Tuesday, July 14, 2026

An Absurdly Long Email I Wrote About Conducting

 I was not a trainer by nature. I would get bored at that. I was an 'interpreter'. I didn't have huge 'concepts' for the pieces, but I'm a writer. I love detail: phrasing, balances, articulation, small rubatos that emphasize the structural features and harmonic tensions. I want music to tell a story. Art to me is 'shape'.

The greatest masters keep some options open. They don't usually leave decisions to the minute they're up there, but they usually decide that there's a spectrum of possibilities they can pursue in performance and find ways to prepare the groups that leave their options open.
The vast majority of these conductors have very high information density. Their beats don't just tell you where the beat is, the beats tell you how quickly to breathe and bow, what the attack is like and how sustained the attack should be, and exactly how much weight to put into the sound.
The Messiah recording was sort of his musical last will: he prepared his own edition that took from all seven versions. You can see that he is still shaping phrases in the moment, the rise and the taper, but at the same time doing the phrasing within a framework of great discipline. These are decisions made in real time, and the musicians respond. He makes some circles conductors are clearly not supposed to do, but his wishes are completely legible to the musicians, and by being not exactly by the book, he gets a warmer sound. As you know, it's a lot easier to get a cantabile when you don't have a completely direct beat.
I don't think anyone has ever done the beginning numbers of Messiah Part 2 better. Listen for the footstamp right before 'the chastisement' and how it energizes a subito forte nobody else does. Every moment has intentionality of dynamics and phrasing. Again, the structural framework is utterly disciplined, but within it is the most unbelievable imagination and lets the chorus focus on conveying the expression. Nelson may have some awkwardness in his technique, but Christie's gestures are utterly clear at every moment and you know exactly what he wants from watching him. He emphasizes exactitude more than expression, but the gestures have absolute clarity. Look how he often beats ever so slightly ahead of the beat, so that everybody knows the character he wants. By beating ahead of the beat, he can get greater weight of tone, but his technique is so clear that it never throws anybody off. Whenever he wants a direct attack, he beats right on the beat, but that switch between the two gets him the option of very different sounds.
Listen to the bizarre shit Fischer does with Haydn's Surprise Symphony, much of which is clearly planned in advance, but however unorthodox the technique, you see right away how the orchestra could never mistake what he wants. Ilya Musin said that conducting is the tension between expression and exactitude. Weird as his technique looks, this is a masterclass in it.
His younger brother, studied with Harnoncourt, probably considered the greatest master of standard repertoire today: was almost director in Baltimore and DC once upon a time. It's a much more orthodox performance of Haydn 102 than his brother's 94, but watch every gesture: every ictus and rebound. Every beat, every space between the beat, conveys the sound, the speed of the bow and breath, the dynamic, the place in the phrase and the character. This is the kind of encyclopedic technique Carlos Kleiber and his ilk brought to the profession and it frankly revived orchestral musicmaking.
Since one of my main teachers studied with Rilling in Oregon, I guess Rilling's my 'musical grandfather'... God Rilling was good. No matter how he felt about HIP, he got Bach, and a lot else besides (he also commissioned La Pasion Segun San Marcos by Golijov). It amazes me how few early music specialists emphasize vocal line, but look at the continuity of his beat, this is a conductor who prizes vocal line like hawk does eggs, and it shows. Obviously, the staccati are not as pointed as in most HIP performances, but unless the tempi are lightning quick (an occasional Rilling foible), it's all to the good. I've often felt HIP misses everything good about legato and sacrifices a lot of musical beauty that I'm sure the composers wanted.
Mazaaki Suzuki: You worked with him. You know what a model he is better than I do.
Luks and Lutz and Gottfried are great, but Dijkstra is, I think, the best HIP right now. Every single moment has complete intentionality. There is no way any musician would look at that technique and not know exactly what to do. Not just technically, but aesthetically. Before he's done he could be the all-time HIP maestro.
I don't get Gardiner, He is constantly shaping phrases when in front of singers, and yet with orchestras he is just beating fast and getting no phrasing out of them. I've always said that the best are 'in the trenches' with musicians. Simultaneously supporting and guiding them, and obviously Gardiner's a bit of a general... I don't love a lot of Gardiner's Bach, but this is the greatest St. John Passion I've ever heard, and he is shaping every phrase here. Gardiner does evil very well...
As for Herreweghe, he gets gorgeous albeit monodynamic results. I have no idea how he does it.
------------------------
So much is learned by looking at rehearsals. Sorry that I get carried away with the length here. Do whatever you want with it.
The most talented conductor there's ever been. Every gesture is coordinated to the phrase and the exact shape and energy he wants. He has a verbal metaphor for everything. Whenever you use verbal metaphors ('filligree... filligree') the chorus responds immediately. Below is a concert so legendary it can make even me love Johann Strauss:
The other most talented, just more of an asshole. He is such a stickler for phrasing and bow/breath speed. He knows exactly the shape of every phrase and how to reach the top of it. More than anybody else, this clip shows that so many things about orchestral life transfer to choruses: so much of music is about speed of breath and bow. The slower the breath or bow, the richer the sound, and at the same time, the slower the breath out is, the more room the conductor has to balance the chords.
Fucking Nazi. Not my favorite, but he was a master. He understood how to get sound, he understood how to get blend, he understood how to make musicians listen to each other, and he understood how to energize a piece. He always said that the real music happens in the overtones. The overtones determine the timbre, and the timbre is determined by how we breathe and listen. Karajan, whatever I think of him, shows exactly how that's done.
