Do folks on orchestra auditions committee know how stupid the process is?

[aasavickas]

I am curious to hear from those who have won auditions and especially those who sit on the audition committee.

This process seems designed to not do a good job at what it attempts to do which is probably get the best musician in the chair so the group sounds good. It seems to select for young players with no artistic opinions expressed who play exactly the same as their teacher they studied with for 4 years.

I know some of the premier military bands do a taped audition then invite a few people to come play in the section and the section votes. Seems like that could be scaled up pretty easy and actually results in better players. I would love to do a study in which you take some of the best players in the world who currently sit in major orchestras and watch them not make it out of the 1st round for an orchestra that pays $75 a concert.

I suspect the consequence of this awful system is worse orchestras that take less chances and sounds exactly like all the recordings they studied from the 60's. If I want to hear Bernstein conducts a great symphony, I'll stay home and listed to some great recordings. Seems to me if I'm going to hire a baby sitter and pay the money for a ticket i want to hear something other than exactly what every other American orchestra sounds like. Maybe it is better in other countries? Maybe this is why classical music is a dying industry with less interest than even baseball, among other reasons, and many are going on strike and out of business? Don't know.

So for the folks on the committees, do you know how awful the system is and that there is a very high probability that the best players get eliminated before you even know it and the orchestra is full of good technicians but not really musicians? It would get me down to know you waste all these peoples time, to just end up with a bunch of musically mediocre musicians afraid of missing notes, rather than artists and musicians.

Please note, this post is meant to be a bit tongue in cheek and hyperbolic. I have a solid day job and occasionally audition and always have the same question. I study a lot of economics and I have trouble figuring out why people who all want the same thing, would go ahead and keep doing things the same while the world moves on to more interesting art and entertainment. There is a reason Taylor Swift sells out arenas and many good orchestras are going bankrupt. I don't see why more orchestras don't experiment with playing things a broader audience wants to hear and then slowly exposes them to more traditional stuff when they are ready for it.

I'm just curious what the perspective of those who were successful think of it. It seems like most agree, but it doesn't really change. Curious why.

[Matt K]

This is going to be fun to moderate.

[CalgaryTbone]

Auditions have their pros and cons, but the pros definitely outweigh the cons. The idea that "the best players are eliminated before you even know it" is completely false. Certainly, great players can have a bad day, but here's no way to avoid that, no matter what form the audition takes. There are lots of very good players out there, but the goal is always to find a GREAT player, who is both technically solid and a great musician. We just hired a great young player in the trombone section here who demonstrated all of that - solid playing throughout, and great chamber music skills in the section round.

My brass colleagues and I were all hired through the audition process, and I was so proud to be a part of that section as we played a blazingly exciting Verdi - Macbeth in the pit Saturday, a country Pops on Saturday and what I expect to be an entertaining children's show this afternoon. Pitch and time were great on all of these shows, as was the attention to ensemble and style. Lots of listening for balance, and the whole orchestra quickly responded when the country artist had a couple of slips in the form of the charts and we jumped to cover over the mistakes without the audience becoming aware. These artists are not robots - they are great players with solid musical skills. I frankly find the OP's premise to be completely off base and insulting, and it sounds like he needs to hit the practice room.

Jim Scott
Calgary Philharmonic

[harrisonreed]

So what you're saying is, the person who didn't miss any notes and played like their famous teacher beat, erm, your friend at the audition?

That's outrageous and preposterous! I demand they hire the one who missed lots of notes and played with their own interpretations and spiciness on everything, but really went for it!

[WilliamLang]

Being in an orchestra as a trombonist isn't about spiciness. The trombone section is usually the support mechanism in the orchestra world. You want a solid player who is fundamentally dependable 98% of the time for a principal chair, and 99% of the time for a second chair. Those players advance, and the ones that show that as a base then add that 1-2% on appropriate excerpts have the best chance of winning.

The audition process is skewed towards dependability rather than excitement in our world. The rest of the orchestra wants colleagues who are dependable and won't throw a monkey wrench into the process. I look at it the same way as a defender in soccer or a punter/kicker in american football. You don't really want excitement out of those jobs as a norm. You want the job done at a high level that stays out of the way.

Love it or hate it, there's a reason and logic to the process.

[aasavickas]

Exactly like William said above.

Most trombone playing is section work or support stuff. Hard to tell that when you are playing excerpts without the others players. Things like blend, listening, intonation, adjusting, etc., seem to. be lacking from the note perfect but boring younger players.

I'm not accusing the current players being sub par, just stating what I hear from some of the younger musicians competing for good regional part time orchestras.

Plus you hear all these stories about auditions where nobody evens a trial period. I suspect the caliber, technically if not musically, of player auditioning is far better than in the old days, google to find a famous bass trombonist with a distinguished careers whose tape from the early 80's was not good.

So the process favors and selects for soloists then asks then to do something different. Seems off to me.

[WilliamLang]

I think players now have evolved, and have gotten better both musically and technically in the last 40-50 years. I also think that the opportunities to fine tune skills in a real world context have drastically declined.

The folding of so many orchestras and the increasing lack of freelance work gives students less chance to learn "on the job" as it were, though I think they get better educations and play at a higher level now.

