Hi everyone, I would like to know members' opinions on taking the screen down for the final round versus leaving it up. Personally I find it hard to understand the reasoning given to explain why the screen is taken down at the final round.

Also if you don't mind, which orchestras leave it up for the whole process?

i personally love when the screen comes down. for me, it's more of a performance and puts me more at ease to have people watching me. it's a chance to demonstrate visually the things you're trying to convey in the music (ie rhythm etc). also, the ear relaxes slightly when you add the visual. i realize that i am probably one of the few people which prefer it this way...

i know that for both the principal auditions of kansas city and san francisco symphony (viola) the screen remained up the entire process.

I personally would rather have the screen up the whole time. I don't really see the point in taking the screen down for the finals. If you're going to do that, maybe you shouldn't have a screen at all...not even in the first round.

Every final round I've ever played has had the screen come down.

I heard that the Met has a screen up for all rounds no matter what...is this true?

We take the screen down in the final round unless a member of the orchestra is one of the candidates. (The exception to this is our cello section, which has no screen for any round, which is the preference of our principal cellist.) And even then, if the finals progress to additional rounds, we may take the screen down. I've always preferred a screen-down final round, but I don't really have a good reason why. I wouldn't object to a fully screened process, but I would miss the visual contact with the finalists.

I think it is important to see the finalists in the last round. You can learn a lot by watching someone play and I like knowing as much as possible about a musician before offering them a job. As orchestral players, we are very influenced by someone's body language and it is important to see that aspect of a musician. As a player, I prefer playing for people and not a screen.

I do think that screened earlier rounds are more fair and in many ways, easier for the committee. In the earlier rounds, you want to concentrate as much as possible on what you are hearing rather than be influenced by what you see, or if you happen to know and like/dislike the candidate. I think it makes for a more fair process. Candidates make it into the final rounds based only on their playing ability.

In the earlier rounds, you want to concentrate as much as possible on what you are hearing rather than be influenced by what you see, or if you happen to know and like/dislike the candidate. I think it makes for a more fair process. Candidates make it into the final rounds based only on their playing ability.[/QUOTE]

This is the part that I don't understand. You think it makes for a more fair process? Why should it be fair only in the opening round? If politics come into play as you seem to suggest, in the final round because the screen is taken away, this seems very unfair. It just seems like total hypocrisy to me. I don't understand this line of reasoning and I don't think I ever will. I know people can be petty at times, this is why I hate the idea of taking the screen down.

Agreed. If a person a person is good enough to be voted the winning candidate behind a screen, then obviously his/her body language isn't affecting their sound, musicality, or technique. Why not evaluate body language during the trial week or probationary period?

We listen with our ears, not our eyes.

We listen with our ears, not our eyes./quote

I disagree. When you play in an orchestra, you don't do it behind a screen. How someone uses their body when they play is a critical part of the job. Have you ever sat next to someone who was awkward and misleading in their movements, a principal that was hard to decipher or a person whose body movements were distracting? I have. Why not have as much information as possible on someone before offering them a job or a trial week? Of course, everything is evaluated during a trial week. But if you see something that you know isn't going to work, why lead someone on?

I'm sure there are petty committees out there. I don't think I've ever been on one. Committees that disagree? of course. I think anonymity in the early rounds is important. But when you are hiring a new player, you are hiring a whole person, not just a sound from behind a screen.

Music is about communication. I think being able to see someone play tells me a lot about who they are as a player.

Hi Gloria. The point you make about body language is well taken and I agree with you.

I would just hope that the screen stays up. I guess I will have to get used to cronyism and nepotism, or get a new job. I don't want to - I love my job. As I spend more time in this business, the fake-smile, boot-licking nature of most classical musicians is beginning to wear on me.

Please leave the screen up, for fairness' sake.

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

viola gonads - I agree that if you know of committees that are made up of the old boys club who are incapable of playing their instruments well and are really only interested in getting the cute girls in, well, you have every right to be disheartened and disgusted. Honestly, it sounds more like what happens in freelance circles where I know that women past a certain age don't get hired, being passed up for the next hot young player (hot being both playing and otherwise, maybe) or some guy that plays golf and schmoozes well.

I would hope that today's orchestral committees are a fairer and more equitable cross-section of the orchestra. I can honestly say that I have never been part of any audition (and I have been on committees for almost 20 years) that someone's attractiveness, or lack thereof, had ANY bearing on the discussion or outcome of an audition. Maybe this kind of thing happens elsewhere. But that is why we have committees - so that any one or two person's personal preferences cannot sway the decision of the whole. All the committees I've dealt with were very honest and very committed to finding the best player.

I have to say I smiled at your comment about the "fake-smile, boot-licking nature of most classical musician personalities..." I really can't think of one person in my orchestra who fits that description!! Maybe it's because we're all tenured, grumpy and unafraid to voice our opinions. oh wait...that's just me.

After reading Mr Osborne's article on the Vienna Philharmonic and their clearly biased hiring policies, I am beginning to feel that the screen should always be up to avoid such bias. As you may or may not know, Mr Osborne's wife, Abbie Conant, had to sue the Munich PO because they didn't feel a woman could play solo (principal) trombone. It took 10 years but she finally won the suit. Brass and in particular, low brass, in the US is still pretty much a boys club as well. Other than the screen how do you avoid bias due to gender, race, etc?

Gloriarex -

I think it would be very interesting to see what percentage of candidates chosen from behind a screen turn out to have physical issues that disqualify them from being capable section members. My guess is that it would be quite low . In my experience in playing with people whose body language is THAT distracting, those physical issues affect their technique and sound to the point where I seriously doubt they'd be chosen the "winner" from behind a screen.

