http://www.polyphonic.org/blog...ition-has-no-winner/

I don't think this issue could've been summed up any better.

From the column:

quote:

I wouldn’t be surprised if you said “yes” because it’s been happening across the country with increasing frequency for several years now.

It's so easy to blame management for the woes of orchestras everywhere, but this is a shiny example of musicians without an ounce of common sense and royally screwing up.

Clearly, there is something wrong. Why there has been no industry-wide attempt to fix this is beyond me. It goes waaaaaaay beyond the audition and you can see it in every facet of orchestras, it's a non-flexible, "the CBA says this" approach to life. It would be amusing if it weren't so detrimental to the art.

If there is a pattern of non-hiring, it means one thing: THE COMMITTEE IS DOING IT WRONG. I've seen committees where they were judging players who could kick the majority of the committee's asses musically, yet they viewed them like a pledge for a Frat house.

Here's what makes sense: If you have an audition without a hire, the next audition has to be run differently. Better. Smarter. Excerpts that allow the players to do their thang. Concerto options that let the player show themselves in their best light. Holding the same audition again, with the same list and the SAME PEOPLE on the same committee makes absolutely no sense. Instead of looking at why these 200 players have failed, take a look at how the 7 committee people and stick-waver have failed. There are 10+ players at any major audition that would do a killer job, and if the committee can't figure out a way to find them then we need a new way of conducting auditions.

(I can smell academia...)

I believe something can be learned from the jazz world on this topic of putting a band together.

Granted, sizes are significantly different, nevertheless...

(And other differences)

But you can still look at the methods.

It takes `knowing the scene` as much as possible in this global era.

And also knowing your direction.

Word of mouth amongst players should be significant (although it seems unfair at times)

Perhaps a panel in a no-win should be required to provide detailed reasoning...

Consider the fact that in some (most?) orchestras the Music Director has all or most of the votes during the finals. If the finalists the committee have chosen don't meet his/her ideal, it's a "no-win situation" (pun intended).

quote:

Originally posted by bystander:
Consider the fact that in some (most?) orchestras the Music Director has all or most of the votes during the finals.

I actually don't think that's generally where the problem lies. Sure, there are still a few MDs out there who lord their power to appoint over the musicians of the orchestra, but the vast majority these days take strong account of what's said by the committee.

I think Cygnus is right that committees are often unintentionally dysfunctional and the root of the problem. The more we can convince tenured orchestral players that a no-hire is a failure on OUR part, not on the part of the candidates, the closer we'll get to eliminating this outcome that no one likes.

However, I think placing so much focus on the final round is a mistake. I've sat in on final rounds from which no hire emerged, and I can honestly say that I thought it was entirely the right call. But that doesn't mean that I don't believe there were qualified candidates at the audition. I just don't think they made it to the finals, which means that I've come to believe that committees frequently dump some of the best players for silly reasons in the early rounds.

The solution is obvious: advance more candidates from the early rounds, even if you think they have some glaring flaw that you couldn't bear to hear in your section. We've all got pet peeves: when I hear someone clearly making no effort to subdivide and play perfectly in rhythm, it infuriates me and I want them gone, immediately, no matter how great their sound is. Yet I could be tossing a phenomenal player if I don't force myself to push past my own bias.

I can't count the number of times that I've heard musicians advocate for a "no mercy" approach to the preliminary round: toss everyone you can't imagine getting the job. I think we need to go the opposite way - keep everyone who sounds even vaguely like a real pro. What's the worst that happens? Semi-finals are longer and you wind up with 15 finalists? It's a small price to pay to have a better chance of finding the right player for your orchestra.

We've all been part of audition committees where the eventual winning candidate leaped out at you the moment you heard his/her first notes in the prelims. But most auditions aren't so cut and dry, so if you ask me, it just makes sense to give as many people as possible as many chances as possible to impress.

(Sorry to have written a novel, there. This has been on my mind, lately.)

So well put, thank you!

