Baltimore's recent (invite-only) flute audition has resulted in no winner. Again.

What are they going to do next?

May I suggest starting from scratch and holding a fair audition?

again?!

i'd would also like to suggest either just hire whomever they want & not waste people's time, or have a total blind process & hire the winner, no matter what. but that won't happen, so who knows what will. i'm honestly tired of hearing about this happening (also Florida, among others). no one's going to want to audition if an orchestra doesn't hire, so I don't know what they're waiting for. I also noticed Pacific is open again, which they just had in recent years too. Does anyone know what's going on there?

Dreamgirl - are you saying the Baltimore auditions have not been fair?

quote:

Originally posted by flupicc:
Dreamgirl - are you saying the Baltimore auditions have not been fair?

...because OMG, that would be, like, totally unfair.

Seriously though, with all the complications they've had with making hiring decisions, it's starting to look like there's something wrong with their process.

well, lessee here... i've already lost count how many times they've had an audition in the past few years. some people weren't offered tenure, while some others weren't hired after trials. & this is supposed to be fair? i agree w/ BBodden, this isn't looking good at all. i didn't even manage to go to the other auditions, but count me out of their next (public) audition at this rate. & no, i'm not being cynical, i'm being realistic.

I'm with you, orchdork and BBodden.

Re: Pacific Symphony, there is indeed another audition coming up for Principal Flute, in early September, I believe.
Heather Clark resigned.

Baltimore's the new San Francisco.

Elizabeth Rowe (now principal flute in Boston) was the last tenured player in this position. Before that, Mark Sparks (principal in St. Louis) held the position. Big shoes to fill...

Dear FluPicc:

Yes I think that Baltimore's audition practices are unfair since they are clearly not working and a bad reputation is developing. I assume you might be a member of the orchestra since you seem to be on the defensive. You must agree that there is SOMEONE out there who is good enough for the job, but obviously that person was not invited to the most recent audition.

The following quote is one that you made regarding the second Cincinnati Asst. Principal Flute audition which Jasmine Choi won fair and square because all rounds of the audition were screened. (Not to mention it wasn't an invite-only.)

You said:
"As regards this particular audition, I'm told that all rounds were held behind a screen. This seems the only fair way to hold an audition where someone the orchestra knows and favors is auditioning."

Wouldn't this confirm that, in your own opinion, Baltimore is running unfair audition practices if Marcia Kamper played a round that was not screened? -I believe Marcia did. Again, I know Marcia is deserving of her current position and I hate to bring up her name again, but it is just to make a point that Baltimore does not use the screen to the end in their auditions, even when their own members are auditioning.

In my opinion the only way to solve Baltimore's hiring problem is to hold an audition which has the curtain up to the end. Don't cut people off after one excerpt unless they are truly unacceptable. No trials, no excerpts with the orchestra. Hire the best person. Of course now that the audition has been held so many times with no success, it is likely that many players will not bother to show up. To solve that problem, Baltimore might need to make an apology of sorts or give some kind of explanation as to why their previous auditions have not resulted in a winner and how the orchestra is planning to solve the problem.

Well here we go again....

At the risk of adding fuel to the fire, I'd like to pose a simple, though perhaps naive question: What are orchestra's looking for anyway? I had a discussion recently about orchestral auditioning/playing and it was said that a person who won a job had to be ready to go on day one. The winner had to "fit in" from the first. While I agree that a person who takes on an orchestral job must be able to handle the demands both technically and musically, what of artistic growth. Should a new member of an orchestra flute section be fully formed from the moment they first sit in their chair? If so, I may never be ready for an orchestral job. The moment I stop growing musically is the moment I should pawn my flute and try something new. Bottom line: there's always something new to learn. But maybe orchestras are looking for people who already know it all.

Generally I'm in the camp of people who say that auditions past are in the past and it is time to move on. Still, I can't help but be frustrated at the Baltimore situation. I find it hard to believe that after so much time and so many auditions, nobody is acceptable. I'm curious to know if this no-hiring is exclusive to the flutes there or if it is orchestra wide. If not hiring is common for all sections then I think that the BSO needs to seriously reconsider its auditions practices.

I kind of agree with Monkeychild, i think an orchestra should give the musician some time to get used to the group, and grow towards certain direction, that's why there is trials! Dreamgirl, i really think trail is a fair audition practice. We have all taken auditions, we know sometimes even the best player messes up. That's why sometimes when we get to the finals, the choices might be limited. What should an orchestra do? Just call another audition, or give those people a chance to come to play with the orchestra?

