Is it respectable to not have "an instrument" when one becomes a composer/conductor?

[scorpionldr]

I've been speaking with some conductors/composers, and any time I ask them (the ones that aren't teaching directly to classes of their originating instrument) where they find time to practice/play music and keep up a performing career, they respond something along the lines of "well, I have a lot to arrange/complete, and i have to manage this/that so basically I gave up playing an instrument to compose/conduct".
I wonder if this is something widely respectable or natural, or if it's just the lazy way out of working.

coincidentally, in changing my major, making all my academia non-music related (except for a sax band), I find in a way I've sort of done the same thing. Anyways, what do you think of all this?

[Marcury]

I'd bet they all have a piano or keyboard and simply mean they gave up workng on their performance chops.

[Snarf]

Most of them are excellent pianists, but as the above poster said, they gave up practicing and performing for conducting, arranging, and composing. It's DEFINITELY not lazy, they just don't have time. I've had a couple conducting teachers who conducted for major symphony orchestras, and they can play piano great, but arranging and conducting are two intense careers. It's like the people I know who chose to do music engineering or music synthesis. They had to give up playing for their major.

[scorpionldr]

Originally Posted by Marcury

I'd bet they all have a piano or keyboard and simply mean they gave up workng on their performance chops.

well yea, because it's an arranging instrument. lol on the other hand I need none because of the piano roll i have in the software

[Marcury]

so what's your point?

[bearfoot]

I think you're still in school and a bit green to be calling conductors and arrangers lazy.

[scorpionldr]

bearfoot, contrary to what you read, my indication was not composers/conductors are considered lazy, it's if this makes people view them as lazy. a question mark in the place of a period would make all the difference.

Marcury, the point i was trying to make was more in the questioning of what does it matter if you play an instrument or not if your a good arranger/composer/conductor of material you produce? like when i pick up the bass, i start playing something, and i always somehow just jump back to something i know or a variation of something I know, and I'm just thinking to myself all the while, "isnt this a crutch compared to actually sitting down and writing something?"

[doctorjazz]

Yeah, definitely want to have a piano handy. Other than that, you don't really "need" an instrument.

[lemur821]

I think it's pretty natural. You'd have to be a superman to be a good composer and or conductor and a concert-level instrumentalist at the same time. How are you going to find time to practice an instrument when you're trying to figure out what to write? Or how can you decide how best to play a part when you've got to figure out how to play it on an entire orchestra?

If playing is as important to you as whatever else you do, I think you can make enough time to be respectable at both things. But I don't think it's lazy to concentrate on what you want to do most.

[BassChuck]

Most of the really fine conductors had a performance career before they got into conducting. Some did not. But if you are looking to get into conducting to avoid working on performance skills, its time to consider a different career, one perhaps not in music.

I've been in hundreds of orchestral rehearsal of all kinds and I can tell you that any conductor that appears to have little or no skill as a performer will not have the respect of the orchestra... big problem.

Imagine the situation of a person will only basic performance skills trying to teach a professional rock band how to play a song in a way they didn't want to... you get something of the idea. And one might say, well, professional musicians are paid to play perfectly so that wouldn't be a problem. OK, have you ever heard a perfectly performed piece of music played in a lackluster way? A few concerts like that and the 'conductor' would have some serious problems with their boss.

It has to do with communication and respect. Remember the conductor is the only musician on stage NOT making a sound.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by Snarf

Most of them are excellent pianists, but as the above poster said, they gave up practicing and performing for conducting, arranging, and composing. It's DEFINITELY not lazy, they just don't have time. I've had a couple conducting teachers who conducted for major symphony orchestras, and they can play piano great, but arranging and conducting are two intense careers...

Yup - there's a huge difference between being an excellent pianist and having a career as a soloist, keeping a Rachmaninov concerto in your head etc. etc.

[tkozal]

in my experience they usually have very adequate keyboard skills, maybe not enough for a solo career, but more than enough to make a living if needed. I also find today many have played with or tried other instruments, its part of the process of learning the orchestra...

I was a guitar playing composition major in school, and was strongly encouraged to improve my keyboard skills.

[brianrost]

Serge Koussevitsky and Zubin Mehta are two bassists who left their instruments behind to become conductors.