Klarinet Archive - Posting 001252.txt from 1998/04

From: Roger Garrett <rgarrett@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: Pay analysis of Full-time Orchs
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 17:19:08 -0400

On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Jonathan Cohler wrote:

> I just discovered that the following message never got through to the list
> when I sent it last Thursday, so here it is again. It contains a financial
> analysis that I have referred to in other posts:
>
> Roger Garrett wrote:
>
> >Contrary to
> >what you may think, a major orchestra really does not have the funds to
> >audition for 24 hours on one instrument only. Most often, the group
> >listening to the auditionees are members of the orchestra, for which they
> >often get paid overtime. It may seem to you that anything less than what
> >you feel is justifiable to get your student in is less than what they
> >should be doing, but it would be better to be realistic and try to
> >understand their reasoning.

Cohler werote:
> I assume you are speaking from experience here. Why don't you give some
> specific examples to back up what you are saying. What is "their
> reasoning"?

If you read Jack Kissinger's posting, it says, basically, what I believe a
business, any business that is responsible - both to its employees and its
customers - would do. He states fairly clearly what "their reasoning"
often is.

> I believe this is also incorrect. I will double check with John. I think
> politics in music are a bad thing myself.

What did you find out regarding Yeh? Did his teacher call or not to ask
for him to be considered in the pool of first round players?

> Wait a minute here. You either ARE suggesting that one should call ahead
> of time and schmooze or you ARE NOT suggesting. Which is it, Roger? Fess
> up.

As I wrote to you earlier, I'm not suggesting you should do anything. I'm
simply reporting what others do to get their students in. You have posted
since we discussed this and admitted that your calling had an
effect.....that you didn't like the processs.....but that your student
would be auditioning. What more can I say?

> I always thought that screened first-round auditions were there for a
> reason: impartiality. But if you can't even get behind the screen without
> connections and schmooze, it's not very impartial now is it?

I responded to you that no one said it is impartial. I don't believe you
will find an impartial hiring anywhere in the world today. The issue most
of us believe is the real problem is not if the young player gets as fair
a hearing as everyone else, but that orchestras have a right to decide if
the resume warrants a hearing. Plain and simple.

Contrary to what you stated at the beginning of this post, your original
post DID in fact go through. I had to refer to my private postings to you
following such in order to remember accurately what I told you.

Roger Garrett
IWU