Thought you might like to register opinions on winnerless auditions from both sides

Question:
No winner chosen is worst for...

Choices:
The audition committee since they have to do it again
The finalists since they came so close
All auditioners who are out the time and money
Everyone since all lose in the process
audtioners since the orchestra has more free reign now in the selection process

 

My answer would be: The orchestra, because they will still have to rely on different substitutes, it causes extra work for the rest of the section, and it won't profit from everything a new colleague can give it.

But - in the long run - I think it's perfectly OK to postpone hirings because:

- The orchestra will probably find a better qualified musician
- The candidates will often get a second chance to show their best
- Interested musicians who couldn't go to the audition for whatever reason (economy, work, illness etc) will often get a chance to go at another time
- The musician finally hired will feel more secure and wanted in the job

So if we see it in the long run: no-hire could mean a win-win situation.

i have to partly disagree with Eurobassoon. the orchestra won't necessarily find a "better qualified musician", there are PLENTY of "qualified" musicians. the orchestra may, however, find a musician that fits their mold, whether it's the musical style, or maybe even just a personality fit. however, it's still thousands of dollars wasted on the auditioners. i wish they would find a fit just like anyone else, but i just really wish they wouldn't have to hold more than 1 audition to do so.

sometimes candidates get a 2nd chance, but if i personally feel i played my best at an audition & it doesn't work out, then i'll try my luck somewhere else. i will audition for an orchestra more than once for a different position, but i avoid repeat auditions if the chair hasn't been filled in recent years (unless there's musical chairs with a former member winning another position elsewhere).

as for musicians getting another chance, i don't know if airline prices have affected anyone else's decisions to take auditions, but they have surely affected mine!

That would be interesting to know. Has anyone gone back to a repeat audition and won the spot, though previously unfilled at an audition? We hear of "no winner chosen again" over and over but are there any stories of people winning those spots even though they went to previous auditions for the same spot?

One of the problems with not hiring anyone is that it overlooks the fact that the initial audition is only an imperfect indicator of how a musician will actually do on the job. To not advance to the next step of hiring someone for a trial season is to deny at least the chance of ending up with a player who performs very well on the job and makes an outstanding contribution to the orchestra.

We all know the player (especially the section string player) who, because of nerve problems and/or lack of a virtuoso technique, could never play an overwhelmingly impressive audition, but who is, nonetheless, a valuable section player because of ensemble skills, good rhythm and general musicality, experience, an ability to work with and get along with his colleagues, etc. When we are overly picky at the brief audition we eliminate the players who fall into that category.

It's true that what I've written in the previous paragraph doesn't apply as much to principal strings and one-on-a-part woodwinds and brass; an audition is a much better indicator of their eventual value to the orchestra than it is for a section string player. Sometimes I wonder if we should have two methods of auditioning - one for tutti strings, and one for all others. To lump all positions together under one umbrella is to deny the significant differences in the skills required for these two very different groups in the orchestra.

My experience has been that when an orchestra has a pattern of non-hiring, it's usually due to the neuroticism and egotism of the music director, with the occasional toxic dose of elitism thrown in from a few (certainly nowhere near all) of the already tenured musicians. We probably can't do much about the MD's attitude, except to try to educate the management as to why it hurts the orchestra when the pattern repeats itself too often. But we can try to change the attitude of those few overly zealous colleagues, and encourage more realism and humility. How many of those super-critical audition committee members could stand up and play a credible audition at the level of what it would take now to win their own job? But, of course, many think they fall into the category mentioned in the second paragraph above, and many probably do.

Feuermann, very well said. i've often sensed a hint of egotism, pretentiousness, etc. with orchestras that either have repeat position auditions, or have bad reputations for poor audition practices (ie, not letting candidates hardly play at all or picking poor difficult 1st round excerpts to "weed people out"). I also think it's bad form to have invites only at very low paying gigs. If players can fairly get an audition with orchestras that pay over $50k, whether they have a realistic shot or not, but then can't even get an audition with an orchestra that pays, say between $10-30k (or even lower!), what does that say?! It just seems preposterous.

I know this topic has been dug into the ground on here, but it continues to do so for a reason. I don't know whether anything overall has changed. But I sincerely hope with that with the low chances of winning along with the rising costs of auditions, orchestras will reconsider who they invite, advance, & ultimately HIRE for their auditions!

