i think we've all noticed that some orchestras seem to get a bad rap of "not hiring" musicians. what i'd like to know: how and when has it become acceptable to not hire somebody at an audition and then "bring in" or invite someone else to sit in the chair as an audition ? why do these people get special treatment ? and often they're people who have no prior interest in the audition and didn't bother to apply. this has been happening lately and especially with titled chairs. i don't understand the loophole and i'm curious to hear the opinion from a musician on an audition panel. thanks!

me, too!!!

me 3 it always seems to be a secret thing that becomes not so secretive. i think it's acceptable to invite people to semis (provided they're blind), but just inviting whomever they please isn't fair, whether they're qualified or not. are these invite auditions blind or not? they obviously know who they've invited, but it would be questionable if they didn't at least screen part of it. that's just my 2 cents

i think it depends on the orchestra. i have participated in an "invite-only" audition that was completely screened, and a candidate was hired without the committee ever having seen the player. i think that this is a good idea in certain cases when an orchestra needs to fill a position at the last minute, or to hire someone for the year before a national audition takes place.

It certainly seems to have become more common in recent years for major orchestras to hire principal players outside the open audition process. Chicago seems to have been pretty "bad" about this during the Barenboim era.

I actually don't have a problem with orchestras skipping the open audition process. If they want to invite a small group of people to audition or just offer someone the job, fine with me. But be transparent about it and don't put everyone through the open audition.

I also think open auditions should require everyone to start in the first round. I can see one value: you have a known quantity in the later rounds against whom you can measure the people who made it through from the first round. But allowing people to start in later rounds says that some candidates are more equal than others. And even if they're blind, letting people skip the first round acknowledges that the first round is somewhat arbritrary, and that perfectly acceptable players are at risk of being eliminated at that stage. So if first rounds are arbitrary, maybe orchestras should do their best to mitigate that problem rather than letting some known quantities evade that sandtrap.

What do you all think about what Atlanta did concerning principal oboe?

This is from the Atlanta journal-constitution:

Path to ASO

Winning the job came in a roundabout way.

After 27-year veteran oboist Jonathan Dlouhy abruptly resigned in May 2006, the ASO conducted "blind" auditions, in which several dozen qualified oboists took turns playing behind a screen; each had 10 minutes to show their stuff to the audition committee. (The screen is designed to block gender or racial bias.)

For Koch, it was her first professional audition. She didn't make the initial cut.

But when none of the official finalists proved a good fit, the seven-member committee invited Koch back to substitute with the full orchestra in concert. In an all-Beethoven performance, the strength and beauty of her playing was immediately apparent.

About that otherwise ho-hum concert, this AJC critic wrote: "Unexpectedly, the freshest and most confident new voice came from Elizabeth Koch, a 20-year-old student. ..." In the ASO's oboe search, the review continued, "if all the candidates are at Koch's level, it'll be a key boost for the orchestra."

Koch's ASO duties start officially in September. She'll have two seasons to prove her abilities and get the equivalent of tenure.

This is an example of an orchestra committee's worst nightmare - eliminating a great candidate early while advancing people who play the excerpts well but either don't blend well or don't play or fit in well with the section or ensemble. Sometimes the great candidate doesn't play their best - nerves or a million other reasons. Sometimes the committee wants too much perfection in the prelims and misses out on many other important qualities. Seems a bit like picking a racehorse based solely on a single sprint in practice.

I've heard it equated to picking players for a basketball team by having them shoot free-throws.

I'm a fan of everyone playing behind a screen. But if you're going to equate this to shooting free-throws, why don't you just work on your free-throws? I don't think the audition process is perfect, but if you were in a position to hire someone into an orchestra, wouldn't you want to hear the person play by him/herself?