[BigBadandBass]

I had a long post going through all this but am editing this to say that Williams answers are totally correct and from my experience as a student who is essentially on the audition. All I want to add is this:

I’ve heard from 3/5 current members of the NYPhil that the hardest thing to do as an orchestral musician is win an audition, the second hardest? Be on an audition committee

[Kbiggs]

“Orchestras don’t want Gucci. They want Sears.”

Paraphrased and attributed to Peter Norton, bass trombone, Cincinnati S.O. (retired)

[Posaunus]

[The audition process] seems designed to not do a good job at what it attempts to do which is probably get the best musician in the chair so the group sounds good. It seems to select for young players with no artistic opinions expressed ...

I'm not quite sure where to start here. Tony seems to have a big axe to grind ... perhaps based on personal experience?

As Jim Scott and William Lang have expressed, the audition process (whether for an orchestra trombonist or an opera singer or a ballet dancer or a Broadway musical or a poetry slam) may not be perfect, but I'm convinced that it's a lot better than the outdated "good old boy" system that once was the norm.

I just returned from an incredible Los Angeles Philharmonic concert, where the players (all selected by this "stupid" process) did themselves proud. Demonstrating great versatility, the concert consisted of the world premier of a demanding modern work, a complex contemporary violin concerto by Thomas Adès, and an orchestra warhorse (Tchaikovsky Symphony 5), all led by a young conductor (Elim Chan) who is definitely going places. The brass section played magnificently, as did the entire orchestra "team." The ensemble work was beyond reproach, the sound was gorgeous, the audience was delighted. If the process that made all this happen was "stupid' then there were nearly 2,000 of us that are very gullible!

[spencercarran]

Being in an orchestra as a trombonist isn't about spiciness. The trombone section is usually the support mechanism in the orchestra world. You want a solid player who is fundamentally dependable 98% of the time for a principal chair, and 99% of the time for a second chair. Those players advance, and the ones that show that as a base then add that 1-2% on appropriate excerpts have the best chance of winning.

The audition process is skewed towards dependability rather than excitement in our world. The rest of the orchestra wants colleagues who are dependable and won't throw a monkey wrench into the process. I look at it the same way as a defender in soccer or a punter/kicker in american football. You don't really want excitement out of those jobs as a norm. You want the job done at a high level that stays out of the way.

Love it or hate it, there's a reason and logic to the process.

Exactly this. Orchestral playing (any ensemble playing really) is a team sport. Unless you're the featured soloist, your main job is to execute what the composer and conductor ask of you, not to add your own embellishments. Imagine if the second violin section had a dozen people each trying to push their own individual interpretations of a piece...

[elmsandr]

It is a terrible process… so bad that the only one that is worse is every other one that has ever been tried.

But seriously, I can’t entertain this much without specifics or clarification. I see no evidence that the process is selecting inferior candidates. Does it filter out many who can do the job, seemingly just as well? Absolutely. But does that mean all those others are “better”? Also no evidence there. So, it selects for those that have the time and ability to perfect the section of the canon that is the audition variety.

For musicality, what does each committee person want? Where exactly do you put the pitch on that last E in ‘Tuba Mirum’? Do you put it in the same place playing solo as when playing it with the singer? I don’t. For the clarinet player that may be on the committee, do they know this area of the score well enough to have an opinion on that or just on what sounds right with the line?

Right or wrong, nobody wants a group of 60-100 Taylor swifts on a stage at once. Does the audition process stamp out some regional differences? Maybe. Interesting to study, but I’m still going to doubt that as a root cause.

Cheers,
Andy

[aasavickas]

It seems everyone is more or less on the same page.


Clearly winning auditions is very hard and the process is not perfect. I'm sure the NY and Los Angelas and the rest are all fine players. My contention is that some/many/most of the people who did'nt make are probably better musicians than those who won and the orchestra would be better with only the best suited people and this process is leaving a lot of talented artists out of the job.

Also, good point about the lack of opportunity to play live with good groups to learn. This would really exasperate the process if almost all the candidates can play in time, in tune, with a good sound, and know the rep it just makes the committees job harder. A classic supply and demand situation.

I expected more pot shots at my crap playing than I got. It is a bit frustrating when you don't win an audition but I judge my playing based on how well I played yesterday and a strong clean audition is something to be proud of whether you get the gig or not. A lot of luck goes into it obviously. I never aspired to be a full orchestral musician. The music is just too little and too much counting for my taste. I prefer a jazz band, combo, or other small ensemble to classical playing.

So, yes frustraiting, but no, not an axe to grind. In my day job I evaluate systems and this seems like a sub optimal system is all.

As far as evidence, it would be a good diseration topic. Maybe a good choice for a masters thesis. I might work on it.

Many musicians are smart folks. However, many are not the best at business, economics, law, finance, marketing, etc. In my day job, I work in Finance, law, and economics, seems to me many large orchestras failing is a strong sign they are not doing something right. And along with picking tunes to play, seems like the members in the orchestra are a good place to check to see if something is up. That said, I'm not trying to throw shade at the current players. They are all excellent, I am just saying the standards have risen and opportunities decreased so that we are not get the optimal outcome.

