IMHO everything is important. The conductor is the one to "interpret" the composer's intentions, meanings, etc just written in the score, and making the orchestra aware of how that should sound. He must have musical knowledge and also communication skills to get the orchestra sounding as he wants.
He/she needs a good orchestra to translate his own vision and also composer's into the music you listen. We need to consider that things aren't like the conductor gets in front of the orchestra and they all start playing. They have rehearsals together and both, the conductor and the orchestra, meet some sort of agreement which is the result you hear at the concert or the recording.
A good conductor with a bad orchestra is equally likely to sound wrong as a bad conductor with a good orchestra. However I believe that an average conductor is more likely to get a good result from an outstanding orchestra than a great conductor from a bad orchestra. After all small ensembles like quartets, quintets, even nonets, manage to make great music without a conductor. However a great orchestra without someone settling the principles of the performance, the tempos, the "tone" and everything else, probably won't shine as much as it could.
I am in the fortunate position of being a music student in Cincinnati, and it is even more fortunate that our school works very closely with the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra and the Cincinnati Pops, one of the better orchestras out there. Due to this, I have gotten the opportunity to get to know both Paavo Jarvi and Eric Kunzel somewhat, as well as to get a look at what happens both behind the scenes and during the concerts (student tickets $10! We go almost every performance..)
The conductor really what can make or break a performance of a professional orchestra. The CSO is so good that they can play the vast majority of standard repretoire with barely any rehersals (one or two is not uncommon). With an orchestra like this, the conductor is incredibly important.
There was a night maybe two months ago when I went to see Rachmaninoff's Second Concerto performed. Now this is obviously a staple of concerto rep - every major orchestra has performed it countless times. A guest conductor was supposed to conduct it, but he could not make it and Paavo was not available. Therefore, the assistant conductor of the CSO conducted the program. Now he is a very capable conductor, but he is just not at the level of Paavo (he is talented, but very young). Ordinarily this would not have mattered that much, but the piano soloist had a VERY unorthodox interpretation of the concerto - not a bad thing, but it was very different. The conductor and the soloist just never had it together, and you had the orchestra and soloist climaxing at different times, striking chords not in unison, and the tempo fluctuated way too much.
If Paavo had been conducting, who in my opinion (and many others) is one of the better living conductors out there right now, due to his experience and talent he most likely would have been able to make the soloist and orchestra work together as a cohesive whole and turn it into something else entirely.
Someone mentioned earlier that in an ideal situation the orchestra is simply an instrument for a conductor. That is pretty much spot on. Of course, the ideal world sometimes isn't realized, but I have heard the same symphonies - world famous ones like Cincinnati, Cleveland, Chicago, NY, etc - sound completely, completely different just with different conductors. If the orchestra is good enough to make this happen, and the conductor is skilled at drawing out the interpretation he wishes, you have the chance to be in for a special performance.
EDIT: I forgot to mention, the idea that the conductor only matters in rehersal and not in the performance could not be further from the truth. Keep in mind, sometimes there is only one or two rehersals! I have heard performances sound totally different from the last rehersal and the performance because the conductor had a new idea right before the performance. And as for reading music and watching the conductor at the same time, keep in mind that pianists almost always memorize their concertos, and that the orchestra members usually know the music like the back of their hand anyway by the time they are good enough to get a seat in a major orchestra, so taking your eyes off of the music for a few seconds is not a big deal.
Last edited by Computerpro3; 05-17-2008 at 07:05 PM.
I didn't say the conductor "only matters" on the rehearsals, just that the conductor very rarely stays in front of the orchestra without any prior contact. It' in that previous contact where most of the work is done, though you're right that things may change on the final performance.
The players may have the piece memorized and just need to look at the score for a while, then following the conductor's indications, but when performing a piece they don't know, it's all on the conductor's side to tell them how, when and where. Without any rehearsal and "common vision" the piece only would sound right if everyone there is a genious or all them have a lot of luck.
Some orchestras have their own "tone" and way to do things, and it doesn't matter who's conducting them, you can say it's "that" orchestra playing. One of those is the Vienna Philharmonic. Other orchestras may sound very different depending on who's conducting them, and under a good conductor they'll perform way better than under a mediocre one.
When I was in the 9th grade, I took up the clarinet. Our teacher sat at the front of the class, waving his arms up and down as we played. I often wondered what for since I payed attention only to the notes on the page that I was supposed to be playing. Aside from the fact that our class was a pretty sorry bunch, I can look back now and realize what a terrible conductor he was. Other than attempting to teach us how to play the instruments, at no point did he ever teach us (or lead us) to play as a cohesive unit. When we did play, each student pretty much did their own thing.
To understand how important a conductor really is, you need to watch them. I attend a lot of performances (mostly opera). I won't name names, but one conductor I've seen routinely stands there waving his arms up and down with no rhyme or reason, leaving the orchestra to fend for themselves. During difficult passages things tend to get a little messy since no one is really guiding them.
To contrast that, sometime ago I was watching Classical Arts Showcase and they showed a segment where Toscanini was the conductor. I don't even remember what the piece was, but for most of the time the camera was only on him. It was fascinating to watch. He had such control over how the music was played, shaping every note. The music seemed to flow from him.
It should also be noted that in opera performances, the conductor also has the job of coordinating the singers with the orchestra. The orchestra's tempo must keep pace with that of the singers. If a singer speeds up or slows down at some point (e.g. to get through a difficult aria quickly or show off by holding notes longer than called for) the conductor must compensate for that by adjusting the orchestra's tempo. These types of things should be worked out during rehersal but of course live performances are always unpredictable.
__________________
"If the elevator tries to bring you down, go crazy! Punch a higher floor!'
Linear Mode
