The May 2006 featured artist of the month is Brinton Averil Smith.

Brinton is principal cellist with the Houston Symphony. He was also a member of the New York Philharmonic, and principal cellist of the San Diego and Fort Worth Symphony Orchestras.

Post a question for Brinton.

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

Hi Brinton,

Are there any differences in playing the Houston as opposed to NY? Style, playing, approach?

Hi Brinton!
I'm going to San Diego in three weeks to take the cello princlpal audition.
They gave out many repertore and they are going to hear just 5-7mins for pre-audition. I'm practicing my best but can you help me out what they are looking for specially or any suggestion?
Thank You!

Forrester- your question is not an easy one for a quick answer! (well, the short answer is 'yes')

The NY Phil is a known entity to most of us in the business- that is, we're aware of how they play. In the early 90's when I was in school they sometimes had some pretty questionable nights, even despite having obviously extremely talented musicians, but in the Masur years the ensemble improved dramatically. NY can be a very loud orchestra. While Masur kept shushing the brass, Maazel likes them very 'robust'. Very dramatic and exciting in the audience I'm sure, but near them onstage it can be utterly painful. When we rotated towards the back of the section we often had to play with earplugs in, and that really detracts from your ability to feel connected with what's going on (even earplugs that just mute a bit are problematic when it's so hard to hear across the hall anyway).

The most impressive things I played with the NY Phil were pieces like Mahler or Strauss that they play almost every season, tour and could play from memory. The first rehearsals are as good as any concerts. Walking off after a first rehearsal of a 'power' piece like Don Juan or Heldenleben I was in awe of what they could do. Less idiomatic pieces for the ensemble were lighter works like Mozart, Mendelssohn, Bach. Obviously they're a great orchestra with great players- I'm not saying they didn't play those styles well, but I'm saying to me it didn't seem to roll off as naturally as, say, Tchaikovsky 4.

The NY winds/brass play strong and, from an onstage perspective, are fairly present even in soft passages. But sitting onstage there, you don't get much bloom or feedback of sound from the hall, so that makes sense in the acoustic. The string section is large and Maazel has favored using full string counts (12 celli)- more than many orchestras perform with. String players generally learn not to play loud to compensate for the hall because it would quickly destroy you, given the workload there. In the section you really don't hear yourself much at all, but in general they prefer their section string players to concentrate on blending and moderate dynamics, moderate bow usage, limited 'emoting', etc (This was a difficult, if educational, transition for me coming from having previously only played as principal)

The workload, particularly for the strings in NY can be really exhausting, despite extra relief weeks. I spent my first year there (after already having played 8 years professionally) feeling constantly run down, tired and exhausted. Every week is another big program with heavy symphonies, new modern works to learn and another famous conductor on the podium. Combined with the general stress that goes with living in or commuting into NYC, it can be very draining and at times numbing. Even the touring, which they do a lot of and which sound exotic and fun, traveling the world staying in amazing 5 star hotels, is still exhausting after a few days. It becomes a blur of buses, planes, lines, concerts and scavenging for food in places where you don't speak the language. It is great in many ways, and I loved having the experience, but it's not at all like being on a vacation- it's actually quite draining (though I will regret having to miss their upcoming Italy tour with free days in Rome!)

Houston is much less well known as an orchestra, but they really are impressively good. Like St Louis, they have always far outperformed their budget, pay scale and financial troubles. The string count is smaller than NY, in a likewise 'less than perfect' hall, and the orchestra is less tightly grouped together in seating, so you don't get the same sense of loudness or power that you get sitting in the NY Phil. The smaller string count in that overly large hall is frustrating in power pieces, and first rehearsals of war horses will not necessarily be as tight as they could be in NY. However, I have to say that every time I go out into the audience, I am consistently impressed by how well this orchestra actually plays. My wife, a professional pianist who has attended concerts regularly with both orchestras feels as I do that when Houston is playing well, as they generally do, they hold their own with the best orchestras in the country (and of course some of the players in those orchestras came from Houston)

We can guess that an orchestra like NY is likely going to be good- they have always had their choice of top applicants and their choice of conductors as guests and as music directors. I don't know what makes the difference between smaller orchestras- why some develop beyond what you might expect, even while struggling with financial difficulties, while others underachieve, no matter their financial security. I would guess it's related both to attitude and to making good choices for music directors, who collectively train the core of the orchestra over the years.

It is tempting when playing in a group like NY to believe that however a concert may have gone that night, it's still comparatively great because "hey, this is the New York Philharmonic" While that's a nice luxury to have, I do find something very stimulating in the attitude of 'underdog' orchestras that always imagine the need to improve and consequently try harder and worry more about the details. I don't mean that as a criticism of NY, which is obviously a world class orchestra, but I do find there is sometimes more interest and energy in resolving details in rehearsal here.

