Criticism of orchestra conductor (2)

This letter is not about the inaugural concert at the Manoel Theatre although inspired by the writings about it. More particularly by Amabile V. Galea's piece (October 21) where he brought up a point which always was beyond my understanding - the habit of orchestra directors to conduct great music without a score. Of course, both those conductors who do so and those who don't are in good company. So it is not a matter of practising the habit or not but rather of asking what does such practice add to the performance.

To me, a conductor not using a score is only a person with a good memory who, being human, takes the risk of that memory failing him ending up with the orchestra leading him rather than the other way round - a not unknown occurrence. Conducting without a score says nothing more about the level of knowledge and understanding of the music, the subtlety of interpretation or other musical capabilities of the conductor than if the same music were conducted by someone using a score.

But, I feel, there is something more essential to the music, which is lost when one conducts without a score. It is the respect for the composer. Knowingly or not, such a conductor arrogates to himself what is exclusively due to the composer. He gives the impression as if the music is magically flowing from the tip of his baton and communicating it to the players excluding in the process the composer's genius which can only be symbolically represented by the score. I believe the score should always be present and open.

A noble gesture was made at the end of a concert I watched on TV lately. During the ovation, the conductor reached for the score on the lectern and lifted it up high as if to tell the appreciative audience that the applause was first and foremost due to the composer. Another thing to be admired is that some concert halls exhibit the bust of the composer whose music is being played. Others project on a background screen the picture or signature of the composer.