~Good music-good conductor
~Bad music~bad conductor
~Good music~bad conductor
~Bad music-good conductor
I say 1,4,3,2 but I think in 10 years when I've played a lot more good repertoire I will say 1,4,2,3.
Make sense?
Would be interested in your opinons and reasons!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I agree with you 100%. Right now good conductors trump good music in terms of the enjoyment of the experience. But eventually bad conductors will matter much less I think. You'll just get on with it, already.
I might argue for #2 based on the potential for humours enjoyment. I guess it really depends on how wide your definition of enjoyment is in this case. For that matter what is the definition of a "bad conductor?" Hysterical bad, asshole bad or just plain lame.
I'll take good music and decent chap shaking the stick who does more to help than to hinder.
By the way thanks for the tips on Dvorak 8.
so far, where I'm at based on personal experience, I'd have to say 1,3,4,2 - which is what I've also mostly chosen right now. How I see it, if the music's bad the conductor can't do too much to save it, and if the conductor's bad, there have always been moments in the music to make it worth it!
I'm sorry-I don't understand when you put the words 'good' and 'conductor' next to each other. However, if pressed, I'd have to say 1,4,2,3. Bad music with a bad conductor can be enjoyable-you can have fun in all sorts of ways. But when a bad conductor destroys good music and actively gets in the way of musicians trying to make good music then I am left in despair and wishing that maestrocide was legal.
To publicly confirm what we have privately discussed, I vote 1, 2, 3, 4. Bad music with a good conductor is simply a tragic waste of talent. And bad conductors ruining good music is no fun either. But bad conductors and bad music give you great stories to share with your colleagues.
To publicly confirm what we have privately discussed, I vote 1, 2, 3, 4. Bad music with a good conductor is simply a tragic waste of talent. And bad conductors ruining good music is no fun either. But bad conductors and bad music give you great stories to share with your colleagues.
Not a musician--so for the most part I can't tell the difference when I hear it--what I do have to say is that your comments made me laugh aloud!! Thanks.
....just occured to me last night in a rehearsal....
what about the "good/bad orchestra" option???
yeah, it's another level. i'm crafting the variables in my head...there's also the good/bad instrument, good/bad stand partner, and good/bad coffee at break. :)
C de C, the lists you could make are ENDLESS!! There are way too many variables there... like, good/bad principle horn, good/bad second horn, good/bad third horn, etc. From the vantage point of the fourth horn player, which is the least desirable?
I'm mostly kidding, but I'd love to have an answer. I'm facing quite a situation with this group I'm playing Mahler 3 with. Maybe I'll post about it.
I think 1,4,3, and 2. The conductor makes all the difference in that sort of situation.
1,4,3,2. Conductors have always either made the musical experience good or bad. The music is important, yes, but the person on the podium can ruin a wonderful composition. Or they can imbue a musical dog with true brilliance (although the good conductors tend to avoid clinkers).
Post a Comment