I heard there was no screen in the final round and they offered trials to both current B contract Rochester Phil members that were added into the finals. Anyone have any other info?

Yes that info is correct. I was at the audition There were about 7 people including those B-contract members in the finals. 3 people in the "final finals"

quote:

Originally posted by vlaplayer21:
Yes that info is correct. I was at the audition There were about 7 people including those B-contract members in the finals. 3 people in the "final finals"

Did they actually use those terms? Were the 7 people in the semi-finals or finals, according to what they actually called it?

Did the round with the 7 people have a screen?

I think the official name for the round after the finals (and every round after that) is "Do it again."

quote:

Originally posted by Joel Gibbs:
I think the official name for the round after the finals (and every round after that) is "Do it again."

There's an unofficial name too. I would post it, but I'd be banned.

quote:

they offered trials to both current B contract Rochester Phil members

Did they offer them trials or the gig outright? If they actually offered them "trials", then the RPO gets the award for "Dumbest thing of all time":

"Hey Kids, you've been a member of our viola section now for quite some time. We'd like to try you out in our viola section. If you play all pretty like, we will promote you to member of our viola section. If you don't, you'll just play in our viola section".

Don't "B" contract players typically do the subscription shows? "Well, we think you're doing a great job on our main series in the viola section, but we're concerned about how you might do at the Kiddie Concerts. Sure, you played Mahler 6 and Heldenleben with us, but how will you handle "Selections from Wicked" and the "Hallelujah Chorus" with the Roosevelt High School advanced Show Choir? We'll need to try you out on those songs".

There were 2 rounds of blind auditions. They narrowed it from about 40 people to 5 people in the final round and then added the 2 B-members.

quote:

Originally posted by vlaplayer21:
There were 2 rounds of blind auditions. They narrowed it from about 40 people to 5 people in the final round and then added the 2 B-members.

Did the info you were given explain that people would be automatically in the finals?

It should be required that any union orchestra that does this shall inform all the applicants that there will be two people put directly into the final round. Not that there "may be", but that there "will be". It should also explain, very clearly, that they have "B" contracts i.e they are members of the orchestra already.

This is very, very wrong. It makes the B contract players look bad, and they did nothing wrong and are probably very deserving of the positions. Still, it's wrong. I hope that someday, all the applicants of an audition like this get together, file a class action suit, get all their expenses paid back plus the cost of their time. When 40 people show up after practicing for months and pay lots of money, they should have full knowledge that the jobs may not even exist.

You are so awesome, bboden

I mean, Cygnus (sorry!) - bboden is awesome too

quote:

I think the official name for the round after the finals (and every round after that) is "Do it again."

Finals, Final Finals, Finals Final, Super-Final. Y'know the distinction is moot. The only thing you can take to the bank is when you actually win the job. Anything other than that, a finalist takes home exactly the same thing as the poor sap that gets cut after one excerpt, and that is nada. Well, bragging rights, maybe, but nowadays people just think you're a **** if you become a talking resume.

quote:

Originally posted by doublebass:

quote:

I think the official name for the round after the finals (and every round after that) is "Do it again."

Finals, Final Finals, Finals Final, Super-Final. Y'know the distinction is moot.

Not always. It gives the prospective auditionee a bit of perspective about how an orchestra runs their auditions and if they have their act together. From what we're reading here, this audition only had 40 people, a relatively small number. Did they really need four rounds? Really? Why? The most well-run auditions can often be the fairest, so it's good info for an auditionee to have before they buy that plane ticket.


I'm going to be very blunt here (what a surprise): quite often, "Final-Finals" is what happens when a different outcome is wanted. Let's face it, it's usually nothing more than a "do-over". Do-overs aren't what it's all supposed to be about: ain't no do-over in the show. Bottom line: I'd be weary of an audition process that has a "surprise" round when it already had 3 rounds, more than enough to judge 40 people.

