Auditioning the Audition Process
The question: Could Robert’s alternative audition procedure work better than the “current system”?
The definition: “work better” = be more likely to give you the best player/musician/colleague from a given candidate pool
My answer: Yes, maybe. I think Robert’s proposal could very well work better. It certainly would make possible deeper scrutiny of more facets of a candidate’s musicianship/personality.
General worry: Though not without its flaws, the current system does have the advantage of being the result of many years of incremental change, as orchestras gradually tweak and refine their procedures.
While adoption of an entirely new audition paradigm could be better than what we have now, it could also be worse. When we tweak what we have now, the worst we can do is a little damage at a time. Build an entirely different mousetrap and who knows?
Specific worry: The biggest change in Robert’s proposal is the alternative to what is now Round 1. When the only question of Round 1 is “Who that we’ve heard (a) meets our basic qualification level and (b) is worthy of a second hearing?”, it’s easy for an audition committee to give someone the benefit of the doubt. After all, hearing 12 second-rounders vs. 10 or 11 is only an investment of a few more minutes of listening.
But if the recorded prelims are the prelude to an in-depth semi-finals (especially with a plane ticket included), how long is it until a bean-counting management or board says, “Don’t bring in 12 semifinalists. Just bring the top 3 or 4.” (or 2)? Could this process inadvertently end up narrowing the range of choice?
Fundamentally, every audition is a crap shoot (for orchestra and candidate alike). Does this alternative system improve anyone’s odds when the dice roll? I’m not sure…
Answering a question with a question: How often does the current system yield a “bad result”? Or no result? I think that would be important to try to factor into the discussion.
No comments yet.
Add your comment