A recent article in the Financial Times (London based paper) about conducting was spot on. Why it is that they decided to turn their eyes on this seemingly unrelated topic I don't know but they did mention the role of the modern conductor in many aspects of an orchestras life and the fact that the mega maestros of the mid-late 20th century were built up by lucrative recording contracts which no longer exist.
I highly encourage my readers to check out the full article here.
The modern maestro - Andrew Clark
One observation by the author that I would like to expand upon is the fact that modern conductors are much less authoritative than the previous couple of generations. I had never thought about it before but the large recording contracts certainly propelled those maestros to another strata above the orchestra musicians. The introduction of money into the equation generally shifts the balance of power and when there is less money there is less power. I'm not saying this is a good thing it is just a reality.
What we often see these days, particularly in the choral community, are scrappy conductors who find the financing and make the personal sacrifices, often financial, to realize their own artistic aspirations. It is quite stunning and admirable but an incredibly hard existence and one that I can't imagine is ultimately sustainable.
On the other end of the spectrum are the larger mainstream arts organizations in which a significant portion of the staffing goes towards administrative and marketing positions that are deemed necessary to make the organizations viable. For example, the San Diego Opera, often referred to as an "A" list opera company and has operated a budget in the black for more years than I can remember; their tax statements are open to the public so feel free to fact check me on this one, but I believe that the San Diego Opera with more than 100 employees has only one full time music position!
I don't mean this as a criticism but rather an observation that a company that "makes music worth seeing" feels it is best to only have one full time musician. It simply reflects the changing nature of arts organizations and what it takes to be successful.
Back to conducting. Modern conductors have a sense of this balance shift and are more willing to play the part of the face of an organization which in turn changes their role with the orchestra. Ultimately everyone needs to be a team player and a maestro leading by example creates a more collaborative environment. I wouldn't suggest that any ensemble with someone flapping about up front is an egalitarian society but I do think that there is more of a give and take of ideas and in my mind that is a good thing.
When I am speaking to school administrators, parents, audiences and board members I try to explain that music is always a collaborative art form. It could be a collaboration between the composer and the performer, the student ant the teacher, the performers amongst themselves or between the performers and the audience. If a person sings an aria in the forest and there is no one there to hear it is it still art? Absolutely. But like life, art is more enjoyable when shared with others.
I highly encourage my readers to check out the full article here.
The modern maestro - Andrew Clark
One observation by the author that I would like to expand upon is the fact that modern conductors are much less authoritative than the previous couple of generations. I had never thought about it before but the large recording contracts certainly propelled those maestros to another strata above the orchestra musicians. The introduction of money into the equation generally shifts the balance of power and when there is less money there is less power. I'm not saying this is a good thing it is just a reality.
What we often see these days, particularly in the choral community, are scrappy conductors who find the financing and make the personal sacrifices, often financial, to realize their own artistic aspirations. It is quite stunning and admirable but an incredibly hard existence and one that I can't imagine is ultimately sustainable.
On the other end of the spectrum are the larger mainstream arts organizations in which a significant portion of the staffing goes towards administrative and marketing positions that are deemed necessary to make the organizations viable. For example, the San Diego Opera, often referred to as an "A" list opera company and has operated a budget in the black for more years than I can remember; their tax statements are open to the public so feel free to fact check me on this one, but I believe that the San Diego Opera with more than 100 employees has only one full time music position!
I don't mean this as a criticism but rather an observation that a company that "makes music worth seeing" feels it is best to only have one full time musician. It simply reflects the changing nature of arts organizations and what it takes to be successful.
Back to conducting. Modern conductors have a sense of this balance shift and are more willing to play the part of the face of an organization which in turn changes their role with the orchestra. Ultimately everyone needs to be a team player and a maestro leading by example creates a more collaborative environment. I wouldn't suggest that any ensemble with someone flapping about up front is an egalitarian society but I do think that there is more of a give and take of ideas and in my mind that is a good thing.
When I am speaking to school administrators, parents, audiences and board members I try to explain that music is always a collaborative art form. It could be a collaboration between the composer and the performer, the student ant the teacher, the performers amongst themselves or between the performers and the audience. If a person sings an aria in the forest and there is no one there to hear it is it still art? Absolutely. But like life, art is more enjoyable when shared with others.