Unfortunately, as far as study, art is subjective and any analysis would probably be econometric and not very robust, IMHO. It might be fun to survey committee members and interview successful and unsuccessful candidates to see what their experience is and if any popular changes could be taken. Then you could compare orchestras who maintained the status quo and those who don't.

I love music and enjoy playing it and listening to it. It seems to me that Classical music as a genre of entertainment has gotten cleaner but not better. Its popularity is down to a point that when the current crop of rich folks who go die, many more will fold. It seems objectively true that less people enjoy this music and less goes into in. Which is a shame since the technical chops of young musicians is great and getting better all the time.

If Mozart were alive today, I think he would be on youtube like Jacob Collier and not playing 300 year old music exactly the same as everybody else.

[WilliamLang]

The best trombonist or even the best musician in a room doesn't automatically make the best orchestral musician.

I think you hit upon one key factor - love. If you don't love the music you're auditioning to play, someone on that panel is going to hear it. There will be a lot of good options from players that really love and care for the music and excerpts they are performing, and have a certain undefinable way of conveying that emotion.

I think that's also why it's easier to win auditions while younger or closer to school age, or while playing in one orchestra and moving up the ladder. You still have that fire and passion for the classical repertoire, and honestly in some cases it hasn't been watered down by freelancing or needing to live a full life and pay the bills however possible.

[harrisonreed]

As far as evidence, it would be a good diseration topic. Maybe a good choice for a masters thesis. I might work on it.

Evidence of the best musicians being eliminated before the final rounds? That orchestras are full of technicians but not musicians? I think you answer this for yourself in the same post:

Unfortunately, as far as study, art is subjective and any analysis would probably be econometric and not very robust, IMHO..

True.

I love music and enjoy playing it and listening to it. It seems to me that Classical music as a genre of entertainment has gotten cleaner but not better. Its popularity is down to a point that when the current crop of rich folks who go die, many more will fold. It seems objectively true that less people enjoy this music and less goes into in. Which is a shame since the technical chops of young musicians is great and getting better all the time.

Am I going to the wrong concerts? Granted, I only go to the orchestra when there is an interesting soloist, but the audience is usually full and a decent mix of all ages.

If Mozart were alive today, I think he would be on youtube like Jacob Collier and not playing 300 year old music exactly the same as everybody else.

Mozart was Mozart. If he were alive today and on YouTube, he would be performing Mozart. He pretty much only performed his own music. The comparison to Jacob Collier is a good one, but I'm not sure it helps whatever point you're trying to make here.

I don't buy it. I think the biggest mix of popular music that people want to hear and classical music -- where that Venn diagram meets, so to speak -- is in modern day cinema and tv music. Howard Shore was selling out concert halls for a long time, playing his LOTR music. John Williams is legendary and did the same thing for the longest time. The music from GOT had been treated the same way. All new music, all beautiful, and it gets people in the hall. De Meij is beloved as a modern composer, and ever concert I've been to involving him conducting has been sold out and full of young people.

People might just need the visual component to go along with music these days. Nothing wrong with that, if the music is good and people are enjoying it!

[RustBeltBass]

[media][/media]

I love music and enjoy playing it and listening to it. It seems to me that Classical music as a genre of entertainment has gotten cleaner but not better. Its popularity is down to a point that when the current crop of rich folks who go die, many more will fold.

I think that statement is almost as old as classical music itself..

[brassmedic]

[Classical music's] popularity is down to a point that when the current crop of rich folks who go die, many more will fold.

https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/su ... cal-music/

https://tedgioia.substack.com/p/six-rec ... unexpected

https://vocal.media/beat/rise-in-popula ... ical-music

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/ ... 22-report/

[aasavickas]

Thanks for the links brassmedic!

I'm just reading them now. Seems like good news. Looking forward to seeing those.

[gbedinger]

[media][/media]

I love music and enjoy playing it and listening to it. It seems to me that Classical music as a genre of entertainment has gotten cleaner but not better. Its popularity is down to a point that when the current crop of rich folks who go die, many more will fold.

I think that statement is almost as old as classical music itself..

Also, consider where old people come from. There is an endless supply of future old people in the pipeline.

[2bobone]

When I achieved my first fulltime orchestral position I was told by management that classical music, particularly orchestral music, would only be around another 10 years. Receiving $10K for a yearly salary was considered as "killing the goose that laid the golden egg" ! That was in 1967 !

[Matt K]

Adjusted for inflation that's $90k in 2023, probably with decent benefits. The median household income in 1967 was $7200, so it was 28% higher than the median. And housing costs are not often factored into inflation calculations, so it's probably worth more than that now, especially in metropolitan areas where well funded orchestras tend to exist. I've had it expressed to me even by people who are rather supportive of the arts (being artists of some variety themselves) that they are quite resentful of other salaried artists making that much above the median.

I'm not endorsing this viewpoint; merely suggesting that people indicating that such a salary was a problem might have other motivations for their stated opinion beyond trying to increase the consumption of classical music and may have some other underlying cause. Especially if those comments were originating from someone in the arts.