As far as invites, it seems to stem from the fact that most people don't sound that great from behind a screen. Perhaps it's easier to be picky when you have no visual distraction, like how most people hear a recording of themselves and are horrified. I've listened to a couple auditions for major orchestras (paying over 100K) as a member of the committee, and the level just didn't seem extraordinarily high. So, I'm guessing that the common perception among players and the Music Director would be that so-and-so is better than the people we heard, although if that person actually showed up and played behind the screen, it might not be the case.

It's also true that a person with a major position already would be less inclined to want to practice for another audition, so if an orchestra wants to recruit an established player from another orchestra, some sort of "invite" would be likely. I believe that you generally pay your dues in this business, and that most people I know who are invited to later rounds of screened auditions have either nearly been hired for a position in that group, made the finals previously (for an invite to the next semis), or won a different audition and play in an orchestra at roughly the same "level".

The ASO principal oboe audition situation exemplifies this "special invite" dilemma. Before elaborating on the audition, let me qualify that I do not know Ms. Koch personally, nor do I know her playing (however, I have heard she is very talented ), so I am in no way commenting on the quality of her playing or her personally.

Now, that being said; in my personal opinion I find it highly disappointing that an orchestra would hold a screened audition, yielding a winner (which ended up in a no-hire), and then undermining their own screen process by hiring someone who took that very audition and didn't make it out from behind the screen the first time around.

Yes, as someone pointed out, everyone has auditions that they don't play their best or get to show their strong suits. However, unfortunately the nature of the audition process today doesn't really make allowances for that. By definition it really all is about that 2 minute window the committee is hearing you and if you're able to "show your stuff." Whether that is fair or an accurate judge of a player is a whole other can of worms. However, these are the audition perameters that have been "accepted" as the system today. There is a reason so many people spend so much time (and money) practicing audition skills, getting into the psychology, etc.; so that they can handle the pressure and perform their best under the circumstances.

Where the frustration enters is that when an orchestra chooses to go against these rules they leave many wondering if it is possible to actually win an audition fair and square and be subsequently hired for the job. Also, in the instance of the ASO, why was one candidate granted a second chance (in the form of trial weeks, no less) when they didn't initially advance, but other great players who also didn't advance not given the same opportunity?

The act of holding a standard audition and then undermining its results by awarding a proverbial "golden ticket" to one candidate not advancing is by no stretch of the imagination unfair to all who participated in the initial audition.

With that being as high profile of a job as it was, there were plenty of talented and respected players that for one reason or another didn't make it to the finals. Why were they not afforded the same grace?

Also, the ASO in their decision brings up another hot button issue of age vs. experience. I am acquainted with many young players either still in school or freshly out who have made it into final rounds and or "won" the audition for these huge jobs and then not granted/considered for the job because of their "lack of experience." Unfortunately this is a common occurrence. A hotshot makes it to the finals of multiple high profile auditions only to have the screen come down and be nixed for reasons other than their performance. Especially with a position such as principal oboe (or any solo position), so much "importance" is placed on experience, regardless of how the young player actually plays. It seems that, with the exeption of the ASO, in order to get a job of that caliber, you MUST have been in another job prior in order to even be considered for the position.

I guess in some way I do applaud the ASO for being one of the few who are willing to hire a young player, putting their faith in their talent and innate musicianship. However, I question why the exception was made in this instance, when I know there were many other young talents (as well as experienced players) involved in that specific ASO audition.

My question is how does one get to be one of these elite persons who is exempt from the audition process? Either by being invited for trials in the first place, or having your previous unsuccessful round selectively overlooked? Is it due to the phone call of a "big name" on your behalf, or a connection with someone on the committee, or something else entirely?

I guess in some ways it's an unanswerable question with too many grey areas. I bet I'm not the only one who wishes that orchestras would pick an audition process, stick with it, and subject EVERYONE to it. None of this under-the-table inviting or pacts between committee members, teachers, and/or conductors. Just my two cents.

quote:

My question is how does one get to be one of these elite persons who is exempt from the audition process?

That's the money question, and until someone provides me with a satisfactory answer, I'll remain disgusted with the entire affair.