Klarinet Archive - Posting 001343.txt from 1998/04
From: Jonathan Cohler <cohler@-----.net>
Subj: re: audition tapes
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 19:29:02 -0400
Gary Ginstling wrote:
>Now I am even more confused. Until you posted this I thought you were
>vehemently arguing that everyone and anyone should be permitted to audition
>live. Now it seems you are including a taped audition as acceptable?
My issue as posed to the list was that applicants should not be excluded
based solely upon a resume. Go back and read what I wrote.
Obviously, I agree that a tape is not ideal, but it is certainly much
better than a resume alone. It is an opportunity to be heard by the
>the way, did you happen to ask the personnel manager of the BSO what
>percentage of tapes received are actually invited to the audition?
What do you mean by "invited to the audition"? The tape IS the first-round
audition. Do you mean invited to the 2nd round? If so, I would suspect it
is a very small number, as it is for those who audition live as well.
>I think audition tapes are simply a cop-out, a way for the orchestras to
>justify not having to hear everyone who wants to audition.
Are you assuming that they don't listen to the tapes? I suppose this is
possible, but certainly unethical. The manager I spoke with said that all
tapes are listened to and are considered auditions just the same as live
>I think an
>interesting survey to undertake (and one that I believe would really help
>bolster your argument in favor of giving everyone an opportunity) would be
>to see how many players in major orchestras won their auditions after having
>their tapes rejected (or, for that matter, having their resumes rejected)- I
>think everyone would be surprised at how high that number is.
Agreed. But it sounds like a difficult survey to undertake.