AM I CAPABLE OF PLAYING
THIS MUSIC?
by Arthur Butterworth
Solo artists, those
who play concertos, perform in chamber
ensembles, choose the type of songs
they sing, or more especially as conductors,
enjoy that unique privilege to decide
the repertoire they will or will not
conduct. These are the aristocrats,
"the officer class", if you
like to put it that way, of the music
profession. Whereas the "other
ranks", the employed orchestral
players, the chorus members of opera
companies, and such-like underlings,
the professional "musical under-class",
as it were, have to play or sing what
they are told, whether they like the
music or not; they are paid to do so.
There is no question of them saying:
"Oh! I don’t much care for this
stuff I’m not going to bother doing
it!" unless of course they are
quite content to be told by the management
that their services are no longer required.
On the other hand, they might yearn
to perform some music that the boss,
in the shape of the conductor or management,
will totally ignore. Some free-lance
musicians can pick and choose the kind
of work they take on, but in a competitive
profession it is not generally a good
idea to be too fussy about what others
engage you to play. You take the engagement,
thankful that it will bring in the money
and help to assure the management that
you can be relied on in the future to
jump smartly at their command.
Solo artists, however,
as already remarked above, can be more
selective of the kind of repertoire
they choose to do; not always of course.
To some extent, they too are dependent
on being offered lucrative and often
prestigious engagements which it would
be inadvisable to turn their noses up
at because the proposed solo work does
not appeal to them. It is often more
politic to go to the trouble of learning
some new and perhaps awkward, unrewarding
new work, that might never get another
performance, just to establish oneself
on the merry-go-round of solo performers.
At least then they are likely to be
recommended elsewhere if they make a
good job of it.
The more celebrated
one becomes, the more choosy one can
be; turning down a proposal that does
not appeal to one’s own musical taste.
However, even staff conductors – those
in broadcasting organisations in particular
– have generally been required to be
willing to take on a wide variety of
things that probably they themselves
would not really want to do. They do
the best they can with uncongenial material.
In this sense perhaps they can be compared
with barristers who, in their earlier
days at the bottom of the professional
ladder, have to take on briefs which
they might not really believe in (and
this must happen a lot in some obvious
criminal defence cases), and perhaps
knowing that they are not likely to
win. At least they are getting paid
for their expertise. So, some staff
conductors are occasionally in this
situation. However, there are many situations
where a conductor, even in the realms
of amateur music-making, has more or
less a free choice as to what he or
she will consent to perform. It is in
this situation that there needs to be
some self-examination. Do I really understand
this kind of music? Am I sympathetic
to this composer’s style and manner?
Have I the right temperament to take
it on? Many distinguished conductors
of earlier times would only do the music
of composers they truly liked. Hans
Richter was at one-time highly criticised
for his addiction to Wagner and his
general disdain of French music. This
has often been true of others. German
conductors at one time were said to
believe that there was "no other
music than German music" and similarly
with the preference of other world-class
conductors towards the music of their
own national culture. To a large extent
this makes sense: It would be thought
that French style is best re-captured
by a native French conductor; Pierre
Monteux being one of the most notable
of 20th century French conductors
although he had a wide repertoire outside
the narrow confines of French music.
In Britain we generally think of Elgar
and Vaughan Williams as having been
done most characteristically by a Barbirolli
or Boult, and of course, in more recent
times by the rising generation of present-day
British conductors. Similarly Sibelius
is usually thought of as being best
in the hands of young Finns.
With all this in mind,
what should conductors – especially
those in the realm of amateur music
– choose to do? Lots of amateurs have
big ideas, yearning to do this and that
because they have heard it somewhere,
and building castles-in-the-air, think
that they too are capable of doing it.
But enthusiasm is not enough: one needs
not only a genuine admiration for a
piece of music, but in order to be able
to perform it convincingly and eloquently,
be able, like a barrister, to be a convincing
advocate for its style and emotional
message. This is often sadly lacking.
If you are a demure, rather modest and
of a retiring, studious disposition
maybe you might be able to direct a
convincing performance of – say – a
delicate piece by Fauré or some
other example of quiet and introspective
music, but probably a violent, extrovert
ballet score is not for you, since perhaps
you do not yourself possess the personality
to inspire others how to perform it
under your baton. The organist or choirmaster
who, having spent a life-time in the
cloisters, is an expert authority on
English cathedral music: Purcell, Blow,
Greene, Tomkins or the anthems of John
Wesley might not fare very well in the
rough and tumble and riotous life of
the theatre pit with Shostakovich, Leonard
Bernstein or Gershwin. Orchestral organisations
are aware of the suitability of the
conductors they invite; like actors
chosen for particular roles, it is a
matter of "horses for courses".
Training of conductors
could usefully investigate personality,
and social aptitudes, and in the widest
sense, business management skills, since
being a conductor requires just such
shrewdness, tact, diplomacy and not
least a degree of ruthlessness too.
The rostrum is no place for shrinking
violets.
Arthur Butterworth
