ben wrote:I have recently proposed to my quintet to expand format to a "brass collective".
A year or so ago, the Canadian Brass announced that they would have a cadre of trumpet players--four or five--two of which would be called upon for any gig or tour stop. That's why we got to hear Ronnie Romm on trumpet at the Army Conference last year. But I see that they have gone back to just listing two members (new members at that).
Rick "thinking it's hard no matter who you are" Denney
The not so nice interpretation of the OP’s fear about jealousy around paying jobs might be:
Some players are able to find time for rehearsals whenever they are preparing for a paying gig.
If a given player cannot make it for the required rehearsals, he/she has no right to be jealous about not getting a paying gig. Not even if he/she is available for the gig-date itself.
When I look at the rosters of some smaller US regional orchestras, the number of string players often looks reasonable for a smaller orchestra. But then there may be six or seven clarinetists listed. I only can only interpret that as a pool of players sharing the jobs.
Your idea about a larger group adaptable for the purpose should work among professionals wanting a business going for a long run.
imperialbari wrote:If a given player cannot make it for the required rehearsals, he/she has no right to be jealous about not getting a paying gig. Not even if he/she is available for the gig-date itself.
On the flip side, what if every player all of a sudden is available all the time. Too many cooks...
Or... if 1 of 2 (or 3) players shows up a whole bunch of times in a row he/she may get too comfortable and assume the position is his/hers (but is actually still shared, and it was only a stroke of good luck).
A lot of scenarios could pop up. It'd just be about the initial buy-in for the people in the group. If expectations are clear, then no problems... right?
bloke wrote:It's best (if not school-affiliated) imo for ONE person to "own" the quintet...the name / the charts / the booking / the hiring / the ultimate artistic decision-making (not "telling people how to play" so much as "what is to be played" and when). That person may then hire whomever they wish for whatever engagements come their way. If people are always available, always agreeable, always play great, and always show up clean/promptly, those are your "regular" members...until they aren't (etc.)
The only trouble I have found with this approach (having done it that way for many years) is that when you hire who ever is available for "hit-and-run" gigs (even if they are all good players), your don't generally get to play pieces like the Bozza, Dahl,...etc.
Those kinds of gigs don't usually lend themselves to that repertoire, and the rehearsal time is often limited.
