Klarinet Archive - Posting 001099.txt from 1998/04

From: Roger Garrett <rgarrett@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: Auditions
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 14:33:47 -0400

On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Jonathan Cohler wrote:
> Sorry, but I fail to follow your logic here. Solo competitions test a lot
> more than expressiveness. They also test solidity, ability to play under
> pressure, sound quality, intonation, articulation, one's ability to phrase
> and interpret, flexibility as well as one's expressivity.

They also require orchestras to follow them. It is a much different
situation sitting in the second to back row blending with the woodwind
section, projecting the solos, etc. than to stand out on the apron and
solo (although it is as difficult if not more so in other
ways.....soloists are to be accorded that which is due them!).

> In fact, the argument that a less experienced student should go do smaller
> orchestra auditions (which someone on this list made earlier in this
> thread) to build a resume, is really ass-backwards. It is precisely these
> "smaller" orchestras where average tenure is substantially shorter, and
> therefore they cannot afford to audition as many people. It is only small
> orchestras that have a financial justification for not auditioning all
> comers.

You left out a small point above......it doesn't matter that they have
less money....they tend to accept more, younger and inexperienced players
because they can't draw the big hitters. Many of the smaller orchestras
only have 100 to 150 people ask to be auditioned....often less than that.
They don't have to turn people away.

> As I demonstrated with my financial analysis in which noone has yet poked
> any holes, the large orchestras can all easily afford to audition well over
> 300 applicants.

Your financial analysis is not automatically right just because no one
disagreed. Some of us just choose to disregard that aspect of the
argument! You have a tendancy to base an opinion for an entire area (the
large orchestras can all.....etc.) when you have only one piece of
evidence to support such claims or you assume several things and draw a
conclusion. some of us disregard the general statements and choose not to
speak about the conclusions ......often for lack of time and motivation.

> > Having a soloist as a
> >teacher is probably not a big help getting invited to a second clarinet
> >audition, either.
>
> I don't know what this means exactly. Please explain. I assume it is not
> meant as a personal attack on me as a soloist.

I didn't read it as an attack on you.........why did you?

> My status as a soloist says nothing about my knowledge of or experience in
> orchestral repertoire, and it also says nothing about my connections with
> orchestral players.

> In my case, I know dozens orchestral clarinetists and am friendly with
> quite a few, so in terms of contacts, I believe I am as well off as any
> orchestral player.

Which has nothing to do with what the original poster said....unless you
believed he was attacking you!

> In terms of knowing the repertoire, I have played most of the standard
> repertoire in my career and conducted quite a bit too. I conduct two
> orchestras and listen to several hundred orchestral auditions every year as
> a judge. (I have also judged several solo competitions too.)

So have most of us.

> Therefore, I consider myself as well acquainted (or in some cases perhaps
> better acquainted, because of my knowledge of entire scores as opposed to
> just the clarinet part) with the orchestral clarinet repertoire as most
> orchestral players.

Knowlege is not experience in playing with a major orchestra. There is a
very significant difference.........that should be obvious even to the
least experienced person seeking a performance position.

> >By the way, although it is probably likely that most members of an orchestra
> >like the NSO have won solo competitions at some point, that does not mean that
> >all winners of solo competitions are qualified to be in major orchestras. Same
> >for Tanglewood, many great players have been there, not all players who have
> >been there are great!
> >
>
> Again, I never said that all winners of solo competitions are qualified to
> be in major orchestras. You are putting words in my mouth. Certainly,
> however, I believe that all winners of major international competitions are
> qualified TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE FIRST ROUND of any orchestra audition in
> the world.

It depends on the orchestra.......and if the person has orchestral
experience. That is opinion based........if you disagree, that's
ok....but many people disagree with you that people who are good soloists
would play well in an orchestral situation.

> The fact that two judges rank the same people differently has nothing to do
> with fairness. It has to do with preference of playing characteristics.
> Fairness has to do with whether both candidates were given equal playing
> conditions and equal access to the audition.

I disagree..........they had resumes.....that is the first step. One was
just better than the other. And it DOES matter if two judges rank people
differently.....both on the resume and in their playing. A very minor,
unimportant point to argue.

> In an ideal world, perhaps the "qualified" shouldn't have to wait around
> for the "clueless" as you put it. But when the qualification that makes
> the qualified qualified is a piece of paper known as a resume, then the
> system is inherantly unfair, biased and counterproductive both for the
> players and the orchestra (as Larry has explained).

And the resume seems to be the sticking point. While Jonathan's message
was not directed towards me, I still felt impelled earlier to voice that
the resume is important.

Roger Garrett
IWU

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org