I got the idea from a recent post in the "Kudos to Minnesota" discussion. But we were getting off the MN discussions and onto general discussions, so I thought I'd move it here.

There are definitely juries that when they hear one note out, they don't advance the candidate. There are other juries that don't care about musicality and just advance those that sound like machines. And then there are juries that just can't tell the difference between bad playing and someone who's very nervous......this last one is what scares me the most about the future of orchestra playing.

I have seen enough people win a job, but can't play in an orchestra.

I'm not sure what the most ideal process would be, but I KNOW that the audition is not it.

Does anyone know which juries/orchestras weed out for certain things?? It's nice to know these things in advance. And actually, I know the juries themselves would probably not admit to this, because they want to think that they're fair...so this is probably best answered by those that have taken the audition recently...in the past several years.

I'm sorry...maybe this is in the wrong forum. Should it be in the original Audition forum? You're welcome to move it.

i think it's an absurd idea to try to base one's audition preparation on trying to figure out what a committee is looking for when it comes to eliminating candidates. i think one should strive to play with the best sound, intonation, rhythm, and musicality as possible, and let the playing speak for itself. i don't think it's necessarily true that there are "certain juries" that tend to do one thing or another, and all that speculation is, in my opinion, time wasted that could be otherwise used to focus on what's really important - your own playing.

Actually, vlagirl, it's not "speculation", but reality, based on experience.

I don't at all think it's "absurd" to try to see which juries like what. I mean, why show up at an audition when you know that if you make one mistake, you're out? I think THAT is more "time wasted"...not only that, but money and energy as well.

Although, I guess if you showed up anyway, you'd learn your lesson for next time. So maybe it's not so wasteful afterall...

Have you taken a lot of auditions?

yes, i took about 8 auditions before getting my current job.

i don't really see how the number of auditions i have taken is relevant, but whatev.

I have also taken a lot of auditions. It seems to me that it would be rather difficult to tell, based on my lone experience at each audition, and based on the hearsay of other auditioners, none of whom actually have access to the audition committee and what they hear and talk about, what the committee is "weeding out". It would be nice if we could all figure out in advance the magic solution, but it really is a waste of time. There is also no way to determine this in any sort of accurate manner. There is no jury who isn't listening for intonation and rhythm, and if you get nervous, take some beta-blockers and work on mental concentration techniques. That's as much of a magic solution as there is. The rest is hard work.

The other problem, of course, is that no orchestra uses the same players on every audition committee. Even when it's the same instrument being auditioned for, the principal is generally the only player guaranteed a spot on the committee. Furthermore, I've never been on an audition committee that had a single-minded opinion on what we were looking for. Everyone has their own views, and that's a good thing. I know that I've had my mind changed about candidates I was ready to chuck by hearing what others on the committee had to say, and I've changed a few minds of my own.

I know that the frustration of the audition process often leads to a belief in some secret set of qualifications that only a few candidates are told about, but it just isn't true. As I said in another thread, what makes for a winning audition changes with every winning candidate, but if you want a list of the things that will get you kicked out every time, they are, almost without exception: bad rhythm, shaky intonation, and lack of a confident sound. Until you have those things covered, it doesn't matter how good your sound is or how innovative your approach to the music. Orchestra playing is a team endeavor, especially for section players, and our first and most important job is to master the ability to be reliable followers. Not very romantic, but it is reality.

Well, good. Then all of your comments prove that the whole audition process is a crapshoot. Different juries listening for different things, each time different people are listening...you change your mind...etc...

I mean, it's SO obvious, you don't need to mention that you need to play well (your comments about intonation, rhythm, etc..). We all know that. The question is, once you have that down...then what? Between all the players that can play well.....how do you pick out the ones you want to hire?

It's not a waste of time for me (having taken several auditions and making it to the finals of most) to know what certain orchestras like to hear and what they don't like. Instead of having the orchestra weed ME out, I can first weed THEM out. Works for me. But some people like and can afford to take every audition that's out there...good for them. I'm not telling not to....by all means, go ahead. But for those of us who cannot afford nor can we take time off work, to take every single audition that comes up.....weeding out orchestras (of which I have done already) helps out a lot.

quote:

Originally posted by violas:
I mean, it's SO obvious, you don't need to mention that you need to play well (your comments about intonation, rhythm, etc..). We all know that.

Actually, the reason I keep mentioning it is that, judging by the auditions I've been a part of, a shockingly high percentage of applicants don't know that, or at least, they don't know what it means. I've had many applicants call following auditions looking for comments and a sense of why they were scratched after one round. Almost to a person, they were all convinced that it had something to do with their bow technique, or their sense of the excerpt as a whole, and almost to a person, the correct answer was that their dotted rhythms were sloppy; their intonation, while not horrific, was unacceptably inconsistent; their tempos migrated according to difficulty; or they sounded like they were terrified to be there.

It's a tough business, and many teachers at the college level don't do a good enough job of letting their students know just how high that benchmark level of ability has to be. Anyone can look at an orchestra, single out the guy in the back who quit trying the day he got tenure 20 years ago, and say, "I'm better than that." Yes, you probably are. But we're not looking to hire him again. We're looking for someone who's going to make us a better section/orchestra than we already are. And we probably won't know every aspect of what that means until we hear it.

