make any sense of this. A lower tier symphony salary can't be much lower than, what $30,000 a year? And a 'lesser conducter' is supposed to be getting paid 'at least' $3 Mil then?

A lower tier symphony salary can't be much lower than, what $30,000 a year?

uh yeah it can be much lower than that

Really? I admit I just got that from a Google search mixed w/mom's experience as professional musician.
But even for a symphony of musicians working for much less, wouldn't that ratio seem off?

and even then it's 'at least' 100x more

Oh, I'm not saying the ratio is off per se; Ibbotson is clearly working off of a set of assumptions set by looking at the elite orchestras of the world since no one who is paying their players $15K is coughing up $1M for a conductor.

While star conductors are grossly grossly overpaid, I'm pretty sure that "lesser conductors 100x players" soundbite is pulled out of thin air.

Does she mean less famous conductors? Conductors at less prestigious posts?

Come on, that isn't out of thin air; it is rather obviously pulled directly from her ass.

Conductors of lesser stature make more, you know, those conductors under 5'6" or so.

I mean, if her argument is "you'd have to pay a prominent conducter 100x the salary of the avg player in Pudunk Scrub Philharmonic to get him to conduct them" then most of my beef with her argument goes away.

This guy is worth every penny, IMO:
http://arrochadas.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/dudamel460.jpg

I can't help hearing the name 'Dudamel' as some kind of stoner Smurfs villain.

I only have one Dudamel recording, an off-air capture of a Mahler 1st with the Chicago SO, and it's excellent.

I mostly just like his hair.

Classical hair, whether male or female, is almost invariably lol.

With James Levine you get not only a humongous receding jewfro but a sweat towel draped over one shoulder WHILE CONDUCTING.

http://blog.wfmu.org/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/09/fiedler.jpg

Like a printed version of Prova D'Orchestra indeed.
Also using a Canetti quote to affirm its opposite = classic.

I just find it weird that she assumes that all conductors are the same and that exorbitant salaries are not somewhat justified by the resulting increase in performance level, ticket sales, recording opportunities, donations to the general fund, etc.

Also, yes, there are some passages where musicians must keep their eyes on the sheet music, but part of the job of being a symphonic musician is learning to look up! Also, there was no mention of what happens behind the scenes. Can you imagine 100+ people getting together, without full knowledge of each other's instruments and abilities/limits, some with huge egos, some not respecting all sections of the symphony for their importance, and trying to rehearse on their own?

Musicians who aren't jaded welcome a conductor and of course hope that they will offer a different perspective on the music so that the musician can continue to be inspired.

On September 11, 2009, the Las Vegas Philharmonic was proud to have Giora Schmidt conduct a master class at the Nevada School of the Arts. His instruction was excellent and we hope musicians of all instruments find the master class beneficial.

http://lvphil.com/education_outreach/masterclass_events/091109Schmidt.php

Has Norman Lebrecht changed his name to Philippa Ibbotson?

it reads like she's never had to deal with an actively bad conductor? Nothing makes you appreciate the interpretative and leadership aspects of the conductor like having to deal with a dicky-bowed twat whose idea of an original interpretation is to ignore the extant tempo/dynamics in favour of making some new ones up, and who'd rather wave his hands around like he's requesting a heimlich manoeuvre than mark time. (why yes i once took part in the world's worst recording and i am still bitter about it)

just bought Dutoit/OSM complete Ravel orchestral recordings, and I believe I have loved every Dutoit-conducted recording I've heard. could it be?

wow this original article is st00pid, speaking as someone who has performed in orchestras w/conductor I can say a good conductor does alter a performance significantly, less you want 11 different instruments offering 11 different opinions on when to come in after a fermata...

err misleading there, I haven't PLAYED in an orchestra, but have sang w/ them.