OXFORD CONDUCTING INSTITUTE

CONDUCTING STUDIES CONFERENCE 2018

Between the Conductor and the Soloist, Who Is the Boss?

A Critical Study on Shared Leadership and the
Construction of a Unified Musical Meaning.

Abstract

How do conductors and soloists mediate their musical input and leadership during the rehearsals and
performances of a concerto? Taking as a starting point the controversy that took place between
Leonard Bernstein and Glenn Gould at Carnegie Hall in 1962, I shall further document this discussion
by presenting excerpts from an interview of the French pianist Pierre-Laurent Aimard and the Swiss
conductor Philippe Jordan that revolve around the same issue. I shall then examine this subject from
an historical perspective in light of the shared leadership practiced by the violin-conductor and the
keyboard-conductor during the eighteenth and nineteenth Century in Europe. To conclude, I shall
explore what we could possibly learn about orchestral conducting, music and the construction of
musical meaning from the Bernstein/Gould controversy and other such debates.

In this paper I shall examine in what way soloists and conductors mediate their musical leadership during the
performance of a concerto. I shall discuss the controversy that took place at Carnegie Hall in 1962 between
Glenn Gould and Leonard Bernstein. I shall then present segments of a filmed interview between the French
pianist Pierre-Laurent Aimard and the Swiss conductor Philippe Jordan which revolve around the same topic.
Afterwards, I shall look back in history and examine how shared leadership between the keyboard-conductor
and the violin-conductor was experienced in European music ensembles during the eighteenth and nineteenth
Century. Finally, I shall reflect on what we could possibly learn about conducting and more broadly about music
from this discussion.

Bernstein, whose 100th anniversary of his birth we celebrate this year, and Gould were scheduled to perform the
Brahms first piano concerto at Carnegie Hall in April, 1962. Their respective conceptions of the piece were so
radically different that Bernstein felt compelled to address the public about this issue (video).

You are about to hear a rather unorthodox performance of the Brahms D Minor Concerto in its remarkably
broad tempi and its frequent departures from Brahms' dynamic indications. "What am I doing conducting
it?" I'm conducting it because Mr. Gould is so valid and serious an artist, that I must take seriously
anything he conceives in good faith. But the age-old question still remains: In a concerto, who is the boss
— the soloist or the conductor? Almost always, the two manage to get together to achieve a unified
performance. But this time, the discrepancies between our views are so great… Why do I not get a
substitute soloist, or let an assistant conduct? Because I am fascinated, glad to have the chance for a new
look at this much-played work; because, what's more, there are moments in Mr. Gould's performance that
emerge with astonishing freshness and conviction. Thirdly, because we can all learn something from this
extraordinary artist who is a thinking performer; and finally because there is in music what Dimitri
Mitropoulos used to call "the sportive element" — that factor of curiosity, adventure, experiment.

1
The American conductor Leon Botstein sheds an interesting light on the idea of artistic orthodoxy. He
writes: “the marginal status accorded to new music [...] and the diversity of interpretation documented by
sound reproduction have made originality vis-à-vis the standard repertory harder to formulate and
justify.”1 He continues: “The paucity of fresh interpretative insights may in fact lie in the extent to which
conducting has been separated from other aspects of music and culture. [...] Few after 1970 besides
Boulez and Bernstein became established as composers.”2 Simon Rattle, in 1982, shared a similar
concern: “the whole tragedy, he says, of the conducting scene now is that virtually none of us are
composers. We should be but we are not. And it shows. You get a glossy style of surface conducting”3.

Glenn Gould had performed the Brahms first piano concerto in 1959 with conductor Victor Feldbrill and
the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra. You can see here the comparative tempo chart established by the
Belgian scholar Luk Vaes4.

Compared to all previous interpretations of the Brahms first piano concerto analysed in this chart,
Gould's performance with Feldbrill was the slowest. However, when working with Bernstein, Gould
radicalised his interpretive views even further. Possibly capitalizing on Bernstein's activity as a
composer, Gould may have expected Bernstein to break with interpretive traditions, to commit himself
to a more creative process and to support Gould's experimental interpretation that went further than the
collaboration with Feldbrill three years prior. About a year after the Carnegie Hall concert, Gould
discussed this performance during a radio interview (video).

