An Interview with Sir Roger Norrington

By Paul Wegman Taylor

Paul Wegman Taylor recently sat down with Sir Roger Norrington for an in-depth and far-ranging discussion of Norrington’s life in music. This is the second installment in a four-part series.

“What you have to have is ideas.” – Sir Roger Norrington

Part 2 – Career

PWT: What have been the professional consequences of your particular path as conductor?

RN: Well others might answer that from outside better than I can. But finally, I’ve always had enough work, really. I suppose if I hadn’t had these funny ideas, I might have had a more ordinary career. Or a “grander” career, or something. But, I seem to have done everything I wanted, so I can’t really complain. It’s true; I had no symphony orchestra post until this one [Stuttgart], other than with the London Classical Players. But no permanent job and no GMD of an opera house.

I had an opera company for fifteen years, but it was a part time affair. Finally what have I done? As much orchestral stuff as I’ve wanted, as much opera as I’ve wanted, as much early music as I’ve wanted and as much choral music as I’ve wanted, and my share of avant garde music: Those are the consequences. Another answer to the consequences of being a singer, and a violinist, and performer have been very important for my career. And having been in business. Yes, I’ve thought: everything I’ve done has helped this “career:” Reading [majoring in] History at College, and then English Literature at University, was a marvelous background.

PWT: That seems to come through in your method of work.

RN: Yes, one tends to take learning seriously, having studied. I didn’t have a very good degree or anything, but I studied seriously, and then I was in the Air Force for two years. I learned a lot about getting on with people in the Air Force. Wow! How to survive in societies you aren’t used to. Umm, then I was in business. I mean, not many musicians have had that kind of experience. In publishing, having set goals, setting yourself goals, you have to achieve them, working for deadlines, there’s publicity, there’s production. You know it’s very very useful to know how to run things.

PWT: Useful as a freelance conductor…

RN: Yes, yes, I’ve been project-oriented the whole time. The Schütz Choir, The LCP, The Kent Opera, The Experience weekends at South Bank Center <laughs> sort of like “EST weekend for music,” and now here with the Radio Orchestra. It’s all project-oriented.

PWT: What are the prerequisites to a successful career as a conductor?

RN: Wow. Well, you need good musical energy, and you need to be good with people. You need to be exciting with the music, but not over the top, otherwise people will start yawning. It helps if you give something to the audience. However, if you conduct for the audience, you’re dead.

But one review of a Haydn Creation I lead in London said “Norrington doesn’t simply want the public to enjoy it, he insists they enjoy it!” Now, I wasn’t turning around to the audience and saying “good bit coming up!” of course, but the joy is communicated through one’s back I guess!

PWT: Watching rehearsals and concerts, you appear to communicate your momentary emotional experience of the music directly to the musicians while conducting.

RN: The American cellist Lynn Harrell once said during a week as soloist with me in Boston, after some days working together “I think I’ve got it, what you do: you don’t give a beat without it saying something about the music.” I don’t have a conductorial master plan, I just follow my instincts, but I try not to give a downbeat that doesn’t say something about how the next musical moment should be. I think that’s a prerequisite for being a successful conductor.

Finally I think the joy of music is terribly important. People respond to that. At least most people respond to it. For instance one solo trumpeter, came up to me and said, “I’d just like to tell you, you remind me of why I became a musician,” which was very moving to him and to me, as well. I mean there are some orchestra members who do not want to be reminded that they left the joy behind. They get really annoyed that I am reminding them that you’re supposed to be enjoying playing, “I don’t want to…well…enjoy it, so please just get out of my hair!”

PWT: In psychology that might be called “cognitive dissonance.”

RN: Cognitive dissonance! Absolutely! So that’s the danger of the jolly approach. I mean here in Stuttgart, it’s a ball, we have a great time.

PWT: Therefore, you’ve had hot and cold experiences with various orchestras…

RN: Yes, but mostly I have to say, it’s been hot! With Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Vienna, Amsterdam, Berlin I do get asked back, so the people must like it. There are always some musicians who feel differently, “please bug off,” in each orchestra, though, as I said. Of course, my delighted approach is part of the whole amateur thing. I have been that always, after all!

PWT: Ahem, of course you’ve been no “real  Maestro…”

RN: No, that’s right!

PWT: OK, well, what does amateur mean then?

RN: Well exactly, precisely! I show my delight all the time. Some people like it, and some don’t. It’s me and there’s no point in trying to be being somebody else. I used to try that, you know, <with deep voice> “Tut, tut Gentlemen!” a bit like Boult. But there was no point! You’ve got to be you. They’ll like you and book you, or they won’t.

