Auditioning the Audition Process

Some Day 4.5 thoughts…

On orchestra ownership of vacancies:

I second Rip’s fascination with the concept. There seems to be a subtext that in the US, the vacancy actually belongs to the Music Director, and the audition committee (and, by extension the orchestra) is only along for the ride – narrowing down the field of candidates from whom the MD will choose. That’s certainly the case in some orchestras, but it’s not necessarily the case. And it certainly doesn’t need to be the case.

At Dayton Philharmonic auditions, I have one vote out of a total of between 5 and 9 (depending on the position being filled). In the event of a tie result, I get a second vote. So far as I can tell, the system works just fine.

In addition, I see my role in the audition process as a facilitator/moderator. I try to involve committee members as much as possible in all aspects of the proceedings, and try to make sure that everyone has their say in the discussion phase. Having sat in on auditions back in my staff-conductor-days and seen MDs who monopolized the proceedings and stifled discussion, I try as much as possible to keep my thoughts on candidates quiet until all the musicians have weighed in. And in the cases where we don’t reach a consensus prior to voting, I’d guess that musicians’ opinions have swayed me as much as the other way around.

If musicians want to assume more ownership of vacancies à la Berlin, it should become an issue in collective bargaining. Some managements and MDs will resist, but in the long run, that resistance is futile.

On tenure decisions, a modest proposal of my own:

At the DPO – and I suspect at most orchestras – the tenure decision is essentially the MD’s. But it need not be that way. As a matter of course, I make it my business to consult with the appropriate section principal before the tenure-granting contract is offered (and before a pre-tenure contract is renewed during the probation period).

The panel’s tenure discussion makes me wonder whether, at the very least, the tenure-granting decision should involve not just the MD and the principal, but maybe the audition committee that made the selection in the first place. That would give the orchestra – through their representatives on the audition committee – a kind of ownership of the vacancy and a responsibility for following the audition-winner beyond the audition through the probationary period.

I can understand that some orchestral musicians might not want to assume the degree of ownership/responsibility that the Berlin Phil musicians take on, but by virtue of serving on the audition committee in the first place, those musicians have taken on a certain degree of responsibility. Extending their mandate through the probationary period could move us in the Berlin direction without completely changing our world, and could help us to make tenure decisions that were sounder, and, possibly, more politics-free.

As to Robert’s Day 5 questions:

Question #1: Of course not. But a concerto movement, wide-ranging and carefully chosen excerpts, maybe some chamber music, and a seriously considered probation period of up to two full seasons? I think that should be sufficient for an orchestra to select someone who will be a good and trusted colleague for the long haul. But I don’t think any system will ever leave you certain that you got the best of all possible candidates.

Question #2: It all depends on the music director, and the musicians/committee. I see no inherent reason why one or the other should make better decisions.

I’m interested in the premise behind the question… that musicians have a deeper commitment to the orchestra than music directors, which would lead them, perhaps, to make better decisions.

Because I’m a music director, I find the general suspicion of MDs interesting. (Not surprising, but definitely interesting.) Also the assumption that MDs are not as vested in the best interests of the orchestra as the musicians are.

What I read into other panelists’ statements is that they’re sick of MDs who are superficially engaged in their orchestras–who care more about who’s playing first horn for “their tour”, or who are too busy frying other fish to tend their own garden (or mix their own metaphors!)

Perhaps this should be a topic for a future virtual panel… Why do orchestras as institutions settle for MDs who are not fully/sufficiently committed to “their” ensemble? Why put up with a conductor who’s only willing to devote a fraction of the time that the players devote? Why accept a situation where there’s so much distrust of the MD’s judgment / motives / commitment? And why, when MDs change, is it so often “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”?

Thanks to our moderator and other panelists for a stimulating discussion. It has inspired me to talk to the musicians on the DPO Players’ Committee before they go into their next round of negotiations and ask if they’d like to discuss how satisfied they are with our current audition and tenure procedures. Perhaps they can go to the table with a “united front” of some possible improvements…