[Cmillar]

If we, as serious musicians whether we be professional or serious amateurs, music fans, composers, conductors, (or whatever our interest is) are truly interested in wanting to help keep up certain musical standards, we should realize that the blind audition process is the best system possible up to the point where orchestras get down to deciding who they want to have sit in and play with them for some live trials.

(I don't do orchestral auditions these days, but I do have the opportunity to be behind the scenes in some and have had the opportunity to overhear the discussions from the audition committees due to my being involved with some orchestra operations work and hearing all the candidates as well...I know and have seen the musicians they're discussing!....whew... I won't talk... but all I can say is "you better not miss any notes" and that there are a lot of discussions verging on very subjective areas between the players and conductor on the committee.)

If it wasn't for the screen, we'd be living back in the day when certain orchestras would never hire any women, or these days, maybe some would never hire any men! You can use your imagination for a lot of different scenarios.

Thanks to the screen, musicians from around the world, regardless of ethnicity, sex, etc. etc. all have an equal shot at showing what they can do.

For better or worse, there isn't a better audition system right now in order to keep up high musical standards.

[Trombonjon]

Can't help but to wonder what Abbie Conant would have to say regarding this subject. Personally, I believe that symphony orchestras going out of business here and there, is more of a management failure than a musical problem.

[BurckhardtS]

I have more issues with the fact that winning orchestra auditions is how people justify "music performance" degrees and careers (coming from someone who has one) which continues to churn out excerpt robots and junkies that do not have any sense of artistry and don't have any skills other than to be able to take 3 weeks to perfect 8 measures of music.

I think being able to work up auditions is a great skill to have, unfortunately being a working musician or artist does not involve that on a day to day basis.

As for the audition process itself... yeah it's flawed and more often than not the flaws come from the committee itself rather than the actual audition. How many Atlanta principal trombone auditions have we had that have had no winner yet? I PROMISE there are more than enough qualified candidates.

I'm probably gonna catch some shit for this, but it's what I feel after being a freelancer for most of my life and especially the last 4 years.

[Posaunus]

Blind auditions should ideally be accompanied/supplemented by "live" tryouts in rehearsal/concert settings to ensure compatibility (personality/musicality) with the section and the ensemble. Not always practical, I suppose, but would sure make everyone feel better.

[sungfw]

Can't help but to wonder what Abbie Conant would have to say regarding this subject. Personally, I believe that symphony orchestras going out of business here and there, is more of a management failure than a musical problem.

I don't think there's the least bit of doubt as to what Ms Conant would say. As far back as 1998, Ms Conant was publicly calling for the Deutsche Orchester Vereinigung (the German musician's union) to eliminate the requirement for photos and gender identification from orchestral job applications and to employ screens in ALL rounds of auditions.

Nothing I have read or heard since then even remotely suggests that Ms Conant has changed her stance.

[sungfw]

Blind auditions should ideally be accompanied/supplemented by "live" tryouts in rehearsal/concert settings to ensure compatibility (personality/musicality) with the section and the ensemble.

They already do: it's called a probationary or a trial period,

[brassmedic]

I have more issues with the fact that winning orchestra auditions is how people justify "music performance" degrees and careers (coming from someone who has one) which continues to churn out excerpt robots and junkies that do not have any sense of artistry and don't have any skills other than to be able to take 3 weeks to perfect 8 measures of music.

I don't think that's even remotely true. They teach all kinds of things besides just orchestra excerpts. Solo performance, brass ensemble, wind ensemble, etc.

I think being able to work up auditions is a great skill to have, unfortunately being a working musician or artist does not involve that on a day to day basis.

Doesn't it, though? What's your job in a symphony orchestra? They send you the music, you learn it (extremely well if you want to keep your job), then you rehearse and perform it. You are expected to execute it flawlessly, and yes that often means working on the same 8 bars over and over so that you can play it without screwing up when the time comes. You're expected to have a consensus with your fellow players regarding phrasing and musicality. You're really not showing your individuality as a musician except for rare occasions. And auditions almost always have a concerto requirement, so you do get to demonstrate your individual musicality there. EDIT: Come to think of it, sight-reading is frequently asked on auditions as well, and even section playing.

As for the audition process itself... yeah it's flawed and more often than not the flaws come from the committee itself rather than the actual audition. How many Atlanta principal trombone auditions have we had that have had no winner yet? I PROMISE there are more than enough qualified candidates.

Agreed, but the process isn't flawed; the people are flawed. They do not have faith in the process and wish to circumvent it. I think a lot of folks in the music business would rather just get "their friend" on the job. And I don't blame them - don't we all like to work with our good friends? But is that really the way to get the most qualified person for the job?

[Burgerbob]

Sasha, I'd also have to broadly disagree with your sentiment. The people winning auditions right now are by and large deserving of jobs. The people not winning? Some of them probably deserve jobs too, but there simply aren't enough... so they do the freelance thing like us or they do something else. And that's fine.

I think what William said here is also worth saying again...

"I think that's also why it's easier to win auditions while younger or closer to school age, or while playing in one orchestra and moving up the ladder. You still have that fire and passion for the classical repertoire, and honestly in some cases it hasn't been watered down by freelancing or needing to live a full life and pay the bills however possible."

