Talk:Conducting

message: That 1941 rehearsal photo of von Karajan is in very bad taste. By 1939 all of the Jewish musicians in Germany were dismissed from the orchestra and replaced with gentiles (some of whom were mediocre musicians). Many of those Jews were murdered or waiting to die in concentration camps. The concert for which this rehearsal transpires is for the Nazi elite; some of whom were complicit in the Holocaust. This is NOT accusing Herbert van Karajan of anything. It's the Nazi era photo that is disturbing. 
David Cary Hart (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor photo choice 

message: Do we need to disambiguate this from conducting electricity? Rmhermen 13:23 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:As far as I can see, all the pages which link to this article are looking for information on the musical kind of conducting, so I would say not. I wouldn't object to this being moved to conducting (music), but I don't think there's a need for it. --Camembert
:It seems that it should Conductivity if it were about electricity. "Conducting" isn't really the word used there. ("Conductor" also applies to electricity, but not as directly.) - Rainwarrior 16:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguate from electricity? 

message: I'm intrigued by the information regarding Lully's conducting misadventure -- are there any other known cases of "fatal conducting"? TrbleClef 23:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Felix Mottl died during a performance of Tristan, and it happened to another person (at the same point in the music) many years later. - Rainwarrior 16:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Mariss Jansons had a heart attack on the podium, but has since recovered (fortunately).  See the article for details, which also states that his father did die whilst conducting.  David Underdown 14:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Didn't Toscanini die from some kind of muscle injury sustained while conducting? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calaf (talk • contribs) 07:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conducting deaths 

message: I'm a student in my school band, and we've always learned the downbeat to be the first "half" of the note and the upbeat to be the second "half" For example, if we're in 4/4 time there are four upbeats, four downbeats. Has anyone else taught this way? If so should the article be changed to reflect this?Mutton 12:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If every beat is a dowbeat, what meaning would the word have? The downbeat is the first beat of the measure. Notes between beats are "off beat", not "up beat". - Rainwarrior 16:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the first half of the quarter note that would be the downbeat of all four. Example, in 4/4 you could play an Eigth Note on the downbeats, so you would play four eigthnotes in one measure on the first half of each beat. Mutton 22:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I should have said this differently. What I mean is, the usage you speak of I have not seen in any literature or in any of my training in conducting or music in general. Here's a link to dictionary.com's downbeat and upbeat, which are accurate to the only usage I've ever seen of downbeat. As I've said, "downbeat" is the first beat of a measure. "Upbeats" are the other beats in the measure. "Off beats", or "syncopated" rhythms are those that occur between beats (ie. on a half of a beat). - Rainwarrior 03:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I've been mistaken then. Thanks for straightening that out for me. Mutton 23:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good that you asked the question. (You might want to follow up and ask your teacher about it as well.) - Rainwarrior 05:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, thinking about it, Mutton is completely correct.  Take a standard 4/4 pattern, and technically, each beginning eighth note is literally a "downward-beating" hand motion to the ictus, and the second eighth duration of each beat is an upward-beating motion coming out of the ictus.  So yes, each first eight note of each beat is literally a down beat (but not a downbeat, which refers to the first beat of a measure).  Anyway, I stopped using Wiki completely ever since it became a haven for censorship and re-writing history and science according to the "editors".  I refuse to ever read Wiki now except since I am a conductor, I was curious to see how badly their entry was on the subject.  It's downright god-awful, as I expected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.125.229.84 (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downbeats/Upbeats 

