The Silent Center
Choir conducting begins in a paradox: the one who shapes the sound makes no sound at all. The conductor does not sing. Yet every breath, every vowel, every onset of tone across a choir begins in response to that silent gesture. Leadership here is neither linguistic nor sonic—it is embodied and anticipatory, coaxing futures into form without producing them directly.
This contradiction is not merely poetic—it is practical. In my years conducting the Gesangverein der Steirer in Wien, a traditional choir with deep historical roots, I found myself both central and absent, both authoritative and dependent. I was tasked with modernizing an ensemble whose repertoire, customs, and vocal culture reflected an earlier world. I led from silence—and learned that conducting, far from being a unifying gesture, is a series of negotiated contradictions: between collectivity and autonomy, precision and freedom, sound and breath.
This essay is not a technical guide. It is a meditation on what it means to conduct voices—human, fragile, embodied voices—and how that act reveals something irreducible about artistic action, social listening, and the architecture of musical time.
Leadership Without Voice
Unlike orchestral conducting, where the baton carves abstract time into collective synchronization, choir conducting is intimately biological. A choir breathes together. It does not wait for the downbeat—it inhabits it.
This was clearest to me in moments of failure. I remember rehearsing a slow, unaccompanied Volkslied arrangement. The entries kept fraying, even though I was giving clear cues. The altos were late, the tenors unsure. Then I realized: I was conducting rhythm, but not breath. The choir wasn’t following my beat—they were waiting for inhalation space. I stopped conducting and simply breathed with them: a long, slow intake, timed to the phrasing. No gesture. No ictus. Just presence. The phrase emerged perfectly.
This is what separates choral leadership from other musical leadership: you cannot force entry. You must make space for it. Conducting becomes a form of architectural ventilation, not choreography.
Polyphony and Authority
Choirs exist between autonomy and cohesion. Every singer is their own instrument—with lungs, language, and fatigue—yet they must merge into something seamless. But unlike orchestras, choral musicians do not look down at parts—they look forward, at each other, or at you. This creates a radically different field of authority.
With the Gesangverein, this meant cultivating something both structural and relational. These singers had been part of the same choir for decades. Their bodies held shared habits, intonation preferences, even personal tensions. My presence—at 30 years their junior, foreign, and classically trained—initially registered as interference.
So I began by listening. Not in rehearsal, but outside it, to dialect, to mood, to how they breathed when they joked. I re-arranged our warmups to emphasize vowel unification and collective inhalation. I didn’t “correct”, I tuned the ensemble’s self-awareness. Slowly, authority emerged not from command, but from co-regulation. A subtle form of sovereignty emerged, one where the conductor’s authority is only as strong as their ability to amplify the group’s own coherence.
Gesture Exceeds Symbol
In orchestral conducting, one often speaks of “economy of motion.” In choir conducting, one learns the opposite: gesture must resonate before it means.
Because the choir uses no intermediary (no bow, no keys, no sticks), the conductor’s body must become proprioceptively legible. A vertical beat pattern is not enough. You must transmit phrasing, vowel shape, and even psychological state—often through non-standard movement. With the Gesangverein, certain folk pieces only gelled when I stopped conducting time and began sculpting space—opening my sternum, softening my fingers, exhaling visibly. The choir didn’t “read” these gestures—they entrained to them.
This is where the contradiction deepens: gesture cannot be codified. No amount of baton technique can substitute for an embodied invitation to enter time. Choirs respond not to beats, but to felt form. In that sense, conducting is not a command—it is an act of collective perception. You are not keeping time. You are distributing sensation.
The Word Problem
Another contradiction emerges in choral music: text. Unlike instrumental scores, which operate in the symbolic domain alone, choral scores carry semantic freight. The singers are not just producing pitches—they are speaking. This creates a second register of meaning, one often orthogonal to musical intention.
A well-voiced chord may distort a vowel. A beautiful legato may blur a consonant that carries the entire sentence. The conductor must navigate this double obligation: to music and to language. With the Gesangverein, singing in dialect further complicated things. Should we standardize pronunciation for blend, or preserve the idiolect for cultural integrity? Each decision became a philosophical one: Are we singing as Steirer? Or about them?
I found that the best solution was to let sound lead meaning—but never erase it. In one rehearsal of a sacred German text, we worked on a pianissimo entry for almost half an hour, not to refine the dynamics, but to find the right ethical breath—a way of entering the word without aestheticizing it. This is where the metaphysics of performance meets politics: in the responsibility to words as lived experience, not just phonemes.
Silence as Conductor
Choir conducting taught me that silence is not absence—it is the primary medium of preparation. The most powerful gesture is often the one that precedes the sound: the preparatory breath, the collective stillness before entry, the suspended hand that holds rather than indicates.
This was especially true in performance. Unlike instrumental concerts, where players are often insulated by technique, choral singers perform nakedly—no protection from error, no latency to hide behind. The conductor must absorb that vulnerability and hold the silence so the singers can risk breaking it.
At a winter concert, we opened with a piece that began in unison on a single open vowel. No harmony. No accompaniment. Just 30 voices and a note. I remember holding the silence for what felt like forever—longer than was comfortable. But it was only in that extra second that the choir truly aligned—not just in pitch, but in intention. The audience held its breath. The sound emerged not as execution, but as revelation.
That moment remains for me the clearest demonstration that music is not what breaks the silence—it’s what justifies it.
Conclusion: Collective Tension as Form
Choir conducting is often misunderstood as control. But real conducting, especially with voices, is about tension—held, distributed, and resolved communally. It is an art of delayed resolution, of embodied listening, of guiding without sounding.
The Gesangverein der Steirer in Wien taught me this not as abstraction, but as daily practice. Working with a choir embedded in a century of tradition, I learned that modernizing doesn’t mean imposing innovation. It means listening for where contradictions already pulse beneath the surface—between past and present, dialect and diction, ensemble and individual—and giving them shape without canceling them out.
To conduct a choir is to make contradiction audible:
- Between the individual breath and the communal phrase.
- Between gesture and tone.
- Between the meaning of a word and its sound.
- Between leading and following.
The conductor does not sing. But the silence they hold—before, between, and after the music—is what allows the music to matter.
The choir disappears. The conductor vanishes. Only the contradiction remains, humming in the air like a tuning fork stabbed into a score.
Leave a Reply