I read an article about Carlos Kleiber recently in which mention was made that he would only accept invitations to conduct if his requirements for rehearsals could be satisfied. When he appeared in Chicago he was allotted twice what was then the norm. He also had sent his own marked Orchestral parts on ahead and was in close contact with Orchestra's management to ensure that the parts had been distributed to the players well in advance of his arrival and that the players had reviewed them. Parenthetically, it was noted that some of the markings were copies that Carlos had of his Father's own markings.
Many other well regarded but idiosyncratic Conductors were known for having requirements for what they regarded as adequate rehearsal time. Two that come to my mind immediately are Celibidache and Jascha Horenstein. Both have become revered figures over time for the uniquenss of their interpretations but were thought to be "difficult" by the Orchestra managements that they dealt with. And in the days of yore taskmasters such as Reiner and Szell were given much more rehearsal time than what Management and Unions generally allow for now. In the U.S.S.R. Mravinsky had a similar reputation and probably didn't have to worry about paying musicians for overtime.
Then there are the Conductors that are known for not rehearsing. Charles Munch and Hans Knappertsbusch would review a few passages and then place a premium on in concert spontaniety. In the superstar jet setting age Ozawa and Gergiev come to mind for their reputations of flying in a few hours before a Concert and "winging it". These Conductors are also known for their dissapointing performances.
Are the great Conductors the ones that are able to have their demands for preparations satisfied? Or is it more asign of greatness if one can make an Orchestra realize a vision with less drilling? Does to much rehearsal lead to staleness and dull playing? Or is it impossible to make generalizations?
Many other well regarded but idiosyncratic Conductors were known for having requirements for what they regarded as adequate rehearsal time. Two that come to my mind immediately are Celibidache and Jascha Horenstein. Both have become revered figures over time for the uniquenss of their interpretations but were thought to be "difficult" by the Orchestra managements that they dealt with. And in the days of yore taskmasters such as Reiner and Szell were given much more rehearsal time than what Management and Unions generally allow for now. In the U.S.S.R. Mravinsky had a similar reputation and probably didn't have to worry about paying musicians for overtime.
Then there are the Conductors that are known for not rehearsing. Charles Munch and Hans Knappertsbusch would review a few passages and then place a premium on in concert spontaniety. In the superstar jet setting age Ozawa and Gergiev come to mind for their reputations of flying in a few hours before a Concert and "winging it". These Conductors are also known for their dissapointing performances.
Are the great Conductors the ones that are able to have their demands for preparations satisfied? Or is it more asign of greatness if one can make an Orchestra realize a vision with less drilling? Does to much rehearsal lead to staleness and dull playing? Or is it impossible to make generalizations?
Comment