In part this might be due to the fact that with pops, educational concerts, etc.. playing a classical subscription concert is just a bigger deal here and partly the natural insecurity of not having the constant international recognition and accolades that the top 5 orchestras are getting. People take great pride in their work here, but I still find that some here don't quite believe me when I very honestly and sincerely try to tell them just how good the orchestra sounds.

One final difference that comes to mind- while many in Houston seems to tend to prefer very emotive and demonstrative conductors, NY tends to prefer efficient, business-like conductors, who get the job done quickly and with a minimum of fuss, trusting the orchestra to play the way they play. (One brass player friend of mine in NY memorably said "I don't care if it is Ricardo Muti, I don't want ANYONE telling me how to play Brahms 2") Maazel, who knows everything inside and out without rehearsing it, trusts that orchestra implicitly and doesn't want to spend an large amount of time in rehearsal is a dream fit there. One of the best concerts I played there was a Dvorak New World and Beethoven 7 played on a run out with no rehearsal. We had last played them 6 months and a year ago respectively, but Maazel is amazingly easy to follow, and the orchestra rising to the new challenge (ie playing without rehearsal) in otherwise well worn warhorses absolutely dazzled. (On the other hand the worst concert I played there was a Mahler 5 in Korea, also with almost no rehearsal and the same cast, so who knows...)

Sorry for a long and meandering answer, but it's a difficult question to answer succinctly!.. or as it turns out, even coherently...

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

Bach- the problem with auditions is that the individuals on the committee are often looking for different things, and when the conductor enters the process, he may be looking for something else as well. So there is now way to prepare that is going to please all of them.

A lot of good audition advice has already been given out on this forum and I won't waste your time repeating it, but just add a few ideas.

A lack of attention to details can easily get you eliminated from a round. There are always committee members in every orchestra who focus on particular details- the subdivision in the second mvt of Beethoven 5 for example, or the spiccato stroke in Midsummer Night's dream or important marked dynamic contrasts. You have to be prepared well enough not to set off their alarm bells. But at the same time, simply playing correctly doesn't win auditions.

When I sat on the other side of the screen for the first time it was a revelation to me. I had always gone into auditions feeling like the minute the concerto was over and the excerpts began I was on foreign ground. I didn't think of them as music so much as exercises that had to be performed without violating the 'rules' or making a mistake. However sitting on the other side of the screen, I realized that everyone makes mistakes, everyone plays a note or two out of tune, and even good players miss runs. What separates the good players who advance from the good players who don't is generally that the players who advance were able to make music- to make something happen that kept your attention. It made them sound like much better players, and made the mistakes seem much less important. The players who might have had the same or even fewer errors, but simply sounded as if they were nervous and trying to get through the excerpts without error got cut.

Ron Leonard's excerpt CD, though it contains some controversial advice (as on the Beet 5) gives a good example of how musical playing and beautiful sound ultimately matter more to the listener than detached precision, even in an orchestral audition. Once I stopped allowing myself to feel intimidated and uncomfortable in orchestral excerpts and started playing them as music, I had entirely different results in auditions. (Playing musically of course still meaning within all the other relevant criteria for an excerpt) Don't try to not make mistakes- everyone will make them, and trying to 'play well' is death. Do your homework getting the excerpts as they should be, and then focus on making music in the audition.

In a principal audition the concerto performance/orchestral solo part of the audition is generally given more weight than it is in a section audition. I was just lucky to have come to San Diego straight from playing the Dvorak concerto with an orchestra. I was brand new to the audition circuit and knew nothing about the excerpts. I was painfully green, but by that point they really needed to hire someone and they took a chance on me based on the well worn Dvorak and hoped the orchestral skills would develop. (And they have made similar hiring decisions since) San Diego and other smaller orchestras will sometimes be a bit more forgiving that way, especially for principal positions, but that also means you must make a very strong impression with your concerto, so be well prepared. (Though I believe I heard that in the first rounds last time they didn't hear ANY concerto, so you have to be prepared for anything)

One other thing- when we prepare for auditions we tend to focus on trying to 'win' the job. Given all the different ears and priorities found on a committee and the randomness of the audition process (not to mention our own randomness) this is simply an impossible task. Even focusing on 'playing well' I find detrimental, as this usually means focusing on not making errors, which is an uncomfortable, awkward and unmusical way to play. Learn instead to treat each audition as another step in your educational process. While I still hate actually playing in auditions, I have come to love the preparatory process. It provides a unique opportunity to analyze your playing and to refine your ears, your interpretive skills and every aspect of your technique.

