the truth about orchestral auditions

[Jazz Ad]

It's not a matter of fairness but rather efficiency. Cooptation is the best way to recruit people for any job.
Coopted people are more likely to be loyal to you. If there is something wrong with them, you are likely to know it beforehand.
It is always a good idea to keep your network tight because it is your most immediate ressource at any point in your career.
Orchestras don't need absolute virtuosos. Great technique is a given for all candidates, what makes the difference is how nice you are and how they can relate to you. Coopting works wonder for this.

[Indybass091]

Originally Posted by ekspain

I hear quite a few of you saying that its "normal" or ok, or "just life", to practice favoritism. I don't disagree. But is it right? Thousands of people graduate from musicals per year, compared to the number of job posts that exist. We pay tuitions of up to 36k per year, sums that many of us can never hope to pay back.
Its not about being fair, its about what is right. The audition system needs to be improved and there should be trial periods. Favoritism should be weeded out. Anyone should have a chance. Thats the ideal.

Trial periods are already being used. Example- Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra has recently started keeping the screen up through the final round, then requiring trial weeks for the audition winner(s). While this is a great, fair process, there are also a lot of costs involved. Transporting the prospective musician back and forth, putting them up, paying them, etc., then double that if you have two finalists who both make the trial stage. This also adds time commitments to the musicians who are approving the possible candidates(and some of this involves extra hours pay).

Remember also that tenure periods are in place. A longer time than a few trial weeks, but these are supposed to serve the purpose of making sure the right person is in the spot before letting them stay for years and years.

Now it's time to go practice. The best way to avoid 'unfair' situations is to just be better beyond argument than the other folks...

[Ballerina]

'just' being "better beyond argument than the other folks"...in the audition...doesn't necessarily mean you are any good at doing the job. Believe me!!!

[Don Higdon]

Originally Posted by Ballerina

'just' being "better beyond argument than the other folks"...in the audition...doesn't necessarily mean you are any good at doing the job. Believe me!!!

That's a truism. What do you propose instead?

[Ballerina]

Good question. Certainly not to go down the route of people getting jobs with no audition, as has been known on occasion in the UK!

[groooooove]

if you know a department manager at a supermarket you're more likely to get a job in that store than someone who doesent know anyone there.....

all jobs are like that. its a part of life... changing it is impossible.

[ILIA]

Originally Posted by groooooove

if you know a department manager at a supermarket you're more likely to get a job in that store than someone who doesent know anyone there.....

all jobs are like that. its a part of life... changing it is impossible.

That's quite a defeatist attitude to the problem.

Contrary to what you might think, IT IS POSSIBLE to change because some orchestras have proven that it can be done. The best practices (as practiced by some orchestras) for fairness are: 1) screens never come down, 2) no automatic advancement of anyone--NOBODY gets advanced automatically, 3) mandatory audition winner (but probationary period allowed just in case the winner is a douche bag or just had a lucky audition day and to make sure that the winner is indeed the one)

It's not impossible. The orchestras just have to have the moral spine to do these things (as some do).

Also, here's a new suggestion I should add, that no mobile devices (laptops/phones/tablets/etc.) should be in any audition committee member's or proctor's or gopher's possession from the minute the first auditionees check in until the audition is over, so favored candidates can't text their number to sympathetic audition committee members. (Yes, this happens, but it can be prevented. In the old days you just made a certain allowable noise as your signal, so if you really want to cheat, you can still do it the old-fashioned way.)

And we should bring back some practices from the old days:

candidate access to comments sheets and allowing candidates to record themselves for true honest feedback in evaluating their own audition performance.

And here's an idea that is pure fantasy: if there is a "no-hire" the principal or someone in the section comes out and makes the announcement that no one is good enough, and then proceeds to DEMONSTRATE the audition rep ON A BASS (INSTEAD OF JUST TALKING ABOUT IT), to all the candidates who were not good enough and to the conductor and to the rest of the audition committee how someone would have had to sound in order to win the audition. I think that would cut down on the "no-hire" scenarios significantly.

OR, we can just throw in the towel and pick orchestral bassists like grocery store managers pick their stock boys.

[chriscrob]

Originally Posted by ILIA

It's not impossible. The orchestras just have to have the moral spine to do these things (as some do).

I think that what people are arguing is that throwing out pertinent information about candidates isn't morally necessary. If lowering the curtain lets the principal find out that candidate A was the best student he's ever had and candidate B was the worst what is the curtain helping? If it was just a talent contest this would be useful but it isn't. Knowing someone is habitually late and unprepared is useful information that you can't learn from an audition---the same goes for positive information.

Hiring someone because they have proven themselves in areas other than their ability to audition doesn't make someone morally spineless. It may seem unfair to the person who doesn't know the principal---sometimes it may be unfair but it isn't inherently unfair or morally wrong.