[hyperbolica]

I have a friend who plays in an orchestra that requires auditions. I've heard him say more than once that there is nothing creative about what they look for in an orchestral trombonist whatsoever. He feels like the orchestra just wants people to replicate the desired sounds as robotically as possible. Orchestral section player doesn't even really involve interpretation, you're just executing the conductor's interpretation. So to assign these jobs some sort of artistic value is a bit of a conceit. By getting the highest level players, they by necessity get some great artists, but to a large extent, that artistry isn't used to its best potential reading 150 year old music that has been performed countless times. Replicating marks on the page with perfect time and intonation is the work of a technician, not an artist. Orchestral playing is very "color by numbers" rather than blank canvas creative painting.

[RustBeltBass]

I have more issues with the fact that winning orchestra auditions is how people justify "music performance" degrees and careers (coming from someone who has one) which continues to churn out excerpt robots and junkies that do not have any sense of artistry and don't have any skills other than to be able to take 3 weeks to perfect 8 measures of music.


As for the audition process itself... yeah it's flawed and more often than not the flaws come from the committee itself rather than the actual audition. How many Atlanta principal trombone auditions have we had that have had no winner yet? I PROMISE there are more than enough qualified candidates.

I'm probably gonna catch some shit for this, but it's what I feel after being a freelancer for most of my life and especially the last 4 years.

Not sure if I understand the first quoted paragraph correctly, despite having lived in the US for quite a few years now,English is not my first language after all, so I am making sure I understand correctly: Who are you calling “excerpt robots and junkies” precisely? Those winning jobs these days or those graduating with music degrees ?

Regarding the Atlanta Symphony comment: I have attended trombone auditions that didn’t result in finding a winner in multiple attempts of finding one. Many people (and myself included) made the same comment back then. “How dare they not announcing a winner”..as I am getting older, I look at it a bit differently: Yes, there were certainly candidates who are able to do the job at these auditions, that’s for sure. But among those, theoretically qualified through their general playing skills, was
there someone there on that day who was able to “deliver” their best playing through two or three rounds on these auditions? And if so, was this individual/were those individuals playing in a way that was not just very high level, but matching the orchestra’s needs of a principal trombone right away ? If not, were they able to adjust ? I can not answer these questions but unless you weren’t on the panel that day, neither can you. Orchestras want to hire, nothing is more frustrating (as I have seen and learned) than an audition that results in nothing for both the candidates as well as the ensemble. It is easy assigning blame without having listened to everything the panel has listened to.

[Burgerbob]

I've talked to a committee member of a major orchestra after a no hire. He said simply

"No one showed up on the day ready to win."

The committee is well aware that a good percentage of the people there are potential winners... but if they don't play well enough, the point is moot.

[mbarbier]

I've talked to a committee member of a major orchestra after a no hire. He said simply

"No one showed up on the day ready to win."

The committee is well aware that a good percentage of the people there are potential winners... but if they don't play well enough, the point is moot.

I feel like people gloss over this a lot. Every time I talk to someone one a committee that hired no one I hear them say that no one showed up ready to win. Committee members I know (in relation to Cleveland LA Phil no hires, though I know Cleveland was....a special case for a ton of reasons) said that they knew the people in the finals could do the job, but didn't show up and play at the level that's expected for that job. I known people bag on the process cause of the no hires, but I find something also a bit comforting in the commitment to fairness when hiring the person who shows up and shows the skills needed that day rather just someone they know can do it. It's how it's supposed to work.

Rick Stout talks about the no hires in Cleveland in his interview with the Trombone Retreat and sheds some great light on the issue if anyone is interested.

When it's more regional orchestras that have to hire someone a thing I hear really frequently is that they had 50 people show up, 49 played the rhythms wrong so they hired the one that played in time.

I agree a lot with the saying of it being the best worst system. It's not great but has a lot more fairness than the other systems that have existed.

I sometimes wonder if the screen staying up the entire time for the Met auditions helps with them always hiring someone because there's not suddenly a shift for the finals that can throw people off. Id be interested to hear from people who have gone through that process and if they find that helped them play their best.

[RustBeltBass]

When it's more regional orchestras that have to hire someone a thing I hear really frequently is that they had 50 people show up, 49 played the rhythms wrong so they hired the one that played in time.

Not sure who said that and in what context, but in my experience that is incorrect. In the regional orchestra auditions that I won as well as during those I was in the finals for, the semi and last round usually consisted of people who are the top substitutes with top 10 orchestras, college professors at very serious trombone schools, military musicians as well as high level studio musicians, paired with extremely talented students, many of which since done rather well for themselves.

[mbarbier]

When it's more regional orchestras that have to hire someone a thing I hear really frequently is that they had 50 people show up, 49 played the rhythms wrong so they hired the one that played in time.

Not sure who said that and in what context, but in my experience that is incorrect. In the regional orchestra auditions that I won as well as during those I was in the finals for, the semi and last round usually consisted of people who are the top substitutes with top 10 orchestras, college professors at very serious trombone schools, military musicians as well as high level studio musicians, paired with extremely talented students, many of which since done rather well for themselves.

