Can the audition process be improved?

[JamesSp]

Hello everyone

Thought I would start a topic that is a bit of a tangent from the previous thread where I shared some thoughts.

I believe the current audition process while not perfect is the best of not great options, I've not heard an idea that I think would be a better fit for the industry. Having said that, I also believe there could be some improvements implemented that would make the process better for both candidates and organisation. Not a whole lot of places to talk about this so here seems as good as any.

I doubt my own experience means much, but I have semi regularly taken auditions for many years now. I think I have now had just about every possible outcome that can happen at some stage or another as a result of taking auditions including the extremes. I have been offered a position once, but also been denied attendance at an audition, ive done finals, trials etc... and been knocked out in round 1.

.I suggested in the previous thread that I think a big issue is the number of applicants applying for any given job advertised. I really think a lot of things could be improved on both sides for finding ways to eliminate candidates earlier in the process. More discussion and detail was given in the previous thread but I think that first rounds should be exclusively by recording. In the modern day it is easier than ever to get access to devices that are capable of decent quality recordings at least for a first round. From the perspective of the candidates, submitting an anonymous recoding (I believe possible) could save travel costs etc to candidates with good intentions but might perform in a way the organisation has no interest in. From the other side, the organisation would no longer need to have a long day (or more) where they all sit in a room hearing the same material over and over. The idea would be each panel member receives a pack of recordings from the organisation and they listen and make their votes indivudually by "X" date. It also means it's easier for the panel member to compare recordings they feel fit the bill and can stop listening to recordings faster and move on when they know are not what they want. After that process, live invites would be sent to a smaller number of applicants the panel feels are actually people they could be interested in employing. Smaller live day for all involved.
Best arguments against I heard in the other thread were that recordings can be faked or that different quality recordings create inequity. I think there are ways to get around this issue and the benefits outweigh the risks.

.I think screens and anonymity of each candidate should be present for the entire audition. I see no reason for the panel to know the identity of any particular candidate before the process has concluded. The only hiccup I can see here is if the ensemble wishes to do a section round or similar as part of the process, obviously at that stage it would be impossible to stay anonymous, but I think by that stage (if required) you can tell a panel is actually interested in potentially employing a candidate and playing in a section can show skills not directly obvious in a solo performance setting. I doubt candidates would have an issue sacrificing anonymity if they reached a stage where the organisation wanted to hear how they sounded alongside them.

.I find auto advancing confusing.... honestly I'm not sure why this is accepted. The best argument I have heard is that a particular candidate may already be known to the organisation and they believe they have already heard that person surpass their initial round requirements. It seems unlikely to me that even a candidate with a lot of critical acclaim would have performed a specific audition list in a specific order against the other applicants that have applied for whatever the advertised position is. If the organisation truly believes in their ability, they should have no problem going through the process just like anyone else. Auto advancing seems to me just forcing the screens down earlier than they should. I dont think its a good message to be sending to the community.

.I myself at my last two professional auditions (in two different countries) I took got to the end of the process and resulted both times in a "no hire". I dont think there should be a ban on no hires, I can see that at times there may be legitimate reasons for an organisation to feel forced into making this choice, but based on nothing but my own experience and conversation in the music community it seems to be becoming more common and from many candidates perspective, unnecessarily so. Im not sure exactly what it would look like, but I strongly feel there should be some kind of regulation or appeal process in this instance, possibly with some sort of qualified outside mediator? I know some organisations will kindly provide feedback, but who knows how accurate that feedback actually is really. Maybe the process of deliberation the panel takes when finally discussing whether to hire or not should be recorded and accessible by all or some candidates. Surely transparency is a good thing?

.Invite only auditions or expression of interest style ones. Not all that common, but I have seen some where organisations will invite candidates to non anonymous auditions based of CV alone. I have no suggestion for improving this, I just think it shouldn't be permitted. I dont know, but I think it happens usually after some no hires and an overwhelming amount of applicants. On paper I guess it makes sense, just hear those who are "qualified" in the eyes of the organisation, (I suppose like any job) but I think this system is too easy to abuse. I'm sure it's no fun hearing wave after wave of applicants, but I dont think that is reason enough to personalise a candidate list with no anonymity. Perhaps some here disagree?

It all boils down to organisations wanting the best candidate for the job. I think these changes I've suggested do nothing but aid In that search. What do we think? I'm guessing the most contentious one would be the first round recordings, but what else could be implemented to make the process better?

[harrisonreed]

An apprentice program, where apprentices are selected based on a blind audition for apprenticeship and not to win the seat. This would allow the apprentices to fill in on concerts and for large rep as needed, gain true insight into the 'sound' of that section and that orchestra, and be employed at least part-time as a pro musician. The orchestra can, on the recommendation the section or director, dismiss apprentices. There would be no sub-list. Apprentices can stay in that low-level position and take other teaching or performance jobs, and have their leg 90% of the way into the job as long as they are performing well and fitting into the orchestra. If they can't wait 10-20 years (Jay Friendman's apprentice for example), they can quit. Another blind audition by the section would happen to find a new apprentice.

