Do folks on orchestra auditions committee know how stupid the process is?

[BGuttman]

I like your idea of the initial being a tape. The audition committee has to wade through a big pile of tapes (50 in the case you cited) but can then weed down to a few with promise. A second round of 5 to 10 (probably closer to 5) makes for a decent choice.

Of course those that lose out will still complain about how unfair it is, and how they "coulda" filled the position if they only had a chance to play with the ensemble. But those folks probably aren't the top tier that the orchestra wants.

Maybe a better way is to have a "training orchestra" where promising applicants can play in an ensemble and show what they have. Comparable to the minor leagues in professional sports. Of course, advancing only from the training orchestra leaves you open to the prejudices the screen system was supposed to avoid.

I don't think a perfect solution exists.

[JamesSp]

I like your idea of the initial being a tape. The audition committee has to wade through a big pile of tapes (50 in the case you cited) but can then weed down to a few with promise. A second round of 5 to 10 (probably closer to 5) makes for a decent choice.

Of course those that lose out will still complain about how unfair it is, and how they "coulda" filled the position if they only had a chance to play with the ensemble. But those folks probably aren't the top tier that the orchestra wants.

Maybe a better way is to have a "training orchestra" where promising applicants can play in an ensemble and show what they have. Comparable to the minor leagues in professional sports. Of course, advancing only from the training orchestra leaves you open to the prejudices the screen system was supposed to avoid.

I don't think a perfect solution exists.

Yeah, I mean they would have to listen to the same amount of live applicants anyway, but at least if they are anonymous tapes they can do so without it needing to be in a single sitting.

I'm not so sure about a second tier of training orchestra..... there are already so many of those sorts of programs. And yes, my major issue with that sort of idea is that it defeats the point of the screen. I think the screen is everyone's best friend for these sort of contexts.

[brassmedic]

The problem with taped rounds is, with the current state of recording and editing technology, it becomes a competition of who has the most money and time to throw into making a perfect audition tape, rather than who is the best trombone player.

[JamesSp]

The problem with taped rounds is, with the current state of recording and editing technology, it becomes a competition of who has the most money and time to throw into making a perfect audition tape, rather than who is the best trombone player.

I think this is a fair point, but im not so sure I agree that it would inevitably become the case. For a first round in particular I think with a specific set of recording guidelines and the panel knowing what they are listening out for it could still be a useful tool. And anyway, in the instance someone did manage to find a way to cheat the system and make a good tape that was an exaggerated example of their capabilities, they would still have to perform live in the further rounds, it wouldn't really do them any service.

[brassmedic]

The problem with taped rounds is, with the current state of recording and editing technology, it becomes a competition of who has the most money and time to throw into making a perfect audition tape, rather than who is the best trombone player.

I think this is a fair point, but im not so sure I agree that it would inevitably become the case. For a first round in particular I think with a specific set of recording guidelines and the panel knowing what they are listening out for it could still be a useful tool. And anyway, in the instance someone did manage to find a way to cheat the system and make a good tape that was an exaggerated example of their capabilities, they would still have to perform live in the further rounds, it wouldn't really do them any service.

You can have all the "guidelines" you want; it doesn't change the fact that the recordings of people who have the most financial and technical resources are going to sound better. I'm not talking about cheating, necessarily. But since you brought it up, let's say hypothetically that the committee wants to enact some sort of control over the consistency of the tapes, like saying you have to record it on video without any edits*. Do you think that would be impossible to circumvent? I believe it is quite possible. Think you would be able to spot the difference? I'm not so sure about that. And in such a situation, it's not a matter of "if" people are going to cheat; they ARE going to cheat.

It may not, in the long run, help a player who gets into the next round and didn't deserve to, but it sure as hell is going to HURT the player who did deserve to get there, but had his tape passed over because he didn't have as much money to pay a sound tech to do multiple takes, splice together the best of the best, and then polish it up.

*And then you're judging the candidates on their appearance as well as their playing. Abbie Conant, anyone?

