your opinion: REAL sightreading for orchestral auditions

[iiipopes]

Besides, the way orchestras tend recycle their material, with relatively little new repertoire, what is there to sight read, anyway?

[djwesp]

I BELIEVE in sightreading for Orchestral auditions.


The last two auditions I have been to, the bulk of those present were "just getting an audition under their belt", were "getting experience", were doing it for credit for orchestral rep classes, or other such things.


Adding legitimate sight reading would minimize this. If you aren't confident enough to sight read in front of a panel (as most of these players can barely get thru the material), then you shouldn't be there to begin with.


This goes under the same category of those who gripe and complain about Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique and Romeo and Juliet. DEAL WITH IT. If you want to get paid to do what you are doing, you should play it, regardless of whether or not it was intended for something closer to a french tuba than a bass.


Most orchestra conductors can't look at your horn and see the difference between a bass and a contrabass, let alone know what authentic instrumentation for the time period was.


Wes "who has performed from sight for two little kids concerts (or bach in blue jeans, as it is called)--it does happen!" Pendergrass

[tubaman5150]

I feel there is merit in having sightreading being a part of any audition. I agree that preparation for rehearsal is always better than trying to "shoot from the hip", but I would think that a committee would be just as interested in seeing the canidate play under real pressure without copious amounts of preparation. Its often been said on this board that there are always several players out of any audition that could have won that gig. I would suppose that sighreading helps sort these folks out.

I feel there's already enough useless bullshit associated with "fairness" and "determining the best player" to the point where the whole orchestral audition exercise is a joke in the US. Do you hear me? A JOKE. And threads like this one feed that situation. Sight reading for the most part as an audition discriminator would be pointless, to attempt it would just feed more of the endless practice-room jock whining about fairness and "so-and-so has played that before" bullshit. It is no damn wonder that the cynicism of management (and even players/selection committee members) has got to the point where wholesale ensembles are tanking, not on their lack of ability or ensemble-ness but on their ridiculous approach to business. Think about it, how often has constant public second-guessing of any profession improved that profession in the long run? It feeds cynicism, and apathy. NO one who has posted here in this thread would question ANY sight-reading capability of ANY (full-time professional) orchestral chair winners. But if they would, then they are apes

Joe has created a rose brass herring, and he oughta be commended for duping so many well-meaning freak jury members into going along with it.

Since I have no more interest in pursuing an orchestra chair due to said audition "process", I'm confused about what part of what I said was "useless bullshit"?
Yeah..
There is alot of rhetoric about merit versus ability in the ever so lofty orchestra "business", but so what. Politics and professional music are shamlessly joined at the hip to the extent that pointing out that relationship is cliche. But so is whining about those who whine about it.
It's my (and your) God given right to bitch about things I have no business with. I would suspect that's why Bloke enjoys stirring the pot so much.
As for sightreading in general, it's has gotten me more gigs than my degrees, reputation, pedigree, hair color, shoe size...whatever. If an audtion commitee wants to use sightreading to squeeze the private parts of an auditionee, more power to them. If they want to the candidate to do the watusi while whistling the 1812 Overture, then put up or shut up. The process may be a joke and I agree, but it beats working in fast food business (the haven for the cynical and the apathetic).
Whew...

Rant over.
Its always fun to get on our respective high horses about topics which have little real impact on most of us freak jury, but makes for good cannon fodder.

[eupher61]

RE: the Grofe'

Several years ago, I subbed for some school concerts. Rehearsal at 8am, concerts at 930, 11, and 130 or something similar.

On the Trail and the Thunderstorm were on it. I'd never seen the part (played a bad band adaption of OTT many times, had heard the whole suite, just never played the part) and had to perform that thing on 1 rehearsal. It worked fine. On F.

And, to add fun, the conductor took it about 30 clicks faster at the last show. Get it over with. WOW~

But it worked. On F.

[Chuck Jackson]

Thunderstorm

I can nearly guarantee that you, nor anyone else, has played, sight-read, nor otherwise read "Thunderstorm" from Grofé's Grand Canyon Suite on an F tuba. It simply cannot be played on an F tuba at ANY speed.

I dunno Joe, Bob1062 prolly does down 3 octaves on a 3 valve baritone.

[Mark]

Thunderstorm

I can nearly guarantee that you, nor anyone else, has played, sight-read, nor otherwise read "Thunderstorm" from Grofé's Grand Canyon Suite on an F tuba. It simply cannot be played on an F tuba at ANY speed.

I've played the Grofe, with an orhcestra, and I tend to agree with Joe. Especially, if you are tempted to do the seemingly natural thing with the quarter-note triplets just before 15 and continue them down to pedal A. (No, Bob, you can't do it with false tones on a Eb either.)

