Klarinet Archive - Posting 001272.txt from 1998/04

From: Roger Garrett <rgarrett@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: Pay analysis of Full-time Orchs
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 21:23:55 -0400

On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Jonathan Cohler wrote:
> 1. Resumes generally give you a good indication of a person's
> level of experience.

excellent - very true.

>
> 2. Resumes tell you very little about how well a person performs.

also excellent - very true.

> In business, the best pre-indicator of an employee's job performance is his
> general intelligence level (which is why so many businesses administer
> intelligence tests for potential new employees).

not proven........and not used in many business hirings. However, a
parrallel might be in school admittance procedures for which intelligence
tests are widely used. Universally, there is large debate on each side of
the issue if they effectively determine a student's success at the school.

> In music, the best
> indicator of a person's playing is a person's playing.

For 7 minutes? On assigned excerpts? Without the experience, all the
audition proves is that the person is good at learning excerpts and
portions of a solo work. They don't show any ability toward the issues
that were raised earlier (I think by Ed Lacy) regarding performance
nerves, ability to perform under pressure, ability to adapt to conductors
and situations. The statement above is simply too general to be of much
use.

> Therefore, using the resume as an adjunct tool after an audition is useful.
> Using it before is meaningless.

Unless the orchestra determines it wants a qualified AND experienced
player. The resume then acts as a tool to help weed out those performers
which do not meet the experience level desired by the orchestra....and is
entirely appropriate.

> A mediocre player who has stuck it out for
> fifteen years and slowly worked his way into the freelance union ranks in a
> city is still a mediocre player, albeit one with a longer resume.

And it will show. People who read resumes know how to pick up a phone and
make calls.

> Unfortunately, it is not a simple player-by-player analysis. I don't think
> one could easily attribute incremental revenue to the new 2nd clarinet
> player.

This is the point. Especially if the player does not remain in the
position for longer than 10 years.

> But I also think the incremental cost discussed above (of $3,500) is small
> enough that it doesn't take a great deal of "vision" for the orchestra to
> see how this strategy could pay off in spades!

No schedule is kept to 7 minutes, and very little playing can be heard
during that time. I don't know of any committee that listens to 200
players straight through, without breaks, and remains on time (even
splitting it up for several days).....and why should they have to? To
give the non-experienced student a chance? I'm all for the student
having a chance, but, as a person who auditions frequently, I don't want
to sit through 200 auditions to find the person.....and most people I have
worked with in the same capacity feel in a similar way.....the point is,
we don't have to. There are good symphony orchestras for those younger
players to audition for. I believe that by inviting the selected people
with the qualifications and proven experience for the job, inviting
another group with the appropriate professional qualifications, and
allowing the occassional newcomer an opportunity to be heard, a person can
be found without difficulty. This is the orchestra's objective....and
right.

Roger Garrett
IWU

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