In Part Three I have concentrated on ensemble rather than orchestral works. The reason for this is that the kind of works analysed are more extreme in their technical demands than those in the orchestral repertoire. Even the orchestral works of Boulez are less complex than his ensemble compositions. The revisions which he made in the scoring of Pli selon pli are indicative of the general perception of composers in recognising the time restraints of rehearsal schedules for orchestral works. Complexity in itself is not a virtue, but it can be the route to a good idea. Consequently, there is no reason why the issues of complex ensemble works should not be transferred to the full orchestra. If a conductor is skilful enough to unwrap the complexities for the cultured musicians who inhabit our symphony orchestras the prospects are unlimited.

The works chosen for discussion in Part One are by composers who have stepped outside the conventional world in seeking a vocabulary which expresses new and exploratory directions in their work. Just as composers such as Beethoven, Wagner and Debussy explored new sound worlds and unexplored structural designs, they have presented the conductor with the challenge to comprehend the aspirations of their creative endeavours. They need conductors who can meet such a challenge.

The second half of the twentieth century saw electronics enter the creative world of composers. In the twenty-first century the developing interactive relationship between instruments, voices and electronics is a constantly evolving language. The conductor is part of that evolutionary process and should embrace it.

The recommendations I have made aim at expanding the technical resources required for conducting many kinds of music composed after 1950. However, their application is also intended to enhance the expressive and stylistic performance of music of all periods. But an enquiring concern for the music of a conductor’s own time is of paramount importance in a constantly changing world.