Hi folks,

As I'm sort of interested in auditioning for the violin section at the BSO, I've kept an eye on their auditions for several years now, and it appears that they only hired one person so far; my question to all you seasoned musicians in the know is, why is that? Is it that they actually can't find enough qualified musicians to fill the void, or are their standars so high that they just can't settle for less than stellar, or what gives? At one point, I've even begun to question their motives, as they sure do use subs for various positions. Is it perhaps to give the appearance of them being willing to hire, but prefer to use subcontracted musicians, for whom they pay no benefits, over full-time employee positions?

I'd appreciate any bit of light you might shed on this here mystery.

Cheerfully yours,
Mike

quote:

Is it perhaps to give the appearance of them being willing to hire, but prefer to use subcontracted musicians, for whom they pay no benefits, over full-time employee positions?

Nah, that band is probably the richest in the US, they can spring for the benefits.

Look at the Principal Flute situation in Boston... it's been, what, maybe 15 YEARS since they have had a tenured principal flute, and they have had some seriously hot players up for the gig!

Hopefully Elizabeth Rowe will be holding the golden ticket when tenure time rolls around.

Yeah, this whole thing about holding auditions and not hiring anyone mystifies me a little bit. I mean, it's one thing if you don't hear anybody who's got the chops to play the excerpts; but that seems very unlikely, especially in an audition for any group that pays a decent living wage. It seems like if someone is competent enough to be in the finals, then they're competent enough to do the job. I don't see why, if the committee isn't absolutely blown away by one of the finalists, they can't simply hire the one who seems least bad and see how things work out. That's what probation is for, after all; and a lot of people play better in performances than they do in auditions. Or invite each of the 2 or 3 finalists to play one concert series (since if you don't pick a winner you will need to hire a sub anyway), and see how things go.

When I say "I don't see why..." etc., I don't mean there can't be any reason for it - I just mean I don't understand. I've only seen it from the candidate's point of view. I wonder if someone who has been on a committee that didn't hire a winner can provide any illumination on this subject.

quote:

Originally posted by BBodden:
I don't see why, if the committee isn't absolutely blown away by one of the finalists, they can't simply hire the one who seems least bad and see how things work out.

-----------------------------------------------
I wonder if someone who has been on a committee that didn't hire a winner can provide any illumination on this subject.

2 queries, 2 answers.

A. "least bad"??? that sounds so lame.If the player doesnt blow em away, hold another audition. No comprimise

2. I have been on several icsom commitees where no one got a
job. It was on the up+up, nobody played to the level we were looking for. We werent being difficult, it was very fair, but nobody arose to the challenge. It DOES Happen.

Cygnus is absolutely right. When an audition is held and no one is hired, it's because there were serious concerns that none of the candidates heard could play to the level required, or that requests to adjust specific aspects of the excerpts weren't followed at a high enough level. That doesn't mean that no one at the audition was qualified: merely that no one played well enough to be hired.

And suggesting that an audition committee would choose to hire no one so that the orchestra could save money on benefits is absurd. Audition committees are made up exclusively of musicians and music directors, and everyone would rather have a permanent colleague than take our chances with the sub pool for another year.

Sam Bergman
violist, Minnesota Orchestra
news editor, ArtsJournal.com
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

ANother thing to consider:

Here and there, a musician or CONDUCTOR has something called an EGO ( I know, it's hard to believe).

In some cases, if the conductor/cm pick a controversial player and they dont get tenure, it makes them look like, umm, errr, Bush and the Fema guy come to mind ( just an example I am not doing politics here). Not getting tenure make conductor look bad, he no likey!

I have played mainly in B level icsom bands, so I cant talk for the truly big boys, but this is what i observed over 15 years and 4 bands:

Tenure for the section stiff= show up on time, wear the right costume, dont talk bad bout folks and dont stick out- you get tenure, time to start talkin bad about folks!

Once you are in a seat under pretense of "this is your gig", its hard to get you out. Friendships happen, houses are bought, kids go to schools, etc. The one-year sub knows he/she has one year, it never occurs to most audition winners ( it never did to me) that tenure wont happen, and I gotta say I have seen maybe 90 new players over the years in orchestras and 85 of them got tenure. The ones who didnt were principals, troublemakers or the occasional "How did he GET this job".

