> an orchestra conductor doesn't need to play [...] any instrument! in order to make music
Ok, this is clearly a side-topic AND at the risk of being pedantic: Is this actually true?
Like, I can see how theoretically one could learn to sight-read music well enough to be able to direct an orchestra of individual musicians, then do enough ear-training to identify enough notes to keep tabs on everyone (especially if you're conducting a high school or (god help you :) ) middle school orchestra), etc, etc.
But does anyone actually do that? Has anyone ever done that?
"I'm going to learn how to conduct an orchestra without learning any instruments" kinda feels like "I'm going to become a software engineer using an LLM instead of learning any foundations)"
(To be clear - the LLM path might be viable in the future, possibly the near future, but at least today it's not quite there. My apologies in advance if my analogy doesn't work in the future :) )
No, it's not true, there are no prominent conductors that cannot play an instrument (or sing at a high level).
A conductor should have a deep understanding of music, theory, and rehearsal pedagogy. At least in current western schools of music I don't see how you would explore these topics outside of the study of an instrument. Maybe there is some esoteric path to this; I just can't imagine how you go to Berklee and begin to explore the nuances of a composition without ever engaging with it as an instrumentalist.
On top of that, the conductor isn't just engaged at performances, they're also responsible for leading rehearsals. If they've never deliberate practiced the learning of music from an instrumentalist perspective I think they would be very hard-pressed to structure strategies for getting the larger group to a high level.
I guess it depends what you mean by "play an instrument" - almost all proficient conductors have proficiency in at least one orchestral instrument.
There is at least one (so I'm speculating he's not the only one, but it is likely to be rare) proficient conductor (Leopold Stokowski) who had no real proficiency with any instrument but he did have some very rudimentary piano training... and then pretty much taught himself conducting. Whether that rudimentary piano ability counts as "play an instrument"
I was intrigued and looked into this. According to Wikipedia:
"He studied at the Royal College of Music, where he first enrolled in 1896 at the age of thirteen, making him one of the youngest students to do so. In his later life in the United States, Stokowski would perform six of the nine symphonies composed by his fellow organ student Ralph Vaughan Williams. Stokowski sang in the choir of the St Marylebone Parish Church, and later he became the assistant organist to Sir Walford Davies at The Temple Church. By age 16, Stokowski was elected to membership of the Royal College of Organists. In 1900, he formed the choir of St. Mary's Church, Charing Cross Road, where he trained the choirboys and played the organ. In 1902, he was appointed the organist and choir director of St. James's Church, Piccadilly. He also attended The Queen's College, Oxford, where he earned a Bachelor of Music degree in 1903" [1]
That sounds like a bit more than rudimentary piano training to me :)
the skills of conducting do not require any instrument. Many conductors tell someone how to play their part despite not knowing how to play it themself. However it is hard to imagine anyone learning music theory not in context of learning an instrument.
Ok, this is clearly a side-topic AND at the risk of being pedantic: Is this actually true?
Like, I can see how theoretically one could learn to sight-read music well enough to be able to direct an orchestra of individual musicians, then do enough ear-training to identify enough notes to keep tabs on everyone (especially if you're conducting a high school or (god help you :) ) middle school orchestra), etc, etc.
But does anyone actually do that? Has anyone ever done that?
"I'm going to learn how to conduct an orchestra without learning any instruments" kinda feels like "I'm going to become a software engineer using an LLM instead of learning any foundations)"
(To be clear - the LLM path might be viable in the future, possibly the near future, but at least today it's not quite there. My apologies in advance if my analogy doesn't work in the future :) )