Conductor Composer
I was at the Cadogan Hall on Sloane Square yesterday enjoying an evening of fantastic music by Stravinsky and Mahler, performed by the Philharmonia of the Nations. It was a full orchestra and their performance was impressive. It was one of those rare moments when I could slip into an imaginary plane created by the unison of sound, skill and collective action. It was like the very best football games but with music as its goal - and the similarity lying in the aim of practiced precision and self expression amalgamating into a whole that was greater than the sum of its parts. A whole that can be termed collective expression and that immediately produced something so immaterial and ephemeral and yet so tangible. The orchestral sounds came across as a unified expression that created something so powerful in its ability to suck in all those who want to partake in its resultant ambience; and so immediate - not least because its accessibility required little prior factual knowledge of its production. And yet, the sounds reminded me of things quintessentially European. Or things that did not exist in the Chinese culture and provided such a stark counter-point. Pirouettes, a turn and twirl on the dance floor with arms outstretched and at shoulder level, swoops of violins and clarinets over grass plains and up above twinkling triangles and crashing cymbals. I was not so much drifting as I was floating and swooping with the music that was magically emanating from vibrations, friction and differential air pressure being produced on-stage before my very eyes.
In this sort of milieu, I tend to let my mind drift into my own realm of expertise and passion. I began to compare the white haired man on the podium conducting the musicians whose ambitions and expression is confined to their technical expertise. Essentially, they become technicians however virtuoso their performance. I began to think that the conductor was playing the role of the traditional architect - who mediated and made things tick. He knew the different trades and knew when and how the greater whole should be designed and delivered. He knew the composition and how to rouse it into an arresting presence. Then I realised a difference - an architect did not just recreate music, he or she would also have to be able to create anew. He needed to know how to compose in the musical sense. So is it more accurate to think of architects as composer conductors? Or that some architects are more conductors and others more composers? We certainly see architects who prefer managing the nitty gritty and recreating the vision (whether someone else's design or translating the drawing into building); we also see architects who prefer to design and to express themselves through their creations(virtual or physical).
While in the AA, I used to think about how we would compete with technicians and engineers with the way we were going with animation and mapping with all sorts of softwares that were not even written for architects or design. L shared that he thought that more than ever it was the role of the architect to mediate and to co-ordinate and not to be technical experts. More important than co-ordinating a team of consultants lending expertise, it was the role of the architect to mediate the qualities and the potential(s) of the design team to create a greater whole. I have had to keep coming back to this view of my industry many a time since graduating especially when it seemed that the extremely technically adept amongst us had more opportunities to influence design and to make a difference in creation. At times when the star designers going to the star firms were the experts at this package or that and when the spotlight in my firm were shining on the technically fluent operatives displaying control and unique, if not elite, knowledge. If technical expertise is the driving force of creation as it seems to sometimes be alluded to recently (bottom-up strategies anyone?), does it mean the soloist is controlling the entire output of the orchestra? Or is it just more pop/rock?
In this sort of milieu, I tend to let my mind drift into my own realm of expertise and passion. I began to compare the white haired man on the podium conducting the musicians whose ambitions and expression is confined to their technical expertise. Essentially, they become technicians however virtuoso their performance. I began to think that the conductor was playing the role of the traditional architect - who mediated and made things tick. He knew the different trades and knew when and how the greater whole should be designed and delivered. He knew the composition and how to rouse it into an arresting presence. Then I realised a difference - an architect did not just recreate music, he or she would also have to be able to create anew. He needed to know how to compose in the musical sense. So is it more accurate to think of architects as composer conductors? Or that some architects are more conductors and others more composers? We certainly see architects who prefer managing the nitty gritty and recreating the vision (whether someone else's design or translating the drawing into building); we also see architects who prefer to design and to express themselves through their creations(virtual or physical).
While in the AA, I used to think about how we would compete with technicians and engineers with the way we were going with animation and mapping with all sorts of softwares that were not even written for architects or design. L shared that he thought that more than ever it was the role of the architect to mediate and to co-ordinate and not to be technical experts. More important than co-ordinating a team of consultants lending expertise, it was the role of the architect to mediate the qualities and the potential(s) of the design team to create a greater whole. I have had to keep coming back to this view of my industry many a time since graduating especially when it seemed that the extremely technically adept amongst us had more opportunities to influence design and to make a difference in creation. At times when the star designers going to the star firms were the experts at this package or that and when the spotlight in my firm were shining on the technically fluent operatives displaying control and unique, if not elite, knowledge. If technical expertise is the driving force of creation as it seems to sometimes be alluded to recently (bottom-up strategies anyone?), does it mean the soloist is controlling the entire output of the orchestra? Or is it just more pop/rock?
5 Comments:
Your comparison of the architect with the composer/conductor is a very perceptive observation indeed!
If I may contribute, a conductor usually is a trained musician who knows/ has mastered two or more instruments. A conductor recreates music, and also re-interprets music, adding his own signature to the pieces the orchestra plays. A composer invents new music, with his knowledge of all the instruments in the orchestra. Both require technical knowledge and expertise. When to let the trumpets triumph, when to allow the oboe to sob softly. The composer imagines the sound, the conductor uses his wand to blend the sounds to his own interpretation.
So maybe technical expertise is always the first step. If you don't know how the workings of the violin, how do you write a concerto for it? Similarly, how should you conduct so that the cello always emerges so elegantly and retreat gracefully into the rest of the orchestra when required?
In an industry where everyone wants to be the composer, the conductors will be happy to find good trained musicians who know their techniques, scores and fingerwork to achieve that brilliant performance.
This comment has been removed by the author.
heh. sometimes when i listen to directors on dvds i think of them as architects, coordinating everything.
as an architect, i was told not to do my own drafting, perspectives, models, but spend time on how to put all these together into the overall picture.
alas, i found myself enjoying the drafting, generating the perspectives, tweaking every little detail over management and coordination.
i think i want to be the soloist. not the conductor :(
wait.
i think i want to be the entire orchestra!
muahahahahaha...
As you say, there is a time to learn your trade and perhaps, there will be a time when one gets to compose or conduct. It does seem that one needs to be invited or given an opportunity to conduct - one's abilities seem to almost require recognition before one can do it. On the other hand, a composer must have an inherent urge that needs neither permission or invitation - one just does it.
anonymous' comment right at the top has been most helpful as i continue to mull the unexpectedly useful comparison of orchestral music and architecture practice - anonyminity of background work star designers (in big offices with signature principals) vs. star composers; the act of composing building parts and the aesthetic choices either has to make vs. the non-aesthetic ones to constitute architecture/music.
Post a Comment
<< Home