Also, here's a new suggestion I should add, that no mobile devices (laptops/phones/tablets/etc.) should be in any audition committee member's or proctor's or gopher's possession from the minute the first auditionees check in until the audition is over, so favored candidates can't text their number to sympathetic audition committee members. (Yes, this happens, but it can be prevented. In the old days you just made a certain allowable noise as your signal, so if you really want to cheat, you can still do it the old-fashioned way.)

If people get to pick some or all of their audition pieces this sort of gets thrown out the window. Bassists would be wise to discuss/practice their audition piece with their instructor---if their instructor is the principal they'll probably figure it out pretty fast.

[Don Higdon]

Originally Posted by ILIA

That's quite a defeatist attitude to the problem.

Contrary to what you might think, IT IS POSSIBLE to change because some orchestras have proven that it can be done. The best practices (as practiced by some orchestras) for fairness are: 1) screens never come down, 2) no automatic advancement of anyone--NOBODY gets advanced automatically, 3) mandatory audition winner (but probationary period allowed just in case the winner is a douche bag or just had a lucky audition day and to make sure that the winner is indeed the one)

It's not impossible. The orchestras just have to have the moral spine to do these things (as some do).

+1
For example, the Metropolitan Opera orchestra, certainly one of the finest.
In addition, the conductor's vote carries no more weight than that of any committee member.

[ILIA]

Originally Posted by chriscrob

I think that what people are arguing is that throwing out pertinent information about candidates isn't morally necessary. If lowering the curtain lets the principal find out that candidate A was the best student he's ever had and candidate B was the worst what is the curtain helping? If it was just a talent contest this would be useful but it isn't. Knowing someone is habitually late and unprepared is useful information that you can't learn from an audition---the same goes for positive information.

. . . . .

Two words: Trial period.

Two more words: Probationary period.

The trial period/probationary period(s) will answer any lingering questions and allow the candidate to prove that they have more to offer the section than just someone who is good at taking auditions.

[ekspain]

Originally Posted by ILIA

Two words: Trial period.

Two more words: Probationary period.

The trial period/probationary period(s) will answer any lingering questions and allow the candidate to prove that they have more to offer the section than just someone who is good at taking auditions.

I second that, and I agree with your ideas above....

[bierbass]

To my knowledge, most orchestras covered by collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the AFM have the probationary period written into the contract already. Its not exactly a new idea.

[golowcleff]

Far too many bassists spend time worrying about whether an audition is fair. Orchestra auditions are fair - if at least two rounds are behind a screen - as much as anything can be fair. Take that same energy (and worry) and work on playing exactly what’s on the page to the best of your ability. Remember, musicianship is ultimately what will win it. You don’t need to be a virtuoso…

[THE SAW]

The best person for the job, huh? Well, it would be someone whose playing everyone in the section knew and liked, someone who got along with everyone in the section (at least initially) and someone who's work ethic was well known.

How are you EVER going to do that with your so-called "fair" behind the screen audition process?

In an effort to be moral, we have made it almost impossible to hire the "best fit" for a particular section. Notice I didn't say "best player." There is a huge difference.

But hey, we've got a process in place that has all the appearances of being non-discriminatory. Funny for a art form that is as critical as it gets.....

Believe me, I'm playing devil's advocate here but you will never get the "best fit" as a result of an anonymous audition.

[Don Higdon]

Originally Posted by THE SAW

The best person for the job, huh? Well, it would be someone whose playing everyone in the section knew and liked, someone who got along with everyone in the section (at least initially) and someone who's work ethic was well known.

How are you EVER going to do that with your so-called "fair" behind the screen audition process?

In an effort to be moral, we have made it almost impossible to hire the "best fit" for a particular section. Notice I didn't say "best player." There is a huge difference.

But hey, we've got a process in place that has all the appearances of being non-discriminatory. Funny for a art form that is as critical as it gets.....

Believe me, I'm playing devil's advocate here but you will never get the "best fit" as a result of an anonymous audition.

I don't know what the basis is for your last claim.
I am familiar with the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra, knowing three principals and a member of the audition committee. Met auditions are totally blind, no weight added to the conductor's vote, and they have a must-hire policy. This policy has been in effect for years, and has brought them to world class status. The nine members that I know consider your position preposterous.

[ThumpPlunkJunk]

Originally Posted by Don Higdon

I don't know what the basis is for your last claim.
I am familiar with the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra, knowing three principals and a member of the audition committee. Met auditions are totally blind, no weight added to the conductor's vote, and they have a must-hire policy. This policy has been in effect for years, and has brought them to world class status. The nine members that I know consider your position preposterous.

Yeah, but do the criteria for auditions meet the criteria for great musicians? Do we even want them to?

