I heard several people were given trial weeks. Any news yet?

Four people were qualified by the Committee. The final decision is now in the hands of the Music Director.

I'm curious as to whether Mr. Salonen is continuing to make the final hiring decisions as the outgoing MD, or if Mr. Dudamel is involved at all?

Salonen will be MD until the end of next season. As far as I know, he will be the MD of note for all hirings through that time.

Yes,I think everyone knows when he's leaving.
I just think it's interesting how different orchestras handle that sort of transition. For example, Alan Gilbert is handling the hirings in New York even though he doesn't take over until 09 (like Dudamel).In a certain way that makes obvious sense, since he (and Dudamel) will be making the final tenure decisions, not Maazel or Salonen.

All four qualified candidates played superbly. It was a treat to have such good players come and try us out and be tried out. Chatting with the brass boyz, it seems that they had a good time with all of them. It was something of a low brass festival having all these good visiting players.

As to Salonen doing the hiring, it's a contractual thing: since Dudamel's not yet MD, he doesn't have authority for hiring. And management didn't ask for a variance to allow him to make decisions. It appears that management is trying to get as many personnel decisions made under Salonen's MD-ship, so that Dudamel need not make those decisions. Certainly, Salonen will not reap the benefits as MD of whatever decisions are made. (I have no reason to believe that anything except good decisions will be made in our upcoming and ongoing auditions, but still, in principle, I like the rule that some orchestras have, that lame duck MDs don't take part in hiring and firing.)

I’m certainly not questioning the quality of the candidates or the integrity of Mr. Salonen’s decisions. What I find interesting is that he’s in it at all, even if it’s contractually valid. As we all know, the audition process is time-consuming and fairly arduous for everyone involved, including Mr. Salonen; further, his legacy is definitely in place already. It’s no secret that different conductors have fairly specific (and wide-ranging) preferences as far as hiring, so why burden the next MD (and the orchestra) with possibly difficult decisions from the very first season of a new MD?

We’ve got the same situation in Milwaukee at the moment. Contractually, our current MD could make all the hiring decisions he wants up until the minute his contract ends in 09. But he (wisely) is leaving most of that to Edo de Waart, with the inexplicable exception of our Principal violin 2 opening. Go figure.

You bring up another interesting CBA quirk. Although you discuss it in terms of outgoing MD hiring and firing, to my knowledge most CBAs allow for hiring until the last second of an MD’s tenure, but restrict their ability to begin termination procedures in both the first and last years of their contract. So hiring is allowed until the last second, firing is not.

This thread touches upon the paradox inherent in the position that the MD should be given the lion's share of the say in hiring. A music director typically lasts between 5- 10 years with an orchestra, but a musician's career lasts 30 - 35 years in a major orchestra. So even if an MD is spanking new, his decisions will affect at least 3 or 4 subsequent music directors.

The idea that an MD should have the right to "shape" the personnel of an orchestra to his own taste doesn't hold water. If he has quirky tastes in sound or style, his hiring decisions may cripple the orchestra (or at least one section) and all subsequent MDs for the next 35 years - and I have seen it happen. If a conductor is of overwhelming talent and temperament he will have no trouble in shaping each performance to his vision, using good rehearsal technique, an expressive baton in performance, and his exceptional charisma and strong personality. This is the "shaping" that should happen but is, unfortunately, all too often lacking except with the very greatest of conductors. The lesser ones are more like traffic cops at a busy intersection, trying to bring a bit of order to the chaos.

The long term quality of the orchestra is always more important than the whims and tastes of a transitory music director. I'm not advocating no say for him in the hiring process - his vote should probably carry more weight than any individual committee member - but let's not get carried away. I have seen excellent conductors who were not so good at picking good hires, and I've also seen worse conductors who had an uncanny nose for hiring. The two skills don't necessarily overlap.

There are various possible systems. For example, if the audition committee consists of 10 orchestra members, each with one vote, the MD could have 3 votes, for a grand total of 13 votes. He would then need only 4 committee members to vote with him to get a majority of 7 votes. The committee would have to vote 7-3 against the MD in order to overrule his choice; not so easy to attain, but possible in an instance where he is clearly about to do something questionable.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Feuermann,

quote:

There are various possible systems. For example, if the audition committee consists of 10 orchestra members, each with one vote, the MD could have 3 votes, for a grand total of 13 votes. He would then need only 4 committee members to vote with him to get a majority of 7 votes. The committee would have to vote 7-3 against the MD in order to overrule his choice; not so easy to attain, but possible in an instance where he is clearly about to do something questionable.