Yeah I that totally happens too. I hear that from friends that sometimes the audition comes down to really hard choices cause they like multiple people so much or there's a clear winner they hear in the first round. I don't think I did a very job of expressing it, but what I meant is that it can just be all over the map. That particular story is from a trumpet player friend and was referring to a recent bass audition in their orchestra. Also said they had a horn audition where it was clear who was going to win basically from note one of the prelims. Just kinda depends on the day. But I hear a lot of complaints about wrong rhythms from otherwise good players regardless of instrument being a frustrating thing at auditions given how essential that is in orchestra.

Though there does seem to be a trend with people my age and younger (I'm in my late 30's) where people start practicing exceprts so young that there's just intensely ingrained habits that people struggle to break. I hear it regularly in my students who play at one level and then make mistakes they don't otherwise make in excerpts. Definitely a thing I struggle with too and a lot of my colleagues say about their own practice. Makes sense that it shows up at auditions- it's hard to get those kinda of habits out.

[2bobone]

In a 25 year career in a major symphony orchestra, I was appointed to an audition committee on three occasions. The first was for a principal trombone position when John Marcellus left to join the Eastman School of Music as professor of trombone. The second was for a violist position. The third was for the assistant principal position which was won by David Finlayson who was soon "stolen" away to the New York Philharmonic by Zubin Mehta when Dave filled in for the principal player during a performance of the Mahler 3rd Symphony. Even Mahler was impressed with his performance ! In all instances I kept meticulous notes as to every aspect of the auditioner's performance and much to my surprise I recently came across some of those notes. Believe me, the committee members take the responsibility very seriously probably because we remembered when we were hoping to win a position ourselves. The musicians invited to live auditions were chosen from submitted recordings. Some try to game the system by submitting a recording performed by someone other than themselves and we clearly caught such an individual during our elimination process. I suppose that they hoped to get "a foot in the door" and to play over their heads on that day ---- which I've seen happen !
I noticed that the OP offered no possible solutions to the present arrangement, so until someone does offer a better alternative, I suggest that we stick with what we've got. It's a jungle out there !

[Macbone1]

I have no such magnificent stories to share but one occasion comes to mind. A number of years ago I auditioned for the sub list for a very highly regarded local orchestra. The proceedings were as stringent as for any top orchestra in the world! (I imagined). Blind audition and no talking (which would reveal gender - whatever THAT is worth nowadays). The committee chair spoke so softly behind the screen that I could not understand a word and HAD to ask for a repeat. Automatic fail....

[Kbiggs]

I think it’s very similar to what Winston Churchill said about democracy:

“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time…”

[Digidog]

I have read the whole thread and there are some really great and true replies that I fully concur with, and, basically, I support the auditioning system as it mostly is practised.

I have been in committees for many schools on all levels, though not for an orchestra, and I have seen some interesting variations and deviations of what the applicants show, that I think deserve some consideration.

I once was on the committee for the auditions to a musical school at junior high level, and we got two consecutive applicants that had me seriously thinking:

One was a boy on trumpet. For his age, he played an advanced piece, interpreted it quite well for the standards and had managed the theoretical tests very well.

The other was a girl on baritone. She played two really basic children's songs by heart, could not sight read when asked to play another children's song from provided notes and had utterly failed the theory tests.

The problem was that the trumpet boy had really awful tone, no real range, showed a troubled embouchure and displayed no real listening to the pianist accompanying him, and thus a no good intonation. The tuba girl, on the other hand, had wonderful tone, showed a great range, could play really well with the pianist, showed good hearing and some (very) basic improvisational skills.

After the auditions, I discreetely looked into the two kid's backgrounds and found that the boy had been groomed on his instrument from an early age, had had all the "right" teachers and had over-the-top supporting parents. The girl had played baritone for about two and a half years, had troublesome and divorced parents, causing her to live with her grandparents, and had had her maternal grandfather teaching her as the horn was originally his, from him having been an amateur musician.

On the committee, I argued the trumpet boy to not be accepted, since there were limited openings for brass students, and put forward my arguments - roughly as the above - as for why the girl was the better candidate, but was outvoted 3 to 2, with the chairman's as the decisive vote.

That little trumpet guy studied two years, before changing study and school, while I've never seen or heard from the girl again.

Through the years, I've felt somewhat bad that I didn't press the matter harder, but I was in a sort of a junior position then (some twenty years ago), and really couldn't argue, propose and advance as I can today.

The auditioning system can most definitely be improved, and changed, but that takes careful consideration and designing of what it should be replaced with - if that is to be.

[JohnL]

Through the years, I've felt somewhat bad that I didn't press the matter harder, but I was in a sort of a junior position then (some twenty years ago), and really couldn't argue, propose and advance as I can today.

I doubt if you could have changed their minds no matter how hard you tried. Despite the fact that the young lady seems to have had more "upside potential" than the young man, I suspect that she was subjected to multiple internal biases on the part of some of the committee members (and I don't mean gender).

...the boy had been groomed on his instrument from an early age, had had all the "right" teachers and had over-the-top supporting parents.

Did the members of the committee know said teachers?

[Digidog]

Through the years, I've felt somewhat bad that I didn't press the matter harder, but I was in a sort of a junior position then (some twenty years ago), and really couldn't argue, propose and advance as I can today.