message: This article really makes me cringe. A very large percentage of everything after the history section violates WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR. I hope we can clean up this very important topic. MarkBuckles  (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It completely omits Hans von Bülow, and basically anyone who was ever only a conductor and not also a composer. Other than that (which is a glaring problem, but I don't have the references onhand to fix it right now), it seems good to me. But yeah, for the future, Mark Buckles, please leave specific comments, general statements like "there is a problem with this article" are rather confusing. - Rainwarrior 18:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a good list. I agree fully with all of these, except those about choral conducting, which I sort of half agree with. There are definitely different trends in choral conducting versus orchestral conducting, i.e. the use of hands/baton, sometimes gesturing with the rhythm of the piece rather than even beats (as choral music is often homorhythmic), etc. That said, there is more far more overlap than division between these two types of conducting, and the wording needs to reflect this. The points about "more abstract motions" and such probably refer to the rhythmic thing I mentioned, but vague wording like that makes the statement useless. "Wiggling fingers signify quiet" should be removed, as it is untrue. I'll leave it to you, MarkBuckles, to make the changes. - Rainwarrior 17:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Careful with deeming items untrue. I have worked with many choral conductors who use that exact indication for piano. Calaf 07:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As a professional conductor and orchestral musician who also works with choirs, I can assert that the above is nonsense.  The issue is the level of sophistication of the members of the ensemble, not whether they sing or play instruments.  It is true that professional orchestra musicians do not need technical instruction from the podium, but then neither do professional singers.  An orchestral conductor _can_ assist, through gesture and other body language, with technical matters for non-professional players, provided that those players have been trained to respond to a conductor and have the technical competence to do what is asked.  Furthermore, the facial expressions and simple presence of a first-rate conductor can provide an explicit guide to the players about what kind of sound to make -- watch Bernard Haitink face-on, for example.  Lastly, whether an orchestra conductor is unclear is a function of his or her technique, preparation, and concentration, not of whether "too much" information is being provided.  No professional instrumentalist will ever complain about a conductor showing too much information, so long as the information is clear and does not distract from the performers' tasks.  76.90.232.8 (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: * "the only golden rule of conducting technique is that it should be clear and easy to follow." Golden-rule of conducting? Subjective.
* "An understanding of the three basic elements of musical expression (tempo, dynamics and style) makes any conductor capable of conveying a basic interpretation of the music to the performers." Just not true. Plenty of conductors understand these and are unable to convey them. Plus, since when is style one of the three basic elements of musical expression - this is a subjective list?
* "There is a particular distinction between orchestral conducting and choral conducting." As a choral conductor just returning from conducting an orchestra, I reject this claim.
* "Orchestral conductors typically use a baton (though not always: this is up to the conductor's personal preference), and giving a clear beat to the players is central. Choral conductors rarely use a baton, and although the beat is an important part of choral conducting, conductors tend to concentrate on musical expression and shape, making their movements appear more abstract." These are broad stereotypes that are really not true.
* "The two most important movements are the downbeat, which indicates the first beat of the bar, and the upbeat," not necessarily. They could be any important beat. What if the piece starts on beat 3? This just doesn't make sense to me.
* "the conductor's principal responsibility is to provide a preparation which forecasts with certainty the exact moment of the coming ictus" this is a responsibility. Some say the principal responability is to set the tempo, or to listen, or any number of things.
* "To encourage a particular accelerando or rallentando, a conductor may introduce beat subdivisions." You'd never subdivide for an accelerando. That's just wrong.
* "Dynamics are indicated in two main ways." Many famous conductors use neither of these methods, though I rather agree with the ones listed.