1 J. Spitzer, N. Zaslaw, L. Botstein, C. Barber, J. A. Bowen and J. Westrup:

http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com:80/subscriber/article/grove/music/06266, p. 8.
2 Ibid, p. 10.
3 Matheopoulos, 1982, p. 510.
4 Vaes, 2017, p. 113

2
 - In what way two musicians can approach a standard symphonic work and have such diverse conceptions
of the piece?

GG : I don't know if there is a satisfactory explanation. There is no solution to this sense of collaboration
as demanded by a concerto. Part of the concerto idea is of course the sense of non-collaboration, the sense
of willingness of the virtuoso so called to show off and I think it's the traditions that emanated out of that
that prompted me to do what I did, because what went on last year was in no way a particularly unusual
performance of that particular Brahms Concerto except for one factor and that was that our proportions of
tempi and our proportions of dynamics tended to be scaled closer together that is usually the case. There
was less divergence between what could be called the masculine and the feminine approach of the piano
concerto, between first theme and second theme. It was a much more tightly welded unit that I wanted to
do. Now, Lenny felt that in order to preserve the antagonism of orchestra and piano there ought to be good
contrasts, there ought to be larger dynamic spans and greater changes of tempi. I was at that time – and
still am, I may say – in a baroquish mood as far as even the 19 th Century soloist concerto. I was trying to
bring a common pulse to the movements and to hold things together. It was simply the meeting at two
points of our particular metamorphosis in which he was more in favour of the tradition and I wished at
that moment to break with it.

Gould's use of the word metamorphosis is better understood if we know that to him, I quote: “the
purpose of the art is not the release of a momentary ejection of adrenaline but is, rather, the gradual,
lifelong construction of a state of wonder and serenity”.5 It is not unlikely that Gould saw his
performance with Bernstein as a cornerstone of his own metamorphosis towards an on-going new self.
Gould stopped giving public concerts two years after this performance.
The French pianist Pierre-Laurent Aimard and the Swiss conductor Philippe Jordan dealt with similar
issues 43 years after the Carnegie Hall controversy (video).

P-L A : One shares pieces with a very strong unity and strength of composition and in fact you meet a lot
of people to make the same piece who are very different. The thing is that you are playing with human
persons. The conductor and the orchestra have a tradition that makes that you cannot 'force' them to do
this or that. The problem is how can one adapt very fast. There is a kind of compromise that you can make
and there are cases when it does not work, and you just get a “No, that's my tempo!”. And you have
onstage two people who are obviously fighting in front of everybody having paid a ticket to have a good
interpretation. What is funny is that at the very end the stage and the moment of the concert can solve
incredibly much. And I must say that the way, as today, of traveling a lot, playing pieces in many places is
not always the best way of really making music.
PJ : It is the same thing for me working with an orchestra that I do not know as a guest conductor. You
have very little rehearsing time and it is impossible to make it all your way within four rehearsals. And
you meet an orchestra with their own personality. So, you have to imply as much as you can in these four

5 Geoffrey Payzant, 1979, p. 64.

3
 rehearsals but accept the material that is there. It would be far too much expected if you wanted to get any
more. That is the joy of being a music director where you can build up a relationship to an orchestra.

“After 1918, says again Leon Botstein, conductors of a certain level of fame began to travel regularly […]
strengthening the tendency towards technical clarity and efficiency; idiosyncrasy in gesture and the use of
verbal explanation [...] became less valued.”6 He adds: “for most professional conductors [...] the international
circuit demands the use of a visual language that translates easily and quickly. This has had the effect of
restricting the range, not only of repertory but also of interpretation.”7

What does history teach us about shared musical leadership? Leadership from a single conductor standing on a
podium with a baton is relatively new, starting from the middle of the 19th Century, after which it progressively
became the norm. Before that point, musical ensembles were conducted in various ways, one of which being the
so called dual leadership between the keyboard-conductor, sometimes referred to as Maestro al Cembalo, and
the violin-conductor, sometimes referred to as violin-bow conductor. This leadership was exercised sometimes
in an alternating way and sometimes in a simultaneous way. For example, in the period between Bach and
Beethoven alternating leadership was prominent, the keyboardist controlling mainly rhythmical passages and
the lead violinist being in charge of more melodic sections. Prominent composers conducting their own works
often conducted from the keyboard.“I thought it advisable, says Mozart while conducting Die Entführung aus
dem Serail, to resume my place at the keyboard and conduct.”8