I doubt if you could have changed their minds no matter how hard you tried. Despite the fact that the young lady seems to have had more "upside potential" than the young man, I suspect that she was subjected to multiple internal biases on the part of some of the committee members (and I don't mean gender).

I suppose you're right. They probably were decided beforehand and nothing I could have said and done would have changed their minds. It may be a sense of not having done my outmost, my best, that has been nagging me over the years - thinking of it.

...the boy had been groomed on his instrument from an early age, had had all the "right" teachers and had over-the-top supporting parents.

Did the members of the committee know said teachers?

I think so, but I honestly don't remember (and at the time not fully knew) who knew who in the town where this happened, at that time. Since the boy's parents were so pushing and ambitious about his playing, he had taken lessons, as I recall, for many quite well known trumpeters, one of whom (at the time a trumpeter of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra in Stockholm) must have seen, mentioned and worked on his embouchure issues. That guy then taught many students at the Royal College of Music, and it is totally impossible that he would have failed to try working on that young guy's problematic embouchure.

[Doug Elliott]

FWIW...
I have been on a few panels judging solo competitions both jazz and classical, mostly at ITF subbing for a judge who wasn't there. I guess I'm just coming from a different perspective but I have usually disagreed with the other judges, for various reasons like musicality and intonation.

[ithinknot]

various reasons like musicality and intonation

I May Be Wrong (But ...I'm not)

[GGJazz]

Hello all .

Very good answers about this thread.
I would like to share my personal opinion.

( I have been in some panels to judge final graduations as well as admissions , at the National Conservatory of Bologna and Cesena , here in Italy ) .

If being on a Orchestra auditions Committee were like being on a Committee to judge a mathematic exam for engineers , there would be no problems . Whoever solves the given test wins , and if there were to be more people to have solved it , we would move to an even more difficult test , and again , until only one candidate remain . This one would be "the winner" ..

To me , I think that in Music things does not work like that , because of personal taste and different opinions.

Just to have fun , if you have to choose among these 3 candidate for a principal cello position , who would win ?

Piece for the competition : Bach Cello Suite n° 1 in G major

Candidates :

Misha Maisky
Yo-Yo Ma
Pablo Casals

Whoever I would choose , would be according my personal taste , ecc . However , it would not be a "dogma" , an "absolute truth" . Some will prefer a different one , for sure .
(Personally , I like Misha Mainsky all over )

So , I guess it could be the same in a orchestra audition , or College admission , ecc .
In a committee there are many diifferent man that judges; , so different ears , different opinions , different taste , ecc . Of course , everyone think to be right in his judgements.

Regards
Giancarlo

[WilliamLang]

I love a lot of what you brought up here, and I can definitely see why it's nagged you over the years. There are so many students that need someone in their lives, and we should always be asking ourselves what exactly we're seeing as teachers, mentors, and gatekeepers.

It's extraordinarily difficult to make it in music on one's own - to a degree that I think few professionals will ever really understand. Auditioning at the school level should take all of this into account, and should happen from the perspective of kindness and potential, which admittedly is hard to see in every case.

In situations like the tuba student, I've often discreetly reached out and offered free lessons after the fact in alike situations, sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't, but the idea of trying to hold the door open for a student as long as possible is one way to look at it.

I also think that there's a difference in auditioning to be a student somewhere and auditioning to be in a professional orchestra. At that final level all bets should be off - and I personally really admire the Met Opera system if always voting blind and independent, and always having a winner. I think that orchestra sounds the best in the country, and their auditioning process to me is a huge reason why.

I doubt if you could have changed their minds no matter how hard you tried. Despite the fact that the young lady seems to have had more "upside potential" than the young man, I suspect that she was subjected to multiple internal biases on the part of some of the committee members (and I don't mean gender).

I suppose you're right. They probably were decided beforehand and nothing I could have said and done would have changed their minds. It may be a sense of not having done my outmost, my best, that has been nagging me over the years - thinking of it.

Did the members of the committee know said teachers?

I think so, but I honestly don't remember (and at the time not fully knew) who knew who in the town where this happened, at that time. Since the boy's parents were so pushing and ambitious about his playing, he had taken lessons, as I recall, for many quite well known trumpeters, one of whom (at the time a trumpeter of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra in Stockholm) must have seen, mentioned and worked on his embouchure issues. That guy then taught many students at the Royal College of Music, and it is totally impossible that he would have failed to try working on that young guy's problematic embouchure.

[sungfw]

I also think that there's a difference in auditioning to be a student somewhere and auditioning to be in a professional orchestra. At that final level all bets should be off - and I personally really admire the Met Opera system if always voting blind and independent, and always having a winner. I think that orchestra sounds the best in the country, and their auditioning process to me is a huge reason why.

I think that an excerpt from a post about recent no-hire auditions over on Tubenet identifies the biggest difference between student auditions (as well as juries and solo competitions; honest question: when was the last time a major trombone competition didn't award a first prize?) and professional orchestra (and premier military band) auditions:

Shortly after I became a professional, I had the opportunity to sit behind the screen for a 3rd Trumpet audition in my orchestra. I had spoken with friends in the area and knew the best players would be there. WOW.....what a revelation. Players were obviously tight/nervous and had GLARING issues with the basics of time and intonation. Players also played in the "center" of each note only about 60-70% of the time. Yet, after the audition these friends who took the audition said they felt like they "nailed it". The panel felt otherwise and didn't offer the spot to anyone.

