How does JW rate as a conductor?

[Eric_JWFAN 11]

The classical highbrows probably don't take him seriously as a conductor even though, in my opinion, he's performed admirably with standard repertoire. I realize he's not a Simon Rattle or Claudio Abbado, but what do you think of him? I believe if he had dedicated his life to it, he'd be pretty legit.

[John Crichton 4]

According to everything I've heard he's very highly regarded.

[Hlao-roo 389]

I believe if he had dedicated his life to it, he'd be pretty legit.

He's too legit... too legit to quit.

[Miguel Andrade 1,263]

Quite good.

[Joe Brausam 214]

You can tell by the quality of the performances he turns out. The conductor can make all the difference in the world - they can make the LSO sound terrible or could make a college orchestra sound like the NYP.

[Trent Hoyt 13]

He must be quite good considering he was the conductor of The Boston Pops, a very prestigious orchestra.

[Hellgi 0]

The Boston Pops is a well-known orchestra, but it's still a "Pops" orchestra. Definitely not as prestigious as its "classical repertoire" counter-part, the Boston Symphony Orchestra.

Regarding JW's conducting technique, my personal opinion is that his technique, precision and musical abilities make him the best session conductor in the industry. Contrary to many conductors in that domain, he's not here to simply give the tempo and cue musicians in. Also, his free timing chops (combined with pretty decent writing ) are definitely the best in the world, bar none.

AFAIK, he's also an extremely nice, gentle and humble person. Musicians *love* that, and they regard him in the highest esteem. This helps in getting a good performance (sometimes much more than your actual abilities). JW has such an aura and reputation that musicians are very focused and usually try to do their best when working for him.

Apart from that, I do not think he's a great *classical* conductor, not because of a lack of technique, but more so because it's simply not his specialty. In my opinion, he just doesn't bring anything to the table when conducting classical works, where the vision of a composer's life, overall body of work, place in music history (and History more generally) is of the utmost importance. That set of skills (ie. understanding Classical Music, the work being performed, the composer, and applying that knowledge to an actual interpretation with an orchestra) is what makes great conductors like Bernstein, Abaddo, Toscanini, Karajan, etc.

But again, that's never been JW's job.

[davros72 1]

I can't speak to personal experience of being conducted by him myself, but being a trumpet player for over 25 years and having seen JW conducting in Chicago last November, I thought his conducting style (in terms of relating tempo, cues, phrasing, etc.) was very clear and straightforward (with dashes of fun thrown in where appropriate). I have a feeling that if I were ever to be in a group being conducted by The Man Himself, I would have no problem following along (once I got over the sheer joy and hysteria that would distract me for the first few moments). He also seems very communicative with the members during the performance, both in terms of readying before the start of a piece and also during the performance. And even though he's in his 70s, he seemed very lively during the entire afternoon. I've seen conductors (and been conducted by conductors) who bring little joy or communication to the process and just wave their batons in time to the tempo.

In terms of relating to another (classical) composer's compositions and bringing the passion and musical history to the piece... I guess I'm not quite that musically literate, sorry.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

i am not able to discern the conductors performance while listening to a recording.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

How was Jerry rated as a conductor? What about Jimmy?

[Hellgi 0]

How was Jerry rated as a conductor? What about Jimmy?

My comments could also apply to Jerry Goldsmith (ie. an amazing session conductor).

Jimmy who?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Jimmy Roy Horner.

[Beowulf 4]

The classical highbrows probably don't take him seriously as a conductor even though, in my opinion, he's performed admirably with standard repertoire. I realize he's not a Simon Rattle or Claudio Abbado, but what do you think of him? I believe if he had dedicated his life to it, he'd be pretty legit.

I consider myself a classical highbrow and I can tell you that I take him quite seriously as a conductor.

It seems to me that he has the same great expectations and high standards from an orchestra which is playing other composer's pieces as he does his own. If anything, his experience as a composer only seems to help him to interpret other pieces to their full potential - as with any other good composer-cum-conductors.

I've always liked how he accentuates and brings forward the Brass and Woodwinds in pieces that i've heard a million times, to such a point that I hear things I never heard previously (I was obsessed with Shostakovich's 'Festive Overture' a few years back, and of the many copies I listened to, Williams' recording on the 'Summon the Heroes' album was always my favorite).

[Magnus 0]

He may not be the greatest conductor technically, but at least according to my dad (principal cellist in the Swedish Radio Symphony Orchestra), the reason for why orchestras follow him as well as they do is because he lands particularly his down beats very well.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

what is a good conductor 'technically'?

[Morlock 11]

Someone who keeps the orchestra in check, doesn't over-conduct (dancing around may look good to the audience, but doesn't help the orchestra), and is precise about what he's doing. I've found that a good conductor is one through which I can gain greater understanding of how a piece is constructed (according to what attention he gives to what phrase, and to whast sections of the orchestra).