I completely agree with you that body language is an important issue, and can be a distraction in the section. It is something that can make or break a person's ability to fit into a section, absolutely. However, I still maintain that the fairest way to select a winning candidate is from behind the screen. At that point, we are still listening objectively, and not distracted by visual input and personal bias.

I think that the system in San Francisco is the fairest that I have heard of. Players are deemed "qualified" to play in the orchestra from behind a screen, based on sound alone, but not named the "winner" at that point. Then they play trial weeks to determine how they actually fit in. I suppose bias can and does come into the picture later, but at least the audition itself is as unbiased as possible.

I love having the screen come down, because finally I'm listening to a person, not a number, not that same Mozart 35 mvt IV again. I know it sounds stupid, but I can really get an idea of how someone really works when I can see them. You can see how they use their bow arm to get a great spiccato or luscious long tones. You can also see when someone might benefit from a second chance or offer suggestions that might make an excerpt go better when they're obviously a superior candidate having an off moment.

Hearing only with our ears? I think that listening is like eating, you eat with your eyes first, and the taste your tongue detects is influenced by the sights you have just seen. I'm not usually swayed that much by a beautiful person who is playing (unless they sound fantastic as well), but if I'm in doubt, I close my eyes and try to get very pragmatic about what I'm listening for. If I've been deluding myself either way, that technique gets me back into the reality zone.

As an auditioner, I love it when the screen comes down - it's great to play for an audience that you can see rather than sense, and most committees give you a good smile when you look out there, which always helps.

Me, personally, I prefer the screen to come down for the finals, at least as an auditioner. I know that when I've made the finals, walking into the audition room (or stage) always feels a lot more comfortable when I can see the faces of the committee. Every committee I've gotten to that point for has always been welcoming and friendly, and it eases the nerves to see this.

By that point, they've selected you from a blind pool of players, and are much more interested in your communication of music than your regurgitation of excerpts, and having the screen come down makes that change possible.

The times I've been on a committee, the screen has always stayed up until we made a hiring decision. Despite what has been said about the orchestra I'm referring to, our hiring really is as fair as possible - our personnel manager refuses to disclose the name of the winner and runner-up until we've decided.

That said, I do honestly believe both systems are relatively fair - after all, every player still has to pass a probationary period anyway. If I had it my way, though, I'd like to be able to see and communicate with the finalists.

Also, what has not been brought up here is the idea of holding a final round which includes section playing, which in my mind is the biggest disadvantage of the "hire 'em blind" method. Section playing (for brass players, anyway) shows a LOT about a player, and can tell you rather quickly whether you'd want to hire them or not. Any thoughts from the more experienced players among us about that?

Andy,

In Oregon I served on the tuba auditions, and we had our finalists play with the trombone section as part of the finals. That wouldn't address the day-to-day stuff that you get from a trial period, but it was very illuminating to those of us on the committee.

I agree with Gloria and the others about body language. It does matter. And some people actually can get a halfway decent sound under the most awkward of bodily circumstances. There is a comfort that is conveyed by someone who is relaxed and at peace while they are playing vs. someone who is tense or restricted or over-gesturing. Likewise, there is a certain style of orchestra playing here in the US which involves a kind of stillness that one doesn't find elsewhere, like in European orchestras. We discourage our orchestra players from moving around too much, and ones that do are generally felt to be distracting. I know this because I used to be one of those people, and had it brought to my attention by more than one conductor and made an effort to refine my style. It worked, and now I don't move as much and fit in better. And I'm more sensitive to if someone is sitting near me flailing around. So, I can certainly see how this can factor in to deciding whether or not to offer someone a job, a major job at that. If they're swaying around up there in the finals, gesticulating every which way, regardless if they sound great, there is a reaction by those sitting out there wondering what it might be like to be sitting next to this person playing the same part. The body language aspect of playing in an orchestra really does weigh in as to how a section feels the music as one. I too have heard of committees who liked what they heard from finalists, but disqualified people because they were uncomfortable with the way they looked and moved while they played. That's good, I think, because it's not just about the sound....it's also about how you interact, and how you move is related to that.

What if someone leads while they play no matter what music they are playing? There is no way to tell this from behind a screen, yet it would be a very important factor in how one would fit into a section. As a section player, I don't like to see other people leading besides those who are there to do so. It IS distracting. In an audition, if two people are equal in playing ability, I'd go for the one that is visually able to communicate a more mature understanding of how a section position is handled in an American orchestra over one who feels extra movement equals more musicality, for example.

I'm reviving this thread because I was recently talking to our principal cellist about just this subject (our cello section traditionally doesn't use a screen in any round,) and he brought up a compelling reason for not using a screen that I'd never heard before. While acknowledging the potential for favoritism when the audition isn't 100% anonymous (he believes that committee members need to police each other to prevent unfairness,) he said that it was his impression that audition committees that can't visually and verbally connect with candidates become far more likely to nitpick over insignificant technical mistakes, and are therefore more likely to dismiss a qualified candidate.

I don't know for sure whether I agree with this or not, but this principal has far more audition experience (on both sides of the screen) than I do, and I thought it was a very interesting point. I'll be sitting on our upcoming cello audition committee, and as it will be my first unscreened audition, the idea of connecting more fully with a candidate whom I can see will be something I'll definitely be thinking about.

I have auditioned both with and without a screen and despite everything I would say I have had the most positive experiences without a screen - even when things didn't go as well as I might have hoped. It is a more humanising experience somehow and I have learnt more from the unscreened auditions. I won't rehash the pros and cons of screens (we all know them only too well!) but I think that ultimately it is a sad day when we cannot trust experienced juries to select candidates without prejudice - imagine doing a job interview behind a screen - it would be laughable!

imagine doing a job interview behind a screen - it would be laughable![/QUOTE]

Just because something's 'outside the box' doesn't mean it's ridiculous.