A. GENERAL PERCEPTIONS

Non-real-time performers are not generally recognized as true artists. That is, rather than playing something on the piano in front of live company, for instance, one may instead enter each note of the score into a computer, then painstakingly revise and refine all the dynamics, articulation, and other nuances several times over, until a final, satisfactory product is produced. Although the method is different, the music is no less a result of the artist's mind.

In a combined real-time/synthonia performance (or perhaps any performance), the audience's natural tendency is to focus on the soloist, while only half-consciously aware of the electronically simulated 'background music'. In my own experience, however, the time spent in simulating and pre-conducting orchestral accompaniment far exceeds the time involved in learning to perform solo parts in real time. Make no mistake: e-conducting is no less time-consuming or involved than conventional conducting.

B. COMPARISON

Conducting an orchestra is not unlike painting a piece of art. In both skills, the ideas are mentally conceived before they are revealed to the audience. Both are an attempt to materialize what already exists in the artist's mind. William Schaeffer, who is largely responsible for codifying conducting into a learnable method, would always emphasize to his students: 'The conductor must finish all of his rehearsing before the orchestra's first rehearsal'.

I think no conductor would disagree. Similarly, by downbeat, an orchestra should already be well-rehearsed or 'programmed' into doing what the conductor has communicated during rehearsal. So in a sense, even real-time conductors don't actually conduct in real time, because most everything hinges on rehearsal: namely, rehearsal time and rehearsal methodology.

All conducting, furthermore, ultimately amounts to the same basic tasks. Whether in real time or whether pre-programming an orchestra for performance, the conductor must have a clear idea of precisely what he or she wants the music to sound like. Especially when performing unheard or rarely recorded works, the conductor must be able to 'hear' a score by sight. Both real-time and e-conductors must possess a complete knowledge of the orchestra and each instrument, the piece's musical structure and harmony, the stylistic practices of the day, and the composer's own musical idiom. Then, almost invariably, there is additional editing to be done: errata in the score, harpsichord continuo to be realised, problems of transcription and orchestration, etc.

There are differences, of course. Besides conductor and orchestrator, the e-conductor must also be the sound engineer and electronic technician. S/he must have a working knowledge of both computers and synthesizers, and be able to e-orchestrate or 'synthonize' special elements such as rubato, trills, and cadenzas. And - one thing that some people don't like about e-conducting - is that instead of dealing with people, you are dealing with numbers. Humans are intuitive and usually 'get it' faster; but, on the other hand, the e-orchestra never forgets or fails to deliver. In my opinion, it's an even trade-off.

On the definite plus side, the e-conductor needn't worry about the oboe player not showing up, or scheduling conflicts, or that the music is too difficult for the viola section, or about unanticipated blunders during a real performance. And with all the files properly saved, the e-conductor can improve upon this or that concerto-accompaniment (e.g. I changed my mind, I'd like an extra trill here, more decrescendo there, etc.) with each passing performance. Also, the e-conductor can create multiple versions of the piece (e.g. recorders instead of flutes; A=415Hz instead of A=440Hz, etc.), without starting from scratch. This, in my opinion, is an immense time-saver over communicating what you want each and every time you get a new orchestra under your baton.

Of course the obvious advantage, for those of us who cannot afford to finance our own symphony orchestra, is cost-effectiveness. For although the equipment may be a bit expensive, it easily pays for itself after the first few performances. By any measure an e-orchestra is much cheaper than hiring an ensemble, and vastly cheaper than hiring a full symphony orchestra.

C. CONCLUSION

Although it is already possible, with the right equipment and knowledge of orchestration, to 'fool' most ears with an e-orchestra, I must whole-heartedly concur with critics that there is no substitute for the sheer feeling of presence commanded by dozens of bows flying in unison, the inner dynamics between the players, spatial factors, and many other sensations that only a manned orchestra can deliver.

However, it is also a fact of life that potential soloists far outnumber available orchestras; and that much if not most solo repertoire is scored for soloist + orchestra (or ensemble), not piano reduction. Replacing orchestras is not the issue here. Synthonia simply allows music to be performed and heard the way it was originally scored, in situations where this would otherwise not be possible.

I mention this last point because as a symphony musician, my colleagues and I lived in constant fear of being displaced by synthonia. Naturally I was apprehensive at the idea of allying myself with 'the enemy' at first. But after taking up the mouthflute (artwhistling), it did not take long to realize that with such an unorthodox instrument, not too many orchestras were lining up to engage me as a soloist. So, while my use of synthonia was at first a practical necessity, now I've come to appreciate the artistic potential of e-conducting in its own right. Although there are important differences, it is every bit the equal of conducting in the more conventional sense.

- J.M. Schlitz