Klarinet Archive - Posting 000416.txt from 1997/10

From: HatNYC62@-----.com
Subj: Re: klarinet-digest V1 #314
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 01:51:14 -0400

In a message dated 10/11/97 9:34:00 AM, you wrote:

<<"Technique is rarely learned at the expense of musicianship..."

Could you elaborate on this point? I don't neccesarily disagree, I just
wonder why you think this.>>

I just thought of one more thing. When I was a member of the Charleston
Symphony, I heard a lot of auditions. Believe me, commitees aren't mean or
harsh, they WANT people to do well. That said, when 30-80 people show up for
ONE opening, they're going to look for reasons to narrow the field. I was
amazed at the quantity of players taking auditions (and these weren't all
folks just out of school) that had severe shortcomings of intonation, rhythm
or technique. They never stood a chance. What were they thinking even being
there?

When a committee hears an audition, they are trying to find someone who will
fit in on day one. Basic requirements for that are perfect rhythm, excellent
intonation, reliable technique and knowledgeable interpretation of the music.
Notice that only the rhythm needs to be perfect, that's an unreversable
requirement. Plenty of candidates who miss notes will advance, as long as the
overall impression of technical competence is given. Of course, this will
vary by commitee and orchestra.

By the way, I was told that the clarinet auditions in Charleston were the
WORST in terms of general competence in matters of technique, rhythm and
intonation. Considering what I heard from the auditions I heard on different
instruments, that's certainly something to think about, wouldn't you agree?