It is the very concept of a short, artificially constructed conductor competition that I question. A focus on how well individuals conduct a specific orchestra with limited repertoire at a given moment in time makes little sense to me when I think about what makes a great conductor and how one judges such greatness. Contrast this with an instrumental competition of pianists using similar criteria. In such a competition, a single musician will demonstrate his or her skills both technically and musically in most cases without other individuals involved (a concerto and chamber music being the exceptions). Those skills can be isolated and judged. But a conductor does not play an instrument and depends on scores of other people to make music. The skills of stick technique or score memorization are such a small part of what matters (indeed some very fine conductors have mediocre stick technique [ii]). Everything else is difficult to judge in a short, artificially constructed event like a competition.
Rather, it is the ability of an individual to coax a musical concept from dozens of musicians who may have their own insights and opinions about how things should go. Sometimes the chemistry between a conductor and an orchestra is great. Sometimes it is not but can be developed over time. Indeed, the phrase “over time” is key. Great conductors will gradually establish a rapport with players and gain a reputation for getting terrific results.
There is also the question of repertoire. Some of the greatest conductors were terrific at conducting pieces from certain periods, but not so great at other works. According to the model proposed by The Cliburn, the Artistic Committee will choose the repertoire and contestants will be judged on their ability to conduct that music. More importantly, what is the conductor’s philosophy about programming? In an age when audiences are aging, dying, and declining, how will the conductor usher in a new generation of ticket buyers with repertoire choice? What about new work and commissioning?
Then there is the way a conductor relates and communicates with an orchestra—something that cannot be determined through a short-term competition. As a musician in one of America’s great orchestras said to me recently, “The last thing I would look for in choosing a conductor is whether they had won a competition.”
Today a conductor’s job is often so much more than what happens on the podium, especially if he or she serves as a music director, which will probably be the aspiration of many who will be competing in Houston. How well does the individual handle personnel management and personnel selection (including the fact that selection of orchestra members often involves a delicate dance with existing symphony players). As well, there is the social, community, and educational aspects of the job—something the board of the Boston Symphony Orchestra recently appeared to believe its Music Director lacked. Though he was considered by the majority of players to be, musically speaking, one of the great conductors of his generation, his contract was not renewed.
The proper way to establish a conductor’s prize is to model it on the Gilmore Piano Award—something for which it is not possible to apply. Presented every four years to a classical pianist of any age or nationality, the Gilmore Artist Award provides $300,000 to support the artist’s creative and professional development. Often described as music’s answer to the MacArthur “genius grants,” the award is non-competitive (in the traditional sense) and the process is confidential. Pianists are recommended by the Classical Awards Nominating Committee, a diverse group of international music professionals. Final decisions are made by an anonymous Classical Awards Advisory Committee, which evaluates nominees over time by observing multiple performances in varying conditions. It is a brilliant approach to identifying and rewarding talent. However, unlike The Cliburn’s new conductors’ competition, The Gilmore has no need to be very public and add glitz and prestige to its organization.
