The primary consideration for me is not interpretion, or personality, but his/her choice of repertory.

 

What a complex question. What a player expects from a good conductor is quite different from what the audience sees (or hears).

As a performer, a good conductor:

• Knows the music inside and out. Is THE expert.
• Has the mechanical skills to lead the orchestra and leave no doubt as to what the tempo is, can handle transitions clearly.
• Respects the composer and brings the composer's intention to life as well as possible.
• Has a great ear and quickly and correctly deals with problems of rhythm, intonation, balance, etc.
• Is pleasant and never demeaning or insulting. Firm, but fair.
• Recognizes that he is only one of the team members and all his gesticulating would be meaningless without us.

 

What a complex question. What a player expects from a good conductor is quite different from what the audience sees (or hears).

As a performer, a good conductor:

• Knows the music inside and out. Is THE expert.
• Has the mechanical skills to lead the orchestra and leave no doubt as to what the tempo is, can handle transitions clearly.
• Respects the composer and brings the composer's intention to life as well as possible.
• Has a great ear and quickly and correctly deals with problems of rhythm, intonation, balance, etc.
• Is pleasant and never demeaning or insulting. Firm, but fair.
• Recognizes that he is only one of the team members and all his gesticulating would be meaningless without us.

This is a great answer. Thank you. And if I may dig a little deeper into it... Is it accurate to say most conductors coming out of conservatory today would have those skills you reference, and hopefully the attitudes (although I am guessing they wouldn't get too far if they were jerks)? So what differentiates the Yannick Nézet-Séguins, Vasily Petrenko's, and other young conducting stars from the rest?

A clarification... I am posing for a discussion... I expect the real answer is actually the very subjectivity I hoped to avoid in my OP. I also expect, for some, once the base talent and skill are present, a bit of luck, opportunity, and "who you know" comes into play, as well.

 

Same skills as in any other job working with a lot of people trying to complete a complex project: communication, vision, motivation and influence. Explain what you want from the players and get them to achieve it. And never forget the glory comes from the people doing the work, not the people leading.

Whether the conductor is nice or pleasant or unpleasant didn't seem to matter. I worked with conductors I didn't like and had wonderful results. I also worked with people I loved and had bland results. The key is getting people to fulfill a vision.

I also worked in government in a large office under many directors taking on huge projects. The ones that communicated best, defined their vision, motivated partners and influenced people best had the best results.

I worked in large musical projects -- among them staging Bach's St. Matthew Passion with an orchestra, choir and soloists; Beethoven's Missa Solemnis; Haydn's The Creation; Mendelssohn's Elijah and others -- and the same skills begat the same results.

It helps to be a sound musician but in my experience overemphasis on technical knowledge and details of music were secondary to the leader's ability to explain, direct, define vision and motivate people to achieve it. People that focused too greatly on musical details tended to see the trees and not the forest. They may end up with some beautiful plants but not likely a beautiful landscape.

 

Thanks for the answer. I think there is indeed something to be said for your position. The musical vision and ability to communicate it. I assume some creative artistry comes into play, as not all visions are created equal. Hence why some love Jansons' Shostakovich and others find it boring. Your answer makes me think the question is really about what makes art great... and in many ways, it will be in the eye of the beholder... as long as a certain base competence is met.

 

The biggest thing for me (as an amateur listener) is appropriate usage of dynamics. Having to adjust my stereo volume from soft to loud parts is the worst, imo

 

I think most important for me is understanding the value of the music and extracting it. There are random sections of music that great conductors can just interpret 3 times as good. But how this works in detail depends on the section. So understanding is the key. Furtwängler for example is good.

 

So, what makes a conductor good? Has the criteria changed over time? Would the Toscanini's, Klemperer's, and Szell's do well with today's orchestras? Would their autocratic leadership styles work today?

For one thing. A good conductor will spring his musicians out of jail and does not expect recompense on the bail money.

 

Not really mentionend I think, but the abilities to create engaged playing among the ensemble members, and not at least to shape the overall musical lines in a composition, to create a narrative dimension of build-up, climaxes and ebb-and-flow, where it's possible. These are features that make performances particularly noteworthy, IMO. But as a listener, you then have to be pretty familiar with the pieces. Of course there may be works and styles, where those features tend to be less identifiable, or prominent.