And as for your assertion that "the whole audition process is a crapshoot," yes it is, if your definition of "crapshoot" is the inability for the qualities of the hypothetical winning candidate to be perfectly qualified in advance. The people on the audition committee are human beings, capable of multiple points of view and changing opinions. I'm sorry that frustrates you, but the same human qualities that allow good players to occasionally fall through the cracks also allow the hiring of players with wildly different strengths in the same orchestra. And it's that diversity (coupled with a baseline level of general competence) that makes for a great orchestra.

Great post, Sam. I have taken about twenty auditions in my career and been on the committee for at least that many. It is a crapshoot in many ways. There are no absolutes in auditions or life, violas. All I can say is in order to keep up on the audition circuit, I practiced like crazy, played for as many people as I could, recorded myself all the time and just did my best. My thought was that I would hopefully find that magical combination of time, star alignment, great playing and a committee that wanted me. Instead of looking at it as a crapshoot, I chose to look at it as fate. It is a long and difficult path to a job. But someone is going to get it - why not me? Attitude is a big part of going into an audition and having the experience be a positive one no matter what the outcome.

Of course you should do as much homework as possible on an orchestra you audition for. If you know the principals, what kind of player are they? Big sound? Romantic approach? or more lean and classical? What kind of repertoire does the orchestra lean towards? A lot of the orchestras nowadays have a large amount of contemporary music and are looking for players that are quick and versatile. What is the conductor's reputation? What are his areas of expertise? Is he a string player? What soloists does he like to perform with? All this info can help in choosing an orchestra that might be most interested in you as a player.

But in the end, you have to be true to yourself. You are not going to present yourself at your best if you try and change your playing to fit what you think their mold may be. And as Sam pointed out, committees change. So for me, the safest bet was to play the way I wanted to play as best as I could and hope that some orchestra liked it enough to hire me.

Gloria Lum, cellist
Los Angeles Philharmonic

Very well said, Sam.

It could be that many people know they have to play "well" at an audition, but I believe few people actually know the category under which their playing falls. That is, unless someone has actually heard a recording of themself playing the excerpts, they may never recognize their inconsistencies, and they may think they are playing at the highest level when there is actually plenty of room to improve. (I guess there is an even bigger problem when, after hearing a recording of oneself playing sub-par, one still thinks they are playing at the highest level).

It's unfortunate that most people seeking an orchestra job haven't had the opportunity hear an audition from the other side of the screen....it would be easier to make the distinction from playing "well" to playing outstanding.

Crapshoot? Maybe, if you mean that you're playing for other humans who might not even really know what they're looking for before the auditions begin.

You might be auditioning for a job that was held by a highly respected, very strong player, and that will weigh on the minds of those on the committee. Maybe there is some sort of dynamic within the section that will prey on the minds of those on the committee as well. Note that these two examples don't involve nuts and bolts of playing. The second example might only become a factor in the finals, when we're trying to figure out just what your personality is and how you'd fit with the section (and would come into play much more if we invited you to play a week with the orchestra before making a hiring decision).

Every audition, there is a meeting of the committee before the first candidate plays, and our principal talks about what he'd like to hear in an ideal candidate, and there is a bit of a roundtable discussion about that, and then we go out and hear our first round of six and that can all be totally out the window. Many times someone comes in and redefines excellence in our view, and we hire them. Seldom does it occur that someone fits into our preconceived notions of a perfect candidate.

The key is to play for people that scare you, tape the session, and listen to the tape and collect written comments from these people. Make sure that they're the type of people that will be honest with you - ask them if they think you're on the right track for X weeks before the audition date, and what they recommend. If they say you're not ready - believe it and wait for another audition, or go and use it for experience.

I must echo Sam and say that it seems that many, many people who show up for auditions just are not ready to play at the level that is required. I know you've heard this time and time again, but playing must be rhythmically solid, in tune, and stylistically appropriate (i.e. playing Mozart vs. playing Strauss = not the same). That's what it takes to get out of the first round. Once the prelims are over, the less objective considerations come into play much more.

I agree with curitibalvr in that I don't think people realize that they're not at a high enough level to win a job. Personally, I think that only about 25% or less that show up at an audition are actually qualified to be there. Some of the others are there just for the experience (not to win), and the rest really do "think" they're good enough.

Sam, as for your thoughts that "allow good players to occasionally fall through the cracks", I think it's a lot more than occasionally. It goes both ways. I've known very good players that don't win....sometimes they don't even pass the first round. I've known very mediocre or not so good players who have been in the finals and even some who won! That is what proves to me, that the audition process is a crapshoot. It's VERY random. That's all.

Everyone who's taken auditions has a right to state their opinion. If everyone agreed, there would be no need for these forums, right?

What is random is how any given player happens to play on a particular day. Sometimes great players have bad days. Sometimes not so great players have great days. Some people play great auditions but can't play in a section to save their life. And sometimes a not so great player will be the stand partner of your dreams. You're right. It is random. But then, so is life. You can choose to go for it, give up or try to beat the system. Ultimately, if you want a job, you need to win an audition. End of story.