Before retirement, the orchestra takes the recommendation of the person leaving the seat, talks to the section, and considers the history of performances. Then they select the recommended apprentice or are forced to vote on one of the other apprentices (each seat would have one or two).

This system would keep the sounds of sections relatively curated and intact, and cut through the BS of pretending to give every novice a chance to win an audition for a high level orchestra job, as well as the fools math of how many positions there are vs how many students are pumped out of schools each year. There is a lot less pressure to give an apprenticeship based on an audition vs a full time seat. It could be easier to give a 1st trombone seat to someone apprenticed with the person already in that seat, already playing on concerts, and who already passed your audition.

[JamesSp]

An apprentice program, where apprentices are selected based on a blind audition for apprenticeship and not to win the seat. This would allow the apprentices to fill in on concerts and for large rep as needed, gain true insight into the 'sound' of that section and that orchestra, and be employed at least part-time as a pro musician. The orchestra can, on the recommendation the section or director, dismiss apprentices. There would be no sub-list. Apprentices can stay in that low-level position and take other teaching or performance jobs, and have their leg 90% of the way into the job as long as they are performing well and fitting into the orchestra. If they can't wait 10-20 years (Jay Friendman's apprentice for example), they can quit. Another blind audition by the section would happen to find a new apprentice.

Before retirement, the orchestra takes the recommendation of the person leaving the seat, talks to the section, and considers the history of performances. Then they select the recommended apprentice or are forced to vote on one of the other apprentices (each seat would have one or two).

This system would keep the sounds of sections relatively curated and intact, and cut through the BS of pretending to give every novice a chance to win an audition for a high level orchestra job, as well as the fools math of how many positions there are vs how many students are pumped out of schools each year. There is a lot less pressure to give an apprenticeship based on an audition vs a full time seat. It could be easier to give a 1st trombone seat to someone apprenticed with the person already in that seat, already playing on concerts, and who already passed your audition.

I'm appreciative to see some interest in the discussion and I think this is an interesting point, but im not sure I agree with a lot of this.

Not everywhere of course, but many countries have system almost exactly as you describe in terms of appretices. Usually, (in my experience) they are called "fellowships". A younger musician who wins a competitive audition, and essentially becomes the first call casual or sub for the orchestra. Many have a scholarship or stipend that goes along with this.

As you suggested, this in a lot of instances elimates the need for substitute musicians to join the ensemble for bigger rep (or smaller as the case may be). I am not entirely sure this is a good thing. I think its a good thing to have capable and qualified professional musicians in a city willing and capable to sub with a professional ensemble. A lot of these people while maybe not employed elsewhere in music full time, add standard and interest to the music community of any given city, in the full time ensembles and outside as they occur.

While on paper, a lot of these apprenticeships look like a good thing, I suspect a lot of the time the motivation is for the organisation to both look good from a PR standpoint, and to save a lot of money by saying the words "stipend" or "scholarship" to circumvent having to pay the going rate for qualified and capable musicians who live in the area. That's not to detract from the ability of talented younger people, but I dont think a freelance music scene within a city is a bad thing and these programs are one rung on the ladder towards strangling it at times.

I also think recommendations from Outgoing players would serve no good overall. History or however you referred to it, I think is inevitably watered down by the simple fact people taking over are not machines. The human element inevitibly causes differences, and I think that should be embraced. It would be impossible for "X" to sound like a carbon copy of "Y" so let the music evolve as the members of these organisations evolve.

I think you are right, it would be easier to give a novice expressly trained a particular seat, but I dont think the majority of young people get into music with the expectation of full time employment after study. Ive never heard a music educator at any level say "its easy". People do it because they love making music, it's not glamorous but it's possible to make a living playing music without being employed by a fulltime organisation. I fear that this passing the torch in the club suggestion of yours would only serve to choke creativity and further alienate the music industry from the general public.

[WilliamLang]

I always had this fun thought in the back of my head that there could be kind of a Major League Baseball setup to some of the larger American orchestras. With a draft and everything! For the NYP, since it's the closest to home, something like the Albany Symphony, Glen Falls Symphony, and Binghamton Symphony could be analogous to Triple A, Double and Single A, with promotions based on performance and availability.

Not really realistic! But imagine an orchestral draft of musicians from around the country. Entertaining to think about at least and a fun party game.

[JamesSp]

I always had this fun thought in the back of my head that there could be kind of a Major League Baseball setup to some of the larger American orchestras. With a draft and everything! For the NYP, since it's the closest to home, something like the Albany Symphony, Glen Falls Symphony, and Binghamton Symphony could be analogous to Triple A, Double and Single A, with promotions based on performance and availability.

Not really realistic! But imagine an orchestral draft of musicians from around the country. Entertaining to think about at least and a fun party game.

I don't really understand how baseball companies work sorry but it sounds like maybe something could be learned from it!

[BGuttman]

I had suggested this in the other thread, but it does leave open the usual prejudices against minorities. I doubt Abby Conant could have made it to the "pros" if she had to work through the "minor leagues". Also wonder about talented Black or Hispanic candidates.

