CHAPTER I
A BRIEF OUTLINE OF THE
DEVELOPMENT OF CONDUCTING
“Conducting is the art of directing the simultaneous performance of several players or singers by the use of gesture.” It is thus that Ralph Vaughan-Williams heads his illuminating article on conducting, written for Grove’s Dictionary, and while this rather terse definition is an admirable summing up of the meaning of conducting, it needs to be qualified.
In music the conductor is one, who after assimilating in his own consciousness every phase of a musical composition, becomes the supreme arbiter in the process of bringing that composition into actual being. Music as an art is absolutely dependent on the interpreter. It lives only in the performance, and the interpreter, sensing his importance, is often tempted to place his own personality between the audience and the music itself. It would seem, however, that in ensemble music, (music requiring several or more performers) this opportunity for the glorification of the personality of the virtuoso would be present in a far less degree. And yet, the interpretation by the conductor of the score of such a piece demands a degree of virtuosity transcending by far that which is required in the performance of an ordinary solo composition.
It is the conductor who unlocks the mysteries of the score. Like water that will always rise to its own level, it may safely be said that the actual performance of an orchestral or choral work will only rise to the level of the conductor’s intellectual and spiritual conception. A good conductor can get good results from players of lesser ability, while a poor conductor can throw the finest orchestra into confusion.
Granted that the conductor has a clear and matured mental conception of a musical work, there is still a vast distance between this conception and its final perception by the listener. An enumeration of these obstacles and a description of their overcoming will constitute a complete outline of what the art of conducting is.
A conductor with a definite conception of the musical score in his head is not unlike the commander of an army who has worked out a complete plan of action. Each has to carefully consider the limitation of his forces and equipment, and how best to achieve the objective. Each is working through others and in so doing must make due allowance for the uncertainties of human nature, the capacity and character of each individual as well as that intangible something known as “esprit de corps.” Ceaseless drilling is necessary to achieve that mechanical perfection which forms the foundation of later inspirational and artistic performance.
A survey of the history of conducting will show that the art has evolved through three distinct periods which might be called the “time-beater,” “drill-master” and “conductor” phases. The preparation and performance of any musical score requires the assuming of all three of these roles by the conductor.
The activity of conducting is doubtless as old as music itself and was probably always employed whenever the musical performance called for several or more participants. The ancient Greeks indulged in two styles of conducting: the conductor indicating the beat by stamping his iron-soled foot or by resorting to what is known as “Chironomy.” This latter was a system of indicating the progress of a musical composition by arm, hand, and finger motions, a definite movement corresponding to every rise and fall of the melody. It was from chironomy, in connection with various speech accents that the notation system of neumes developed.
An interesting feature of this early conducting is the fact that all down beats (accented) were indicated by up strokes of the hand and the up beats (unaccented) vice versa, with downward movements. This is just the opposite to modern practice.
This manner of conducting was probably in vogue in the early Gregorian singing schools, and even a superficial perusal of the Gregorian chants will indicate the intricate rhythmical character of the music taught and sung in these establishments. These early chants, not unlike our modern operatic recitative, had no regular rhythmic scheme and the singing was a sort of musical prose. The singing was lead by a precentor. It was he who gave the pitch and lead with “voice and hand,” that is, he gave the chironomic signs and helped the singers over the rough spots by singing along. The church, however, also knew strict rhythmical hymns and there the leader stamped the beat audibly.