 

For me as a listener, the most important thing in a conductor, as in any musician, is the ability to recognise whether they actually understand a piece of music, and the humility to decline to perform it if they do not. Klemperer and Walter both choosing to record only those symphonies of Mahler's they felt they understood is a prime example. Almost anyone can learn to be a technically proficient musician, and that is certainly important, but good sense is a far rarer, far more vital quality.

 

It may be rarer but I wonder whether it's actually more important. Case in point: Szell disliked Mahler's stuff, yet his is many listeners' favourite recording of Mahler 4.

 

The answer is really quite simple: a conductor must know an orchestral score in the same way a solo musician understands a performance piece based on the composer, era, and artistic considerations(dynamics, tempo, and articulation). And, they must have an orchestra that is capable of following their directions. The rest is up to the gods.
Viajero

 

Based on me limited, but growing experience with Talk Forum, it seems most of us have our favorite conductors, and within those, favorites for particular genres, composers, and even pieces. I love Christoph von Dohnányi. I adore his Brahms and Beethoven cycles with Cleveland. I am enamored with Kurt Sanderling and his Shostakovich. I love Haitink's Bruckner 7. And so forth...

But, I don't know what I love them. Pretty much all professional orchestras and conductors these days put on a good show. But as a non-professional musician with 35 years of intense listening experience, I am beholden to just subjective criteria for what and why I like a conductor. Sometimes, it's the choices the conductor makes, like how Sanderling hits the climax in the middle the first movement of the Shostakovich 10. Or, sometimes, I really get enamored with the sonics of the recording. I do hear differences in tempo, but again, those are subjective choices.

So, what makes a conductor good? Has the criteria changed over time? Would the Toscanini's, Klemperer's, and Szell's do well with today's orchestras? Would their autocratic leadership styles work today?

Anyway... just some thoughts.

Have a listen to this documentary about Celibidache, especially the parts where he's giving instruction to young aspiring conductors.

The Garden Of Celibidache (1996) - Documentary, with English Subtitles - YouTube

 

Conductors were usually encouraged to work their way up through opera houses. This allowed them to learn how to build a musical dramatic narrative over long run times. It becomes so important in planning for symphonic structure when dealing with instrumental-only ensembles later on in a career. There is bit of managing spectacle and large teams as well.

I don't sense n00b conductors do much of this anymore, but I could be wrong.

 

That used to be the European model, but in the 20th c where the concert hall became more popular than the opera house, and the exploding number of orchestras raised the demand for conductors that path stopped. One good path is to start in the sticks, learn the craft, get a reputation and work your way up. There are too many youngsters who either don't want to start at the bottom and want a big orchestra right off, or they are promoted by their handlers and grossly oversold. Eije Oue for a time was in a small orchestra (Erie?) and then eventually took over the MInnesota. And so often, people in the smaller, lesser-known places, and do fine work are typecast and never get a break, regardless of their skills. Many of those guys are every bit as talented as the big names. The WORST Mahler 1 I ever heard was from a famous kid who was oversold in Los Angeles. The local conductor, who will never be in the big time gave a reading later with his 2nd tier orchestra that was far more exciting and idiomatic.

 

Thanks for the answer. I think there is indeed something to be said for your position. The musical vision and ability to communicate it. I assume some creative artistry comes into play, as not all visions are created equal. Hence why some love Jansons' Shostakovich and others find it boring. Your answer makes me think the question is really about what makes art great... and in many ways, it will be in the eye of the beholder... as long as a certain base competence is met.

There's evidence for that all over the place. Remember Gilbert Kaplan and the Mahler Resurrection symphony? He wasn't a musician -- just a rich guy that paid to have Vienna Philharmonic record it for him. Everyone liked the results & ranked it with the best recordings even though legend was the playes looked down their noses at him.

