On Feb 27, 2013, at 12:49 PM, symphonick <symphon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/2/27 Rachel Dwight <hibiscuskazen...@gmail.com> > > On Feb 27, 2013, at 10:29 AM, LordSputnik <ben.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think it would make sense to have an "artistic director", who's a > > combination of a manager, a conductor and a band leader, but otherwise I'm > > struggling to see how "director" is different to "conductor", I'm afraid. > > > > A conductor is more involved than a director. A director mostly just points > out where to start and stop and then gives suggestions for improvement > between takes. A conductor is there for the whole performance directing the > performers throughout. Think film for a minute: would a movie's director be > talking to the actors during the shoot? No, because he would interfere with > the performance. The actors can't watch his cues constantly; they have to > focus on their roles. Same with music; the studio has to be completely silent > so no background noise ends up on the recording. The studio personnel cannot > distract the performers for any reason. > > ? A conductor can't talk during a concert, obviously. And would have the same > relationship to opera performers; they have to focus on what they're doing on > stage. I guess I must have worded that badly. Of course the conductor doesn't "talk"; he gestures with his hands and the orchestra watch constantly for his instructions. A director can't do even that. > > /symphonick _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
