Albie Cabrera wrote:
>But if there's somebody who played under them on this list (particularly
>under Karajan), can you please explain what the movements meant?? Could you
>really look up at them at any time and follow them beat-for-beat? I could
>see myself looking up at them from the orchestra... and getting hopelessly
>lost! (Although that happened frequently with me regardless of the
>conductor's technique!;-)
Not having played under any of the great conductors I'll not comment on
Karajan and his ilk but I will relate this story. I was augmenting for the
Queensland Symphony on one ocassion when we had training conductors in for
a conductors mastercourse and workshop. There were about eight of them all
under the watchfull eye of Gian Luigi Gelmeti. There was one fellow in
particular who really tried to impress upon us the beat - that was all he
was worried about. Maestro Gelmeti pulled him up and asked him why he was
being so forceful with the beat. He reminded him that we are professional
musicians and know how to count. To show this he had us play without a
conductor at all for a little while. He then stopped us and told the young
conductor that they didn't need him to provide the beat but to help them
make what they can easily do without him better. After working under
Gelmeti that week I realised that what he meant was to conduct the phrasing
- Gelmeti himself does this. Every time he was in front of the orchestra
we rarely saw a beat. That would only be there if things were a little
shaky or he wanted to emphasise it. The orchestra as a whole loved working
with him. He was pleasant but firm when required. He was also very
precise with any comments he had during rehearsal time. He did not go on
for 5-10 minutes explaining things. He said it concisely and then let his
hand do the rest. I would perhaps suggest that Karajan and the like would
be much the same - concentrating on the phrasing and flow of the music
rather than the individual beats of every bar.
Matthew Gillett
[log in to unmask]
