Bernstein, perhaps more than any other conductor in the last century, seemed to dance on the podium. This chapter explores the reception of Bernstein’s dancelike conducting by both critics and musicians. When describing Bernstein’s conducting, whether praising or panning it, critics have regularly described it as ‘choreography’, with the word almost always used pejoratively. For some, Bernstein’s shameless bodily movements enhanced their appreciation of the music; for others, it was a distraction approaching desecration. What has been overlooked is that Bernstein’s conducting was surprisingly consistent – not only in the general movement vocabulary he employs (his infamous leaps, for an obvious example) but also in set patterns of specific movements that he employs from performance to performance of the same work across years. The chapter suggests that we understand Bernstein’s conducting not as spontaneous and random, but as planned, iterative, and locked in his muscle memory: that is, as choreography.

Between October 1955 and March 1958, Bernstein presented seven television broadcasts on the Omnibus culture series. He addressed topics from Beethoven, Bach, modern music, and opera to musical theatre and jazz and appealed widely to audiences, educating and offering knowledge while avoiding excessively elevated language. Writing the scripts himself, Bernstein effortlessly moved from various roles as a conductor, narrator, pianist, and educator within the context of the show, dazzling audiences with his charismatic personality and stylish attire. The programmes were well received, with an estimated sixteen million viewers tuning in to watch the December 1955 ‘The Art of Conducting’ broadcast. His carefully selected words, analogies, and references were extremely relatable to the middle-class family demographics of the programmes, and the broadcasts fostered Bernstein’s growing pop-star status as he gained international popularity as a conductor and both a Broadway and classical composer.

Bernstein’s relationship with Aaron Copland was one of the most significant of his life. Starting with their first meeting in 1937, this chapter considers Copland’s musical influence on Bernstein as an emerging composer and the support and opportunities Copland provided during Bernstein’s formative years. It then goes on to explore the importance of Bernstein’s Copland advocacy on the conducting podium, with reference to major commissions, concerts, and recordings. Drawing on both their public and private comments and correspondence, the changing nature of their relationship and views on each other’s activities are traced, resulting in a shared portrait of more than five decades of friendship and musical connections.

This chapter explores Leonard Bernstein’s work as pianist-conductor, including early influences that shaped Bernstein’s choice to conduct while playing, preferred repertoire (Mozart, Beethoven, Ravel and Gershwin), and reception by audience, and critics. Bernstein’s technique as conductor-pianist is analysed through audio and video recordings, as well as through the study of Bernstein’s annotated scores from the New York Philharmonic Archives. A brief history of conducting from the piano serves to contextualize this notable aspect of Bernstein’s career. Particular attention is given to Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue, which was among Bernstein’s most frequently performed pieces while leading the orchestra from the piano. An analysis of three different recorded performances of Bernstein’s performance of the Rhapsody – two audio recordings and one televised broadcast – provide insight into significant moments (and challenges) for Bernstein as pianist-conductor, as well as key interpretive changes in his performance over time.

This is an examination of Leonard Bernstein’s impact as conductor and musical advocate. He was a champion of the works of Jean Sibelius and Gustav Mahler at a time when their work was unfashionable, bringing them to a much larger audience. The American composer he admired most was Aaron Copland, whose ’Connotations’ he led to open Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts. He was not in sympathy with most ‘12 tone’ music but did lead avant-garde works by the composers Lukas Foss, Elliott Carter, John Cage, and others. He conducted the world premiere of Olivier Messiaen’s ‘Turangalila Symphony’ in Boston in 1949 but never presented it again. He was an adept Straussian but only led the works composed before World War I. This was also his favourite period of Stravinsky’s work, although he added the three symphonies to his repertory in later years. On television, he led studies of rock and jazz. He conducted and recorded much of the standard repertory from the nineteenth century onwards, with only a few forays into Baroque and Classical-era music, with a particular emphasis on Haydn. There is some discussion of Bernstein’s podium manner and the conductors he influenced.

For most British composers active in the twentieth century, the actual writing of music was only one of many skills they were obliged to develop. Many composers were also actively engaged in the fields of teaching, performance, and administration, and could supplement their income with a variety of other jobs, ranging from adjudication and private tutoring to broadcasting and music criticism. Additionally, the growth in popularity of radio, television, and film opened up new opportunities for composers in lighter genres that had hitherto not been available, either to supplement their contributions to more traditional concert hall repertory, or as dedicated positions in their own right. This chapter will examine these various career paths and responsibilities, looking at how British composers’ training, abilities, interests, and sociocultural status shaped and directed their vocational trajectories.

Within a few short years of professional life (1880–85), Mahler gained sufficient experience to become one of the leading young conductors in the German-speaking world. This chapter surveys his first four appointments (Bad Hall, Laibach, Olmütz, and Kassel), asking how the unique conditions of each setting might have contributed to his development. The central features of Mahler’s character as a performer appeared early: meticulous rehearsals, fidelity to the score, attention to detail in all aspects of preparation, and relentless influence on the production and staging. Even in the amateurish circumstances of the first two positions, Mahler’s distinctive charisma and remarkable music results made themselves felt, as is revealed in newspaper reviews. By the time he left Kassel he had become the mature conductor who would make his mark in major opera houses of Germany, Hungary, Austria, and the United States.

Mahler liked to present himself, especially in letters, as an unrecognized genius whom future audiences would honor even if contemporaneous critics remained dismissive. If he had cause for disappointment with the German-language press, the foreign press often recognized his accomplishments. This essay focuses on Mahler coverage in the press in England, New York, and California, where positive reports and unflagging curiosity defy any presumptions of provincialism. Far-flung publications admired the conductor, awed if perplexed by his compositions, at a time when their Austro-German counterparts disparaged his music. Their attention did not result from a more profound understanding than in Central Europe; rather, staying abreast of foreign affairs, including musical ones, was a mark of cultivation. The stakes were simply not as high as in Vienna and in Germany, where protecting the integrity of classical music against the claws of modernism underlay so much reporting on Mahler.