* "The former, changing the size of movements, often results in unintended tempo changes as well, that is, larger movements tend to slow down the tempo."  This is a mostly problem with amateur conductors who have not perfected their technique and probably shouldn't be listed as something that often happens in general.
* "Loud dynamics would then correspond to strained muscles and rigid movements, while soft dynamics correspond to relaxed hands and soft movements." Often this may have more to do with articulation than dynamics.
* "In choral conducting, wiggling the fingers of the right hand is also an accepted signal for 'sing much more quietly'." Accepted signal? I disagree.
* "Cueing is done either by pointing at the section at the appropriate time" This is quite inaccurate. Proper cueing necessitates engaging the players well before their entry and executing a clear preparation in the appropriate character, all while maintaining eye contact. Of course, not everyone does this, but merely pointing at a section has little effect.
* "While most entries only require eye contact," this article should not tell the reader what the music requires of the conducting gesture - this is a very contentious issue.
* "Phrasing is indicated by wide overhead arcs or by a smooth hand motion either forwards or side-to-side" How about may be indicated.
* "Staccato and legato can be differentiated by more or less 'spiky' movements." Spikey? Can we find a better word?
* "A good conductor aims to maintain eye contact with the ensemble as much as possible, encouraging eye contact in return and increasing the general dialogue between players/singers and conductor. " Okay, I totally agree, but this article should not tell the reader what a good conductor aims to do.
* "Facial expressions are also important; all performers, but especially less experienced ones, respond well to encouraging expressions. " Totallly subjective.
* "The conducter also has to not grip the cork of the baton really tight because this gives them muscle tension that limates hand movement." There are so many ways to hold the baton. We can list some of them, but we shouldn't say what is right. 
Hey, there's tons of good information in this article and I thank its contributors for that! There's just some that needs to be written in a more encyclopedic and neutral manner. If there's something you disagree with, let me know and let's figure out a way to say what needs to be said in a way that works for everybody. Best,
MarkBuckles  (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good list. I agree fully with all of these, except those about choral conducting, which I sort of half agree with. There are definitely different trends in choral conducting versus orchestral conducting, i.e. the use of hands/baton, sometimes gesturing with the rhythm of the piece rather than even beats (as choral music is often homorhythmic), etc. That said, there is more far more overlap than division between these two types of conducting, and the wording needs to reflect this. The points about "more abstract motions" and such probably refer to the rhythmic thing I mentioned, but vague wording like that makes the statement useless. "Wiggling fingers signify quiet" should be removed, as it is untrue. I'll leave it to you, MarkBuckles, to make the changes. - Rainwarrior 17:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Careful with deeming items untrue. I have worked with many choral conductors who use that exact indication for piano. Calaf 07:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As a professional conductor and orchestral musician who also works with choirs, I can assert that the above is nonsense.  The issue is the level of sophistication of the members of the ensemble, not whether they sing or play instruments.  It is true that professional orchestra musicians do not need technical instruction from the podium, but then neither do professional singers.  An orchestral conductor _can_ assist, through gesture and other body language, with technical matters for non-professional players, provided that those players have been trained to respond to a conductor and have the technical competence to do what is asked.  Furthermore, the facial expressions and simple presence of a first-rate conductor can provide an explicit guide to the players about what kind of sound to make -- watch Bernard Haitink face-on, for example.  Lastly, whether an orchestra conductor is unclear is a function of his or her technique, preparation, and concentration, not of whether "too much" information is being provided.  No professional instrumentalist will ever complain about a conductor showing too much information, so long as the information is clear and does not distract from the performers' tasks.  76.90.232.8 (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Violates NPOV, i.e. is subjective