If I were king, here's how auditions would be run:

1st Round: Each player gets 6-8 minutes to play ANYTHING THEY WANT. Anything, any number of things, it's your call. Could be Twinkle Twinkle or Ysaye, a page of Bach, a snippet of Mozart, half a caprice, Black Sabbath. There's a timer and a buzzer, you can take the full time or not take the full time. Excerpts are not needed, but if people insist then have 2 tops. 6-8 minutes of freestyle and 2 excerpts at the most. The player shows the committee what they can do on their own terms. There are groups of 15-20 at a time. One or two people MUST be advanced from each group (or more of course). No exceptions. A certain percentage of all applicants, say 10-15 percent, must be advanced to the 2nd round.

2nd Round: Concerto and excerpts like usual. The only Caveat: everyone does the first round, no exceptions. Every player is equal, nobody is automatically put in any round.

Finals: If there are no hires/trials offered, the committee has the right to hear people a second time. Instead of just quitting, make a final attempt to hear people a second time.

quote:

Originally posted by Sam Bergman:
*...committees frequently dump some of the best players for silly reasons in the early rounds.*

What would be the list of these silly reasons?

originally posted by Sam Bergman:

"However, I think placing so much focus on the final round is a mistake. I've sat in on final rounds from which no hire emerged, and I can honestly say that I thought it was entirely the right call. But that doesn't mean that I don't believe there were qualified candidates at the audition. I just don't think they made it to the finals, which means that I've come to believe that committees frequently dump some of the best players for silly reasons in the early rounds."

Amen! I completely agree that this is at the heart of why so many no hires happen.

I think an issue that goes hand in hand with this is the "cattle call" audition phenomenon. IMHO, if an orchestra has 150 applicants for a position, they should either make the time to hear everyone everyone play 4-5 excepts+concerto (for a 1st round, obviously more for semis+finals), or they should screen resumes. No one benefits from having applicants fly 1000s of miles to play 2 excerpts. The committee doesn't get enough information to figure out who can actually play, and some excellent applicants have nothing to show for the experience except a bill for hundreds of dollars in travel expenses. (Not to mention a hefty tab at the bar across the street after the audition is over...)

quote:

Originally posted by flute3000:
No one benefits from having applicants fly 1000s of miles to play 2 excerpts.

Correct. There should be zero excerpts and let the player play anything they want, with a timer and buzzer. Let's actually put music back into our music auditions. Let's throw out "First page syndrome" and let the player play any page they want. Have a mini-recital, however brief. Flying 1000 miles to see who can play the most robotic Scherzo isn't music, it's nonsense.

This is a great thread and I'm glad to see this topic finally discussed. I'm also interested to hear more about the subject of "pre-advancing" and what people think about it.

In some ways, it's a good opportunity for orchestras to give an advantage to players they already know and love, but on the other hand it might just be a way orchestras have come up with to get around what already is a malfunctioning audition system.

Relating a personal experience: I was living overseas and sent in my resume for a rather major orchestra audition in the U.S. The committee saw fit to pre-advance me to the second round. I flew 13 hours to the audition, incredibly prepared, and joined 11 other people in the semi-finals which started at 8am. The entire day was available for the completion of the audition. I walked on stage, played 3 excerpts (it wasn't my best effort but what can any musician prove in that short amount of time with 12-15 second excerpts), and was sent packing after less than 3 minutes. Unfortunately, it was only 8:30am and I couldn't hit the bar yet. ;-)

My issue is this: If the committee thought a few peoples' resumes were good enough to bypass the first round, and you have so few players to hear and plenty of time to complete the process, why wouldn't you allow everyone in that round a decent opportunity to play? It seems as though the committee was very dismissive in this instance (I was not the only pre-advanced player to get cut off so quickly) and this is the case in most auditions. They look for reasons to cut people rather than giving everyone an opportunity to make music and show off a little bit.

...Don't mean to turn this into a personal gripe session. Everyone has stories like this but that's exactly why this topic should be discussed and real attention should be payed by orchestras to find a better way to hire new players. I also think cattle-call auditions should not exist for principal positions (just my two cents). Again, great to see this topic being discussed!

