I'm curious as to how audition times are assigned and who is involved in this process. It seems like less desirable candidates are given earlier times, and more desirable people are assinged later, thus more people tend to advance from the later prelim rounds. I find it hard to believe that the process of alloting times (or blocks of time) is entirely random and only handled by the personnel manager or someone in administration. If the audition committee is involved in screening resumes, who is to say they are not involved in assigning times as well. This seems like a way to potentially lump together candidates that members of the committee object to, while giving everyone a chance to play, creating an impression of fairness. If there are people that members of the committee do not want to win or advance, why not just put all those people in the same round and advance nobody. I realize these procedures will vary from orchestra to orchestra, and am interested in many opinions especially from personnel managers and those that have been involved in screening or on committees.

Just be glad they even give you a time!! I just did an audition where everyone had to show up at 9am and then they picked a name out of a bag to see who went first!!!

quote:

Originally posted by strungout:
It seems like less desirable candidates are given earlier times, and more desirable people are assinged later, thus more people tend to advance from the later prelim rounds. I find it hard to believe that the process of alloting times (or blocks of time) is entirely random and only handled by the personnel manager or someone in administration.

Well, it is. It would be a violation of every blind audition procedure the industry has for the audition committee to be involved in assigning times. In my orchestra, the personnel managers won't even let us see the schedule after the entire audition is over! (They'll sometimes confirm whether or not a specific friend or colleague attended the audition at all, but only once it's all over.)

Any orchestra trying to stack "desirable" candidates at the end of the prelims would run into a huge scheduling headache, since there is usually no shortage of candidates who request not to be scheduled on such and such a day, because they can't make it until the next day. In general, personnel makes every attempt to accommodate such requests.

But the notion that your audition time has anything to do with the orchestra's preconceived notions about you is flatly absurd.

Thank you, Sam, for debunking yet another conspiracy theory.

In my experience of running auditions, the times were assigned as follows:

All applicants were asked to indicate 1st, 2nd and 3rd choices for a timeslot preference.

Timeslots were assigned on a first come, first served basis, so those who completed their applications quickly got the "premium" times. Those whose applications came in at the last minute got what was left.

Winners emerged from both early and late times and everywhere in between.

The committee was never given access to the audition appointment list.

Referring to what CounterPoint states above, I have never encountered a problem with getting a time slot that matches the preferences I have listed in those sorts of auditions. In auditions where all the prelims have happened on one day, it is VERY often that I have noticed that the hour in which I am asked to arrive directly corresponds to how early I have submitted my resume in response to the IM advertisement of the position (of course, you only realize this afterwards when comparing facts with other friends at the audition.)

From my past experience in coordinating/scheduling auditions, we would fill in the time slots based on when each applicants resume was received. Once times were assigned if someone communicated and had real need to change their time (and if cancellations had opened up slots) then we did our best to accommodate them. I can only assume this is similar practice elsewhere too.

what i've always wondered about is if whoever assigns the candidates times, do they at least try to avoid clumping more qualified candidates (at least on paper) all in the same rounds? for example, would it make more sense not to clump people who have less experience together (ie, recent graduates with little on their resume) in 1 round, & people who all have jobs &/or have advanced in high-paying gigs in another? do these factor in players' audition times at all? or does it really make much of a difference? the problem i would see is if there are too many qualified players in an afternoon round & not enough in the morning, or vice versa.

I think that most people would agree that what is on paper (or one's resume) does not have a huge bearing on how one plays or how one is prepared for and will play at their audition. Sure it can reflect one's background, but I have sat through hundreds of auditions and can assure you that there is a huge range (with no apparent order) of playing styles, preparedness and of course levels of nervousness.

In our orchestra, the committee has no say in how times are assigned. When the resumes are screened, the names have been whited out so all we see is the experience and education of a player. After resumes are screened, they are handed back to the audition coordinator who sees who has gotten enough thumbs up to be invited (only 3 people typically screen the resumes) and assigns times after that. Those who need special considerations are given them if possible.

Believe me, there is no conspiracy to "stack" players in any order.

From my experience taking way too many auditions, I think that gloriarex is right on, people do make special requests for times that may work for them. Usually the people who ask for a certain time already have a job.
They need to schedule the audition closer to the finals because that is what works for their schedule. Getting time off to take an audition is very difficult in some orchestras. Having served on committees it does sometimes seem like there will be 30 people in a row that don't advance and then 4 in a row that do, this is PURELY ACCIDENTAL. Even if we all knew who was playing and how they played, there are far too many factors involved to control the outcome. How could anyone make it so that the chosen few all play well and advance, and the former all don't. It is, to put it in a word, ABSURD to think that there is a way to plan this.

Having done a lot of auditions and been on the other side of a lot of auditions...I have made one observation. The very first person who plays on the very first prelim day will always play more than subsequent players (I suppose it is possible that some hardcore orchestras have dismissed someone awful who played first, but I've never heard of it). And sometimes people advance one at a time (after the first 10 say) or they advance in a crowd (out of 15 players in a row 3 advance). Sometimes a good person gets lost in a crowd of good playing and sometimes someone so-so is swept up in comparison with who has played in that round . And sometimes someone is having the best day of their life and someone is having the worst. I am always amazed about the outcome. Vegas seems easy by comparison.