[JamesSp]

I had suggested this in the other thread, but it does leave open the usual prejudices against minorities. I doubt Abby Conant could have made it to the "pros" if she had to work through the "minor leagues". Also wonder about talented Black or Hispanic candidates.

The whole tiered process goes against my suggestion of more anonymity rather than less I think.

I'm actually a little confused on this idea, is the idea of having leveled "leagues" just to minimise candidates? Im all for that, but this feels like a lot would be sacrificed in a negative way if that was the case. What ways does it improve upon the current process for applicants and organisations?

[JohnL]

I always had this fun thought in the back of my head that there could be kind of a Major League Baseball setup to some of the larger American orchestras. With a draft and everything! For the NYP, since it's the closest to home, something like the Albany Symphony, Glen Falls Symphony, and Binghamton Symphony could be analogous to Triple A, Double and Single A, with promotions based on performance and availability.

Actually, it's now Triple A, Double A, High-A, and Single-A, plus Rookie.

That would turn the whole system on its head! Instead of auditions, orchestras would have scouts who would go out and listen to college and high school ensembles. Musicians would be drafted by the major orchestras, signed to contracts, and assigned to affiliated regional groups to hone their skills and (hopefully) work their way up.

Can't see it ever happening in the real world. Then again, playing minor league baseball might just be an even tougher gig that trying to make it as an orchestral musician. I'd also hate to see regional orchestras go through the same sort of semi-nomadic existence that some minor league teams experience (there's a constant churn of old teams folding or moving and new teams starting up to take their place). Affiliation with a major orchestra could be a big boost to a regional group, but losing that affiliation would potentially be disastrous (looking at the empty space where the the Lancaster JetHawks used to be).

[JamesSp]

I always had this fun thought in the back of my head that there could be kind of a Major League Baseball setup to some of the larger American orchestras. With a draft and everything! For the NYP, since it's the closest to home, something like the Albany Symphony, Glen Falls Symphony, and Binghamton Symphony could be analogous to Triple A, Double and Single A, with promotions based on performance and availability.

Actually, it's now Triple A, Double A, High-A, and Single-A, plus Rookie.

That would turn the whole system on its head! Instead of auditions, orchestras would have scouts who would go out and listen to college and high school ensembles. Musicians would be drafted by the major orchestras, signed to contracts, and assigned to affiliated regional groups to hone their skills and (hopefully) work their way up.

Can't see it ever happening in the real world. Then again, playing minor league baseball might just be an even tougher gig that trying to make it as an orchestral musician. I'd also hate to see regional orchestras go through the same sort of semi-nomadic existence that some minor league teams experience (there's a constant churn of old teams folding or moving and new teams starting up to take their place). Affiliation with a major orchestra could be a big boost to a regional group, but losing that affiliation would potentially be disastrous (looking at the empty space where the the Lancaster JetHawks used to be).

I understand how that system works a bit better now from this explanation. I agree, this sounds like turning the whole system on its head which is not what I think think needs to happen. As I already said, I think the audition process is a more positives than negatives type situation.

I'm hoping that some people might be able to identify flaws in the suggestions I've made, or just add seemingly simple additions along the same line. It would make me very happy to see someone in the know suggest ways these suggestions may be taken on board by organisations as well, because as far as I know there is no meaningful way to voice these concerns, and musical organisations seem to me to have very little interest in implementing changes to this knowingly (somewhat) flawed system unless it's a change that benefits the side of the employer, like auto advancing or the expression of interest style auditions I described.

Would never happen, but as I write this I'm thinking I would love to see an organisation that regularly engages in some of these practices find themselves advertising auditions with no candidates applying. I think that would inspire consideration of change for the good, but without something like that being a possibility I dont know how else or where to talk about these things that would carry any weight or be taken seriously.

[brassmedic]

Most orchestra musicians here are represented by AFM. There is a negotiated CBA in place. Management can't just arbitrarily change audition procedures.

[JamesSp]

Most orchestra musicians here are represented by AFM. There is a negotiated CBA in place. Management can't just arbitrarily change audition procedures.

Sorry, I probably worded that badly. I mean more so the things I've highlighted in the first post can sometimes change from audition to audition among a few other smaller things.

[BGuttman]

Most orchestra musicians here are represented by AFM. There is a negotiated CBA in place. Management can't just arbitrarily change audition procedures.

We are engaged in a hypothetical discussion here. Assuming no external factors are in force. Of course a CBA can override any decision in audition procedure -- for better or for worse. If we can come up with a better audition method, perhaps it could be incorporated in a new CBA (but I doubt it ).

[scott]

We are engaged in a hypothetical discussion here. Assuming no external factors are in force. Of course a CBA can override any decision in audition procedure -- for better or for worse. If we can come up with a better audition method, perhaps it could be incorporated in a new CBA (but I doubt it ).

