Auditioning the Audition Process

I would like to thank the other panelists, as Robert has done already, for their thoughtful and thought-provoking comments. I am sorry to see our week come to a close, not only because I have found it to be an exceedingly interesting undertaking, but also because the subject which I view as the most important in the audition process has been touched upon only peripherally – that of ethics in auditions.

Before answering the moderator’s first question, I feel compelled first to paraphrase a statement written earlier in the week: that there is no method that will ensure that the “best” musician will be hired to fill an orchestral vacancy. This is due in part to the fact that the most important criteria by which candidates are judged are inherently subjective, ensuring that conclusions as to the ideal candidate will vary from musician to musician as well as from orchestra to orchestra.

That said, I do believe that, particularly if we are interested in including all interested candidates in our selection process, the current method used by the majority of American orchestras of listening to twelve minutes (or less) of a concerto and orchestral excerpts is “sufficient” to allow a committee to select a much smaller number of the more qualified candidates for further consideration. In the instance where one person so outshines the other candidates in later rounds that he/she receives the enthusiastic recommendation of the both committee and music director, this method has often proven to be not only a sufficient, but, indeed, an effective method to hire a section musician. Where the outcome is less clear, a round of chamber music has proven to be very effective at clarifying the relative merits of the candidates. In the case of a titled position, a week (or more) of playing with the orchestra should probably be an integral part of the hiring process, even if the audition process has narrowed the field to only one candidate.

In regard to the second question, although I have come to the conclusion that it is perhaps more appropriate for the entire membership of the orchestra to make the ultimate decision regarding the granting of tenure (mostly because I believe that they have the ability to more consistently make that judgment in an impartial and objective manner, due largely to their number), I do not mean to imply, as Robert’s question states, “that the members of an orchestra will make better tenure decisions than will the orchestra’s music director”. I merely am stating that, as a body, they appear to be in a better position than either a tenure review committee or a music director to make a decision that is based on what is best for the orchestra without at least the perception of being influenced by personal relationships. And, it can be argued that the musicians have more of a right to the “ownership” of that particular authority, since the consequences of that decision will affect them as a group far longer than any individual music director.

As to Robert’s addendum posed to Nathan and Fergus, I agree for the most part with Nathan’s philosophy that whatever works for an individual orchestra is right for them (as long as the process is conducted in an ethical manner). For example, if audition winners in Berlin are made aware that they are essentially considered to be long-term substitute musicians until they are granted tenure, then they know what they are getting into before they pack up their possessions and move to Berlin. On the other hand, as long as tenure is granted on the basis of a musician’s musical contributions to the orchestra, who can quibble with the granting of tenure to 98% of an orchestra’s new hires?