In what ways does the competition reflect Cantelli’s spirit, if at all?
“Spirit” is an intangible thing, but the competition honors Cantelli not as a gimmick but through seriousness of purpose. It aims to identify conductors with command, sensitivity, and musical integrity—qualities associated with Cantelli. Also, the setting matters: Novara is a lovely historical city and its theater is a genuine stage, not a make-do rehearsal space. That living theatrical and civic context contributes to the experience. Candidates perform in a real cultural environment, which fosters the kind of artistic encounter Cantelli himself might have appreciated.
The jury often mixes managers and artistic figures rather than being composed only of conductors. Why is that, and what value does it have?
The mix reflects modern realities. Managers, presenters, and artistic administrators bring a career-oriented perspective: programming viability, audience appeal, and what an artist might realistically build into a sustainable career. Conductors bring interpretive and technical judgment. Both perspectives are necessary. Artistic excellence remains the shared criterion, but we also need to consider whether a candidate’s profile can translate into bookings, collaborations, and long-term growth. For a young conductor—often without an agent—those practical views can be crucial. I recommended names to the organizers, but the result is a panel that can evaluate both musical substance and professional potential.
When you first see a conductor walk onto the podium, what are the immediate things you notice?
I look for clarity of musical intent and a sense that the conductor has something specific and personal to say about the repertoire. Stage presence matters: how the person carries themselves, how they greet the orchestra, and whether they project self-assurance without arrogance. Communication with the orchestra—eye contact, economy and clarity of gesture, and the ability to shape phrases—is essential. Emotional engagement that feels genuine is a plus: if I get goosebumps, that’s a powerful indicator. Ultimately, I ask whether the conductor can hold my attention and convincingly transmit an idea to a group of 60–80 musicians. If the musicians believe in the conductor in that moment, that’s a very good sign.
Are there moments where you instantly know someone should win, or is it always an accumulative process?
Both things happen. Occasionally a candidate will make such a striking, immediate impression that you feel confident they should win—and sometimes juries agree unanimously. Those moments are thrilling. More often it’s cumulative: you observe multiple rehearsals, note how a conductor adapts, how they handle different repertoire, and then weigh qualities across rounds. Discussion with the jury helps refine impressions. Instant decisions are possible, but the process usually benefits from sustained observation and comparison.
How does the Cantelli jury arrive at decisions—do you favor discussion or independent scoring?
Cantelli sits in the middle of that spectrum. We value open, candid discussion because it brings perspectives to light that you might not have considered. Hearing another juror explain a point of view can reveal musical or human nuances that influence your judgment. At the same time, no one should feel coerced into changing their vote; persuasion for persuasion’s sake is counterproductive. I appreciate an environment where jurors are collegial and comfortable arguing their case, but where everyone retains responsibility for their own judgment. The best discussions add clarity rather than force consensus by pressure.