To clarify, a cba does not override anything about the audition procedure, there is no external procedure. Each organisations’ audition procedure is delineated in their CBA. The AFM represents its members in negotiations but no CBA is ratified without a vote by the members of the organization. Were something to occur outside of a CBA’s delineated procedure there must be a certain degree of consensus to move forward, if it is allowed at all.

[brassmedic]

My point is that changing audition procedures is not as easy as "let's try this...or this..." You have to amend the CBA, so management and the union and a majority of the players have to agree to it. Not a simple task. Even so, CBAs get changed all the time to incorporate some change in the audition procedure. In the examples I've seen, it doesn't improve the process.

[JamesSp]

It is all hyperthetical a stated.

I'll be honest... I have no idea what what a CBA is. I'm assuming it's American and aside from school I've only auditioned there once. I have auditioned across a few other countries though and in my experiences there are more similarities in the process than differences.

I have done auditions where the screen came down after round one. And I've done auditions where the screen didn't come down until the end. I've done auditions where some candidates were auto advanced, and some where none were (just as examples).

I'm trying to say I think my suggestions in the initial post would improve the process overall if they were standardised (but I'd love to hear people who disagree). I dont really believe some overseeing power could implement anything like this worldwide, but I would love to see my suggestions happen, and the discussion has to start somewhere!

[Doug Elliott]

Collective Bargaining Agreement. It's a Union thing where each orchestra or theater negotiates their own pay scale, other employment details, and in this case, audition procedures, with the Union so all of that is part of the contract.

It can be either higher or lower pay than standard Union scale.

You need to define the problem before discussing solutions.

"a big issue is the number of applicants applying for any given job advertised. I really think a lot of things could be improved on both sides for finding ways to eliminate candidates earlier in the process."

The recorded first round is pretty much the only answer that makes sense.

Or maybe if the gigs paid LESS there would be fewer people interested. Well that's one idea....

[WilliamLang]

I've always loved the fact that the Met Opera doesn't take down screens in any round, and also has an anonymous voting process, and furthermore always declares a winner. Their orchestra sounds amazing - on par with any in the world, imho, and I think the process is a huge reason why.

[brassmedic]

It is all hyperthetical a stated.

I'll be honest... I have no idea what what a CBA is. I'm assuming it's American and aside from school I've only auditioned there once. I have auditioned across a few other countries though and in my experiences there are more similarities in the process than differences.

Well, some other countries have been famously sexist. Just saying.

[JamesSp]

It is all hyperthetical a stated.

I'll be honest... I have no idea what what a CBA is. I'm assuming it's American and aside from school I've only auditioned there once. I have auditioned across a few other countries though and in my experiences there are more similarities in the process than differences.

Well, some other countries have been famously sexist. Just saying.

Yes... I am aware of this. I'm sure sure how it's relevant to what I'm saying or the discussion sorry? Perhaps I've written something that has been misinterpreted?

Just a very weird reply!

[JamesSp]

You need to define the problem before discussing solutions.

Mmmm ok fair point. Difficult to make a concise statement I suppose, but I think the problem is that many candidates looking for full time employment in performance settings are unsatisfied with the current audition process that is somewhat standardised.

I'm not claiming to be able to present evidence other than my own experience, so I'm very open to being wrong, but I find most I talk to who have both been successful and unsuccessful in the audition process believe it's how I've described. Not perfect, but the best of any known alternatives.

Despite that, I believe it's worth attempting (or at least just discussing) to improve the process not just for candidates but employers in the space too. The points I highlighted in my initial post are what stand out to me personally as the biggest "problems" in the audition world. I'd like further explanation from anyone as to why they may not be problems so I can further my understanding of them, or like discussion into if others share my concerns and what if anything could be done about it.

It's most likely there is no solution, as already stated it's all hyperthetical. But it's of interest to me, and im sure at least some others.

[JamesSp]

I've always loved the fact that the Met Opera doesn't take down screens in any round, and also has an anonymous voting process, and furthermore always declares a winner. Their orchestra sounds amazing - on par with any in the world, imho, and I think the process is a huge reason why.

I wasn't aware of that. I love that this is the case. That sounds like a great model that more could adopt.

[BGuttman]

The situation is not helped by many teachers in Conservatories telling students to apply to these auditions "for the experience". A bunch of applicants show up who either aren't ready to take the job or are just not good enough to be considered. All of these submissions have to be listened to. Few, if any, would make it past the 1st round.

This aspect of the situation would be helped if the Conservatories had their own mock auditions; perhaps with real symphony members as the panel. Let the students learn how auditions work in a good simulation of real life and to send in applications only when they feel they are really ready for the job.

[CalgaryTbone]

I've had a couple of long posts that didn't make it here because I guess the site signs you out if it doesn't recognize activity, so I'll keep this brief and may add a couple of other posts.