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

Well said, Tigger. If you're in the semi-final round, you're there either because you've just played a strong first round or because your resume is impressive enough that the committee thinks it isn't necessary for you to jump through an extra hoop for them to listen to you. If they then proceed not to listen to you, it really does a disservice to everyone.

One orchestra that really doesn't run their audition like this is Cleveland. I've auditioned there twice and both times I was really impressed with the time that was taken to listen to each applicant. Also, I could be wrong about this, but what I've heard is that it only takes one vote to advance in Cleveland--if even one person thinks you're worth hearing again, you get to play again. Has anyone else heard that this is the case? Anyway, I think this is a great approach. I'll never forget the first time I was on an audition committee and I heard someone I thought was a great player cut off for no apparent reason. It's a terrible feeling, not only because it seems so unfair but because you're totally powerless to do anything about it.

Now, the downside to this style of audition is it takes more time, and to compensate for this it seems that Cleveland rejects many more resumes than some other orchestras do. Obviously if you get 100 resumes and you reject 80 of them, you're probably eliminating some very strong players sight unseen, but at least the people who do get invited get a fair hearing. I think maybe the best solution is a hybrid approach. Thoughts?

explanation of Berlin procedures by one of its Fhns:

"Since its founding in 1882 the Berlin Philharmonic has enjoyed three critical and inextricably related advantages, when it comes to auditioning new musicians. None of these is, or should be, unique in the orchestral world, however the combination is uniquely powerful and effective for us.

1. The vacancy belongs to the orchestra. In no way is it the property of the public domain. The orchestra is not obligated to fill a position once it has been advertised and we reserve the right not to select anyone at an audition. In my time we have more than once taken over eight years to find the right person.

2. We, the members, know pretty well what we are looking/listening for: we know our collective sound, our musical language, our collective artistic personality. The audition is not therefore primarily a contest between competitors for a gold medal. Much more importantly, we search for the "right" musician, not necessarily only the "best" player.

3. The orchestra decides who is chosen - all musician-members vote on the basis of one musician - one vote. Neither a select audition committee, nor principal players, nor the concerned section and certainly not the conductor controls the audition decision. Tenure is also granted by the orchestra membership alone, based on a secret vote.

Audition Repertoire:

We emphasise solo repertoire, not orchestral excerpts at the audition. If a Mozart concerto exists for the instrument being auditioned then that is mandatory. Otherwise another classical period concerto is expected. Invariably we ask at least for the 1st movement with a cadenza; in a second round a contrasting work of the candidate's choosing. Orchestra excerpts are never requested at violin, viola and cello auditions. For double bass, the winds and brass yes.

We look for strong personalities, powerful musical statements, individual interpretations, in addition to beauty of tone, stylistic knowledge, technical skill, etc. The concerto is the centre of the audition, not just a warm-up piece.

Audition procedure:

The section with the vacancy reviews all applications and democratically selects between 10 and 16 candidates who will be invited to an audition in front of the orchestra. If a high number of qualified candidates makes it necessary, a pre-audition may be held the day before. This is open to the whole orchestra but is not mandatory; usually only the concerned section is out in force.

No screens are used. We want to learn as much as we possibly can about the candidate in the short time they are on stage. One can "see" a lot by observing body language and stage presence.

We have frequently used a kind of "shoot-out" procedure at winds and brass auditions. Typically two to four "finalists" are on stage together and we have them perform excerpts in each other's presence. Although this is a brutally effective way of testing the candidates' nerves, more importantly it is also an extremely effective way for us to compare and contrast, with profound immediacy, the sounds and approaches of similarly qualified candidates.

The music director is free to attend if he wishes, and is granted a single vote like every one else.

Probation:

Can last one to two years, after which the concerned section makes a recommendation to the whole orchestra. The final decision is however made in a secret ballot of the orchestra membership. This is the most testing time for a new player and in the recent past fully one third of the probationary musicians were not accepted into the orchestra. This the time when, if necessary, we must fix any hiring mistakes WE may have made!"

I think this is a great way to have auditions... if you're widely recognized as one of the worlds' top and most exclusive orchestras. But this sort of grueling and drawn out audition is not the right solution for second and third tier orchestras in the U.S. I do think we should use a process similar to this for principal positions in major U.S. orchestras.