We tend to think that we make most of our musical growth in school and that we remain static after that point. I found that I actually am still managing to learn and improve in my mid-thirties and (though I am definitely still never satisfied) have definitely improved a lot from the way I played 5 years ago, and a large part of that is due to the introspection and boundary pushing that auditions require of us. (Particularly the auditions that I lost- nobody spends time working on what they did wrong in auditions they win!)

Hope that helps. Feel free to ask if there's any further muddled advice I can give. Best-B

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

Dear Mr. Brinton,

I would like to know if it is possible for a principal cellist to also be signed to a management company and be an international soloist. Also, I would like to know if you can tell me the top 5 orchestra's and how much their musicians get paid.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: armand282000,

Thank you so much Brinton!
I was waiting for your answer.. Thank you for your advice!

Armand, the only principal I know of that still has major management and what I would consider an active solo career is Carter Brey. However he went into the position in New York in the unique position of already having management and a very significant career developed, so it was really just a matter of his scaling back his schedule to accommodate the orchestra. Although most principals do play concerti and recitals fairly regularly, it is not generally not to the extent that I would consider it a second 'solo career' There have certainly been some principals who were easily good enough cellists to have a major career, but most managements (who only make money when they can book an artist) would be hesitant to take an artist onto their roster that had so much of their season committed to another organization. Leonard Rose left his position as principal cellist of the New York Philharmonic when he decided to pursue a solo career, and Zara Nelsova also left her job as principal of Toronto to start her career.

The best paying orchestra in the country, in more or less descending or order (done off the top of my head) are the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra, Boston/San Francisico/LA, Philadelphia, Chicago/New York and Cleveland, with a range of around $125,000 for the Met down to $105,000 for Cleveland. Pay scales aren't necessarily the best indicator of quality however. While Cleveland is the lowest paid of this group, many would contend that at the moment they sound the best.

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

Thank you for your information. I look forward to auditioning to study with you next year.

Hi Armand-

We would certainly welcome your interest in Rice. As general advice, I would always advise a student to try to seek out someone they think they might be interested in studying with either for consultation lessons or at a music festival, prior to auditioning. Teacher/student chemistry is always unpredicatble and you want as much first hand information as you can get before you make your college choices. Listening to other people's opinions or experiences isn't always all that helpful. For instance I had some of the best musical experiences of my life working with Zara Nelsova, but there were plenty of students who couldn't stand her way of working and transfered to another teacher very quickly.

In any case, the reason I mention this is that if you are interested in auditioning at Rice and happen to be uncommitted in August, I'm at a two week festival in Las Vegas ( http://www.lasvegasmusicfestival.org/ )
that needs a few more string players and if you qualify I suspect would likely be willing to at least subsidize the tuition. I can't tell you that's it's the best organized festival out there, but as you can see they manage to assemble a pretty impressive faculty (myself being the obvious exception...) and the students usually enjoy it.
So if by chance you (or anyone else out there) procrastinated and didn't set up all your summer festivals or plans by now, take heart - you're just the kind of people LVMF is looking for!
Anyway, best of luck on your upcoming college search and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best- Brinton

Dear Mr. Brinton

Sorry but I cant come the festival. Im going to be at the Heifetz international music institute for june 23- august 3

Brinton,
You have given wonderful advice and insight into some great orchestras and auditions. I tend to get overwhelmed by the "winning the job" aspect, and "being perfect" that it is so easy to forget that we are making music and that should always come first when performing.

Hi Brinton,

A few things I wanted to ask you about:

Did you always envision yourself as a principal player? If not always, then at what point did you decide that you would take that path, and what actions did you take to steer yourself that way? And would your playing change at all? I imagine the concertos and solos should always sound soloistic, and the excerpts a little more disciplined. It seems that leadership skills would be acquired mostly through doing it (probably at a "lower-level" orchestra), but also through observation of another leader such as Carter Brey.

My other question pertains to how you keep your playing up during the rigors of many consecutive orchestral seasons. How much do you still practice the "basics"? Do you perform recitals or chamber music on a regular basis?

Thanks for your input on these forums. We are lucky to have you here.

Hi Brahms77-

Honestly when I was in school, just getting any kind of job would have seemed like a miracle to me, so I really didn't think much about what kind of job I might have wanted. I spent my teen years mostly focused on mathematics and when I first went to Zara Nelsova at age 19, she informed me quite matter of factly that it I was too old to even think about trying to develop towards a solo career and that she thought I should aim towards a principal position in a major orchestra- but at that age it all sounded like a pipe dream...