About invitation only auditions, sometimes the certain good player might not be known enough, or known as not easy to work with, that's why when an orchestra has an invitation auditions, they pick who they think they might want to play with, and ask them to show how well they can play.

I don't know if i made my point clear, but i don't think just because an orchestra has went through so many auditions without finding the right person, is an sign of unfair practice of audition. And as far as i know, It is in Baltimore's contract that the first Final round is always screened, no matter if a current orchestra musician is auditioning or not. I think Baltimore should have a national audition again for that position, but i don't think anybody owes anybody an apology! This is the world we live in, it's not a simple question of fair or unfair!

Those are my thoughts only, doesn't represent anybody else!

houndieb, this is for assistant principal, not principal. i can't even recall who the last long-time tenured assistant principal was. but they really need to hire someone.

i agree with dreamgirl - SURELY someone out there is good enough, so there has to be more to it.

in response to monkeychild's statements:
"At the risk of adding fuel to the fire, I'd like to pose a simple, though perhaps naive question: What are orchestra's looking for anyway?"

mmm, good question. maybe orchestras should specify WHAT they're looking for in the info listed when an audition is posted, along with salary info & i'm only being partially sarcastic.


"But maybe orchestras are looking for people who already know it all."

it seems to me like orchestras either want a seasoned player, which is fine; or someone who doesn't know enough - aka, a young recent grad they can mold. i have heard these statements from well known orchestral players, & while i don't exactly agree with the "molding" part (& sometimes they don't always agree with this either), i know it happens. that makes it rather difficult for some good players to even break in a group period, or for someone in a lower paying gig to bump up a band, no matter how good their resume looks.


"I'm curious to know if this no-hiring is exclusive to the flutes there or if it is orchestra wide. If not hiring is common for all sections then I think that the BSO needs to seriously reconsider its auditions practices."

i'm also curious about the hiring trends in this group. i haven't noticed the other instruments (though i know they've made some recent hires), but it sure makes the flute situation look questionable. maybe someone of another instrument has more insight on this.

I will slightly amend my earlier post by saying that perhaps Baltimore's audition process is "fair", but not as fair as it could be. Below is a link to Elaine Douvas' excellent article from Senza Sordino on how the Met runs their auditions. Her comments about trials are particularly relevant to this thread. I know her article has been posted before, but I'd like to encourage everyone to read it and give it some thought.

http://c.yourmembership.com/sites/my.cim.edu/resource/resmgr/senza_pgs4_11.pdf

Does anyone dare to argue that the Met is not running the fairest auditions in the business?

Orchdork:

I assure you, Elizabeth Rowe was the last tenured player in this ASSISTANT flute position. Before that was Mark Sparks, who held the associate title, I believe, but it was the same position, meaning the person who plays principal when the principal flute is not playing. Baltimore has had the same principal flute, Emily Skala, since 1988.

Baltimore hired an associate principal horn player this year. Gabrielle Finck was advanced from the national, screened audition into a trial week, and was subsequently offered a job.

Regarding no trials:

I feel hiring a player for a year without knowing how s/he will play in the orchestra is akin to arranged marriage. The way someone plays in the finals of an audition is often not how they play in the orchestra. How can you hire a player who will play such an exposed part without hearing him/her do the job for real, without interacting with this person? No thank you.

Baltimore has hired a new second trumpet, new second bassoon, and a new associate principal horn this past year. Does that mean anything? I agree with houndieb on the trails. I am sure the Met gets great players from behind the screen most the time, and I do agree with Elaine Douvas, but i also don't oppose the idea of having a trial, if you are a really fantastic player, and you always sound great, a trail shouldn't be a problem.

I knew it was about time for a contentious discussion about a flute audition!
It seems like there are two elements that people have identified as important in a "fair" audition.
1)there has to be a blind, open process so that everyone who has applied has a chance to play for a committee of orchestra members.
2)it's important to actually hire someone.