He was a genius obviously, and what he showed is that the more knowledge a conductor has, the more passionate a conductor can get without it seeming obnoxious.
One of my favorites. He gets so much more done by talking as the musicians are playing.
One of my favorites. Amazing batonless technique, but finds a literary metaphor for everything he wants. Also, completely willing to sing what he wants.
My single favorite conductor. Not a great technique, though what he has he uses to sustain the vocal line. No jerky movements, absolute continuity with which the orchestra knows just what sound to use and how to phrase the line. He was pure music. He took huge romantic risks, but unlike, say, Lenny, they were never excessive because he understood risk management and just how far to push a rubato or phrase swell before it was too much. Man what he's able to do with words and metaphor. You can auto-translate the CC to English.
He had little technique, his interpretations were too excessive, but man that guy was an inspiration. He knew exactly how to inspire his players with metaphor and narrative. The stories he told in rehearsal were bullshit, nobody cared, it was still exciting as shit.
--------
Some performances, the real goodies.
Another favorite. The greatest Bruckner conductor of all time in my never humble opinion. Everything with him is line, and weight, and breath. In this case I mean breath in that the structure has room through rubato to contract and expand so it never feels constricted: like a well fitting pair of pants. For him, precise attacks are very rare, and he conveys them with the left hand while the right emphasizes continuity of sound and line. In tuttis, the bass instruments always come in before the rest of the orchestra, so that we hear the warmth of the sound rather than attack or pristine chords. Like Kubelik, he is pure music.
Yet another favorite. Davis was the anti-Mackerras. They dominated London for forty years. They were equally great, I loved them both growing up, but Mackerras was all rhythm, staccato and impact, Davis was all legato, line, and depth of sound. Like Jochum, he never had an angle in his beat, but he had as little rubato as Mackerras did. He shows better than anyone that you don't need rubato to be absolutely expressive.
Perhaps the greatest of all in Schubert and Schumann. One of the great techniques and ears. With a simple flick of the wrist he knows how to get a completely different sound, a completely different phrasing, and always within a very tight structure.
I am in awe of Gunter Wand. He can maximize weight of sound just as Jochum does, yet he can clarify lines and phrases the way Celibidache does, his technique has Kleiber's exactitude. He's where classicism and romanticism meet seamlessly and nobody knows which it is. He knows exactly how to change tempi for a second subject so that nobody notices yet the phrase breathes and momentum carries in a way it never would if the tempo stayed the same.
The greatest conducting technique of all time, bar none. The conductor I wanted most to be like. More than anybody else, he shows what's possible to get without saying a word. Here he is doing Schnittke. He said it was about unlocking the players' creativity.
My 2nd favorite conductor. Sound isn't great here but Sorcerer's Apprentice here shows the advantage of economy. The more boring the beat, the more every specific request stands out.
Another favorite. If Kubelik and Jochum were too generically romantic, Barbirolli shows how to be both romantic and detailed. He gets both the most incredible singing line and incisive rhythm. Every note has a specific approach, clearly worked out in rehearsal and part markups, but at the same time, the technique is so exact that he's able to change things on a dime, subtly putting rubato and agogics everywhere that can't possibly be rehearsed. He gets both the most incredible singing line and incisive rhythm.
Yet another favorite. My pick for the greatest 'romantic' conductor, and the greatest Mahler 8 conductor I've ever heard. He did it through pure emotional vulnerability with his musicians when he talked about personal experiences, and totally compressed intensity on the podium. He moved wtih very small gestures and fervent looks, and the performers just responded.
A classicist who can express. Clearly beating time with a torn or dislocated shoulder. He can barely move his right hand but nobody ever did Schumann 2 better. He basically does what little he can with his right, but he basically conducts the whole thing by shaping phrases with his left hand.
Another favorite. Doesn't use a baton, barely moves either hand, yet you know exactly what he wants at every moment and the Concertgebouw responds with volcanic force.
I don't like Muti much, but what he shows here is how to conduct a high not at 2:55. He literally conducts a downbeat up with a slight jump and a fist in the air. Everybody knows what it is, and the singers keep their vocal support.
Usually considered the greatest in the world right now. I love him because he's 5'3. All you have to do is look at him to see why people call him the best. Romanticism and classicism are seamless here, so are exactitude and expression. He emotes, but only for information's sake. Often in the quiet moments, and in the loud moments, he does it for instruments that will have trouble emoting in certain registers. In obvious places, he never does it.
The greatest 'interpreter' of our time. Nobody thinks more deeply about pieces. Nobody departs more from the score except Adam Fischer, and yet it always seems organic. Here's Dvorak 8, a piece I love, never done more excitingly or 'dancily.'
Another Surprise Symphony, the best second movement I've ever heard. Stenz is an example of how you can use the Petrenko/Kleiber/Celibidache technique to get much freer, more romantic results, and yet it always seems as though he stays within the structure!
Finally (sorry):
The greatest conductor I ever heard live. Kubelik is my favorite, but Jansons is the ideal. Exactitude and expression, romanticism and classicism, precision and passion, complete emotional involvement and yet you have no idea how he's interpreted anything. He was an absolute mystery, and yet when you watch him conduct, you hear him rehearse, there's no mystery how he did it. When he was based in Pittsburgh, I would go see him on tour in DC, and people would come out of his performances speechless. He was... perfect.
The greats of the next generation will be 50% women or much more.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)