I took part in this audition this past weekend which consisted of two rounds. I was surprised to find out that there would be no screen in the second round, where the invited candidates (consisting of locals/orchestra members) would begin their audition. The job went to one of the orchestra's own.

How does this provide a level playing field? Too much time and money go into these auditions for things not to be run in an unbiased manner. Had I been aware of this orchestra's screen policy prior to the audition, I would not have bothered attending.

This certainly brings up an interesting point. In my experience, I have found that when there is a screen, it is most certainly used in the round in which invited candidates begin the audition process. There are a few select occasions where candidates were automatically advanced to the finals (in which no screen was used) but it doesn’t make any sense to even have a screen at all if they choose to remove it during the second round. It would be nice to know the ratio of invited second round candidates and those who advanced from the screened preliminary round. This seems to negate the whole idea of anonymity. I also think that it would make things easier and fair for the committee as well as the candidate.
I do feel that most organizations are making an effort to find the most qualified employee for a position. This is a really difficult task. The committee and Music Director are charged with the task of finding a qualified musician who can fit into their organization. I don’t give in to all the conspiracy theories concerning orchestral auditions. I do, however, believe that some of the policies and practices need to be reassessed. What IS the point of a screen for a two round audition where invited candidates are not behind a screen?
I feel that we, as orchestral musicians, are moving very quickly toward a dark era. Money is being directed elsewhere forcing organizations to close or cancel seasons. We see “no hire” far more than we should. We are hemorrhaging from both ends. There will come a time when our whole infrastructure will collapse due to both lack of funding and lack of qualified interest in auditions. Whose fault will it be then?
Being that I did not personally participate in the Tucson audition nor do I know the details of their audition process, I do not intend to pass judgment on the Tucson Symphony and their organization. I do understand that the audition was for an ‘acting’ position and the protocol may be different for such a position. Upon reading the original post, I felt compelled to voice my own opinion on the current state of the orchestral audition process.

quote:

Originally posted by musico:

How does this provide a level playing field?

It doesnt. It's not a level playing field, and as soon as one has been exposed to it, they can judge their future auditions accordingly.

Orchestra members are one thing. Subs/locals are another. It's not fair, no matter how you slice it or if people cite "conspiracy theories". You have to play twice, they don't. If there is any solace, maybe one do you'll be the local.

Hi musico, I think we are all with you on this. I'd recommend filing a complaint with your local union. This orchestra should certainly get put on the 'unfair' list in the International Musician.

My orchestra will use a screen as long as one of our own remains standing in an audition. It doesn't seem fair to anyone--the completely unattached candidate, the auditioning member of the orchestra, or the committee member who must later face his/her colleague who just auditioned--to never screen their own members. I've never heard of an orchestra (well, one that uses screens) not at least keeping the screen up for one round.

The Tucson Symphony should be embarrassed for either clearly favoring its own candidates, or for being so naive to not know what they were doing. Also, the winner will sadly never know if his/her friends were listening to him/her with the same ears they used for everyone else. No one will ever know.

I've sat on many auditions and am very glad for the screen when my friends and colleagues are trying to get promoted from within the orchestra. When they do well, it's because they truly deserved it and stood out of an international crowd. When they don't get anywhere, they don't have to tell anyone about it, and we never know which number they were, and the person who was playing the best at that moment was the one who deserved to win. It just protects everyone involved.

I'd be interested to hear how the Tucson Symphony defends this sort of policy. It sounds as if they have a lot to be ashamed of.

I agree with all of the sentiments expressed here. In order to assure the most fair audition possible, screens should be used, especially when known auditioners are involved.

However, this audition was for an acting position. Perhaps the orchestra has a slightly different policy because this was not a permanent position. Often auditions that are not for permanent positions fall outside of the contract and the MD, principal, committee, whomever, has more latitude in how they conduct the audition. Sometimes, there isn't even an audition for an acting position.

But was this audition advertised in the IM? Or was it a local-only audition, or word-of-mouth, or invited only audition? There are a lot of conditions that could exist here. Maybe we're not seeing the whole picture.

Remember that a lot of things happen internally in an orchestra and it is not incumbent upon them to state their reasons for how they run things. Speculation is often wrong and before conclusions are jumped to, perhaps it would be wiser to just take a step back and get more information.

As I was once a member of this orchestra I can say, unless something has changed, this orchestra is NOT a member of the AFM. They do not advertise in the IM.

I won't speculate further on their current audition practices.

Paukenguy is correct. Tucson musicians, along with the Seattle Symphony, are represented by a separate union known as The Guild. But since the AFM doesn't dictate audition practices, this shouldn't make any practical difference in the way the orchestra chooses to run its auditions.

I believe Tucson recently recertified with the AFM. (within the last few months)

quote:

Originally posted by BassBoneFL:
I believe Tucson recently recertified with the AFM. (within the last few months)

They did over a year ago - I'm looking at the August 08 issue of the IM and there's an ad from Tucson for assistant principal 2nd violin. THe April 09 issue also had principal cello advertised.

My mistake, sorry.

My mistake as well, I was unaware.

Kindest regards to Musico and all others here, but there's little in the info here to suggest that anything was amiss. I don't know the Tucson contract or practices regarding auditions, but.......Under many audition systems invited candidates need not play the first round. Under many audition systems the final round is without a screen. This audition had only two rounds, so perhaps the second round was the proper starting time for invited candidates and the proper time for screens to come down. The real question is what the TSO's contract does and doesn't prescribe for audition practices. That an invited, local player won the audition might well raise the question of whether or not outsiders had a fair chance. On the other hand if an outsider had won over qualified and well-regarded insiders, the question would be whether or not the audition was fair to known players. Such is life.

quote:

Originally posted by David Garrett:
Kindest regards to Musico and all others here, but there's little in the info here to suggest that anything was amiss.

Not contractually or in a legal way. Ethically I have always thought it was a crappy way to run an audition and I will continue to do so. It would be an interesting study, especially in smaller orchestras, to see how often the local person wins. It's similiar to being an incumbent in congress.

I think musico's point was that they were not informed of this policy in advance. For that, there is absolutely no excuse. It takes 20 seconds to write a sentence in the acceptance letter that explains the audition procedure and who will be invited to each round.

I suggest that anything in the CBA about auditions should be available to read by all candidates. The makeup of the committee, the voting procedure, the MD's voting status, screen/no screen, who gets invited, all that jazz. There is no good reason to hold this info back.

Unfortunately, this happens a lot. And it's not just the smaller orchestras, as mentioned above. It happens in the "bigger" orchestras as well. If they get on the unfair list, then so should at least 10+ other orchestras!

Perhaps a screen in ALL rounds or NO rounds. All or nothing? Not sure what a solution might be. Auditions in general are not the best way of finding a good orchestral musician. But so far, nobody has come up with a better idea. Except perhaps to go back to life before auditions....hiring by word of mouth?

quote:

Auditions in general are not the best way of finding a good orchestral musician. But so far, nobody has come up with a better idea. Except perhaps to go back to life before auditions....hiring by word of mouth?

Like the famous quote about democracy: the worst form of government, except for everything else.

quote:

Originally posted by violas: If they get on the unfair list....

The AFM Unfair list is used to sanction Managements when they lock an orchestra out during CBA negotiations or engage in Unfair Labor Practices. Supposed "fixed" auditions do not rise to the level for inclusion on "the list".

The AFM generally leaves individual orchestras to their own devices when it comes to auditions anyway.