Where was the disconnect with these players??

Well, first, the panel had 5 minutes to hear these players....not 2-4 years like their teachers and friends who were making up their mock audition panels. Mock-audition panels made up of friends and teachers can often be a situation where you have a understanding or forgiving panel. The real audition panel doesn't have the luxury to interpret whether or not a flaw is “rare” (especially if they ask the candidate to do it again and the same issue occurs). They get 5 minutes. And you know, that's more than enough time to know if a player plays in tune and in time.

I cannot tell you how many times a player has been asked to play something again softer/louder/faster/slower and played it EXACTLY THE SAME the second time. I would say this occurs 99.9% of the time when a candidate is asked to repeat an excerpt and change something. Guess what the player has just told the panel?...."I CAN'T fix the problem...it is ingrained and is one of my flaws".

I suspect that difference is what Doug Elliott is alluding to, at least in part, in his comment re: disagreeing with other judges "for various reasons like musicality and intonation."

[2bobone]

Maisky and Ma appear to be about the same age and Casals is obviously much older. Those facts along with the huge difference in recording technique makes the choice an "Apples & Oranges" sort of deal. I always told my students that the Cello Suites were a "musical conversation" between two individuals. Without prejudice, all three performers are having different "conversations" and all three seem to be enjoying that conversation with different people and about different subjects. As an old friend used to say, "That's why they make both chocolate AND vanilla" ! -------- I might add Tutti-Fruiti !

[GGJazz]

Hello again.
Hello 2bobone .

Of course , what I wrote above was an "hypothetical" speech .

What I meant to highlight was that a Commettee have to chose among the candidates , and this is not so easy because there are more than one judge in a Committee . And even if the candidates are all monster-genius players , you have to choose just one of them .

I agree with the actual way to make the auditions' process ; I do not think that blind auditions will solve anything , because , at the end , you have to make a choice .

If I said that I prefer Mischa Mainsky , this do not means that I dont' like Ma and Casals !! It is just a choice , as the Committee have to do in auditions .

Of course , this is only my personal opinion .

Regards
Giancarlo

[WilliamLang]

I gotta say in the cello recordings, I'd take Yo-yo for an orchestral job, Mischa for a recital-soloist role (though I do think Yo-yo plays better to a crowd as large as the one in the Hollywood Bowl and as a concerto soloist) and I'd prefer to listen to Casals in my own time.

Different skills for different jobs!

[JamesSp]

I had been thinking about starting my own thread before seeing this one, hopefully my thoughts fit here.

Just for context, I've been taking auditions for full time positions in various ensemble settings over the last 10 years or so with varying levels of failure/success. I've was offered a position after an audition one time, (I turned it down) and have been offered a handful of trials across few countries after auditioning. I've also had one instance where it was myself and one other candidate at the end of finals and after we both played the orchestra decided not to hire, so I've been through the process quite a lot.

In my opinion, the main problem with auditions now is the number of applicants, im convinced a lot of peoples grievances with the audition process can be traced back to how many people are now applying for a single performing position. In my home city, one of the trombone players in the Symphony there had a nearly 40 year career. He told me when he was offered the job in the 80's he was one of three applicants. When he retired and that job came up again a few decades later, there was something like 50 applicants. Obviously not a record number, but I find that increase pretty intense.

What I think full time music ensembles should do for auditions is this, I'd be curious to hear people's problems with this suggestion.

I think first rounds should be audio with video recording only, with all rounds after being live. From an applicants perspective, this saves having to make a costly travel trip with a danger of being knocked out in round one, and if your recording advances to a 2nd live round, you know the panel is actually interested in hearing you.
From the ensembles perspective I think this also works. You get the organisations admin to review the tapes, find some way of keeping the applicants anonymous, then send the recordings to the panel members and tell them to have their votes in by "X" date. This way, the panel doesn't have to spend a whole day listening to a million first rounds (or they do, their choice how to stagger it), and you don't have to find a time where every panel member is available to sit together at the same time for the audition.

Once the votes are tallied and applicants chosen, send live invites to those that the panel actually wants to hear. Much shorter day for all involved, then the process proceeds like normal.


More related to this thread, I think while the audition process is not perfect, I've not seen an alternative I think is better. In the current system I'd like to see what I already suggested for first rounds, but I would also be thrilled to see the screens up for the entire process, and I would love to see a ban on auto advancing candidates. If the ensemble thinks someone is qualified for an immediate final, they should have no problem going through the process same as everyone else.

I have seen a few times now full time ensembles advertise for "expressions of interest". My understanding of how that works is applicants send a CV, and the ensemble picks candidates from their CV's to come and do a few weeks work with them and maybe a short audition during that process. I like the idea of giving candidates a chance to show what they can do in the actual job, but overall I think this is absolutely the worst process as all it is, is really just taking down the screen so the ensemble can hand pick who they want. I dont think that is good for the industry.