TubeNet

Hey if no one wins it means you might get a chance at another shot... not everyone makes the finals
Jim

tuben wrote:4 - Is the audition process fundamentally flawed?

The process is indeed inappropriate for hiring from the top of the barrel, in my opinion. When a company in the private sector selects someone for top-tier management, they first look over the industry, decide who they want, and then pursue them. For a top-tier orchestra to make a selection the way the private sector did, instead of an audition committee they would have a search committee. The search committee would visit orchestras around the country until they heard a player that impressed them, in the context of their own ensembles. Then, they would take their recommendation back to the board, who would then confirm their choice (or not), and the orchestra would make him an offer to try to draw him away from his current gig. Every deal would stand on its own. A top business executive would be asked in for an interview, but the interviews would be part of a due diligence process, not a competition.

Part of the problem with auditions is that it puts the player in a different ensemble setting than they are used to, and I can't imagine knowing enough about strangers to know how to blend with them perfectly without months of playing together. The blend on that CSO low brass CD didn't happen overnight. But likely candidates should show that degree of blend and ensemble sensitivity in their own ensembles.

Holding cattle-call auditions is a process for hiring when you haven't done the due diligence to know who you want. Consider the way top stars are selected for the movies. They don't show up to a cattle-call audition--they get pursued by the executive producers and directors on the basis of them being most suitable for the part (and for the business). It's the extras and bit-part actors who go through auditions.

In sports, the stars are pursued by recruiters, while the bench-warmers show up to the open try-outs. And so on.

Thus, it's the lower-echelon orchestras that should hold the cattle-call auditions, choosing from the young players just coming up who have not yet proven themselves in an actual gig.

Bloke talks about how the maestro made selections in the old days. This is much more like the way the private sector does it now at the top tier. And it's much more likely to zero in on a person who fits with the musicial direction of the maestro (and that is not necessarily the most skilled player). But it was also a time when the conductors were selected for long-term appointments, too, and they were expected to develop a characteristic sound or respect and reinforce the traditional sound in the ensemble.

All this stems, it seems to me, from trying to establish a process that appears to be open and fair. Public-sector hiring practices generally follow the same approach, with lots of rules about advertising and so on. In the public sector, this was done in response to the corruption of patronage politics, and that somewhat justifies it. But I can't see any such need in an orchestra, and trying to accommodate it just submerges the real objectives of the audition committee, which is to find someone who will work within their ensemble, not someone who can play the Ride at 125 dB behind a screen.

Rick "who has served on executive search committees" Denney

Rick, first of all I Do agree with your point. It makes a lot of sense and seems logical. My only concern/questions would be

1) if the "management system" as you describe were used, would this not create a problem of competition over the best players? Imagine Chicago and NY trying to outbid one another ?? Imagine the salaries

2) being that musicians are union workers...they are more like "public sector" workers are they not ?


I don't know if there will ever be a system that is truly accepted by all. But do agree that "things seem" to be getting ________ !

Quote "1) if the "management system" as you describe were used, would this not create a problem of competition over the best players? Imagine Chicago and NY trying to outbid one another ?? Imagine the salaries " Unquote

I don´t see a problem with that. Good for the musician, if he/she isn´t too greedy. It´s like on eBay: if you can´t afford it, don´t bid. Get the other one that is cheaper. They´ll do the job, too, and the average concert audience (including me, of course) won´t know the difference between a "top ten" and a "top 100" musician sitting somewhere in 2nd viola section if you have the world to choose from.

It would seem to me that negotiating individual contracts could undermine the union's strength.

Question for anyone who was around at the time (or just knows): Were the unions active at the time that the maestro-hired musicians were the rule? We are all familiar with the stories of abusive maestros of the past. Do you think that there is a correlation?

Perhaps the principal positions should be hired the old fashioned way, while section players would go through the audition process.

Whadaya think???

Z-Tuba Dude wrote:It would seem to me that negotiating individual contracts could undermine the union's strength.

I guess it comes down to whether you're more interested in each person having the ability to achieve whatever they have the ability and drive to achieve, or more interested in making sure that everyone who achieves competency gets the exact same treatment. I'm a big believer in opportunity. Give people the chance to be as valuable as they can make themselves, and to reap the rewards of their work. If the oboist is three times as valuable to an orchestra as a second violist, why shouldn't he earn three times as much?

I also think that the "star power" that comes from some of these bidding wars might do for classical music a bit of what it's done for pro sports. Trading a principle cellist and two violists to be named later for a trumpet player might be a bit much, but knowing that the guy playing the horn concerto was wooed away from orchestra X for a wad of dough would pique the curiosity of a lot of people.

What is the potential downside? You might wind up with lower chairs in even very prestigious orchestras earning relatively small salaries from their playing. In most fields, that's called "entry level", and it works out fine in the end. The best advance, those that don't advance might (or might not) leave after a few years to do something more profitable -- allowing more people, ultimately, to have a shot at making it.
________________________________
Joe Baker, who is always a believer in letting people achieve what they are able to achieve.

I know of some orchestras that have individual contracts (money) for principals, but what I was referring to was the process for hiring principals vs. section players.

If principals were actively recruited from the known pool of players, while section players go through the audition process, do you think that would be a workable scenario?

Z-Tuba Dude wrote:... If principals were actively recruited from the known pool of players, while section players go through the audition process, do you think that would be a workable scenario?

I think that'd be the best of both worlds, but (being a real freedom fanatic) I'd prefer that decision to be up to the employer -- the orchestra management. But I can't think of any reason they wouldn't want to do it this way.