[JamesSp]

I think this is a fair point, but im not so sure I agree that it would inevitably become the case. For a first round in particular I think with a specific set of recording guidelines and the panel knowing what they are listening out for it could still be a useful tool. And anyway, in the instance someone did manage to find a way to cheat the system and make a good tape that was an exaggerated example of their capabilities, they would still have to perform live in the further rounds, it wouldn't really do them any service.

You can have all the "guidelines" you want; it doesn't change the fact that the recordings of people who have the most financial and technical resources are going to sound better. I'm not talking about cheating, necessarily. But since you brought it up, let's say hypothetically that the committee wants to enact some sort of control over the consistency of the tapes, like saying you have to record it on video without any edits*. Do you think that would be impossible to circumvent? I believe it is quite possible. Think you would be able to spot the difference? I'm not so sure about that. And in such a situation, it's not a matter of "if" people are going to cheat; they ARE going to cheat.

It may not, in the long run, help a player who gets into the next round and didn't deserve to, but it sure as hell is going to HURT the player who did deserve to get there, but had his tape passed over because he didn't have as much money to pay a sound tech to do multiple takes, splice together the best of the best, and then polish it up.

*And then you're judging the candidates on their appearance as well as their playing. Abbie Conant, anyone?

Yes I agree it would be possible to circumvent guidelines and I do acknowledge it is not a perfect solution. I do believe though that it would be a positive addition overall to the current system.
In terms of judging via appearance, sorry I had thought I addressed that. I'm not a tech guy so there will probably be issues with this but my thinking would be the submissions from candidates would need to include video. The initial submissions of round one would go to someone at the organisation (not a panel member) whose job was (to the best of their ability) verify with the video it actually is the candidate playing, and to see if they can identify any evidence of editing etc... that would not be allowed. Probably no guarantees, but some of the tech guys are pretty clever at spotting that sort of thing. Only after that, audio only files of the same videos would be sent to each member of the panel to maintain anonymity.

Not perfect, of course.

I can maybe see your point about the specific instance of an undeserved player somehow managing to break through at the expense of someone else due to time and money factors. But.... I dunno. I dont think that is a situation unique to my proposal with 1st round recordings. Its uncomfortable to discuss but even in a live setting there are a multitude of factors where having money and time could put certain players at an advantage over others who could be argued are more deserving. Even just off the top of my head, a candidate who has money to afford a business class flight and a nicer hotel closer to the audition venue might be better set up physically (and mentally) to play well over someone who can only afford a shared hostel the night before and a bus ticket. Im not sure its a solvable problem, but just because it exists in the hyperthetical of mandatory 1st round recordings I don't think totally invalidates the idea.

[brassmedic]

I can maybe see your point about the specific instance of an undeserved player somehow managing to break through at the expense of someone else due to time and money factors. But.... I dunno. I dont think that is a situation unique to my proposal with 1st round recordings. Its uncomfortable to discuss but even in a live setting there are a multitude of factors where having money and time could put certain players at an advantage over others who could be argued are more deserving. Even just off the top of my head, a candidate who has money to afford a business class flight and a nicer hotel closer to the audition venue might be better set up physically (and mentally) to play well over someone who can only afford a shared hostel the night before and a bus ticket. Im not sure its a solvable problem, but just because it exists in the hyperthetical of mandatory 1st round recordings I don't think totally invalidates the idea.

Unless you're going to award the job to someone based only on their initial tape submission, the problem of travel and lodging exists either way, since they will still have to travel to the next round of the audition and play live. But with the taped round, you are adding ANOTHER inequity. Besides which, how well you perform in a live situation under stress is exactly the qualification needed to succeed in a symphony orchestra. Audio engineering is NOT a skill that is needed for the job. That's my opinion, anyway.

I'm not against the normal practice of screening applicants based on qualifications and experience, and then allowing a few candidates who didn't pass that screening to submit a tape for consideration. That way, exceptionally talented individuals who lack experience can still get in. I'm just against having the decision be based entirely on tape submissions. I think you would invariably have to eliminate applicants who deserve a chance to be heard live.