BTW, it's Cloudburst not Thunderstorm.

[tubaman5150]

um....here's a concept "the discussion is not about you"

Relax dude...
When you hit the "quote" button, you are responding personally to someone's post.
Despite that, I happen to mostly agree with what you said, but I just wanted add my little rant.
That's all. No offense taken or intended.

[eupher61]

Um...sorry guys, but at the time I played the Grofe', I didn't have anything but my B&S F and a couple of souzies. Believe, me, I didn't want to try it on a souzie, even on the King Monster 4vlv BBb.

You can say what you want, but that's the facts.


[/img]

[windshieldbug]

Um...sorry guys, but at the time I played the Grofe', I didn't have anything but my B&S F and a couple of souzies. Believe, me, I didn't want to try it on a souzie, even on the King Monster 4vlv BBb.

You can say what you want, but that's the facts.


[/img]

wow. you must have mad skilz!

[Chuck Jackson]

Well I never said I could, and have never even heard of the piece. But that's still sorta of an asshole thing to say.

Relax, Bob. You have got to admit you have set yourself up for that kind of comeback. Nothing personal.

Chuck"who has enjoyed the charismatic if somewhat over the top posts of Bob1062 since he has been on this board"Jackson

[Biggs]

49

[Chuck Jackson]

What the hell............50

[windshieldbug]

[windshieldbug]

I don't really understand the quote. It seems to imply that we've gone "down", whereas I see the analogies as much more "static"

Perhaps it's us who don't care to admit we're already voting for "plants"...

[Rick Denney]

I don't really understand the quote. It seems to imply that we've gone "down"...

What makes you think that? I've known some pretty intelligent plants.

Rick "who thinks such comparisons need the perspective of considerable time" Denney

[Robert N. Calkins]

I great number of years ago, I auditioned for the St. Louis Symphony. The sight reading for that was an excerpt from a piece by Anton Webern. This was a killer rhythmically, as the 32nd note received the beat and it had a truckload of rests, double dotted notes and other such traps. The passage only contained about 10 notes, but went from ppp to fff. The rhythm did me in, especially at 40 bpm! The audition committee even let one sit in a room by yourself and look at the part before hearing you play any part of your audition. Needless to say, it weeded out the candidates very quickly. BTW, Gene Pokorny won that audition.

[tubaman5150]

Just out of curiosity, who do you think was a GOOD president?

I'm going to assume that the chiz will allow historic discussions, but not current...

...OK, G. Washington was pretty darn good, but his duties were not adulterated by presidents (small "p", and pronounced "s", not "z"). A fantasy COMBINATION of Adams and Jefferson WOULD have made a good President, but individually they both had their weaknesses.

Lincoln, in particular, was a shameful President - perhaps the most shameful of all time. If you read historical accounts (rather than nursery school history books) you'll discover what a horrible racist he was, the true meaning of the E.P. (merely a wartime propaganda insult to the CSA), how much of what the Constitution formerly guaranteed you was permanently scuttled, and just how easily he could have avoided a half million deaths.

Truman was the first President to lose a war (Korean - as we've lost all wars in which we've engaged ever since using the same strategy we employed in Korea - by FAILING to use everything at our disposal to win), but I admire Truman for his earlier (WWII) courage to use the atomic bomb at a time when no other decision would have resulted the immediate end of the war (victory) and the immediate cease of loss of life.

Though this thread itself is about to be "permanently scuttled", I will drop my two cents...
The difficult thing about assessing past presidents, is the allure to view them in a 21st century senitment. I do not believe that Lincoln was any more of a racist than any of his contemporaries, but he used racial rhetoric as political posturing to his own ends. As to whether he could have prevented a civil war, I don't think so. Both sides had been pursuing some type of conflict for years before he came to office, but neither side expected a four year slaughter. I think if we had not had that war though, as grisly as it was, I don't think we have a very strong federal government today. Whether or not that is favorable is completely in the eye of the beholder.
As for the wars we lost, every single on of them were fueled by the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary to combat Soviet (or some other) "influence" in the East. These type of conflicts never, and will never (IMHO), turn out in our favor and always produce the most senseless casaulties. Because of "measured" responses and lack of allied support, those particular president's hands were tied.

[tubaman5150]

When human beings start hurling insults, it is only then that their true selves are revealed.

I'll drink to that.

[windshieldbug]

When human beings start hurling insults, it is only then that their true selves are revealed.

Only a (blanking) tuba player would say that! So's your old man!

[hbcrandy]

For the New York Philharmonic audition in 1979, the sight-reading piece was written for the audition. I remember that it was manuscript with no title and quite 20th century.