message: I've had a go at improving some of these points and have removed the POV tag. I feel some of the sections still need to be made clearer for the non-specialist (e.g. subdivsion), but I feel much better about the general content and tone of the article. If I've done anything contentious, please let me know and let's find a way to make it work. MarkBuckles  (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision

message: The grip of the baton is a contentious issue that varies from conductor to conductor. Despite a wide variety of styles, a number of standard conventions have developed.
Anybody care to expand that? :) The externally linked article has a very good description of good conductor grip. I understand why the sentence is so very vague (as to limit POV bias), but more info is always nice, don't you think?
A number of standard conventions have developed... which are...? =o) Kareeser|Talk! 05:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baton Grip 

message: I'd like to see a bit about how the general public, as part of their ignorance of "classical music", has no idea what conductors do; it's a staple of low-grade stand-up comedy that "the guy just stands there waving his arms while the musicians do all the work".  There was a Saturday Night Live sketch about a "Conductors Club", where a bunch of guys met in somebody's living room, compared batons, and mimed vigorously while Beethoven's 5th was on the record player. Duh-di-di-DUuh! Duh-di-di-DUUUuhh!! jnestorius(talk) 17:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not like to see this section created. It's trite and unnecessary.--Jeff 17:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Trite" I can't agree with; I suspect there might be countries (Germany? Russia? Japan?) where such boorish joking is inconceivable, so that people from there would find mention of it in this article insightful.  See Wikipedia:Common knowledge and Wikipedia:State the obvious. "Unneccessary"  might be right, but to convince me would require a more elaborate argument. Feel free not to bother, of course; it was just a suggestion. jnestorius(talk) 18:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say most people don't really know what building inspectors do, or astronomers ("ha ha, all they do is drink beer and look at the sky"), or state legislators. Conductors aren't particularly distinctive in this regard. In fact, it's easy to think of professions which are much less known: quality control engineers, scientific lab assistants, warehouse managers. I don't think it's necessary in an encyclopedia article to gauge how well-known the information presented is to the general public. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a fair point.  I have heard what's-that-all-about jokes about quantity surveying, for example.  While there may be space in Wikipedia for information about such humour, I concede this is not the place. jnestorius(talk) 22:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one would welcome such a section. The reason I am here reading this article is just because I am ignorant of the conductors role. I understand the need of a conductor in leading the preparations and rehearsals for a concert, but while actually performing, I would guess the musicians knows what to do, either by heart or by the notes that they all have in front of them. Thus, an explanation as to what the conductor actually contributes when a piece is performed live would be welcomed. Thanks :-) 83.254.83.215 (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular ignorance 

message: Having the diagrams of beat patterns on the page seems to imply that they are the standard way of conducting; there is a variety of styles that disagree with this. For example, the majority of my teachers have placed all the beats in the center. Maybe it should be noted that the patterns shown are from a specific style? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.223.167 (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be good if we could include the patterns (both German and French) for 7 and the french for 6! :)--Karljoos (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beat Pattern Images 

message: In Italian literally means master. Although "teacher" is a common usage, perhaps Master is a better translation for this page? Or that alternate meaning ought to be mentioned?
Calaf 07:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Maestro"

message: It would be fun if someone could add how to become a conductor. Jack Daw 22:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Training 

message: The Palais Garnier is much after Lully's time and I've removed it; he hit himself in a church anyway.   If it was meant that the Opera using a large baton through the mid 19c, this should be documented as well as clarified. Sparafucil 12:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paris Opera

message: Hi,
in all the orchestra performances I've seen, the players look at their score sheet and not the conductor 99% of the time.
So, what's the purpose of the conductor?
--Murmur 81.208.83.232 12:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a professional violinist, let me tell you that either you weren't looking closely enough, or the alignment was such that the musicians could see the conductor out of the corner of their eyes. Not watching the conductor will get you fired. Period.
MatthieuV (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the purpose of conductors? 

message: Where is List of conductors ?  I worked on that page a lot.  There were well over a thousand names on the list.  Now it doesn't come up on "go" or "search" and is in red instead of blue.  In general, how does one find a lost article? Abstrator 22:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it disturbing that this list has disappeared.  Over a period of time, I added many names to the list, and I regularly checked all other additions to be sure they were valid.  The overwhelming majority of the names were linked to articles, the rest were waiting for articles to be written.  Who would revove this list, and how could anyone get away with it?  Why is there no evidence that the list ever existed?  I am seriously considering bailing on Wikipedia if I can expect this kind of thing to happen.  Abstrator 216.19.218.34 21:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It was deleted via AfD nomination.  See here.  The Wayback Machine has a copy from March located here. --Mperry 00:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You might want to keep a copy of the page from Answers.com.  When they next syncronize with Wikipedia that article will disappear since it doesn't exist here.  The wayback machine online indexes pages occasionally and I think even then only updates if it feels there is significant change. --Mperry 02:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best avenue is Deletion review, articles are not (usually) completely deleted, rather they are moved to different database tables which cannot be seen by "ordinary" users.  Even if the page is not re-instated via deletion review, an administrator may be willing to restore a copy to your user space, and you could then verify that all names are included in the relevant category.  David Underdown 11:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened to the long [[List of conductors]] ?