[TromboneConcerto]

Throwing my two cents in re: recorded first round

I definitely agree that it's the best way to go. I did an audition for a small orchestra in Asia a few months ago and there were 67 applicants. The first round had a lot of rep, required each applicant to hire and bring their own piano accompanist, and took over 14 hours to complete... From which they only took 6 to the next round.

Doing a recording would solve that timing and especially be nicer to the candidates for travel costs, like mentioned by other posters. I have a few issues with this, though:

1- Aside from financial and technical factors, like spending the money to get real studio time vs an iPhone in a practice room, someone's actual free time becomes a factor as well. Some people have months in advance to get the repertoire ready and then do take after take after take for weeks, sometimes months, before they get something they are satisfied with. Others only have that amount of time to learn and polish the excerpts so they will be ready close to the deadline- giving them only a day or two to record.

2- Unfortunately, editing does exist in audio recordings and can be easily hidden so that it is inaudible to a panel. Someone who has a good take spare for a missed high D in Zarathustra can go back and punch in those few bars over top, if they know their way around a DAW.

Will these people get eliminated in the live round that follows? Likely yes. But their presence at the audition could have booted an otherwise excellent player who did not employ any of those tactics.

I wonder if this would work: do the first round recorded, but announce the short list of excerpts for the first round 24 hours before the due date. Of course, the excerpts would be included in the whole audition list given out a while before. This would prevent people from being able to do 100+ takes, and also would lower the chances of someone being able to edit their recording, due to the small production window.

[CalgaryTbone]

Most auditions that use a recorded round these days insist on a video - not just audio. The audition committee is not able to see the video, but there are members of management, union or both who can see it. It is much harder to edit a video recording without there being a telltale skip in the picture. There is a difference in audio quality between different recordings, but I would say that this is less of an issue now that it was 20 - 30 years ago. The era of high quality smart phones and Zoom recorders has put reasonably priced decent audio in the hands of most players. Even if the cost of the recording becomes close to that of a trip to the audition and a live audition follows that, there are many major orchestras now that require 2 trips for prelims and semis, and they usually don't pay for the 2nd trip for the candidates. Usually they will cover another trip to play a trial week, as well as paying the person for the concert.

Also, can I just say that if a player did manage to edit a recording to the max to get invited to play live, they had better be able to duplicate that quality in a live appearance, or they will have just wasted their money and everyone's time. Very few orchestras ever hire just from recordings of any kind - it is just a way to cut down on the numbers for the live rounds.

Jim Scott

[Doug Elliott]

I'm not in that world anymore, but I agree entirely. And that's exactly how we did auditions when I was in the Airmen of Note. Everybody who was interested sent in a recording, and we selected a few to hear live.

[brassmedic]

deleted

[BGuttman]

Most auditions that use a recorded round these days insist on a video - not just audio. The audition committee is not able to see the video, but there are members of management, union or both who can see it.

Not true.

What part is not true?

[JamesSp]

I wonder if this would work: do the first round recorded, but announce the short list of excerpts for the first round 24 hours before the due date. Of course, the excerpts would be included in the whole audition list given out a while before. This would prevent people from being able to do 100+ takes, and also would lower the chances of someone being able to edit their recording, due to the small production window.

I reckon that's not a bad start, definitely on the right track with that one. I doubt a perfect solution exists but im still convinced there are ways this could be made the usual and slightly improve the system. Shorter window to record makes sense to me. Would just have to make sure you knew exactly what you were doing to submit in the timeframe!


Regarding video recordings, not that my experience has been a particularly large pool, but I dont think ive ever seen an audition allowing recording submissions that was audio only. Any time I've recorded for one they are usually quite clear about camera angles etc.... I do have a memory of doing one where I had to submit the same files as both Audio and Video myself.... but that was a long time ago, I could be misremembering. Definitely not audio only though.

[CalgaryTbone]

deleted

[brassmedic]

Not true.

That's been my experience, and I know that there are other orchestras using that method. I can't guarantee that everyone is doing this.