A recorded element makes sense, because that frees up some time for the committee to hear the most qualified candidates in the live rounds. The recording costs would still be cheaper than travel in most cases, and some major orchestras have started to break up preliminary auditions on to several different days, making it likely that some candidates would have at least 2 trips to audition. One thing that hasn't been mentioned in these threads is that audition days can be very expensive and hard to schedule for orchestras. The Music Director is not always in town, and many weeks are already jam-packed with multiple programs being rehearsed and performed. The hall rental is astronomical for most organizations, so the best case is to schedule an audition on a day that just has an evening concert - that creates a time crunch at the end of the day. Using a different space is not usually possible, because of the lack of space for the candidates to play their instruments while the audition is going on. Recorded auditions could be played for the committee in a different space, and could be broken up into several days without it impacting the candidates.

Also, nobody likes "no hire" days, but that is preferable to hiring someone and then not giving them tenure because they don't live up to expectations. That can still happen, but it should be a last resort.

As Gabe said in another post - it is a job interview. You are hoping to hire someone for what could be decades to come, and you want to get it right. Only one person can get the job, and there will be a lot of disappointed people at the end of the day - that is a big reason that you hear some complaints. I guarantee that the person that is offered the job has very few complaints.

Jim Scott

[JamesSp]

Also, nobody likes "no hire" days, but that is preferable to hiring someone and then not giving them tenure because they don't live up to expectations. That can still happen, but it should be a last resort.

As Gabe said in another post - it is a job interview. You are hoping to hire someone for what could be decades to come, and you want to get it right. Only one person can get the job, and there will be a lot of disappointed people at the end of the day - that is a big reason that you hear some complaints. I guarantee that the person that is offered the job has very few complaints.

Jim Scott

Absolutely, I completely agree. I can definitely see the concern in knowing you could be at risk of sitting next to someone you don't like for decades.

I would just like to see more transparency around it. It's a bad result for all involved and I think the more can be done to avoid it the better. I had suggested maybe the deliberation process when deciding could be recorded and distributed to candidates in this situation. I think its perfectly legitimate to have a panel say "we just don't like xyz as a person" but I highly doubt it would be said that way to the candidate if the panel were to provide feedback. That sort of information if public may also be helpful for other candidates in future deciding whether or not they wish to apply for the position.

[CalgaryTbone]

Complete transparency is not an option. Often, the committee doesn't even know the final vote - the union tabulates the results of a secret ballot vote and just reports yes or no as to the hiring of Candidate X. This is better, because it allows people to take a less popular stand if they really feel strongly in favor or against hiring that player. Remember that the Music Director is there, and they often are less than thrilled to encounter any disagreement with their position. It's a fully democratic process with everyone's vote being private. If someone were to be hired and not get tenure, they could hire a lawyer and start a suit against the orchestra or individuals. Also, in 40 years of sitting on auditions and even more years of taking them, I've never heard anyone express any reason other than a musical issue for why they can't support voting to hire someone. I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone I know in this business has ever done so.

Jim Scott

[GabrielRice]

This aspect of the situation would be helped if the Conservatories had their own mock auditions; perhaps with real symphony members as the panel. Let the students learn how auditions work in a good simulation of real life and to send in applications only when they feel they are really ready for the job.

That happens all the time.

[mbarbier]

This aspect of the situation would be helped if the Conservatories had their own mock auditions; perhaps with real symphony members as the panel. Let the students learn how auditions work in a good simulation of real life and to send in applications only when they feel they are really ready for the job.

That happens all the time.

I feel like the advice I always got at conservatory and summer festivals was to never audition for a job unless the intent is to win it. That one is much better served utilizing that preparation time on things like summer festivals to continue your education. Auditioning for experience has always been heavily criticized in my experience. We did mock auditions at least once a semester all four years- which seems to be pretty commonplace.

I was talking to a violin colleague the other day who had recently done a trombone audition. They were totally confused as the other brass basically just wanted to hear excerpts and said that they've never hired a string player without hearing them play solo Bach and Mozart. While we obviously don't have those, it really feels like more solos could be an effective way to hear the best of players. It seems like European auditions no hire much less and they lean much more heavily on solo playing. I dunno if there's a correlation but I often wonder

[Doug Elliott]

I am wondering if and how non-playing factors do or don't figure into the hiring process.
Such as personality, people skills, reputation, integrity. Is any background check either required or forbidden?

For example, would or could a sexual predator pass an audition and get hired? Or something along those lines....

[GabrielRice]

I am wondering if and how non-playing factors do or don't figure into the hiring process.
Such as personality, people skills, reputation, integrity. Is any background check either required or forbidden?

For example, would or could a sexual predator pass an audition and get hired? Or something along those lines....

That can and has happened.

I don't know of orchestras doing background checks, though the large organizations that have teaching artists (the NY Phil) probably check those people. Non-playing factors are not taken into account. There are some people talking about changing that, but it opens a can of worms re discrimination, etc.

[harrisonreed]

I thought the section had some say if the person was a bad fit personality wise?

[CalgaryTbone]

I've never heard of personality being an issue that comes up - doesn't mean it hasn't, but I would imagine that it is extremely rare, and only if the problems were quite pronounced.

There are ways that a management can fire someone who creates serious problems in the workplace. Tenure is not there to protect people who are abusive in some way towards their colleagues or the public.