message: I'm sorry but this section is being written as a personal essay, and is not in an encyclopaedic tone, much also duplicates material in teh existing "Technique" section.  David Underdown (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments. Wikipedia is a user-edited encylopedia. Anyone can edit. Articles and sections often improve over time, as people edit the writing, find references and so on. In time this section will be improved.  OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 11:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does a Conductor do 

message: This mentioned source is not accessible. Does anybody have any other proof that those conductors did not use the baton? Thanks --Biopresto (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Baton: Necessity or Obstacle?

message: I deleted the sentence: "Kapellmeister simply refers to the music director of a church or chapel (Kapell)." In German, the term Kapelle (sic!) is used for both a small church and a musical ensemble. Both meanings have the same roots, but Kapellmeister was only used from the 16th century on when Kapelle could designate a secular, e.g. court orchestra as well as a church ensemble.
--Pjt56 (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Kapellmeister

message: Help! If there are any bored editors looking for a project, I rescued this article from oblivion... but I do not have the proper musical background to finish it. If anyone has expertise here, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --OliverTwisted  (Talk) (Stuff) 09:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Marco Balderi]] 

message: The list of conductors offered in the "history" paragraph is bizarre.  I don't think anyone would consider Boulez to be one of the most important conductors of his era, and certainly not Harnoncourt.  Where are Furtwaengler, Karajan, Szell, Solti?  It seems silly to offer a hunt-and-peck list of five or six conductors of wildly varying stature without articulating why they were selected for mention above all others.  76.90.232.8 (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Those names were preceded by "Amongst prominent conductors who did not or do not use a baton are ...".  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  06:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Representative conductors 

message: I know there are many more male conductors than female, especially for orchetras and symphonies.
Anybody know the woman:man ratio?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexir11 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since some belong to one union while others belong to another and still others who are semi-professional or amateur belong to no union or organization with easily discoverable statistics... it would be almost impossible to tell. 75.48.3.183 (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

text: In composition the ratio is about one woman for every nine men. It's not much different in conducting: . Hyacinth (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender ratio for orchestra conductors? 

message: Nice to know classical orchestral music under conductors is still alive and well in the USA. I wonder what happened to it in Europe after the death of Furtwangler? Apart from someone called Karajan who seems to have conducted in Berlin,  it looks as if it died the death. Delahays (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: USA vs Europe

message: :category:conductors. Daft. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: There isn't one, at present -- just on the technique of conducting.
What do conductors do?  Furtwangler spoke to Albert Speer toward the end of World War II, saying "What will become of my orchestra?  I'm responsible for them."  Speer arranged it so that the musicians would not be drafted.
This anecdote (reported by Speer) reveals that in some contexts conductors have administrative, musical, or even personal responsibilities, far beyond the technique of "conducting". 69.119.169.59 (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: I'd like to see an article on Conductors

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://musiced.about.com/od/musiccareer1/p/theconductor.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Alfietucker (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: It is my opinion that the top photo of the article should include a baton. What are your views? Arfæst!  23:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Here are my candidates, in order of preference, all paintings by Robert Sterl: 1. Arthur Nikisch conducting at the Gewandhaus in Leipzig; 2. Ernst von Schuch conducting Rosenkavalier; 3. Schuch (1914). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, personally I agree - the photo of baton would fit the page well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jungles13 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Why should the top photo have a baton? Hyacinth (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I only came here because SuggestBot thought I might find the article interesting to work with and I know this debate is a bit stale by now. Nevertheless, I think the current photo is good. It is great when the photo does not follow the stereotype image that most people have about the subject, but rather widens the perspective in a thought-provoking manner while still staying absolutely true the the subject of the article. Other good examples of such image choices are Fishing, Semper fidelis and House, none of the main pics in those articles are stereotypic. It might not be out of place to have a pic of a woman conducting without a baton as main pic. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 12:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top Photo - Baton, or no baton? 