JS

OK, I don't want to start an argument. I'll just delete my post.

[hornbuilder]

To bluntly answer the initial question asked.

Yes, folks on panels know how stupid the process is, because they have all been through it themselves!! Audition panel members are members of the orchestra conducting the audition.

I'm not going to argue that there aren't perhaps better ways of choosing players for gigs, but this is a question that has been hashed over for decades. Seemingly with no better option as of yet.

[Bach5G]

The worst option except for all the rest.

The initial round of recordings seems like a positive step.

[hornbuilder]

The initial round of recordings to seems like a positive step.

I've been on audition panels where some applicants submitted recordings for their first round. The recording quality of many of them was so incredibly poor that advancing the applicant simply wasn't possible. I don't understand how they thought it was acceptable to submit such poor quality recordings, especially for such an important occasion??

[JohnL]

I've been on audition panels where some applicants submitted recordings for their first round. The recording quality of many of them was so incredibly poor that advancing the applicant simply wasn't possible. I don't understand how they thought it was acceptable to submit such poor quality recordings, especially for such an important occasion??

Even in these days of ubiquitous podcasts and the like, not everyone has access to (and the skills to use) a decent recording setup, let alone an acoustically suitable space.

[brassmedic]

The initial round of recordings to seems like a positive step.

I've been on audition panels where some applicants submitted recordings for their first round. The recording quality of many of them was so incredibly poor that advancing the applicant simply wasn't possible. I don't understand how they thought it was acceptable to submit such poor quality recordings, especially for such an important occasion??

Exactly my point. It becomes a contest of how good a recording you can make rather than how well you play the trombone.

[hornbuilder]

Even in these days of ubiquitous podcasts and the like, not everyone has access to (and the skills to use) a decent recording setup, let alone an acoustically suitable space.

Admittedly, I would be in this situation myself at present.

[Doug Elliott]

The entire object of recordings as a first round is to weed out players who shouldn't be there.

NEXT!!!

[JamesSp]

The entire object of recordings as a first round is to weed out players who shouldn't be there.

NEXT!!!

Exactly.

I've got a handful of thoughts on things I think are worthy of discussion in terms of not replacing but improving the audition process for all involved. Not sure if I should derail this thread or start a new one though. Or if there is even as much interest in the topic as I think

[hornbuilder]

The entire object of recordings as a first round is to weed out players who shouldn't be there.

NEXT!!!

Of course. But in my experience sometimes the recordings presented even make ascertaining that difficult. Dynamics (assuming there were dynamics!) compressed to virtually zero. A room so boomy it was difficult to hear articulation clarity. Admittedly this was in the bad old days of tape (!!!!)

[Burgerbob]

I'll be the one to speak up for accessibility.

I think a first round of recordings is a good idea, but it's also another barrier for those less advantaged- people with money have much easier access to things like recording equipment, good spaces, and time.

This isn't to say that attending an audition in person isn't a barrier as well, but especially if it's local, it's much easier than putting together a recording.

That said, cell phone audio and video has taken large strides in the last 10 years, so it's easier than ever... just not easy.

We don't need any more ways to keep potential talent from winning jobs.

[RustBeltBass]

In recent years I had the chance to listen to a few first round tapes, mostly audio and something I experienced in all of these first rounds was that the playing of the candidates admitted to the live round was really less high level.

Of course that is to be expected because when I listen to someone’s tape I assume it is the very best playing they can offer. However, I wonder how helpful it is to really hear someone’s best recording room playing as a first impression rather than their “real life” situation.

[imsevimse]

As a freelance musician I have never auditioned. I think it is a tough career to be a musician. The employer does not see to the situation of the employees. They want the best and most dedicated and there aren't too many full time jobs in orchestras around. Musicians travel all over the world to compete for such a job. I'm sure the ones who get the jobs are good. From what Ive heard when they win an audition they first have to do a couple of weeks with the orchestra before they get the job and if they are accepted after that they get the job. Sometimes they have more than one who gets to do those weeks and in the end noone gets the job. I'm sure the employer get the ones who can do the job and also the one who really wants the job.