The amateur thing is quite important to me, still: I was with the Junge Deutsche Philharmonie (Frankfurt) two weeks ago, and it was electric. They are so surprised when you’re not being a maestro with them but just in there with them. It’s not genius, it’s just to be you. Yes, good with people, programming, but finally having ideas about the music. That’s most important. One sees so many conductors that are fine at musical organizing, but I feel that’s not all of it.

Sometimes people, indeed, especially Americans, like to think in niches: “Norrington, yeah, his niche was these funny tempi for Beethoven” or “Sir Roger, great stuff, well done, well done, those tempos.” They like success, you know. <laughs> Well, they thought it was for marketing reasons, but I went after certain concepts because I thought it suited the music! Things that suit the music are the things that I try to put over.

It was often implied “well, you only got on professionally because of your funny early music ideas.” And I’ve said “not at all, I would have been a very good conductor if I’d never heard of early music!” and I think that’s true, without blowing one’s own trumpet. I think there are early music conductors around, who are extremely boring. They know a lot about other music too, but it doesn’t make them good conductors. I would have been as good or as bad as I am in any case, it’s just that I have information as well: a knapsack of special effects! I happen to think they’re rather important. Some people don’t agree.

I’ve really never had a big problem getting on with orchestras. One great American orchestra I didn’t win over (so far), and an older radio orchestra in Holland do come to mind, and a radio orchestra in France. In France I would ask them to do something and some members would say “ne c’est pas ecrit!” it’s not written down! I would say “no, it’s not! I thought it was about making music and phrasing, and serious fun!” But on the whole, to 90% certainly, I can’t complain at all of orchestras being difficult. I just get on with it, and try to make the music.

PWT: You’ve answered one of my next questions concerning labels that the classical music media and press seek to put on most prominent interpreters…

RN: Oh, the marketing “niches!”

PWT: Yes. Well, which of the labels do you identify with the most?

RN: Well, what are they again?

PWT: “Beethoven Metronome Fanatic,” “Scholar Conductor,” “Period Instrument Apostle,” “Pure tone Messiah,” etc…

RN: I think the answer is: Yes! To all of them! And indeed, I am guilty of all kinds of music specialization. I expect to be able to handle almost any music, actually. However, there are some areas I’m not attracted to. Most French music, for instance I have had little experience with. Except Berlioz, of course, but he was so much influenced by Beethoven. And Russian music I am not particularly knowledgeable about. I do, of course play Tchaikovsky because he’s the least Russian of them all, and Stravinsky also, who said, Tchaikovsky was the most Russian! But other greats, Mussorgsky, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, I don’t do. But in those composers that I do play, I expect to be a specialist.

If I do Mahler 9th, I expect to know as much as anyone does about it, and perhaps in some aspects a bit more. Just like with Beethoven or Haydn, or Brahms, Bruckner, etc. Also modern works that I take on. I think it is simply practical to do background research. But I don’t consider myself to be a scholar! But I do expect to be a conductor, and to do that seriously means research!

A conductor should know at which speed Mozart took his music. What size orchestra Bach wrote for. Of course Beethoven’s metronome wasn’t faulty! There are museum-piece machines from 1814-15 still spot-on today! So that’s what it’s about. Not necessarily being able to play the whole symphony on the piano from memory. That’s not being a conductor. Nor wearing a fur coat! It’s knowing things within and behind the score. I don’t think of myself as a specialist, actually. There was a time when I was a Monteverdi specialist. And Bach, but then, I haven’t done much Monteverdi or Bach for years. Younger musician specialists now know much more than I. That’s fine.

The labels are funny, though: In Portugal my first engagement was doing a Mozart opera, so I was a Mozart specialist. In Italy, I started out doing a couple of modern programs so I was called an “avant-gardist.” And in Karlsrühe the first time, I did a Händel opera so I was a Händel/Baroque specialist. You know, if you do something twice out there, you’re an expert! So I’ve been quite happy to be these kinds of specialists! And of course I had a Schütz choir, so I was a Schütz specialist.

When I do Bruckner I expect to be an expert in that piece. I suppose that’s the fun of it! It’s like the politicians in office: ministers changing departments, from say, Education to War: you’d better get to know an awful lot about jet fighters! <laughs>

——————-

Paul Wegman Taylor is the founder and Music Director of the Swiss chamber ensemble orCHestra. He is also the conductor of the Kirchgemeindeorchester Zürich-Schwamendingen. An active symphonic and opera conductor, Paul has had engagements with the Vienna Opera Theater, Tonhalle Orchestra of Zürich and Jakobstads Orchestra in Finland.