{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02700617283950617, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010030864197530864, 'mean_word_length': 5.357843137254902, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Group Analysis and Music: Similarities and Differences between Conducting a Group-Analytic Group and Conducting an Orchestra 1

Based on the author’s dual identity as group analyst and musician, this study extrapolates on Foulkes’s (1964, 1990) metaphor of the two fields and shows how the art of conducting a group-analytic group resembles that of conducting an orchestra. These arts are similar in that they constitute a means of strengthening the power of the group on the one hand, and the orchestra on the other, as the basic vehicles of therapeutic efficiency and musical performance respectively, through the functioning of their conductors as symbolic ‘dead’ fathers, favouring ‘servant’ leadership. A group-analytic group and an orchestra, although differing significantly, both serve the melody as extracted by either the score or the improvised prosody of human vocalisations in free-floating group discussion. The group evolves as an orchestra playing baroque rather than classical music, as its development follows the pattern of a baroque overture or symphony, or that of a classical forma-sonata. It is the conductor’s duty to facilitate the melodic evolution of the group/orchestra primarily by monitoring its tempo (Wagner, 1869), thereby fostering its therapeutic effectiveness.