Having experienced both sides (auditionee and panel) in RPO, I am dismayed that current auditionees are so jaded and conspiracy-minded. Final-finals are simply another chance for all players to excel and convince the committee that they're"it". Once (in LA) I recall a "Final-final" with only ONE player (who was awarded the position). So long as you're still auditioning, you have a great opportunity. The extra round might be to resolve points-of-view within the committee or with the MD. In any event, the orchestra also makes a financial investment in auditions. I've even known small orchestras to pay a courtesy to locals by advancing them, but they really want to import more musicians to increase the whole talent-base.
Class-action lawsuit?!!!
Stop whining and just knock their socks off.

But what if I'm, like, super good but their socks stay on? Then can I sue them?

quote:

Originally posted by tptlady:
I am dismayed that current auditionees are so jaded and conspiracy-minded.
Stop whining .

Possible translations:

1. "There are good points being made, some of which hit close to home, so let's attempt to discredit these points by calling people 'jaded' and 'whiners'.

2. "This did not happen to me as an auditioner. Therefore, it is impossible for anyone else to have an experience different than mine."

Get serious.


Very few orchestras stick a person into a non-prelim round without a screen. It sends a clear message: "Screw any appearance of objectivity. We'll put them in without a screen and if people don't like it, screw them. They are whiners and just jaded if they even question us. "

It's utterly convenient. It's almost perfect: Do anything, and then blame the auditionees (or observers in my case) for bringing up VALID CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROCESS. Just call them whiners and it absolves all from everything.

Trial weeks for members of the orchestra? Do they get to sit in their old chairs?

perhaps tptlady missed the point? I've played my share of superfinal rounds. I don't have anything against that, so long as they pick a fair winner.

This is more about the RPO audition that had no screen in the final round AND added members of the orchestra into that round, (and even allowed them to choose the order in which they played in the final round!)then gave both of them trials. This is atypical...from my experience anyway.

These people that were put into the final round hadn't been there since 9 in the morning, playing all day. They were fresh and NOT tired...so there's also another difference.

Just a thought...

quote:

Originally posted by violas:

This is more about the RPO audition that had no screen in the final round AND added members of the orchestra into that round,

The most ridiculous part is the use of the screen in the first two rounds. Why bother? The sole purpose of the screen is to prevent them from doing what they actually did. If all applicants don't play behind that screen at some point, it makes the screen utterly meaningless. Just ONCE, it would be great to see an orchestra say something honest like this in their letter to applicants:



"Full disclosure: We have two members of the viola section with b contracts that will be automatically placed in the finals. These two players will not be behind a screen, and we will make no attempt to conceal their identity from the committee at any time. Therefore, we cannot promise objectivity since these players are colleagues of the committee. Please weigh this information carefully in your decision to attend this audition. There will be no reimbursement for any expenses associated with travel, and the decision of the committee will be final".

Wouldn't that honesty and openness be refreshing?? I feel like the audition system put in place for the sole purpose of being completely fair has gotten us to the point now where orchestras such has RPO, who just want to hire their two b contract players, have to go through this whole charade/ song and dance. How was this process fair to any of the candidates? I say if an orchestra wants to hire a certain person, let them and stop wasting everyone else's time and money.

quote:

Originally posted by Tigger:
Wouldn't that honesty and openness be refreshing?? I feel like the audition system put in place for the sole purpose of being completely fair has gotten us to the point now where orchestras such has RPO, who just want to hire their two b contract players, have to go through this whole charade/ song and dance. How was this process fair to any of the candidates? I say if an orchestra wants to hire a certain person, let them and stop wasting everyone else's time and money.

**** straight. Any other business would, we should be no different. If two players are working out and the principal, section, and MD are happy with their work, hire them.

The union was the one that came up with the "screen" idea many years ago, for good reasons. Since then, the rule has been circumvented by many orchestras and the union has not once, AFAIK, acted upon it. Putting 2 players into any round without a screen makes the screen ridiculous, it serves no purpose. Allow orchestras to either follow the process without cheating or hire players directly without the charade.

Totally agree with Cygnus and Tigger! It's very discouraging to those still in the auditioning world.