Any word?

I heard from a participant that they advanced one or two from the prelims, had pre-advanced a bunch of people to the semis (which seems to be the SOP in St. Louis), advanced two or three to the finals, and again elected to hire nobody. (I'm not going to name names for privacy reasons - at this level, suffice it to say that we're talking about a bunch of people who all have full-time positions with other orchestras.)

The committee is hearing great players, too. Maybe the SLSO doesn't want them but a number of orchestras at a comparable (or higher) level would be thrilled to have a lot of these players.

I'll be interested to see if they bother trying another audition or if their CBA simply allows them to start inviting people in for trial weeks. What they're doing right now doesn't seem to be working very well, and will likely just discourage others from attending future auditions.

I already know invited attendees who have said they won't go back under any circumstance. I mean, what orchestra lobbies potential candidates to attend (some AFTER the deadline had passed), pre-advances them, and then after they're there, listens to a Mozart exposition and three or four excerpts before dismissing them?

And it's not frustration over not getting hired - like I said, a lot of these candidates have good jobs already. It's more frustration that the orchestra invites them and then the committee acts like it doesn't want to hear them. They feel like they're wasting their time by showing up.

And judging by the lack of a positive outcome in the last two auditions, it's hard to argue with them.

How often at auditions are people pre advanced to the semi-finals? My question for the orchestras that do this is, what's the point of holding these auditions and pretending they're fair?

One advantage of starting candidates in the semifinals is to make the audition more attractive for candidates with the experience of a position by limiting the time commitment for the audition and thereby limiting the scheduling problems and loss of income from their position.

and in my humble opinion completely fair...and i've taken several auditions with a whole crop of people advanced to the semis none of which happened to be myself

Don't be put off by people starting directly into semi-final rounds. These rounds are almost always screened so they have to advance blindly just like everyone else. The reasons people are put into semis are because they've been finalists in previous auditions for that orchestra, they are regular subs so the section knows their playing, or, as mentioned, they have very high credentials coming into the audition. But, AGAIN, they have to advance and win just like everyone else. There will always be fears (real or imagined) that an audition is "fixed" so just go and play great! I can tell you this; I've won auditions starting from prelims where people were placed directly into the semis and/or finals. And I've NOT won auditions where I got to start in the semis. So, fear not!

As vclvcl says, as long as the candidate has to pass the screen at some stage, things will probably be OK. It's when people get invited directly to the non-screened finals that you have to worry.

I'm sorry, I find it hard to believe that there was no qualified player for this position in what is realistically a second tier orchestra. The pandemic of non-hiring continues. There is one pattern that I haven't yet seen discussed in this forum: a lower tier orchestra may get (un?)lucky and actually bag a fantastic young talent who will stay for a season or two, but is soon off to a bigger job. The orchestra then has to go to the trouble and expense of yet another audition, all too soon. The lesser orchestras are probably more prone to this churning of personnel, which is accompanied by the attendant financial and scheduling problems of holding auditions. I believe having an audition costs many thousands of dollars ($25,000 is the figure I've heard for one major orchestra).

For the long term health of the orchestra, wouldn't it make sense to accept a fine player, but who is perhaps only on the cusp of being able to win an even better job? Maybe only the Big Five (or Eight? or Ten?) can realistically count on being the final destination of the very best players, and it would actually be better for other orchestras to settle for just under the level of the exalted player many seem to be holding out for. They would have a fine player who is more likely to stay long term. Or is this too radical? It's only a thought.

I'm not advocating taking a runner-up instead of the winner; that should never happen. But it may be a mistake to not qualify & hire the best player heard if (s)he is excellent and could likely do the job very well. Is it self-defeating to hold out for pie in the sky, the ultimate player who, even if eventually found and corraled, would be unlikely to stay for very long?

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

I strongly disagree that the SLSO is a second tier orchestra. It's one of the very few orchestras INVITED to play at Carnegie each year
and always to a sold out hall.

I think that St. Louis is a fantastic orchestra too, but I do agree it is a second tier orchestra. They lag way behind many other groups in pay, and their own home audience never fills the hall. What a waste for those missing such a gem.

That hall is so big, I think Yanni would have a hard time filling it.

That hall IS big! However, they really have a serious decline in attendance. Plus in their glory Slatkin days, they would frequently fill it.

Right now, for two years, the MAIN highway to downtown St. Louis is closed. Attendance for anything downtown has dropped and will remain so until 40/64 reopens in a year and a half or more. However, I constantly read about SRO not too infrequently.