/Tom

[BurckhardtS]

I know this is digging back a ways in the thread but I have not had time to log in over the last couple months, so bear with me.

Sasha, I'd also have to broadly disagree with your sentiment. The people winning auditions right now are by and large deserving of jobs.

I didn't say that people winning auditions are not deserving of winning jobs. I was talking more about the state of music programs and the failure of many curriculums to prepare people for anything else, which then results in the over-saturation of the market in one specific thing at the expense of other skills. I realize that is a little bit off the topic, I was speaking more generally.

If you can get the panel to vote for you, then 99% likely you deserve it. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

You are expected to execute it flawlessly, and yes that often means working on the same 8 bars over and over so that you can play it without screwing up when the time comes.

While I agree that is the expectation, I also believe this is really the core of the issue, especially with no-hires. Flawless playing is an inherently unreasonable expectation. Psychologically it is very well documented that reaching for unattainable goals will actually make your performance significantly worse.

Putting that level of pressure on an audition actually CREATES that problem, on both sides of the screen. The committee is looking for something that doesn't exist, and the musician is playing from fear as opposed to confidence.

A slight side bar, but with the advent of social media people are comparing themselves to each other more than ever, and this includes recordings. From my personal experience teaching there are now whole generations of musicians that their self confidence is shattered the moment they make the first mistake, because they don't sound like their favorite artist, and their favorite artist is flawless on record. (I went through that phase too!)

The disconnect is, professionally produced recordings are often spliced together with multiple takes, have pitch correction, EQ and many other post-processing things to make it sound pristine. It's not real life. Not a dog on studio recording, because that's the point, but it's not live performance. Auditions are live performance.

I haven't even started down the philosophical road that the whole purpose and function of music is an expressive art and not a competition. Playing flawless is not music making, but accuracy sure helps you get the musical message across!

I think a lot of folks in the music business would rather just get "their friend" on the job. And I don't blame them - don't we all like to work with our good friends? But is that really the way to get the most qualified person for the job?

First, should the goal always be to get the "best" or "most qualified" person? By who's standards? Mine? The music directors? Joe Alessi? Standards are completely subjective and music has very few objective components.

Secondly, as someone who has both been a contractor and a contracted musician - I would much rather have someone who is a known entity who I trust their musicianship on the stand with me. However, there are plenty of times where I know my "friend" is not the most qualified person for that particular job and I have not hired them.

Obviously, contracted situations are not the same as a long-term position with a performing ensemble but the goals aren't all that different really.

Anyways, trying not to pontificate or be too confrontational, but this is a topic I have a lot of connection with and conversations like this are good ways to look at it from multiple angles. Hopefully then we can learn from that and we can influence the future, too.

[brassmedic]

You are expected to execute it flawlessly, and yes that often means working on the same 8 bars over and over so that you can play it without screwing up when the time comes.

While I agree that is the expectation, I also believe this is really the core of the issue, especially with no-hires. Flawless playing is an inherently unreasonable expectation. Psychologically it is very well documented that reaching for unattainable goals will actually make your performance significantly worse.

Putting that level of pressure on an audition actually CREATES that problem, on both sides of the screen. The committee is looking for something that doesn't exist, and the musician is playing from fear as opposed to confidence.

You quoted me out of context, there. First, you wrote, "I think being able to work up auditions is a great skill to have, unfortunately being a working musician or artist does not involve that on a day to day basis." My point was, it DOES involve exactly the same skills as working up an audition. I'm sorry, but conductors are not very tolerant of missed notes. You really are expected to play the part correctly at a bare minimum. I suppose I shouldn't have said "flawlessly", rather "nearly flawless". Of course no performance is going to be perfect. But people don't go to the symphony to hear a bunch of clams.

