Let me know if I am off base about this. The need for coordination in a complex economy makes calls for a cooperative organization of production seem hopelessly utopian. A common example is a production of symphonic music where a conductor prevents the musicians from creating a cacophony of sounds. Even Karl Marx suggested the necessity of a conductor:
In all labour where many individuals cooperate, the interconnection and unity of the process is necessarily represented in a governing will, and in functions that concern not the detailed work but rather the workplace and its activity as a whole, as with the conductor of an orchestra. [Marx 1981, p. 507] Surprisingly, conductors were a fairly new innovation at the time Marx was writing. Previously, a conductor wielding a baton did not lead the orchestra. Instead, musicians themselves, usually the first violinist, took on that responsibility while they were performing. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven all conducted their own works -- often from the keyboard. According to Urs Frauchiger, previously director of Bern's music conservatory, the composer Carl Maria von Weber was the first to serve as a conductor standing in from of the musicians in a performance at Dresden in 1817. Later, Ludwig Spohr conducted a performance and Felix Mendelssohn soon followed. At the time, another famous composer, Robert Schumann, protested that the conductor's baton contradicted republican principles. Within a short time, republican principles were soon forgotten and the conductor became a central figure in symphonic productions (Frauchiger 1982, pp. 69 ff). The development of Romanticism in the late 19th century made music more complex, reinforcing the perceived need for a conductor. Leon Fleisher, a renowned pianist and conductor, advocates a return to the earlier tradition. .The Economist. reported on Fliesher's experience working with the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra during a rehearsal of Beethoven's "Emperor" Concerto. At the time, Fleisher exclaimed: "This part is always screwed up with a conductor, but we've played it perfectly twice. This is proof that conductors should just sit down" (Anon. 2006). The article cites Eric Bartlett, a cellist with both Orpheus and the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, who described the lower level of individual intensity in the latter organization: "If even a great conductor is empowered to make all the important decisions musicians start to play in a more passive way. Orpheus has removed a barrier between the audience and the music, the conductor himself." The article concludes: "So why aren't there more conductor-less orchestras? Star conductors sell more tickets than co-operatives." So perhaps, the power of the conductor is just a case of markets triumphing over art. It certainly would not be the first instance of such an outcome. I don't pretend to be an expert on music, but Fleischer's experience with the Orpheus Orchestra suggests that forms of organization that we take for granted may not be the best way of organizing society. Anon. 2006. "Headless." The Economist (3 August). Frauchiger, Urs. 1982. Was zum Teufel ist mit der Musik los (Bern: Zyglogge). My old friend, Aldo Matteucci, supplied me with the information about Frauchiger's book. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com