 

There are lots of excellent responses here regarding what makes a good conductor; though the ideas are also somewhat subjective. For me, classical music is supposed to be fun. I hate the term "classical music appreciation". What about "classical music enjoyment"? In this sense, I think that early Leonard Bernstein (back in the 1950s, 60s and 70s) is my gold standard; and Bernstein was great practically across the repertoire. In those recordings that he did with Columbia Records and almost always with the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, Bernstein really knew how to unlock the flavor; how to make the orchestra swing. Bernstein's Haydn was unbounded joy. His Mahler and Shostakovich, vibrant and intense. His Beethoven and Brahms, solid and strait-forward. Bernstein's Copland is good fun; the best (maybe even better than Copland's own recordings of Copland).

Later, when Bernstein switched over to DG in the 1980s and divided his time mostly between the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, and the Israel Philharmonic Orchestras; Bernstein took on a more introspective bent, slowing things considerably, as if trying to concentrate on every note and every morsel of goodness. Sometimes this worked and sometimes it didn't. I thought Bernstein's slow approach was OK for Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, and Mahler; I thought that it didn't do very much for Beethoven and just sucked the life out of Brahms.

Dynamics are, of course, very important; and it must be difficult to play the orchestra in a way that is not too loose and not too tight; not too soft or too loud. Everything should be well-measured, as with cooking a meal. Too much spices and all you taste is spices. Too little spice and the food tastes like nothing. In this sense, George Szell (who was also a gourmet chef) seems to be very aware of getting the balance just right in his recordings. And while some of Szell's recordings are beautiful beyond measure (His Mahler 4 with Judith Raskin; or Mozart's Sinfonia Concertante and Clarinet Concerto with in-house musicians); Szell's approach sometimes sounds a bit too regulated and lacking in warmth.

There are lots of conductors that seemed to favor a very smooth and sonorous approach and that is good, sometimes. Bruno Walter's recording of Beethoven's Symphony #6 "Pastorale" is top-notch; as is Eugene Ormandy's very underrated and lyrical recording of Beethoven's Symphony #9 "Choral". When Ormandy died in the 1980s, I read an obituary that said he turned the strings to silver and the brass to gold; and that worked for him. Herbert Von Karajan, however, takes it too far sometimes when the shine that he places upon the music distracts from the feelings that the music is supposed to convey.

I always found Bernard Haitink to be a bit on the dull side; not that his recordings can be faulted in any way. A Haitink recording is almost always solid, but there's not much fun or "swing" to it compared to, say, Bernstein. Likewise, Colin Davis is almost always a bit too understated and reserved. Even so, Davis' approach does work in his favor in the case of Berlioz. In the Berlioz Requiem that he did with the London Symphony Orchestra and Chorus, Davis gets it just right as his sense of restraint and English polish does well to allow Berlioz to speak for himself, as I think Berlioz is very easy to over-play. Berlioz was as classically minded as he was a wild Romantic. So sometimes the right approach for one composer may be the perfectly wrong approach for another and vice versa.

I don't like the recordings of conductors that are too theoretical, and there are many in the realm of HIP recordings, and I always found my thoroughly un-HIP recordings by the likes of Bernstein, Ormandy, Szell, Walter, Reiner, Stokowski, Toscanini, Mitropoulos, and even Karajan, to be so much more fun, dramatic, and interesting than the brisk and detached HIP conductors whose individual styles don't seem to have the same presence as the above mentioned gallery of conductors who, like it or not, each had some type of personality. The HIP conductors, on the other hand, seem to be too caught up in the theory as to "How Vivaldi would have wanted it played", and to me, the "theory" is so much less fun (and just as valid) as Sergiu Celibidace's Zen approach to Bruckner, or Stokowski's free bowing, or Karajan's slick approach, or Furtwangler whose approach defies description. Masaaki Suzuki and Jordi Savall might be exceptions regarding my generalization on HIP conductors; but to me, most other HIP conductors sound much like one another, and to this day, HIP recordings make up a comparably small part of my music collection.

A good conductor should support new music. While I've found Pierre Boulez to be among the more cool and calculating musicians who were a bit too reserved for my inclinations: I always respected Boulez' championing of composers such as Varese and Schoenberg; and it was through Boulez' recordings that I got to know the strange realms of those Ultra-Modern composers. Along the same line, conductors should bring forth the music that reflects the heritage of the country to which they serve. In this sense, Gerard Schwarz has done very well to bring the likes of William Schuman and Walter Piston to the fore; as has Marin Alsop done justice to the music of Samuel Barber, Roy Harris, and Leonard Bernstein. We need conductors in the USA to program music by Americans of various races, ethnic groups, cultural backgrounds, and of both genders; and preferably those among the living; even if it most of it can't possibly be compared to the Grand Old Dead Men of Europe.