Sharkey: YES. I know several examples (talking Europe ere) of positions filled at audition #2 or #3 with someone who was there in the first audition where noone was hired. People get better, people have better days, and, very important: The jury may change and the MD may change.

I simply don't understand why money spent for an unsuccessful auditioner where a winner was chosen is money well spent, but not if nobody was hired? You pay for the possibility to show your best to a possible employer - and you got what you paid for in both cases.

Feuermann, I agree 100% with your thoughts about tutti strings hirings. However, I think the same thing applies to many other positions as well.

In my orchestra, we are getting quite close to the "English" system. That means a system where we try out a number of candidates in the orchestra (normally 3 weeks each) and that this makes the basis for hiring. Auditions is one way to qualify for such a trial. A successful career in a similar orchestra, and/or a recommendation from MD or musicians, is a different way to qualify.

Also, we are considering flexible audition dates: advertising a position with alternative audition dates, and for especially interesting applicants, we even set up individual auditions if they don't have the chance to come on one day in particular.

bravo feuermann!

Other industries have a process where the committee sits down and outlines what type of person they are looking for. It makes it a lot easier to find what you are looking for if you have a consensus going into the process. For example if the candidate must play the secondary instrument, ie piccolo you state so in your advertisement and you require it in the audition. It also is helpful to prioritize the attributes beyond the basics that are the most important. A type of sound or level of musicianship etc. The thought that when you hear it you will know may not be the best strategy for getting someone to fill a chair. Also, if you know your MD hates such and such style player, you should try to weed those people out in the early rounds.

I have a sinking feeling many committee members are working to select different types of players. No wonder they don't hire. They haven't a clue from the start. After they've done it a few times and gotten nowhere they probably figure it out. If they did plan and knew what they wanted and the right person just didn't show - that's just bad luck all around.

quote:

Originally posted by Phoenix:
Also, if you know your MD hates such and such style player, you should try to weed those people out in the early rounds.

Sorry, I think this is incredibly dangerous, and also unnecessary. Don't second-guess the later rounds. Just vote to pass through all who play up to a certain standard and, in your opinion, deserve to make it. Nuances of style can be discussed in the finals. Believe me, if the MD doesn't like a certain style of playing, he won't hire that person anyway - you don't have to protect his tender ears.

Phoenix:
Our audition committee followed the process you describe (figuring out ahead of time what kind of player we were looking for) for one of our recent auditions, and it saved a huge amount of time and disagreement. We had 30 candidates and got through the entire audition (prelims, semis and finals) in 8 hours (including lunch). We were able to tell very quickly whether someone was the kind of player we were looking for, and either way we didn't have to spend long listening to them.

For another audition a few weeks later, the committee did not do this and it took them 7 hours for 8 candidates. Amazing what a difference it makes.

In our orchestra we used to go through the "what are we looking for" ritual before the audition, but later gave it up as it proved to be mostly a time-wasting reiteration of the obvious. For example, for a 4th horn audition we heard something like:

"We don't need a principal horn with soloistic ability. For 4th horn we need someone with a good low register who knows how to follow and blend."

Or, for a principal string position:

"We need not just a soloist, but someone who can lead, play sensitive ensemble, understands bowings, and will work well with the concertmaster and the other principal strings."

This is probably all harmless, but where it gets dangerous is if something like the following is said before, say, a principal trumpet audition:

"We don't want someone with a brilliant sound. I don't think that would be a good match for what we already have in the brass."

This may very well end up being the concensus of the committee and MD, but I believe it's wrong to eliminate a fine player too early in the process because of such things, which, to a large degree, are subjective. The fine tuning should be reserved for the finals. The prelims and semis should concentrate on presenting the finals committee with the best of the field, which may turn out to be a potpourri of different schools of training, sound, and style. There's plenty of time in the finals to get down to the nitty-gritty.