Is reaching for a lofty goal psychologically damaging? Who's to say whether a goal is "unattainable" or not? There are a lot of things I didn't think I would ever be able to do on trombone, yet I learned to do them. But I do agree with you in the sense that if a committee is just counting notes then they aren't doing their job. For the audition committees I've been on, that wasn't the case at all. Yes, there was discussion about correct rhythm, knowledge of the music, tempos, etc., but also discussion of how musically the person played. There is a minimum level of competence though. If you clam 50% of the notes in your audition, you just aren't going to advance, no matter how much of a cutting edge artist you believe yourself to be.

A slight side bar, but with the advent of social media people are comparing themselves to each other more than ever, and this includes recordings. From my personal experience teaching there are now whole generations of musicians that their self confidence is shattered the moment they make the first mistake, because they don't sound like their favorite artist, and their favorite artist is flawless on record. (I went through that phase too!)

I agree. Sometimes expectations are high because we are constantly exposed to edited material.

The disconnect is, professionally produced recordings are often spliced together with multiple takes, have pitch correction, EQ and many other post-processing things to make it sound pristine. It's not real life. Not a dog on studio recording, because that's the point, but it's not live performance. Auditions are live performance.

I haven't even started down the philosophical road that the whole purpose and function of music is an expressive art and not a competition. Playing flawless is not music making, but accuracy sure helps you get the musical message across!

In my opinion, the problem of unrealistically high standards, robotic playing, and "playing it safe" is much more prevalent in the studios than in the symphony.

First, should the goal always be to get the "best" or "most qualified" person? By who's standards? Mine? The music directors? Joe Alessi? Standards are completely subjective and music has very few objective components.

That's why we have committees made up of the conductor AND musicians from the orchestra. Makes it less likely that one person's subjective opinion is going to make the determination.

Secondly, as someone who has both been a contractor and a contracted musician - I would much rather have someone who is a known entity who I trust their musicianship on the stand with me. However, there are plenty of times where I know my "friend" is not the most qualified person for that particular job and I have not hired them.

A lot of times that's good, but I have encountered some "known entities" who didn't deserve to be where they were, and only got hired because their name was familiar. And conversely, I've encountered highly qualified players who didn't get hired because the contractor said, "I've never heard of that person". And often, the reason a person is a known entity is because that person wins auditions.

[BurckhardtS]

Brad, I think you and I are in the same ballpark - a little bit of semantics but this is a good conversation.

You quoted me out of context, there. First, you wrote, "I think being able to work up auditions is a great skill to have, unfortunately being a working musician or artist does not involve that on a day to day basis." My point was, it DOES involve exactly the same skills as working up an audition.

I wrote on this a little bit more in the last post and deleted it because it is off topic, as this is about auditions and I didn't want to stray too far. Here goes nothing though!

This is one of the points where I disagree. There are far more skills required to be a consistent working musician than working up an audition. If you are going to sub in groups or play recording sessions, you MUST be a very strong sight reader because you will get called on very short notice and potentially never see the music before the concert/recording session. This also means you will be expected to have good musical 'radar' and ability to adapt to the ensemble and/or section on the fly and with no rehearsal. I have lost track of how many times I have had to do this.

Then there's small group playing (classical or jazz) which require you to not just own your part but to musically lead the group at sections and catch onto all the other parts to fit them together. If you're going to play musical pit shows, you better be ready to handle key changes coming at you rapidly and have the mental endurance for a 2.5 hour show with ~100 pages. (Pianists how the f*** do you do that??)

The thing is, a lot of this is beneficial to doing the job of an orchestra player. You can absolutely make it to the finals of an orchestra audition without those skills and then all of the sudden the committee no-hires because no one seems to be able to play together with the principal player... All the energy spent trying not to frack notes probably seems fruitless at that point.

Haven't even mentioned stuff that doesn't even involve music(show up on time, don't be an assclown, have all the equipment you need, communicate well, etc)

Maybe my point is that I think it's a lot more lucrative to be a well rounded and skilled player than hyper-specializing in excerpts which is what most music programs seem to push because "It's how you get the big job". There's value in it, however it's not the end game. (Or maybe it is, I guess if you get the job.. ha)

I'm sorry, but conductors are not very tolerant of missed notes. You really are expected to play the part correctly at a bare minimum. I suppose I shouldn't have said "flawlessly", rather "nearly flawless". Of course no performance is going to be perfect. But people don't go to the symphony to hear a bunch of clams.

Is reaching for a lofty goal psychologically damaging? Who's to say whether a goal is "unattainable" or not? There are a lot of things I didn't think I would ever be able to do on trombone, yet I learned to do them. But I do agree with you in the sense that if a committee is just counting notes then they aren't doing their job. For the audition committees I've been on, that wasn't the case at all. Yes, there was discussion about correct rhythm, knowledge of the music, tempos, etc., but also discussion of how musically the person played. There is a minimum level of competence though. If you clam 50% of the notes in your audition, you just aren't going to advance, no matter how much of a cutting edge artist you believe yourself to be.

I mean, I totally agree. At no point did I ever say that having 50% accuracy is acceptable. You can't communicate your musicality if you miss half the notes. If your musicianship and technique is solid, accuracy should be a given. There is a difference between reaching for a lofty goal and reaching for a goal that is not possible. "correctly" and "flawlessly" are not the same thing.

In my opinion, the problem of unrealistically high standards, robotic playing, and "playing it safe" is much more prevalent in the studios than in the symphony.

Right, and my point is that is an appropriate place for that. If you're going to spend the money (or raise the money) to studio record a solo or ensemble album, you are absolutely entitled to make sure it is your best work and has that polish.

But let's not conflate the two together - auditions are live performance practices.

A lot of times that's good, but I have encountered some "known entities" who didn't deserve to be where they were, and only got hired because their name was familiar. And conversely, I've encountered highly qualified players who didn't get hired because the contractor said, "I've never heard of that person". And often, the reason a person is a known entity is because that person wins auditions.

Right, and that's another subjective thing that really is just dependent on the situation as every personnel manager and contractor is different and has different thoughts and opinions on how things should go.

[brassmedic]

You make some good points.

Brad, I think you and I are in the same ballpark - a little bit of semantics but this is a good conversation.

You quoted me out of context, there. First, you wrote, "I think being able to work up auditions is a great skill to have, unfortunately being a working musician or artist does not involve that on a day to day basis." My point was, it DOES involve exactly the same skills as working up an audition.

I wrote on this a little bit more in the last post and deleted it because it is off topic, as this is about auditions and I didn't want to stray too far. Here goes nothing though!

This is one of the points where I disagree. There are far more skills required to be a consistent working musician than working up an audition. If you are going to sub in groups or play recording sessions, you MUST be a very strong sight reader because you will get called on very short notice and potentially never see the music before the concert/recording session. This also means you will be expected to have good musical 'radar' and ability to adapt to the ensemble and/or section on the fly and with no rehearsal. I have lost track of how many times I have had to do this.

Never said otherwise. Again, you said "being a working musician or artist does not involve that on a day to day basis", and I said it does involve those skills, if you are a member of a professional symphony orchestra, which is what we're discussing. Does it also involve other skills? Of course.

Then there's small group playing (classical or jazz) which require you to not just own your part but to musically lead the group at sections and catch onto all the other parts to fit them together. If you're going to play musical pit shows, you better be ready to handle key changes coming at you rapidly and have the mental endurance for a 2.5 hour show with ~100 pages. (Pianists how the f*** do you do that??)

They don't normally have auditions for jazz or shows, so yeah, that wouldn't be a skill that's needed. You generally get the music in advance, though, so while sight reading is important, knowing how to prepare a part is also important.

The thing is, a lot of this is beneficial to doing the job of an orchestra player. You can absolutely make it to the finals of an orchestra audition without those skills and then all of the sudden the committee no-hires because no one seems to be able to play together with the principal player... All the energy spent trying not to frack notes probably seems fruitless at that point.

Not sure I agree with that. There could be any number of reasons why they didn't hire anyone. I think groups that don't hire anyone are likely just holding impossible standards - standards by which no current member of the orchestra could even win his own job.

Maybe my point is that I think it's a lot more lucrative to be a well rounded and skilled player than hyper-specializing in excerpts which is what most music programs seem to push because "It's how you get the big job". There's value in it, however it's not the end game. (Or maybe it is, I guess if you get the job.. ha)

Who's doing that? The good trombone players I know aren't hyper specializing.

I mean, I totally agree. At no point did I ever say that having 50% accuracy is acceptable. You can't communicate your musicality if you miss half the notes. If your musicianship and technique is solid, accuracy should be a given. There is a difference between reaching for a lofty goal and reaching for a goal that is not possible. "correctly" and "flawlessly" are not the same thing.

I already amended my use of the word "flawlessly".

In my opinion, the problem of unrealistically high standards, robotic playing, and "playing it safe" is much more prevalent in the studios than in the symphony.

Right, and my point is that is an appropriate place for that. If you're going to spend the money (or raise the money) to studio record a solo or ensemble album, you are absolutely entitled to make sure it is your best work and has that polish.

I don't think it's appropriate at all. Listen to older film and TV soundtracks. They weren't as intolerant of the occasional missed note (largely because the technology didn't easily allow as many takes as we do today), and players weren't as afraid to take chances for the sake of musicality. There is absolutely brilliant playing now, but I think never, ever missing a note, at the expense of pushing the boundaries musically, has become the most important thing a lot of the time.

[GabrielRice]

I don't want to get into the particulars of the arguments already made here - mostly because I've been over and over and over them in so many places and in so many ways - but I want to make what I consider to be the most important point.

Until we acknowledge that an audition is no more or less than the best process we can come up with for an interview for a performing job, we will keep arguing in circles. Too often in our industry, auditions are thought of and treated as contests and the jobs as prizes. It's not a prize, it's a job.

[BurckhardtS]

Not sure I agree with that. There could be any number of reasons why they didn't hire anyone. I think groups that don't hire anyone are likely just holding impossible standards - standards by which no current member of the orchestra could even win his own job.

That was a specific example, I'm not saying that is always the reason for no-hires.

Who's doing that? The good trombone players I know aren't hyper specializing.

Again, I've met lots of people like this, but not saying this is everyone. Depends on how you define "good"

I don't think it's appropriate at all. Listen to older film and TV soundtracks. They weren't as intolerant of the occasional missed note (largely because the technology didn't easily allow as many takes as we do today), and players weren't as afraid to take chances for the sake of musicality. There is absolutely brilliant playing now, but I think never, ever missing a note, at the expense of pushing the boundaries musically, has become the most important thing a lot of the time.

I think we're actually talking about different things - you're talking about commercial studio recording sessions, which I can totally agree.

I think I was more referring to when students listen to their favorite artist's album which has been studio recorded. If you are willing to spend that kind of money as an artist I think you are entitled to polish the album to whatever standard you want.

Until we acknowledge that an audition is no more or less than the best process we can come up with for an interview for a performing job, we will keep arguing in circles. Too often in our industry, auditions are thought of and treated as contests and the jobs as prizes. It's not a prize, its a job.

Amen, Gabe!

[brassmedic]

That was a specific example, I'm not saying that is always the reason for no-hires.

OK, so if I understand you, you're saying that a person who has no experience whatsoever other than robotically playing excerpts without missing any notes might not win an audition. And I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. Where I think we disagree is that you seem to think that is the state of trombone learning now, whereas I think such players are outliers and don't truly represent the state of trombone teaching.

I think we're actually talking about different things - you're talking about commercial studio recording sessions, which I can totally agree.

I think I was more referring to when students listen to their favorite artist's album which has been studio recorded. If you are willing to spend that kind of money as an artist I think you are entitled to polish the album to whatever standard you want.

Yes, I was referring to studio recording for film or television. I thought I said that; apologies if I didn't. If you're doing your own individual recording, you have the luxury of being musical AND editing. You don't have to play it safe to the same degree, because you have control over how many takes you do and which takes you use. If you make a mistake you can just chuck that take.