Anybody know who won?

There will be another audition. I think it will be this fall.

i thought someone won this already?

My friend was runner up for the job, so he was there and knows what happened. Andrea Banke (principal oboe of the Wichita Symphony) was the one who actually won the audition. She is not listed on the Nashville roster, nor is she taken off the Wichita roster, which means she either declined the position or it was never offered to her. Beyond this I would be purely speculating, but this is all I know.

She played a trial(2 weeks, I think) and wasn't offered the job afterwards.

not surprising these days :-/

yeah, no one is good enough for Nashville, guess we'll have to add this orchestra to the list as well.......because NO ONE is good enough to play with this orchestra

Exaggerate much? I know a number of people who've been hired in recent years in that orchestra who've all successfully completed their probationary period. Lots of people are good enough to play in Nashville.

Sometimes there are red flags that emerge in a trial and a committee decides that it would be in everyone's interest not to consummate the relationship, so to say. Or sometimes it's the candidate who decides that the orchestra isn't a good fit. In any case, people can grumble all they want about the process (and goodness knows they certainly do in this forum) but the fact is that it's the orchestra's position to give away and the orchestra can do with that position whatever it sees fit to do with it. The Nashville Symphony (or any other orchestra) doesn't owe you or anyone else anything.

quote:

Originally posted by violinjoe:
yeah, no one is good enough for Nashville, guess we'll have to add this orchestra to the list as well.......because NO ONE is good enough to play with this orchestra

You know, I don't play in a great orchestra, but even we don't want someone who's "good enough", we want someone that blows us away, that makes us want to play our best or better.

We refuse to settle to for "good enough", "capable" or a warm body to fill the chair. And I don't begrudge any orchestra the right to decide not to hire at an audition.

And before anyone starts in with the MET argument, yes they are great, but no their policy is not perfect and I have heard first hand stories from musicians on their committees complain about being told by management that they had to pick a winner when they would have preferred not to.

I sensed a bit of sarcasm in violinjoe's statement, but that's about what it looks like with hiring trends lately - & it gets old. We don't even always know why, but it gets fishy when some auditions keep popping up over & over - it's almost 'trendy', & not in a good way. I can understand an occasional no-hire, but there are just way too many to stay quiet about. Has it always been like this, or is it just more public now with the internet?

Bulldog, I agree that lower paying orchestras should be picky in who they hire, & also who they let audition. But there is such a thing as being too picky. I don't know if that's the case here, i'm not going to speculate. But it would be interesting to know why there's going to be another audition either way.

ElPolloLoco, orchestras do owe auditioners something - jobs!!

apologies to all for the misunderstanding---I am a rather sarcastic person and it doesn't always come across in my writing

however, the same thing just happened in san francisco opera (principal oboe position), 2nd bassoon in l.a. phil, etc., etc.

i agree that orchestras should be as picky as they want when it comes to finding an important member like the principal oboe, but to not even give the woman a year to prove herself? even minimum wage jobs have hiring restrictions that protect workers more than that, she should be given a year to prove herself because she WON the audition, none of this 2-week trial nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by violinjoe:
she WON the audition,

Not really. The audition is won when a person has a gig, and a contract. The trial period is merely another part of the audition.

quote:

none of this 2-week trial nonsense

14-16 services? If it's not working out in that amount of time, it will never work.

quote:

Originally posted by orchdork:
I sensed a bit of sarcasm in violinjoe's statement, but that's about what it looks like with hiring trends lately - & it gets old. We don't even always know why, but it gets fishy when some auditions keep popping up over & over - it's almost 'trendy', & not in a good way. I can understand an occasional no-hire, but there are just way too many to stay quiet about. Has it always been like this, or is it just more public now with the internet?

Bulldog, I agree that lower paying orchestras should be picky in who they hire, & also who they let audition. But there is such a thing as being too picky. I don't know if that's the case here, i'm not going to speculate. But it would be interesting to know why there's going to be another audition either way.

ElPolloLoco, orchestras do owe auditioners something - jobs!!

I am in the Nashville Symphony, and I just want to say that regardless of people's opinions in this now very general discussion, I would like to specifically recognize that the musician who was most recently on trial was an excellent player. In my opinion, she had a beautiful, clear, and deep sound, great intonation and vibrato, and she seemed very friendly and humble. Someone I would have been honored to make music with and work with on a daily basis. Because I was not on her audition committee, I do not know why she was not hired, and like someone stated earlier in this discussion, there are sometime reasons beyond anyone's knowledge. I just didn't want her high-caliber playing and musicianship to go unrecognized.

Case in point. I don't know if muscian's statement makes me feel any better or worse, but now it really makes me speculate.

Cygnus - i often agree with your posts, but i have to disagree that a trial is just another part of the audition. It's become an inconvenient (or convenient, depending on how you look at it) process that continues to be a debatable topic on this forum. Most jobs don't give you a 2-week trial - could anyone imagine a 2-week trial at Starbucks? Plus people don't fly from all over the country for other jobs.

quote:

Originally posted by orchdork:

Cygnus - i often agree with your posts, but i have to disagree that a trial is just another part of the audition. It's become an inconvenient (or convenient, depending on how you look at it) process that continues to be a debatable topic on this forum. Most jobs don't give you a 2-week trial - could anyone imagine a 2-week trial at Starbucks? Plus people don't fly from all over the country for other jobs.

Orchdork, I wasnt making a case for or against a trial period.

I view it as our version of the Electoral college: you got the votes, you're the last person standing, yet you don't walk away with the gig. It could be semantics, but that's not "winning".