This is just so ridiculous! What in the world is going on w/ flute sections U.S. orchestras? Met seemed to open up their audition pretty widely - 3 days of prelims. I think this is a good model because this is how you find the best player. I understand that many orchestras don't have the resources to do this but I believe that an orchestra who hires nobody after a heavily screened invite would actually save money by doing this. Also, an orchestra who doesn't hire anyone after the prelims which had a tape screening involved begin to mark themselves as one of "those orchestras" who have unreasonable expectations. This may prevent excellent players from even considering the audition in the future.

flutegirl, i wish i knew. this is seriously getting old. it just makes it seem like "no one is good enough to play with us". although the Met does open it up more, at the same time, it's still a little unfair because i'm sure there will be too many applicants that will barely get to play an excerpt or 2. i think it's a waste of time on the committee & some of the auditioners. i agree that there should be more trials. but which is more expensive, trying out a few people, or holding another audition (or 2 or 3)? i would think the latter.

another thing i've wondered is this - is it the position sometimes that results in no winner chosen? i haven't done the research yet, but it seems like principal & associate principal positions are harder to fill than section or specialty/utility instruments (piccolo, Eb clarinet, etc), no matter what the pay is.

The reason there is a tenure process is to make sure you hired the correct person. I HARDLY think that there is NO one at any audition that couldn't do the job for a year.

Also, if you make it to the finals, and they DON'T hire someone....the orchestra should reimburse ALL expenses for the finalists (to a reason). (and yes, I already have a job....)

I think every audition committee member, and every conductor, should read Charles Mackay's Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, still the classic work on the subject although written 170 years ago. In it he explores the trends in mass thinking that come and go, giving scores of historical examples and pointing out that the various groupthinks throughout history that seem so silly to us now were each accepted as gospel at the time.

Our audition mass psychosis for the last 10 or 15 years has been to zero in on every perceived technical fault or error in style, no matter how small, and elevate it to the rank of a deal-breaker. The irony is that the overall technical standard has never been higher - the major conservatories are churning out technical wizards like sausages, most of whom would need only a season or two in an orchestra to develop their latent skills at orchestral playing, skills that are difficult to teach in a conservatory setting but can easily be absorbed and developed on the job by most players.

The over-obsession with style is equally vexing. Each orchestra has its "style police," players who are only too eager to tell you how a proper Bach bowstroke should differ from a Telemann bowstroke, or why every violinist needs at least 25 different vibratos, one for each composer. I have actually heard the following said by a committee member, after the playing of a Debussy excerpt by a hapless candidate: "That person had no conception of late Debussy style." Not just Debussy style, mind you, but late Debussy style. This is the sort of rubbish that our younger colleagues are facing in their efforts to gain a toehold in the profession. As I and many others have written in this forum: There is not such a great danger in taking a chance - those newbies who don't "get it" can be denied tenure.

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

(great post there Herr Feuermann.......)

Let us decide to apply funds to artistic endeavors, this is our option.

It is time for military armaments contractors, who make millions at the stroke of a pen for doing no work but only cultivating death and violence, to now humbly apply their efforts, as they are alive if only briefly as we all are (if we breathe then we hope as our man O said the other day) to learning how to play the cello.

When our society changes like that, then we will
discover the social joy of gathering to play music and celebrate our tenuous and miraculous
existence on this endangered planet.

Then such arguments as you describe will be rendered "sillilly" irrelevant...

Since style seems to be the most subjective attribute, why is it so often used to exclude candidates? Style also seems potentially changeable. Or isn't it??The style presented may reflect a teacher or school of playing but is it as important as the "style police" make out? Certain orchestras also cite their sound as the reason for including or excluding candidates. Seems this falls into this same style issue. I can see why many of you have advised against putting too much weight on this.

Certainly the difference in styles of the music of various periods and composers is important, but it's unrealistic to expect entry level orchestral musicians to have the sophistication in these matters that they will have developed after a bit of time in a professional orchestra.

Many players in my orchestra would respond to that statement with:

"This is not a training orchestra. We want fully formed musicians who hit the ground running and need no further development."

Hmmmm ........... rrrrrrright ............ like you were, when you were hired?

"Yes, I understand all styles, and perform accordingly. When I play a recital of four pieces by four different composers, I play in four different styles. Of course, I don't have the technique to match my musicianship and sense of style, so my problem is quite the opposite of the young hotshots we hear in our auditions - the finalists all have a wonderful technique, but poor musicianship. If I had their technique, combined with my musicianship - now that would be something!"

I hear this sort of thing over and over and over again - it is the single most common delusion of professional musicians, and is at least partly responsible for the shameful pandemic of non-hiring.

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