Typically, keyboardists worked primarily with singers and choruses, and violinists more often with
instrumentalists and instrumental soloists. During the Baroque era, keyboardists were the only musicians
playing from the full score and they seemed to have been more influential than violinists. This is probably
because the contrapuntal complexity of the music needed the steady rhythmical and harmonic support of the
basso continuo and a close monitoring of the full score was necessary to ensure that what was written on the
page was performed correctly. When the musical style evolved towards classicism, violinist leaders became
more popular figures, having the psychological advantage of sitting or standing within the orchestra and
encouraging the instrumentalists in their task. An early 19th-century commentator writes: “the keyboard
director has become a stranger among the other instrumentalists... and has little effect on whether the
performance succeeds or fails.”9

In England, a simultaneous dual leadership between the keyboardist and the violinist was practiced between
1750 and 1850. Ideas were discussed between both musicians and decisions were made in mutual consultation,

6 J. Spitzer, N. Zaslaw, L. Botstein, C. Barber, J. A. Bowen and J. Westrup:

http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com:80/subscriber/article/grove/music/06266, p. 8.
7 Ibid, p. 11.
8 R. J. Jackson, 2005, p. 100.
9 Arnold, 1806 in Spitzer, N. Zaslaw, L. Botstein, C. Barber, J. A. Bowen and J. Westrup:
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com:80/subscriber/article/grove/music/06266, p. 3.

4
notably about rehearsal techniques, acoustics, programming, seating, discipline, finances and hiring. As late as
the middle of the 19th Century, some orchestras rehearsed with the keyboardist and performed under the
violinist, while others rehearsed and performed under this dual leadership, sometimes with an ill defined
division of tasks and consequently to the dissatisfaction of all concerned. In 1838 the London based newspaper
Musical World wrote: ‘The spectacle of a conductor and leader combatting for the direction of the band can no
longer be tolerated’.10

It is only with Spohr and Mendelssohn at the beginning of 19th Century that a unified leadership from a single
conductor started to make its way. Felix Mendelssohn established himself as a baton conductor as early as 1835.
Progressively, composer-conductors gained higher musical status. Berlioz and Wagner were instrumental in
theorizing the art of conducting and influential in establishing a unified leadership from the podium. However,
it was only by 1880 that this practice became an undisputed norm, and this was only 80 years before the
controversial performance of the Brahms first piano concerto by Gould and Bernstein.

What arose from the Bernstein/Gould controversy, which revealed an age-old problem of artistic confrontations
and musical rivalries? And what can we learn from this controversy? Despite the struggle that preceded it, the
performance had a beautiful outcome and was warmly received by the audience if not by all critics. Seiji
Ozawa, who would have been the conductor if Bernstein had declined to conduct, recalls: “I felt that saying
[what Bernstein said] before the performance was not the right thing to do. [As for Gould's rendition] it sounded
perfectly fine, especially if you have never heard anyone else play it. You just assume that's the way the piece
goes […], like a relaxed tune from the countryside.”11 Along these lines, the Canadian music historian Kevin
Bazzana argues: “[Gould's] goal was to play everything as though no tradition existed”12

In strong opposition to Liszt and Wagner, both of who advocated for open subjectivity in musical interpretation,
Brahms wrote to the Hungarian violinist Joseph Joachim in 1859: “My fingers often itch to start a fight, to write
some anti-Liszts.”13 Brahms preferred a closer respect of the score and the composer's assumed intentions,
paving the way to what we call today historically informed performances. However, one might ask if Brahms
was in a “Baroquish mood” when he composed his first piano concerto, as was Gould when he performed it, or
did Gould apply to Brahms a Wagnerian subjective approach and a musical re-appropriation of the score? We
know that Brahms sometimes hesitated as he strove to find the genre that would best convey his musical ideas.
For example, he had initially considered using the musical material in the first piano concerto in the frame of a
work for two pianos or a symphonic work. Were Gould's interpretive decisions an attempt to probe deep inside
Brahms's creative process and, by his non-concerto-like interpretation, reconcile Brahms's aesthetic dilemma?