Hi all,
Here is something that a member of a "big" orchestra did when they had to hire a person for their section which I hope all future audition committee persons will consider. This person got the committee together before they listened to the 1st candidate and said "I picked this excerpt to listen for this.... I picked this excerpt to listen for this..." and so on. This put all of the committee members on the same page (as much as possible) when listening and the orchestra found a great fit! (and this was in an orchestra that doesn't always tenure their winners!)

If more people did this maybe it would feel less random for both the candidates and the committee.

FYI - I recently was a finalist for a pretty big job and spoke to the principal of the section. I specifically asked what was the difference between the winner and the other finalists....the answer...."its so random, its like winning the lottery....I wasn't the only one voting and we all saw things differently". Then the person complained about the audition process. It is difficult for everyone involved.

Thanks for listening!

quote:

Originally posted by gloriarex:
What is random is how any given player happens to play on a particular day. Sometimes great players have bad days. Sometimes not so great players have great days. Some people play great auditions but can't play in a section to save their life. And sometimes a not so great player will be the stand partner of your dreams. You're right. It is random. But then, so is life. You can choose to go for it, give up or try to beat the system. Ultimately, if you want a job, you need to win an audition. End of story.

Or possibly try to change the system. I think thats what this new forum is actually about

The most frustrating part for me as a committee member was dealing with colleagues who didnt know a good player from a bad one. Especially on mixed committees with woodwinds and brass on a string committee. Geez Louise Someone could stink up the joint and some committee members wouldnt even know.

As for violas original query: I am not aware of anyone who can answer your question, nor do I believe there is an answer. If I am reading it correctly, I think you want something like:

New England- Big Expressive Sound
N Dakota- Dont miss any notes
Wyoming- Wants short spiccatos

I dont think that's possible to answer for string players. If the audition is on the level and has a reaonable committee, they are looking for the best player, unless said player has some glaring defiency.

quote:

The most frustrating part for me as a committee member was dealing with colleagues who didnt know a good player from a bad one. Especially on mixed committees with woodwinds and brass on a string committee. Geez Louise Someone could stink up the joint and some committee members wouldnt even know.

Cygnus, you raise a very valid point.

I have never had a jury, festival audition or even college audition where the committee was comprised of strings, winds and brass. As a clarinetist, I am aware of the nuances of clarinet playing that other instrumentalist would not notice. Of course, while I may harp on a nuance, other committee members may be able to offer other insight - or not. I suppose that's one reason why the committee is comprised of several sections of the orchestra - not just winds during a clarinet audition. However, is it a valid reason?

As a musician, intonation and rhthym are universal. However, during the finals or later rounds, I - as a clarinetist, would not have the best ears to decipher the nuances between two fabulous violist. I would have to defer to the string committee members.

I wonder if outcomes would vary if committees were comprised of only wind members during a clarinet audition, string members during a viola audition, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Liangjie:
I wonder if outcomes would vary if committees were comprised of only wind members during a clarinet audition, string members during a viola audition, etc.

Many orchestras do it that way. Mine does - our 7-person audition committee is comprised, for string auditions, of four people from the section involved, and one player from each of the other three string sections. There are some in the orchestra who I know would like us to go to a system that involves a larger committee and players from other instrument families, but I've always liked our system.

Even so, as Cygnus noted, there are occasionally violent disagreements within committees as to what is important and what isn't, and in that sense, the system is imperfect. However, I've yet to hear anyone come up with a better one.

quote:

However, I've yet to hear anyone come up with a better one.

Well, there are a bunch of smart cookies that frequent this site, let's come up with a better one. Seriously, this is the place to do it, it least in theory. Personally I think the system needs some serious changes. As classical geeks, we have to be perfectionists ( to a degree), yet we accept an imperfect system because "it's the way it is". There has to be a way to improve the system. Any ideas?

How would that solve the problem? Most committees that I've served on would rather go without pay for the audition days than hire someone who is sub-par.

quote:

Originally posted by Charles Noble:
Most committees that I've served on would rather go without pay for the audition days than hire someone who is sub-par.

But, Charles, you may have indirectly hit this particular nail right on the head. While those of us on these boards in full-time American orchestras who have sat on multiple audition committees all agree (every time the subject comes up) that we are eager to hire candidates who meet the qualifications, many of the posters here seem to believe that we regularly reject not only sub-par candidates, but a metric ton of highly qualified candidates who would be perfect for our orchestras if only we'd get off our high horses and give them a chance. I know they're wrong, you know they're wrong, but it's abundantly clear that some people prefer to live in a world in which they've been cheated out of a job, rather than in one in which they just weren't good enough when all the chips were on the line.

As I've said, auditions are imperfect, but nothing in life is 100%, including auditioning musicians. If you're a spectacular player, but you just couldn't get your spicatto to work on the day of the audition, is it the audition committee's fault that you didn't get the job? Or is it yours, because in that one moment in time, a critical part of your playing ability failed you? The answer, obviously, is neither: it's just one of those things that happens. Sad, but true, and no amount of bitching about the process is going to take that kind of uncertainty out of the equation.