Comparison of performances

Conducting at Schæffergården.

Conducting at Harpa.

Example 5.

There is only one other instance where the conductor activates the volume value control at the Harpa concert. It is around measure 60 soon after a stop and a synchronization jump.

Conducting at Schæffergården.

The following shows the Schæffergården performance where the conductor activates the volume value control about 3 measures later.

Conducting at Harpa.

There is a difference although not significant in how frequently the conductor activates the volume value control during these performances. At Harpa, the conductor activates volume control total five times while in the Schæffergården she activates it seven times during the 1st. movement. At Harpa, she misses the written instruction in measure 91-98 and makes no activation in measure 23-29 like in the Schæffergården performance. Before jumping to a conclusion lets look at the other movements.

2nd. movement.

In the second movement, written instructions for volume value control are written twice, once in measure 30 and the other at the very end of the movement starting in the measure 85. Therefore all other activations are the conductor’s decisions using her musicality or what she hears during the performance. Here we have a very different outcome since in the Harpa performance the conductor activates the volume value control only twice or exactly where there are written instructions while in the Schæffergården she activates it six times, in other words, there are four places where she decides to activate the volume value control. What causes these differences can have various explanations, but it seems to me that these causes may be as follows:

  • The concert at Harpa was the first concert and the conductor was, therefore, more careful. The fact that the battery of the conducting glove fell out of its box in the middle of 2nd. movement might have added to that.
  • The concert in Scæffergården was the fourth and the last concert of the tour. Therefore, the conductor got to know the work very well as well as the potential of ConDiS. She was therefore much more relaxed.
  • At the concert in Harpa, the conductor had difficulty hearing the electronic sounds, speakers placed behind her, and therefore she had difficulties to hear and sense the reaction to her volume value control.
  • That was the opposite of the final concert where she could hear very well the electronics and the reaction towards her control activation.
  • The fact that this was a final concert might have encouraged the conductor to experiment and take even more advantage of the possibilities of ConDiS.

Comparison:

Conducting at Schæffergården.

Conducting at Harpa.

And the closing measures of the 2nd. movement.

Conducting at Schæffergården.

Conducting at Harpa.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *