Auditioning the Audition Process

Tanya Ell wrote:

“There really is no better way to hear how a person plays than in a live performance. No amount of resumes, recommendations, or recordings can truly represent what a person is able to do on their instrument in the present moment. When this factor is paired together with the sheer number of applicants for most positions, it is easy to see how we came to the “12-minute shoot-out”. We have come up with a procedure that gives everyone a chance to be heard. “

Couldn’t a taped audition, done under controlled circumstances (ie with a proctor and a prescribed recording set-up) substitute for the live preliminary audition? Wouldn’t this give candidates a longer time than 12 minutes to make their case? Wouldn’t it be cheaper for the candidates than the current system (and not knock out candidates who can’t travel to a particular city on a particular date)? And wouldn’t it be easier on the audition committees as well? Balance these considerations against the value of a live preliminary.

Neal Gittleman wrote:

“At the Dayton Philharmonic, our solution, clunky though it may be, is a new hire’s up-to-two-year probationary period, which includes contractual language requiring the Music Director to promptly inform a probationary musician if there are problems that could jeopardize the likelihood of their receiving tenure.”

As a music director, wouldn’t you rather spend more time upfront on making a good initial decision than to have to rectify a bad decision by a termination?

Nathan Kahn wrote:

“The comparison between US symphonic audition procedures and hiring procedures for surgeons and pilots does not equate because those careers require initial and ongoing government certification.”

But isn’t it interesting that those who hire surgeons and pilots find the mere fact of certification completely inadequate when choosing amongst those already certified? Why don’t we take the kind of care in hiring that they do?

“…the question ‘…does the tenure process work well enough in fixing hiring mistakes made by music directors and audition committees?’ troubles me greatly. According to whom? Who is vested with sole and exclusive right to determine if ‘hiring mistakes’ are made by music directors and audition committees?'”

So who should make those decisions, and why? In Berlin, both hiring and tenure decisions are made by the entire orchestra. Is this equivalent to the “music police”? If not, why not?

Fergus McWilliam wrote:

“What qualities are being looked for in the successful candidate?”

Are there qualities that all orchestras will be (or should be) looking for? If so, wouldn’t that dictate a standard procedure for determining those qualities?

“Holding an audition can be a useful time-saving process.”

But why is saving time a priority when hiring someone for what is, in many cases, lifetime employment?

Chuck Ullery wrote:

“Players that make it through to the final round should not only have substantial trial periods with the orchestra, but need to have ample chances to show their personalities via a short recital and/or chamber music playing with their potential 30-year colleagues.”

Aren’t you assuming that the process up to that point (ie the standard screened audition) has done a good job of determining who should have the opportunity to “show their personalities?” Isn’t there a real danger of disposing of candidates who might be great ensemble players because they haven’t a chance in the prelims or semi-finals to demonstrate that aspect of their playing?