The music making is front and center in the audition process. There needs to be a high standard in fundamentals to get the attention of the committee. Then there needs to be musicality that comes through. Our biggest excerpts are tunes, written by great composers. Play those tunes with good style and some direction to the musical lines and you will have their interest. Vary the approach between different composers. The Kyrie from the Mozart Requiem and Ein Heldenleben are both melodic scale-like passages, but the style of each is drastically different.

In every audition I've ever put together, there is some solo playing to allow for more freedom for the applicants. I don't however buy the notion that excerpts are not musical. They are big moments from great pieces by great composers - there is a lot of music there, but you need to show it in your approach. I know that the best auditions that I've taken were when I felt as if I were participating in a live performance with one of the orchestras in my favorite recordings.

Jim Scott

[JamesSp]

It's a difficult one because there isnt any way to prove or check accountability surrounding it. I would wager a lot of money though that non musical reasons might not be a main cause for things like no hires but im sure its more common that what you think.

I have spoken on more than one occasion to people in full time jobs who have commented on this. I remember a principle player being very vocal on the subject saying that at the end of the day, they do want a good musician. But if it's a choice between someone who is "capable" that they like working with and someone who is clearly a superior player but they do not enjoy sitting next to, they would always take the person they know they enjoy working with.

Makes sense. But I can absolutely understand frustration from the point of view of the candidates who are trying to break into the job.

[Doug Elliott]

I realize it's a slippery slope regarding discrimination in the hiring process, but it might be even worse to find out after the fact that they've hired a pathological liar or sexual predator or worse. I know it's happened and it's a mess for everybody involved AND the orchestra.

I'm just bringing up the fact that there may be more to consider than just the screen. Everybody deserves a chance - well, almost everybody.

[CalgaryTbone]

It's a difficult one because there isnt any way to prove or check accountability surrounding it. I would wager a lot of money though that non musical reasons might not be a main cause for things like no hires but im sure its more common that what you think.

I have spoken on more than one occasion to people in full time jobs who have commented on this. I remember a principle player being very vocal on the subject saying that at the end of the day, they do want a good musician. But if it's a choice between someone who is "capable" that they like working with and someone who is clearly a superior player but they do not enjoy sitting next to, they would always take the person they know they enjoy working with.

Makes sense. But I can absolutely understand frustration from the point of view of the candidates who are trying to break into the job.

I would agree with this, but I would also say that often the issue is still a musical one. There are some great players who sound fantastic by themselves, but don't play as well in a section. Blend, dynamics, tuning, note lengths - all those things are so important for getting a cohesive sound as a section (and as a brass section too - not just matching the trombones). That's why I am a big supporter of section playing, and trial weeks with the orchestra. The audition needs to be partly about hearing that players are technically solid, but the flashiest technique doesn't always win. You can't hire someone that can't play the standard repertoire, but you mostly need someone that takes the daily elements of section playing seriously. The situation you describe can also be attributed to musical issues - a section player who has a personality that makes them always want to be noticed can be the person that plays too loud, or too long, or who takes the lead in setting accelerandos or ritards rather than following the principal, or often, the 1st trumpet. That is the situation where personality impacts musicality. This is easy to see in the string section - they don't hire an entire section of soloists, because that would never work. It doesn't mean that they hire bad musicians - quite the opposite. They look for good players who sound musical on their own, but understand the need to always strive for great ensemble playing in the orchestra.

JS

[JamesSp]

It's a difficult one because there isnt any way to prove or check accountability surrounding it. I would wager a lot of money though that non musical reasons might not be a main cause for things like no hires but im sure its more common that what you think.

I have spoken on more than one occasion to people in full time jobs who have commented on this. I remember a principle player being very vocal on the subject saying that at the end of the day, they do want a good musician. But if it's a choice between someone who is "capable" that they like working with and someone who is clearly a superior player but they do not enjoy sitting next to, they would always take the person they know they enjoy working with.

Makes sense. But I can absolutely understand frustration from the point of view of the candidates who are trying to break into the job.

I would agree with this, but I would also say that often the issue is still a musical one. There are some great players who sound fantastic by themselves, but don't play as well in a section. Blend, dynamics, tuning, note lengths - all those things are so important for getting a cohesive sound as a section (and as a brass section too - not just matching the trombones). That's why I am a big supporter of section playing, and trial weeks with the orchestra. The audition needs to be partly about hearing that players are technically solid, but the flashiest technique doesn't always win. You can't hire someone that can't play the standard repertoire, but you mostly need someone that takes the daily elements of section playing seriously. The situation you describe can also be attributed to musical issues - a section player who has a personality that makes them always want to be noticed can be the person that plays too loud, or too long, or who takes the lead in setting accelerandos or ritards rather than following the principal, or often, the 1st trumpet. That is the situation where personality impacts musicality. This is easy to see in the string section - they don't hire an entire section of soloists, because that would never work. It doesn't mean that they hire bad musicians - quite the opposite. They look for good players who sound musical on their own, but understand the need to always strive for great ensemble playing in the orchestra.