I won't disagree with Cygnus's observations on tenure, much as I wish I could. It is true that keeping your head down and not sticking out is frequently just the way to keep your job, much as I'm sure it is in many other businesses as well. But it should be stressed that not all orchestras, or all music directors, behave this way. I count myself lucky to be in an ensemble in which hiding in the back for your first two years is just exactly the right strategy for getting fired, and our MD never misses on opportunity to point out that he expects to see everyone giving their utmost, regardless of how many years service time they've logged.

Still, it is true that the players who are most frequently denied tenure are principals who turn out not to be a good fit, and that politics play as much a role as musicianship in many shops. This is the #1 reason why I abhor the idea of using the tenure process as an extension of the audition. Saying "well, we're not sure, but let's hire him, and if it doesn't work out, we have an escape clause" just doesn't work as a matter of practical application. Auditions are for auditioning, tenure is an earned job perk, and it's best not to confuse the two.

Sam Bergman
violist, Minnesota Orchestra
news editor, ArtsJournal.com
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

These are really insightful comments from both Cygnus and Sam Bergman (as usual). But at the risk of stirring things up (again) I think this discussion is really a little naïve and incomplete without acknowledging what I see as a rather disturbing trend in some orchestras over the last few years. That would be the seemingly inexplicable denial of tenure by certain Music Directors, over the objections of the audition committees and often the regular audience members. This practice has not been limited to section players, and in the case of Principal positions has occasionally been under the glare of the local and national press. The quiet fact is that this has become an unwelcome hiring (and unhiring) tactic by certain conductors who have by now tarnished the reputations of their orchestra’s audition practices, and really don’t have to answer for it- contrary to the idea Cygnus put forth, they really don’t believe it makes them look bad at all. It’s the opposite- a very focused kind of power play (I believe often personal in nature) and perhaps unrelated to any sort of artistry.

The implications of this are fairly serious- what are musicians and audition committees to think if the MD without any compelling explanation overrules them? What about the public who develops an ongoing and adoring relationship over several seasons with a particular Principal who is then suddenly let go (I know of one widely publicized case on the West coast, others have been less visible)? For me this is one of the most destructive aspects of the audition process today, one that joins an already long list of elements in the orchestral hiring process that I believe should be seriously re-evaluated.

Incidentally (relating to the original post in this thread) there was a rather interesting article recently in the Boston Globe concerning the current state of auditions at the BSO (you can find it on ArtsJournal.com or the BG site itself). I found much of this article sensationalized and even misleading. But one thing stuck with me- by simply not attending (to some of the musicians’ evident dismay), Mr. Levine seems to be making his obvious point that the audition itself is only part of the process. He of course retains the final word on tenure, but is his absence from the initial auditions really helping to find the best candidate for the job? An interesting question, and to me an illuminating example of the overall audition confusion facing even the world’s most esteemed orchestras.

Frank A.
CM Milwaukee Symphony

OK, "least bad" does sound pretty lame. I guess I meant "the one who came closest." Possibly still lame. Oh well.

I personally have always thought of the probation process as a continuation of the audition: not quite in the sense that one screw-up will get you fired, but in the sense of "we've seen what s/he can do in an audition, but let's see what s/he can do in performance and in terms of fitting into the group."

And if nobody rises to the challenge, then nobody rises to the challenge. BUT:

Naive or not, I still believe that someone good enough to make the finals for a particular orchestra is good enough to be given a chance by that orchestra, even if it just means hiring them for one concert. Possibly it could also give the candidate some idea of what it is s/he is trying to fit in with. If the general style is more flamboyant or less, darker or brighter sound, etc., than what they're used to, then (a) they get a chance to try to adapt and (b) the committee/conductor gets a chance to see how adaptable they are. I think orchestras often deprive themselves of good players because they are unwilling to do this.

I should explain that I am looking at this as a principal wind player, not a section/ string player. That may color my point of view.