A great conductor should LOVE the music; which brings us full circle back to Leonard Bernstein. One can clearly see in Bernstein's rehearsals and lectures that he LOVED the music. He had many things to say about the music; some of it was profound, some of it was pompous, and some of it was just plain wrong. The man was prone to reading too much into the music; but whenever Bernstein spoke about the music; he was always speaking with great love and enthusiasm; and I think that comes out in a Bernstein recording.

 

I don't like the recordings of conductors that are too theoretical, and there are many in the realm of HIP recordings, and I always found my thoroughly un-HIP recordings by the likes of Bernstein, Ormandy, Szell, Walter, Reiner, Stokowski, Toscanini, Mitropoulos, and even Karajan, to be so much more fun, dramatic, and interesting than the brisk and detached HIP conductors whose individual styles don't seem to have the same presence as the above mentioned gallery of conductors who, like it or not, each had some type of personality. The HIP conductors, on the other hand, seem to be too caught up in the theory as to "How Vivaldi would have wanted it played", and to me, the "theory" is so much less fun (and just as valid) as Sergiu Celibidace's Zen approach to Bruckner, or Stokowski's free bowing, or Karajan's slick approach, or Furtwangler whose approach defies description. Masaaki Suzuki and Jordi Savall might be exceptions regarding my generalization on HIP conductors; but to me, most other HIP conductors sound much like one another, and to this day, HIP recordings make up a comparably

I did agree with some of what you said but can't get over your hearing HIP performances as merely theoretical. I suppose some are but more use their HIP approach to make more sense of the music. There are very few non-HIP recordings of Baroque music that convince me at all. For me it is not about a conductor being too caught up in the theory as to "How Vivaldi would have wanted it played" so much as getting to the heart of the music. I don't want my Bach or Handel to sound like an exercise in easy listening.

But your thing is about fun - and life, I guess - being missing from HIP performances. I recognise that some HIP practitioners can indeed be guilty here but is it theory that is leading them astray? For example, Gardiner often sounds like a machine to me but I doubt there is a theoretical case for that. And the relentless perkiness and speed that used to typify HIP accounts (I think we have moved on from there now) is tedious to me - but I don't think it comes from theory.

Harnoncourt's recordings with the Vienna Concentus Musicus are often justified (by him) with theory but their accounts are radical and shocking and really engage. He is never scared to adopt a slow speed. And Rene Jacobs, also often adopting scholarly justifications, is another who is surely fun as well as radical? You have already given a pass to Savall and he is indeed another.

There are some strikingly great recordings of Baroque and Classical music from the pre-HIP era. They stand out and we might be inclined to think of them as typical of their time. But they are and always were exceptions. It is the same with HIP recordings: many are routine and not much fun to listen to but some stand out. The HIP movement was a spur to performers to find new ways for old music - and I think we should be grateful to it for that - but there is not much new in changing fashions over time in performance practice.

 

There may be some material of interest in this survey of 100 conductors, first published in 2011, but repeated here in 2021 in BBC Music Magazine:

The 20 Greatest Conductors of All Time | Classical Music (classical-music.com)

Carlos Kleiber came top, voted for by 36 out of the 100. Susanna Malkki, for example, praised his energy, "pure love" for the music, "attention" to detail and "remarkable vision".

 

"I think the mechanics of learning and building that sense can be taught, but not the sense itself. As for 'magic', I thought mbhaub was referring to charisma when he said that. " Crudblud

Hi, C,
Without "Magic" . . . there is no Art . . . only Craft.
Viajero

 

MBHAUB , you can't "overhype " a mediocre young conductor with slick publicity . If a conductor appears for the first time with a top orchestra and proves him or herself. lacking in both technicl ability and. interpretive vision that person will not be invited back to guest conduct and will have the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of becoming music director . This did not happen with Gustavo Dudamel . He has demonstrated his great talent from the beginning and is no flash in the pan .