Just to poke another stick in the hornet's nest: I happen to think tenure is a dumb idea for orchestral musicians. I squirm a little at the idea of tenure for University Profs, but at least there I can understand the rationale, and uneasily support it. But for musicians? I just don't get it. If your principal trumpet has lost it, and can't accept that he's lost it (or won't give up the lucrative salary), it seems tenure could cause the whole orchestra to suffer greatly. Or do orchestras have some process by which even tenured musicians can be removed?
_______________________________
Joe Baker, who thinks unions have done wonders for factory workers, but thinks the arts would be better off without them.

JayW wrote:1) if the "management system" as you describe were used, would this not create a problem of competition over the best players? Imagine Chicago and NY trying to outbid one another ?? Imagine the salaries

Yes. Competition is good. We might end up with orchestras that have a characteristic sound again. But it wouldn't be salaries that would attract the top players, because that wouldn't be possible for the orchestras. They would have to find other ways to attract top talent--the same as in the private sector.

2) being that musicians are union workers...they are more like "public sector" workers are they not ?

Yes. But that doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

It is possible to hire employees with that sort of accountability without resorting to pseudo-accountability. Consider how college professors are hired. Search committees are formed, and in addition to the open call, specific people are invited. Again, the search committee reviews the possibilities, makes a first choice, and then considers that choice in detail. If they decide to pursue that choice, they start a negotiation. If not, or if the negotiation fails, they make a second choice. Interviews, reviews of research, and so on are part of a due diligence process, not part of an open competition. The people on the search committee are expected to know enough about who they seek to know who they want based on a cursory examination of credentials--that's part of their job. The interview just confirms what they have seen in those credentials, or not. The only difference between this and how an orchestra musician should be selected (for a top-tier orchestra) is that the search committee needs to hear their candidates in the context of their own orchestras, and perhaps without the candidate even being aware of it.

The point, of course, is to understand the candidates capabilities in an appropriate context. One reason so many auditions are failing is that the context isn't telling the committee members enough until the last step when they play in a section or in the orchestra. If that's the critical test, why don't they start there? Top-tier orchestras that have established such high and peculiar standards should invest the resources necessary to measure their candidates in actual performance situations, and then pursue one candidate at a time. How's that for an incendiary statement made with excessive assurance?

Rick "who thinks its unproductive to negotiate like factory workers and then complain like college professors" Denney

Being that I have recently been weighing the consequences of "going pro" I have thought a lot about the audition process and I agree with the above statement.... I think the process needs to be revised somewhat.

Nerves obviously play a huge part in the audition process. It seems to me that lousy audition players might be terriffic and astounding section players, but they will get overlooked because they lock up in the audition process. I am one of those people that has a horrible case of the nerves. Everything about my playing changes when I am in a recital setting or audition setting. It can be in front of someone I have known for years, and I still get sweaty palms and other crazy physical symptoms when I am in a formal audition or recital setting. This is a big concern for me, given the current system of player selection. I think that orchestras may be better served by hearing the players play in the orchestra first. the answer is perhaps not to completely abolish the audition as it stands, because I admit that performance under extreme pressure is important. A revised strategy may be more effective to determine the actual capabilities and workability of the player.

Do groups that are looking for players have "scouts" that go and listen to a particular performance? I think that would be an excellent way of picking out new players becuase it gives an opportunity to hear how the individual sounds in an ensemble that he or she is comfortable playing with.

I really dont know what I am talking about because I have never had a real formal audition like one for a symphony, but thats what the internet is for, right? People like me voice their opinions when they really dont know anything! Thats just my two cents.....

Rick Denney wrote:

JayW wrote:1) if the "management system" as you describe were used, would this not create a problem of competition over the best players? Imagine Chicago and NY trying to outbid one another ?? Imagine the salaries

Yes. Competition is good. We might end up with orchestras that have a characteristic sound again. But it wouldn't be salaries that would attract the top players, because that wouldn't be possible for the orchestras. They would have to find other ways to attract top talent--the same as in the private sector.

Well, let's see--Chicago could offer a perk of "all the brats and cheese fries you could eat" and NY "all of the egg cremes that you could drink". Philly, of course, would step up with foot-long cheesesteaks. I suppose that Montreal could offer "never ending poutine". Not only would this lure the top players, but boost the mortality rate, making room for fresh new talent.

Chuck(G) wrote:Well, let's see--Chicago could offer a perk of "all the brats and cheese fries you could eat" and NY "all of the egg cremes that you could drink". Philly, ...

... then San Antonio should have THE best orchestra in the world!!
__________________________
Joe Baker, thinking a lot of southern orchestras would draw big-time if food were the determining factor.

Joe Baker wrote:

Chuck(G) wrote:Well, let's see--Chicago could offer a perk of "all the brats and cheese fries you could eat" and NY "all of the egg cremes that you could drink". Philly, ...

... then San Antonio should have THE best orchestra in the world!!

Well, considerin the size and (lack of) wealth of San Antonio as a metropolitan area, its orchestra is remarkably good.

I've been thinking about my statements since Wednesday, and I though I'd clarify something: I'm describing how it would be done if orchestras were run like the private sector, not necessarily how it should be done. That would require more expertise (musically) than I have.

But I am struck by how picky the top orchestras are (and I fully agree with Bloke that they have a right to be as picky as they want), but follow hiring practices similar to those in the private sector for less specialized and demanding positions.

Rick "who has this feeling there are lots of Tubenet readers in Philadephia" Denney

bloke wrote:

Chicago could offer a perk of "all the brats and cheese fries you could eat"

brats aren't worth eatin' until you get at least fifty miles north of Milwaukee, so...

...maybe they could offer somethin' else...bottled Chicago River water?

I used to go "back east" to pick up good kielbasa at. Maruszczak's in Hammond. Vacuum-packed so the garlic and smoke didn't stink up my luggage.