message: It's definitely interesting to read about women conductors and black conductors, but why does it have to be in the article twice (once in the history section, once in a section of its own)? This makes the article unbalanced. Roughly one fourth of the entire article currently deals with this matter.
I see the "neutrality" tag has recently been put up there, but nobody has bothered to give an explanation here. --84.190.92.41 (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nine months later, there is still a redundant and unbalanced paragraph at Conducting#21st century, and worse, a wholly duplicated section at Conducting#Role of women. That section is much better covered at Women in music#Conducting and should be removed here, bar the  cross-reference. Several editors have attempted to improve this article by removing that duplication, but they have been reverted. I suggest to return the article to  or similar. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed the large sections on women and minority conductors, in contrast to none about the vast majority group of conductors renders this article totally out of balance. They do not belong here.−Woodstone (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Thank you for your ideas on improving the article. I am happy to discuss these ideas with everyone. I added the sections on women and conducting and Blacks and conducting due to Wikipedia-wide issues that have been identified by external observers and within the Wikipedia editors community on Gender bias on Wikipedia and Racial bias on Wikipedia. This is not just some individual/personal concern of mine. The article on gender bias says that the "nature and quantity of its content is biased" against content about women "due to the fact that a dominant majority of Wikipedia editors are male. It is among the most frequent criticisms of Wikipedia". I think that the article should have some general quotes from reliable sources that give readers a sense of the statistics on women and Black conductors. As well, since reliable sources state that there has been discrimination against women and Black conductors, I think the article should at least mention this in one sentence. If there are contrary views (i.e., that there has not been discrimination), these could also get space, as per WP:NPOV. ThanksOnBeyondZebrax • TALK 11:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that the sections you added were required. The article did already mention the under-representation of women/Mexicans/blacks and referred to Women conductors and Black conductors twice. Further, your cut/paste edits introduced citation errors (see overleaf and below). Copy/paste from other articles only muddies the treatment of the subject and makes further development more difficult. I suggest to remove the redundant material. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy re: women and Black conductors 

message: The German Wiki carries a separate article ("Schlagfigur", see URL below) on technique (conducting pattern) that I think should ideally crosslink to the "Technique" section of this article. Is that possible?
Here is the URL to German-language article: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlagfigur
94.223.163.195 (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject is covered in this article at Conducting#Technique. I don't think it would be generally helpful to include an inline link to the German article (which, IMO, doesn't add much). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible to link German article on conducting pattern to Technique section in this article? 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Conducting's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "theguardian.com":
From Black conductors: Higgins, Charlotte, "Black conductor fears he will remain exception", The Guardian, 10 August 2004.
From Women in music: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Conducting]] 

message: Miguel da Graça Moura (Porto, 1947) is a Portuguese conductor and Jesús López Cobos (born 25 February 1940) is a Spanish conductor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.2.5.53 (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miguel Graça Moura & Jesús López-Cobos: Two Iberian Conductors 

message: I can't find anything on that. Does a conductor need to know how to play (all? most?) instruments (violin, piano, wind brass etc.) or does he just have a PhD in stick waving? Try to do a search, there's no returns. Why would a guy get all the glory when he does pretty much nothing? (I mean from what I read here, he just tells the violins when to start playing in relation to the trumpets but it seems they should know that already and the job is utterly useless and probably overpaid!) And how does he get his training? What does his sheet say? Does he even read music? I mean the musicians already have notes such as "staccato" or "crescendo" to tell them how to play, fast, slow, increasing the tempo, fade away etc. So, again: does a conductor need to know how to play any instrument or anyone with a musical ear off the streets can climb that podium and start waving a twig? Just tired of those glorifying such a position that, for all accounts and purposes, appears to be completely useless. Yet they clap for him instead of the musicians. (Or, rather, the guy turns and bows at the end, as if he is taking all the glory, while the musicians remain seated. I say he should instead step down from the podium so the audience has a clear view on the musicians, who ought to rise and bow.) Prove me wrong.108.178.137.210 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Most conductors do play an instrument, or several, although there's no formal rule requiring them to. Most conductors of choral ensembles are also singers. Orchestras do usually stand to acknowledge applause, although they don't usually bow. I'm not sure of the point of your rant about their worth, though. Put it on Facebook. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are conductors also musicians? 

message: it is a form of musical pieces played together to form sound vibrations 102.134.175.220 (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  music 

message: — Assignment last updated by Sanna Pederson Eroica sonata (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Classic and Romantic Music History