Would we rather have CD players that spit music back out the same way again and again, or fallible human beings who shine gloriously some moments but fail miserably other moments? Obviously these are two ends of an extreme, but this is essentially the question I think we need to ask ourselves as a collective whole. What do we really want in players, and how does an audition define who has it and who doesn't? Also, how does the current audition process achieve this and how can it be changed to do so if it does not?

Just a thought. I'd appreciate some answers to the questions, though.

[ILIA]

Originally Posted by ThumpPlunkJunk

Yeah, but do the criteria for auditions meet the criteria for great musicians? Do we even want them to?

Would we rather have CD players that spit music back out the same way again and again, or fallible human beings who shine gloriously some moments but fail miserably other moments? Obviously these are two ends of an extreme, but this is essentially the question I think we need to ask ourselves as a collective whole. What do we really want in players, and how does an audition define who has it and who doesn't? Also, how does the current audition process achieve this and how can it be changed to do so if it does not?

Just a thought. I'd appreciate some answers to the questions, though.

I'll take the human CD player. Anyone that can train oneself to play with that kind of consistency night after night is not only someone I want to play next to for the rest of my career (and hence the "best fit"), he/she can be instructed either explicitly or implicitly by a principal, a conductor, or the collective musicianship of the orchestral organism to play with the appropriate musicality on demand. I want the people I play with to be able to nail their parts without fail or close to it. Part of "nail" is musicality, which must be demonstrated at an audition in all of its forms. No way in hell do I want to play with musicians who "shine gloriously some moments but fail miserably other moments." Inconsistency has no place in orchestral performance. A musician vetted by a rigorous audition process can handle the rigor of day-to-day orchestral performance and all of its challenges including playing musically along with playing technically correct.

Do you realize with your response to the example of the MET auditions, that you implying that the musicians who gained entry into the MET orchestra via MET audition are not great musicians?

[ThumpPlunkJunk]

Do you realize with your response to the example of the MET auditions, that you implying that the musicians who gained entry into the MET orchestra via MET audition are not great musicians?

I wasn't implying anything--all I was asking was whether or not that sort of audition process rewards the best musicians or the best audition takers. My question was akin to asking if standardized tests reward the best students or the best test-takers. Surely the qualities of the best students overlap with best test-takers, but by how much? And is there a medium in which we can find the best test takers and best students all in one?

I'm examining the method by which the orchestra members are chosen, as it's a moot point to ask if the Met guys are the best at what they do. We can't prove that there's anyone better than them, because those hypothetical people didn't win the audition. The method can be questioned and prodded, turned on its head and disputed, but the level of talent the guys at the Met exude is pretty much undisputed. You could take that as a sign that the method delivers the most desirable product, I guess. I'm not taking any particular side on this, I'm just asking a question.

[golowcleff]

ILIA makes some very good points…bravo…

I would add a reminder that the audition process is supposed to whittle the number of players down to a few stand-outs in the final round, and likely any one of those could do the job adequately. Is the best musician always chosen? Probably not…There’s always the element of the “crap shoot”, as you’ve got some differences of opinion among the committee, and then the Music Director can be have significant influence, and it helps to “have a good day” – whatever that is. Certainly, one needs adequate stamina. But in the “finals”, along with you making a good showing, the onus is on the committee and the Music Director to delve deep enough with each player to discern their musical attributes and differences, and then proceed to choose the one whom they think is the best fit for their orchestra. It’s not a personality contest either, but it certainly helps to come across as one who’s got their “stuff” together, is of good character, and a team player. If you send contrary signals you won’t help yourself...same as applying for any job.

I think this system is certainly preferable to that of the “old days” when you could be fired or hired at the behest of a mercurial Music Director. And keep in mind that the current system has evolved for our benefit at the sacrifice of our predecessors. (I’ll add that I am very well acquainted with at least two players who won jobs in a major orchestra after being initially denied an audition based on their resumé – those were fair auditions.) The process of applying for a job in the non-musical world also has no guarantees, so, why the bitterness? Channel that energy into being the best you can be...

As for the perception that auditions are about “spitting” the music out robotically…it isn’t. The discipline required in the delivery of a good audition is the same as that of a good performance, and you always convey something musically, whether it is informed – or to the opposite degree - clueless.

[NicholasF]

Im pretty sure that a few from the NY Phil studied with Eugene Levenson, and it gave them a leg up. Think about this, your a teacher at a school and you teach someone to do a specific job, ie playing the bass. You're aware of the amount of confidence, dedication, and values of this person. Youve seen them go through the ring of fire and come out ok. You have heard what they can do, how far theyve come, and how much more valuable they will become. Now answer me this, will you take your student, or a complete stranger. Personally I would probably take the student if it was a one shot deal, but if the stranger was better i would have a "trial period" to see what their like, if it isnt in the best interest of the orchestra or displays something that isnt reflected in the orchestra, well lets just say my made up student was on a bus half an hour before i called him to play.