Of course, there is always the option, in the system (which we use here in Oregon) wherein the music director chooses the winner from among only finalists qualified by a vote of the committee. The committee can choose to qualify none of the finalists, or if they agree, only one of the finalists, taking a questionable decision out of the hands of the MD. They also can (not a great idea, but it is the nuclear option) decline to advance any candidates to the finals. In this sort of system, the musicians' power comes from their ability to deny the MD the power to appoint/hire by withholding the number of votes to qualify the candidate(s).

In our CBA, the music director cannot begin termination proceedings in his/her first or last year of their contract, but they can take part in hiring.

quote:

Originally posted by Charles Noble:

Of course, there is always the option, in the system (which we use here in Oregon) wherein the music director chooses the winner from among only finalists qualified by a vote of the committee. The committee can choose to qualify none of the finalists, or if they agree, only one of the finalists, taking a questionable decision out of the hands of the MD. They also can (not a great idea, but it is the nuclear option) decline to advance any candidates to the finals. In this sort of system, the musicians' power comes from their ability to deny the MD the power to appoint/hire by witholding the number of votes to qualify the candidate(s).

Yes, this is also a viable option, and a good one. My own preference, though, is for a system in which the musicians are involved in the final selection of the winning candidate, not just offering the MD a pool of qualified candidates from which to choose at his sole discretion. I believe the former to be stronger for the orchestra. But your system does prevent the hiring of an unqualified candidate, which goes a long way toward controlling future problems.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Feuermann,

quote:

Originally posted by Charles Noble:
The committee can choose to qualify none of the finalists, or if they agree, only one of the finalists, taking a questionable decision out of the hands of the MD.

On thinking about this some more, I remember bad things that have happened. A while ago I was in an orchestra where a similar system was in effect, and in order to control the options open to the MD, a principal player lobbied against a certain player making the finals (even though the player was a good one and certainly deserved to do so) because the principal didn't want the MD to even have the option of picking him. It could happen that the committee gets too picky too early, becuse once a player has made the finals and qualified, the committee has lost all control. I believe that if the committee has a substantial say at the very end, the right thing is more likely to happen with regard to their passing through the right number of players, including all who truly deserve to do so. The knowledge that there will be no control at the end might provoke too much control too early.

Your points are quite valid, and I do see the potential for abuse in the way our system works. The more I think about it, the more I think a system like you describe would ultimately be the best - where the MD gets a certain number of votes which a super majority of the players would be able to override the MD's choice.

Charles, just to clarify for your orchestra's system, the MD has sole control over who gets the job in finals? the committee has no say in this at all, other than who gets to finals? Is there any discussion to see if the MD & committee agree, or does the MD pick someone no matter what the committee thinks? I'm more familiar with the MD getting double or triple votes & such in some orchestras, so I'm not familiar with this method. I'm wondering what other orchestras do this too.

Minnesota also gives the music director the exclusive right to hire beginning in the finals. I believe that this is the case in most major American orchestras. The committee certainly has a voice, and the music director would probably not be smart to ignore that voice completely, of course. But the committee becomes advisory once the music director joins the panel...

quote:

Originally posted by Sam Bergman:
The committee certainly has a voice, and the music director would probably not be smart to ignore that voice completely, of course.

My experience is that most MDs do not ignore the committee, and the same result would be reached with either system in perhaps 95% of the auditions. It's the other 5% that worry me ........

quote:

Originally posted by orchdork:
Charles, just to clarify for your orchestra's system, the MD has sole control over who gets the job in finals? the committee has no say in this at all, other than who gets to finals? Is there any discussion to see if the MD & committee agree, or does the MD pick someone no matter what the committee thinks? I'm more familiar with the MD getting double or triple votes & such in some orchestras, so I'm not familiar with this method. I'm wondering what other orchestras do this too.

That's not quite correct: in my orchestra, the committee has to qualify finalists via a simple majority vote. This occurs following a non-binding 'straw' vote, and discussion by every member of the committee and the MD. The MD is then only allowed to hire from among the qualified candidates.

Up in Montreal, the MD has 45% of votes. Seems like a fair compromise to me, especially since the screen there even in the finals. It makes it difficult for individual members of the committee to follow a personnal agenda.

But I understand that other rules could apply in the case of unscreened cello auditions...

The Met also screens finals. How much power has the MD there? Is the role of the committee advisory or decisive?

Answering the original question
Stacy's webpage says there were 4 finalists John Rojak, John Lofton, Randy Hawes, and Paul Pollard.

the winner is Paul Pollard from the MET



cheers

Paul Pollard is staying with the MET, however. Last I heard.

John Lofton has accepted the position.