JS

Absolutely, I think we agree 100% and what you are saying is of course sensible, and sometimes when a candidate might think its not to do with their playing not getting a result they want, it very well could be.

I'm very confident though the conversation I'm referring to was quite clear in the description of how the panel will on occasion separate the musician from the person in the hiring process if it seems important in a specific context. I think its easy to say its musical issues, anyone can come up with reasons to critique music at any level, and im not suggesting it's a common practice (I really just don't know) but I think it does happen.

[DJC0189]

I am wondering if and how non-playing factors do or don't figure into the hiring process.
Such as personality, people skills, reputation, integrity. Is any background check either required or forbidden?

I've always wondered why these and similar factors are not included in the general hiring processes of this career field. I understand that the music has to come first, always, but I can't think of hardly any other fields that choose to hire people with pure anonymity until a new hire is chosen. Maybe that's as unbiased of a hiring process as possible, but it does exclude a lot of potential green flags that could push some candidates forward. We don't even strive for inconspicuousness when hiring for applied teaching positions (at least, not that I've ever heard of); granted, that is generally a more hand-on profession with other people, but nonetheless, why the disconnect within one field?

[Posaunus]

I am wondering if and how non-playing factors do or don't figure into the hiring process.
Such as personality, people skills, reputation, integrity. Is any background check either required or forbidden?

I've always wondered why these and similar factors are not included in the general hiring processes of this career field. I understand that the music has to come first, always, but I can't think of hardly any other fields that choose to hire people with pure anonymity until a new hire is chosen. Maybe that's as unbiased of a hiring process as possible, but it does exclude a lot of potential green flags that could push some candidates forward. We don't even strive for inconspicuousness when hiring for applied teaching positions (at least, not that I've ever heard of); granted, that is generally a more hand-on profession with other people, but nonetheless, why the disconnect within one field?

I think the "anonymous audition" protocols are (at least partly) a result of attempts to break the "old boy" / "favorite son" tradition and hire the best possible musicians. Now what we see are "unintended consequences."

[JamesSp]

I was talking with a few of my colleagues recently on some of these points I made, still an interesting discussion for me even with any sort of change or solution being unlikely.

What are people's thoughts on the "auto advancing" point I brought up? That one specifically myself and my colleagues couldn't find a reason why that might be a positive part of the process for either candidates in general or organisation advertising an audition. Does anyone here think or have a reason why auto advancing at auditions might be a positive thing for anyone involved? (Except obviously the person being auto advanced!)

Despite having worked professionally and auditioned quite a lot at this stage of my life , I have never been invited to be auto advanced (not that I would expect to be). I'm not saying I am jealous, it's hard to know for sure without being in the situation yourself, but I would like to think if that was ever offered to me at some point I would decline. From a personal perspective, I feel to play well overall at an audition I do need the "warm up" of earlier rounds, I think it would be hard for me to just jump in at the end. When I've had people tell me they have been auto advanced I do find it hard not to roll my eyes a little.

Has it happened to anyone here? Did you feel it improved the process in any way other than just for yourself?

[Burgerbob]

I'm not defending auto-advancing, but it does have some reasons behind it:

1. fewer people to listen to in the first round(s), frees up time for the committee

2. the first round is to weed out players who don't have the very basics down- hopefully those auto-advanced are well beyond that level

3. Keeps someone the committee wants to hear from an untimely dismissal too early in the process

[Doug Elliott]

3. Keeps someone the committee wants to hear from an untimely dismissal too early in the process

But if they can't make it past the first round why do they deserve to be in the next?

[JamesSp]

I'm not defending auto-advancing, but it does have some reasons behind it:

1. fewer people to listen to in the first round(s), frees up time for the committee

2. the first round is to weed out players who don't have the very basics down- hopefully those auto-advanced are well beyond that level

3. Keeps someone the committee wants to hear from an untimely dismissal too early in the process

Right yeah I do get the wanting less people in initial rounds, that was the main point I was addressing with the recording stuff. Ok yeah I can see it from that perspective. Not sure its enough of a justification for me but that obviously makes sense.

Point 3 is what I have a big problem with. Even great players can have a "bad day" etc. But I dont see where or why it's ok to give a specific person a free pass from that issue. If the panel doesn't trust the system to present them with players they like at the end why run it at all?

[Burgerbob]

But if they can't make it past the first round why do they deserve to be in the next?

Point 3 is what I have a big problem with. Even great players can have a "bad day" etc. But I dont see where or why it's ok to give a specific person a free pass from that issue. If the panel doesn't trust the system to present them with players they like at the end why run it at all?

Yup, I'm not defending it... but if they want candidate X to be in the finals, may as well make sure they're able to make it.

I have spoken to someone on the committee at a major audition that ended up being a no hire, and they said they were very disappointed with most of the people invited/auto-advanced.

[JamesSp]

But if they can't make it past the first round why do they deserve to be in the next?

Point 3 is what I have a big problem with. Even great players can have a "bad day" etc. But I dont see where or why it's ok to give a specific person a free pass from that issue. If the panel doesn't trust the system to present them with players they like at the end why run it at all?