I was reading back over this thread, and saw this comment by Bystander on another thread:

http://myauditions.org/eve/for...7015001#863007015001

So I thought it would be good to reiterate here that the issue is a "pattern of no-hiring". Not an isolated incident. There are plenty of orchestras that run great auditions and from time to time can't find the right fit (this makes sense especially for top orchestras that have a very defined sound and style). But there are many examples of orchestras where it's the committee that is failing to do their job in a system that is flawed and too unified.

quote:

Originally posted by Tigger:

So I thought it would be good to reiterate here that the issue is a "pattern of no-hiring".

On the "auditions" page of this very website, there are about 8 auditions that seem to have "winners", 5-6 that haven't been answered, and the following "no-hires":
Toronto Symphony violin,
Minnesota Cello
Charlotte Symphony assistant principal cello
Atlanta Symphony English horn
3rd horn in Kansas City

That's a pretty damning number. It's hardly scientific but it's probably a good measure of what's happening.

I just happen to know people that play in Charlotte Symphony and people that recently auditioned for the cello position there. My impression is that the committee is expecting no less than Yo-Yo for our less than great orchestra. Yet, the pay that is on offer is one of the lowest in the industry.

quote:

Originally posted by ClefChef:
I just happen to know people that play in Charlotte Symphony and people that recently auditioned for the cello position there. My impression is that the committee is expecting no less than Yo-Yo for our less than great orchestra. Yet, the pay that is on offer is one of the lowest in the industry.

I might point out that during the five years I was in Charlotte, there were 4 brass auditions (including one for two spots in the trumpet section, when the principal and I left at the same time). All produced hires and runners-up. I'm proud that on the committee I co-chaired, for Principal Trumpet, we found one of the strongest hires the orchestra ever made (someone who later went to the Cleveland Orchestra).

All that said, I can't deny that string auditions there have an embarassing frequency of no-hires. I sincerely hope they will one day get their s%^& together, because I think it's actually an orchestra with great potential.

RWhite- you are right that the brass auditions over the past few years have produced good results in Charlotte. But it is worth pointing out that the number of people who have come for those auditions is substantially higher than the numbers who have come for CSO string auditions. How much that simple fact has played a part in recent no-hires I can't tell for sure....

(Base pay in Charlotte is $20k higher than in my orchestra, according to this chart. Just sayin.)

flute3000 - I hear you on cattle calls. My preference would be to screen resumes & allow those players 4-5 excerpts & a concerto, or like you said, a hybrid approach. Although it wasn't a 'cattle call', 1 of my worst audition experiences happened in a $20k paying group that didn't have us play a concerto at all, & immediately had us play a difficult technical excerpt (which isn't even that common of an excerpt for a 1st round to begin with - I don't even think i've played it in an audition since!). I don't think this tells the committee anything either, other than who can play faster & cleaner - what about musicality, intonation, etc? Personally, I'd rather hear people get a chance to play a solo, & if I already like them from that alone, it gives me a good idea of how the excerpts will sound. I don't think diving right into the excerpts is the best idea to try & "weed" them out - do that in the resumes.

I really like Sam Bergman's idea on passing more players in the preliminaries. Even if someone doesn't play the greatest prelim round, I'd rather hire someone based on stronger semi & final (or additional final) rounds.

Cygnus has an interesting idea about letting players play whatever solo they want. I wouldn't mind working up a movement of a 20th century sonata or concerto again. I've only had the opportunity to do this once, where we had a choice of a solo (I don't even think it specified a concerto), & that was actually a good audition experience, & I got to finals. Perhaps by getting to play a solo, you feel more like you're giving a performance instead of either just playing Mozart (again) or heading straight on into the excerpts without any warning.

quote:

Tigger: "I also think cattle-call auditions should not exist for principal positions".

On a related note, the San Diego principal flute audition appears to be an open audition (again), which I don't approve of either. I hope they at least don't have the 2-ongoing committees like they did in 2004!

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