10 Musical World, 21 June 1838, p. 133.

11 H. Murakami, 2016, p. 4.
12 K. Bazzana, Kevin, 2004, p. 208.
13 S. Avins, 1997, p. 196.

5
Twenty-two years after the Carnegie Hall concert and two years after Gould's death, pianist Krystian Zimerman
performed the same concerto with Leonard Bernstein, playing, at times, at an even slower tempo than Gould, as
if Gould had created a new tradition.

Georg Solti once said: “it took a very long time for me to perceive another G minor Symphony from the one I
was conducting”.14 Did it take Bernstein twenty-two years of artistic metamorphosis to fully accept a new
concept of the Brahms first piano concerto?

In his recent book, the American author and educator Robert Cutietta15 asks the question: “if there is an artistic
disagreement [between the conductor and the soloist], who wins?”. Ironically enough, he found out, most
conductors say that it is the soloist and most soloists say that it is the conductor. In light of what history and
current practice show, I may suggest to all interested parties that it could be artistically more rewarding to
address this topic in other terms than “who wins?” or, indeed, “who is the boss?”.

Bibliography

14 Matheopoulos, 1982, p. 418.

15 Robert A. Cutietta Who Knew?: Answers to Questions about Classical Music you Never Thought to Ask, p. 13.

6
Avins, Styra (1997) Johannes Brahms: Life and Letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bazzana, Kevin (2004) Wondrous Strange: The Life and Art of Glenn Gould. New York: Oxford University
Press.

Bernstein, Leonard (1954) The Joy of Music. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Bernstein, Leonard (1976) The Unanswered Question: Six Talks at Harvard. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Bernstein, Leonard (1993) The Infinite Variety of Music. New York: Anchor.

Botstein, Leon (2012) 'The Symphony Orchestra: What Is to Be Done?', Peabody Magazine, 6/2, p.19.

Boulez, Pierre (1963) Penser la musique aujourd'hui. Paris: Éditions Gonthier.

Bowen, José A. (1994) ‘The Conductor and the Score: the Relationship Between Interpreter and Text in the
Generation of Mendelssohn, Berlioz and Wagner’. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.

Bowen, José A. (ed.) (2003) The Cambridge Companion to Conducting. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Cutietta, Robert A. (2016) Who Knew?: Answers to Questions about Classical Music you Never Thought to
Ask. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Galkin, Eliott W. (1988) History of Orchestral Conducting. New York: Pendragon Press.

Goulden, John (2012) 'Michael Costa, England’s First Conductor: The Revolution in Musical Performance in
England 1830-80'. Durham theses, Durham University. [Online]: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/5924/

Harikian, Matt, 'Piano vs. Orchestra: A Defense of Glenn Gould’s Historic Performance of the Brahms'
[Online]: https://pages.stolaf.edu/music242-spring2014/portfolio/piano-vs-orchestra-a-defense-of-
glenn-goulds-historic-performance-of-the-brahms/

Jackson, Roland John (2005) Performance Practice: A Dictionary-guide for Musicians. New York: Routledge.

Lebrecht, Norman (1993) The Maestro Myth. New York: Carol Publishing Group.

Lebrecht, Norman (1996) When the Music Stops: Managers, Maestros and the Corporate Murder of Classical
Music. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Lebrecht, Norman (1997) Who Killed Classical Music?. Secaucus, NJ: Birch Lane Press.

Matheopoulos, Helena (1982) Maestro: Encounters with Conductors Today. New York: Harper and Row.

Murakami, Haruki (2016) Absolutely on Music: Conversations with Seiji Ozawa. New York: Knopf.

Musical World, 21 June 1838.

Page, Tim, (ed.) (1984) The Glenn Gould Reader. New York: Knopf.

Payzant, Geoffrey (1979) Glenn Gould: Music and Mind. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Spitzer John, Zaslaw Neal, Botstein Leon, Barber Charles, Bowen José A., and Westrup Jack, 'Conducting'
[Online]: http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com:80/subscriber/article/grove/music/06266

7
Vaes, Luk (2017) 'Artistic Research Avant la lettre? The Case of Glenn Gould’s Brahms Concerto Interpretation'
in Jonathan Impett (ed.) Music: Discipline and Resistance Artists and Researchers at the Orpheus
Institute. Leuven: Leuven University Press, pp. 108-133.