When I think about it, there's really no such thing as "winning an audition". We go there to win a job. Trial period or not, if you don't come away with the gig, one didn't "win".

Sure, Starbucks doesn't offer two-week trials. But at Starbucks, you're an employee-at-will. Your manager at Starbucks can fire you whenever he or she wants. The company isn't contractually obligated to employ you for another 7-9 months after they decide a month in that they really don't like how you make the coffee. Would orchdork prefer that winning candidates work week-to-week until they have tenure? Because that's how most of the world works - except without the tenure part.

A vacancy belongs to the orchestra, not to the applicants who attend. The orchestra is not obligated to hire anyone. If they want to use trial periods (or not), that's their prerogative. If an orchestra wants someone to play their excerpts standing on their head, that's their choice. Don't like it? Don't audition. This notion that somehow the interviewees should get to dictate a company's hiring process is absurd.

If you don't like trial periods, go win a job in an orchestra that uses them, get tenure, and serve on the orchestra's bargaining committee the next time the contract needs to be renewed. Try to change the policy. I suspect, however, that what you'd find is a lot of institutional resistance from your own colleagues. Why would an orchestra want to sacrifice a tool that could be potentially helpful in the decision making process?

And to the question about the frequency with which orchestras opt not to hire, I suspect it seems like more than it is because people only beat the horse to death when the process isn't successful.

Committees want to hire. They want to hear great playing. If a positive outcome can't be reached, nobody's usually more disappointed than the committee. Sure, you spent some money and a lot of time preparing for an audition, but at least there's intrinsic value to that process. You improve as a player. There's zero intrinsic value in spending 4-8 hours a day at the hall, sometimes for 3-4 days in a row, slurping cold coffee and eating donuts and hearing 80-100 violinists play the opening of Don Juan with varying degrees of success. If the committee doesn't hire, it just means they've all got to show up again in a handful of months and do it all over again.

Nashville has a process. It's a process mutually established by their musicians and their management. If you don't like it, maybe you should send a letter to the chair of their orchestra committee and tell them why they should do things your way. And please, do let us know what the response says. I'd be dying to know what they think of an outsider telling them how to manage their affairs!

quote:

Originally posted by ElPolloLoco:
Sure, Starbucks doesn't offer two-week trials. But at Starbucks, you're an employee-at-will. Your manager at Starbucks can fire you whenever he or she wants. The company isn't contractually obligated to employ you for another 7-9 months

Nor is any orchestra that I have any knowledge of, I have no idea what Nashville's policy is. At any time during the 1-2 year probation period, an orchestra can dump you mid-phrase. Read the CBA for most orchestras, it's in there and it's pretty clear, they can dump you like a hot potato until the second you score tenure.

Fair point - it really does depend on the CBA. From the ones I am familiar with, some orchestras have wide latitude as you've alluded to, others have restrictions on whether tenure decisions can be made in the first/last year of an MD's service, others secure employment for probationary musicians season-to-season, but all effectively exclude non-tenured players from the grievance and arbitration process. Which means that whenever it is a decision is made, no reason need be given and the affected player has no recourse, so long as said reason complies with state and federal non-discrimination laws.

I know the Starbucks example was just a shot in the dark. But i've heard of several instances where: a seasoned musician gets dismissed from years of service (ie, a new conductor); a qualified player plays with an orchestra for many years without ever receiving regular status (or contract) & has to reaudition every year; a player plays with an orchestra after winning an audition, but never receives tenure (or it takes several years to get tenure); a player wins the audition, plays a year or 2, & still doesn't keep the job for whatever reason; the list goes on. So no, i don't prefer that candidates work week-to-week, but orchestras can still only have a 'winner' play year-to-year if they want to, or like Cygnus pointed out, they can just dump them whenever they feel like before they feel obligated to keep them permanently.

I still disagree with the process, but to each their own. There are arguments for both. I'm not going to write each orchestra about it, but i still don't agree with it. However, what i thought might be helpful is if orchestras advertise IN the audition ad whether or not there would be a trial; if so, how long would it be (1 concert or a few concerts), & would it be with 1 candidate or a few (?); or if they're going to hire someone, no matter what. This way, at least there's an expectation from people taking it.

quote:

Originally posted by orchdork:
a qualified player plays with an orchestra for many years without ever receiving regular status (or contract) & has to reaudition every year; a player plays with an orchestra after winning an audition, but never receives tenure (or it takes several years to get tenure); a player wins the audition, plays a year or 2, & still doesn't keep the job for whatever reason; the list goes on.

If a player is re-auditioning every year, they aren't on a tenure-track situation i.e. they didn't "win" the job.

The probationary period is either 1 or (usually)2 years. If you are still standing after two years, you HAVE tenure. This is fairly uniform. Nobody can say "let's give it another year" or "let's re-audition". Someone who plays for years without tenure is considered "acting". In these cases, the advantage is usually for the musician. As frustrating as it can be, it's somewhat of a vote of confidence and they aren't desperately trying to replace you.

There are players who do very well at concerts, but very poorly at auditions (and vice-versa). When you have an "acting" player who is fitting in well and doing a good job, a lot of CBAs state that the orchestra "must" hold an open audition. Personally, I think this is retarded. At that point, we cease to be musicians and we're some kind of union sheeple.

If an orchestra has the player they want, don't hold an audition and take the CBA and burn it. It causes heartache for all, and people pay big bucks to take an audition that shouldn't be.