Yup, I'm not defending it... but if they want candidate X to be in the finals, may as well make sure they're able to make it.

I have spoken to someone on the committee at a major audition that ended up being a no hire, and they said they were very disappointed with most of the people invited/auto-advanced.

I wonder how common that is. And whether the next time they advertise that same audition if the same people would be auto advanced in the same capacity.
I'm keen to hear from people who do defend it, I'd like to know if there is any positive motivation im not aware of behind doing it other than what you said regarding a slight culling of early rounds.

[LeTromboniste]

One case where auto-advance made sense was in certain were the "national auditions" of some Canadian orchestras, where they have to first have an audition only for residents of Canada, and could only then have an international audition if national yielded no winner. For a while, national auditions were only for show at some orchestras, and everyone knew it, and they would always go international (with several instances of a finalist not being hired at the national audition only to then win the international). In that situation the least they could do for the finalists of the sham national audition was to auto-advance them in the international audition.

[JamesSp]

One case where auto-advance made sense was in certain were the "national auditions" of some Canadian orchestras, where they have to first have an audition only for residents of Canada, and could only then have an international audition if national yielded no winner. For a while, national auditions were only for show at some orchestras, and everyone knew it, and they would always go international (with several instances of a finalist not being hired at the national audition only to then win the international). In that situation the least they could do for the finalists of the sham national audition was to auto-advance them in the international audition.

The Second to last audition I got to the end of with a no hire was a Canadian orchestra, in my home country they do national auditions before international like Canda also. I've heard a lot of people in Canada lament similar things to what you just said. It's hard to know exactly what's in a panels mind though....

I dont know I agree with you though. The pool of people between a national round and an international one is very different. Even with doing well in a national round I still think the best process is to have all candidates go from the start. That same person might not be as appealing when compared to new candidates in earlier rounds. If they do end up being the best fit for the job, then that would still shine through in an international round.

[JamesSp]

Complete transparency is not an option. Often, the committee doesn't even know the final vote - the union tabulates the results of a secret ballot vote and just reports yes or no as to the hiring of Candidate X. This is better, because it allows people to take a less popular stand if they really feel strongly in favor or against hiring that player. Remember that the Music Director is there, and they often are less than thrilled to encounter any disagreement with their position. It's a fully democratic process with everyone's vote being private. If someone were to be hired and not get tenure, they could hire a lawyer and start a suit against the orchestra or individuals. Also, in 40 years of sitting on auditions and even more years of taking them, I've never heard anyone express any reason other than a musical issue for why they can't support voting to hire someone. I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone I know in this business has ever done so.

Jim Scott

I was thinking about this comment, I'm sure you know more than me about this, but your description of this part of the process doesn't line up with the memories I've got regarding the majority of my experiences. Even just going off the two recent no hires I was a part of, one the prompter came out to say the panel have finished "discussing" and chose to not take anyone etc etc... and the other I received an email starting with "the panel met yesterday and after much discussion" etc etc... im sure I've had similar communications at auditions or post trials in previous years as well....
In those cases, those discussions could have been recorded surely? I would love to have seen the mentioned discussions. And if they are "discussing" of course the panel would know the final vote. I find it very difficult to believe even in a scenario exactly as you described, if the panel take a completely anonymous vote and there is no clear consensus of a winner that there would be absolutely zero discussion about it before management officially informing the candidates. Are you saying that is what most commonly happens?

[CalgaryTbone]

Discussions give you a very good idea of what the vote will be, however, I have seen cases where the final (secret ballot) vote went the other way than what I thought would happen. People may have changed their mind after hearing their colleagues comments. That, by the way, is the point of discussions.

Recording discussions is entirely inappropriate, and could be a legal issue. Also, imagine the fallout if you were opposed to hiring someone, and they get the job and end up as a colleague of yours for the next 20 years, knowing that you didn't want to hire them. That's a recipe for a bad work environment.

Gabe said it the best in a previous post - it's not a competition, it's a job interview. The orchestra has the right and the need to try to find a player who will fit their musical needs.

Jim Scott

[Doug Elliott]

What is the usual makeup of the committee? I know it's a "mix," but specifics? And how many?

[JamesSp]

What is the usual makeup of the committee? I know it's a "mix," but specifics? And how many?

I'm sure it varies. The last couple I did was basically around 15 people, principles and a handful of section brass as well as an assortment of principles from other sections in the winds and strings.

[CalgaryTbone]

It depends on the orchestra - it varies a lot. Here, for a brass audition, all of the brass principals, the remainder of that particular section, one principal woodwind, timpani, and the Concertmaster sits on all auditions. Also, the Music Director. Sometimes, this changes slightly if a position is open, or if someone has a conflict of interest (spouse is auditioning, for instance). Usually, in most orchestras, the particular part of the orchestra involved (brass, woodwind, etc.) has the largest representation. Some instruments like harp, for instance, would have a cross-section of the orchestra involved since there isn't a "harp section".