The MET's audition process is great because their contract makes sure both of these things happen. But, deciding ALWAYS to hire someone is risky for orchestras without a pool of applicants like the MET's. One of the things that I was totally shocked to discover when I started serving on committees is that people disagree a lot, all the time in my orchestra at least. Nine different people hear nine completely different things, and auditions without winners often happen not because no one's qualified, but because committees and music directors can't all agree on one person who's most qualified. Democracy is fair, but it sure isn't efficient. (Think Weimar Republic Germany...) When Baltimore hired a 2nd flute (an excellent one, I might add) without a "cattle-call" type audition everyone said it was unfair because not everyone had a chance to apply. That's a can of worms I'm not going to touch But, remember that insisting on having an open, blind, "fair" audition means that to win, you have to convince several people with very different (and often very strong) opinions to hire you. This committee has no doubt heard many great players in each final round they've had, but that's not actually enough unless the whole committee also agrees to pick the same person.

quote:

Originally posted by houndieb:
Orchdork:

I assure you, Elizabeth Rowe was the last tenured player in this ASSISTANT flute position. Before that was Mark Sparks, who held the associate title, I believe, but it was the same position, meaning the person who plays principal when the principal flute is not playing. Baltimore has had the same principal flute, Emily Skala, since 1988.

houndieb, you're right, for some reason i had it in my head that they played principal! i wasn't noticing auditions like that at the time & who who had what position, etc, like i have in recent years.

i understand the point of trials, but i don't think that's really long enough to truly get to know someone's playing. others will disagree, but i think that's what the tenure process is for. i'm sure some players sound great in trials & then later on aren't given tenure for whatever reason, & vice versa could happen where someone may not have had the best trial (esp. depending on what pieces they had to play), but could've potentially been a good fit.

i'm not saying everyone should have a total blind process (i think not having blind finals are ideal), but it sure seems to have the least amount of controversy.

in response to flute3000, i understand committees, unfortunately, not being able to agree. but - can't they at least agree to agree on some things overall to insure winners? that's what i don't fully understand. if i were serving on a string or brass committee & heard things one way, but noticed the other string or brass players really wanted something else in an individual's playing, i would respect their views for the most part. I realize it's easier said than done because players obviously come from different schools of thought & training, but there's got to be some kind of middle ground.

Common ground would be nice. But what if it's the string and brass players on the string and brass committees (or flutist on the flute committee, just hypothetically...) who can't agree to hire someone?

We can all chase our tails in endless debate on these issues, but sometimes the simple solution is best. I believe if a majority of the committee votes for a particular candidate, and the MD concurs, that person should be offered a tenure track position. What this boils down to is a one year trial as opposed to a trial week - don't forget that tenure can always be denied after one year if the player is unsatisfactory. One week is really not enough time to get a good idea of a player's potential; one season is vastly superior. The only danger would be if the player in question is truly horrible and could ruin the concerts during their trial season, but what are the chances of that? After all, the player just won a very rigorous audition over a large, competent field of candidates - HOW BAD COULD THE WINNER BE??

I've been sitting on audition committees for almost 40 years, and have noticed that the things about a candidate's playing that annoy a committee or MD in the finals, when the player is performing alone and subject to microscopic examination, very often shrink to insignificance once the playing is heard within the context of the whole orchestra. And if they don't, the ax can fall after one season.

The important thing is to break this maddening, frustrating logjam of unfilled positions. I've heard it argued that it's unfair to the candidates to hire someone if the orchestra and MD are unsure, the reasoning going something like: "The winner will be forced to uproot and move to a new city, and is it fair to lead them on when we have doubts and there is a significant chance that it may not work out?" But when are there not doubts? And wouldn't most candidates choose to come anyway and try to prove themselves on the job, even with the knowledge that there were reservations about their playing, and that it might not eventually work out?

It's too easy to blame conductors for the epidemic of non-hiring, but I believe our own committees share much of the responsibility. The attitude of colleagues when sitting on an audition committee often surprises and even shocks me - normally fair, even-minded people can turn into hypercritical monsters who find fault with a highly qualified player's audition over the smallest issues. And, sad to say, the most critical committee members are quite often the weaker players, finally able to flex some muscle and authority in their once-every-five-years stint on an audition committee.

Which leads us to an Unpleasant Truth that few in an orchestra would want to admit: many people on the outside actually play better, and could do a better job, than many of the people already in the orchestra. How many of us in the orchestra could win our own jobs if we had to audition now? I know I probably couldn't. The level of playing has been steadily advancing - each time we hold an audition for our orchestra it's almost a sure thing that the level will be noticeably higher than a few years ago. And equally important, how many of us would have won our positions initially if the same super-critical standards, and tendency toward non-hiring, had been in effect at the beginning of our own careers?

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

Re Feuermann:
Often, if someone is on probation, they can be terminated at any point during their probation period if things go badly enough. CBA's probably vary widely from orchestra to orchestra on this. If it's a major concern for audition committees, conductors, etc., it's pretty easy in my [limited] experience to get that clause added to the CBA during the next negotiation.