Auditioning the Audition Process

Robert wrote:

“I hope no one will reply that most auditions aren’t done that way, as most auditions in the US and Canada are done that way.”

I disagree. In my years sitting on audition committees we would listen to a (by example, section viola auditions-sorry, Robert) finalist perform in a Mozart quartet, and I asked myself “what is it we are trying to discern at this point in the audition, and is the repertoire being utilized telling us what we want to learn?” My answer to myself was that we were supposed to be evaluating a section viola finalist’s ability to work within a viola section. But to me, the Mozart quartet we were listening to was more demonstrative of the candidate’s solo abilities within a small ensemble, and not of his/her ability to work within a viola section. Again, this was a section viola vacancy. I asked myself – wouldn’t it have more useful in the final round to bring the entire viola section on stage, plop the finalists in the middle of the section, and have the Music Director conduct the section in excerpts like the beginning of Midsummer Night’s Dream, #15 in Shostakovich Symphony #5, 1st movement of Tchaikovsky 6th, etc., and then the Audition Committee could not only use their own eyes and ears, but have the benefit of “on the job” feedback from the Music Director and members of the viola section?

Robert also wrote:

“But I would ask whether or not they think orchestra musicians, acting as an audition committee or an entire orchestra, would make better decisions about hiring and tenure than would music directors. Why would their “ownership” of the orchestra lead them to act more wisely than the music director’s “ownership” would lead her to act – or vice versa?”

Inevitably, one of the first questions that would work its way into the question posed even for comparison purposes is who should make the hiring/tenure decisions, the orchestra or the section? I would personally be interested in a comparison of audition procedures between the London Symphony, where candidates audition for the section, and the Berlin Philharmonic, where candidates audition for the orchestra. Perhaps another discussion.

That being said, I think the word “ownership” and the word “involvement” are key. Across the globe we have Music Directors who hold multiple posts. For many orchestras, gone is the era of Szell/Cleveland, Ormandy/Philadelphia, Bernstein/New York-one conductor-one orchestra (except for guest conducting, etc.) I often wonder if the syndrome “if this is Saturday, this must be Stockholm” has an effect on a Music Director’s involvement, and therefore “ownership.” This is by no means expressed as a universal application, but a question to the panelists and readership: In your opinion, does the foregoing in any way affect tenure decisions? I think it is quite likely.

On the other side, I have had colleagues who were extensively involved in their orchestras, and other colleagues who performed quite competently, but at the appointed hour, left the service and pursued other endeavors, and did not feel the sense of “ownership” that some of their colleagues felt, for whatever reason.

I do not consider this a cop-out, but my answer to the moderator’s question is that it depends upon the level of “ownership” of both the Music Director and the musicians. It goes both ways.

Robert finished with:

“So I would ask Nathan what he would consider a rate of tenure denial that whatever audition system he favors 1) should produce; and 2) is likely to produce.”

I have no such number, nor do I feel that it is useful to seek one, because if the granting authority (be it the entire orchestra, the section, or the Music Director) are content with the musicians engaged, it doesn’t matter.

This has been a most useful, educational endeavor. Thank you, Robert for raising so well some of the most important issues in our auditions today, and to all the other panelists for their most interesting and cogent points in this discussion.