In the beginning it wasn't that I wasn't interested in auditioning for section positions in bigger orchestras, but it took a long time to learn to develop a keener ear for details, more scrupulous score reading and more reliably consistent technique that are so important in major section auditions, and at that time I seemed to do better in auditions where the more soloistic aspects of performance were weighted more heavily. I was fortunate to win San Diego in my second professional audition (I lost plenty AFTER that though) and Ft Worth after San Diego went bankrupt.

However the things that will get someone hired as a principal you use only about 5% of the time, and have very little to do with what the section actually needs from you the other 95% percent of the time. In San Diego I was utterly green, but besides the obvious (practicing the parts, working with recordings before rehearsals) what really saved me was that I learned to open myself up to the people who had been there doing his for 20 years, to forget about 'proving' anything to anyone and to just take their advice and suggestions and learn from them.

There are times when you just have to make a decision and stick to it, but on the whole I've found that given a chance, almost everyone I've worked with has been eager and willing to contribute their ears and ideas towards making the whole better, and everyone benefits from having so many years of collective experience working together. My main advice for a new principal would be to always encourage your colleagues to bring issues, ideas and questions to you and never get defensive. You're going to make some bad decisions and they're going to know it. No point in making everyone miserable just to prove you are 'in charge' (and you're not anyway, it's the conductors' gig...) I constantly learn from the people I work with and I'm very happy about it.

Anyway, to get back to your question, what has been interesting to me throughout my career so far has not been as much any ego or monetary gratification as much as the challenge of public performance and the fact that I've actually been able to learn and often improve after each one. I had expected from what I had heard as a student that an orchestra job might mean the beginning of the decline of my playing, but I found I was actually managing to get better, mostly due to the constant pressure of public performance. So I've tended towards principal positions, more because I like the way they challenge me and force me to try to keep improving myself than for any other reason. If you are a very motivated section player you could bring the same kind of opportunities for performance and teaching (another great way to learn) into your career as well, but you really have to be willing to go out and hustle, whereas you can be a lazy recluse of a principal and the phone will still ring...

My time in New York was obviously a choice to do something different, but I had reached a point where I felt like I really needed experience going through the major repertoire with a top orchestra and major conductors before I could ever feel competent to try to be principal in any large orchestra. Beyond that it was the chance to be back in New York, to work with a uniquely gifted principal in Carter and one of the most impressively talented cello sections out there, many of whom were friends from school. I wasn't completely sure whether I would want to stay for the rest of my career or go back out after a while to try to audition for bigger principal jobs, but I knew either way I would learn an enormous amount from all of them. At first it was quite an adjustment. Having done nothing but lead (sometimes perhaps a bit too enthusiastically) it took a while to fully learn to sit back and just blend into their style- to concern myself first with following the section sound rather than just playing what I might have believed was correct. There has been some debate here in the past about the difference in approach between generally more subdued American string players and their more active German counterparts. My intrinsic preference would be more for the latter, provided it is controlled and sensitive playing, but there is still something incredibly helpful in learning to play in a way that doesn't come naturally. Ultimately it taught me a lot of skills that carry over to my current job and helped hopefully to find a good balance between the two approaches, depending on the situation.

Also it's invaluable experience to sit in the section, to see what it's actually like and what your colleagues really need from a principal and what they don't. One thing that bothers me in the rather un-democratic nature of the section/principal concept. There is such a gulf in terms of compensation, attention, performance opportunities and virtually every other aspect between principals and the section players, who play the exact same notes 98% percent of the time. The concept is perhaps a throwback to earlier times, but the gulf has widened rather than narrowed even as the skill expectations for section players have increased dramatically. There are some wonderfully talented people playing in the section of New York, Houston and other major orchestra that rarely have the chance to be heard. There is no easy answer to overcoming the logistical hurdles and limited opportunities in any city, but it is clear that the more active the players of an orchestra can be performing outside of the orchestra, the more both they and the orchestra would benefit. It keeps us practicing and it keeps us happy.

Which leads into your last question- I actually find I'm practicing more now than when I was a student. Once you start working, time to practice for yourself suddenly becomes an opportunity rather than a chore. And since I wanted to keep pushing myself, the good thing about a principal position is that it brings concerts and solos that force you to practice no matter how you feel. But it's always a struggle to balance the orchestra, private practice and outside musical activities and family life. At any given moment, something is usually suffering from lack of attention...

I'm amazed at how I could have written so much verbiage and still not quite managed to answer your questions, but I hope you get my vague gist...Best regards- B

Hi Brinton!

Long time since Aspen ;>

Congrats on your success and marriage!

Chris