 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Fontalvo
Date: 2007-03-06 03:01
Does anyone know who advanced in the cinci audition that took place this weekend or today???
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hartt
Date: 2007-03-06 22:08
Bob
the reason they thinned the field on the first round is that everyone who applied/asked for a application, was sent one.
I know of one person who applied simply as jokeand received an application
Further, there was one applicant who was given a 'bi' from all rounds until the final. who?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bufclar
Date: 2007-03-06 22:30
"Further, there was one applicant who was given a 'bi' from all rounds until the final. who?"
I would guess that the person who has been the acting Associate/E-flat would be given a spot in the finals but I am only guessing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: claaaaaarinet!!!!
Date: 2007-03-07 03:01
There were a number of players at the Cincinnati audition that were not required to play in the preliminary round based on their professional orchestral experience. That is normal at big auditions like this. To my knowledge, three of the 70 -80 preliminary round auditionees also advanced to the semi-final round. All three to advance were past or present Richie Hawley students, interestingly enough. Haven't heard if they hired anyone today or not.
Post Edited (2007-03-07 03:07)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2007-03-07 03:36
There were more than three who advanced from the preliminaries to join the 6 or so who were invited. I think the total in the semis was around 13.
After the group was cut to 5 for the finals, a prospective winner, Jeanette Jonquil, was chosen. She has been playing Principal in Vancouver, and will get a trial week at some point.
Once again, all rounds in the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra are behind a screen.
Post Edited (2007-03-07 03:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2007-03-07 06:21
I was at this audition and I felt that the first round was sort of a formality that did not have a lot of meaning. There were many fine players in my round, many who routinely advance, including myself. The first round excerpts were easy and I would say most of the people I heard were way above average on those excerpts. I don't mean to take away from Ms. Jonquil; I am sure she is a fine player and will do well there. I just get the feeling that this audition was not entirely on the level. This is a sticky subject but I feel this audition could have been handled differently. I feel like they wasted my and other's time. It seems they had the "real" audition once the first round was out of the way. There was simply nothing on the first round to really set yourself apart from the other clarinetists apart from some standard excerpts that I would say anyone in my hour played very well. It is a little frustrating to hear that 3 of Richie's students made it through the first round while many other professional clarinetists did not, players who can play the requested excerpts in their sleep. I am not saying the three students were not qualified, perhaps they were, but to say they were SO much different from the others is a bit of a stretch. This kind of makes me sick. Why not just have the people who did not play the first round play against a few that made it through a real first round and be done with it? How about not inviting everybody and having a real audition?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mags1957
Date: 2007-03-07 11:38
DAVE,
I am about 20 years past my auditioning prime, but I experienced what you describe many times. One time in particular, I had a bass clarinet audition that I thought was the best playing of my life - I thought I had a real shot at the position (this was a very prestigious orchestra, and I was the bass clarinet player in their "training" orchestra). Turns out I lost the job to someone who wasn't at the audition at all. And anyone who knows anything about orchestra auditions will tell you that the whole "behind a screen" thing is a big scam. They know exactly who's behind the screen when. The people advance who they want to advance - maybe they throw in 1 or 2 unknowns to keep people on their toes.
I'm not saying this out of sour grapes - If I were in charge of hiring, I would darn well hire someone who had a great track record and had proven themselves in performances over someone who had a great weekend. I just wish they were a little more forthcoming about the way it really works. If they don't know who you are, and aren't excited about you auditioning - you ain't gonna get the job. Maybe that's the way it should be - and maybe there are rare exceptions where an unknown gets a coveted position. But it's the exception, to be sure. JMO.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nokia234
Date: 2007-03-07 12:36
DAVE writes:
"the first round play against a few that made it through a real first round and be done with it? How about not inviting everybody and having a real audition?"
you are completely contradicting yourself with your other statement:
"If I were in charge of hiring, I would darn well hire someone who had a great track record and had proven themselves in performances over someone who had a great weekend"
Holding a national audition behind a screen through the final round is the fairest way I can think of holding an audition.
You need to get over your theories and scams and not bash those who advanced through the prelims.
"It is a little frustrating to hear that 3 of Richie's students made it through the first round while many other professional clarinetists did not"
Get over yourself!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nokia234
Date: 2007-03-07 12:57
Oh and to further clarify....
there were 7 of Hawley's current students that auditioned and only 1 of them advanced.
The other two so called students have not studied with Hawley for more than 3 years one of which was a high school student who hasn't studied with him in over a decade, the other currently holds a professional orchestra job.
oh and P.S.....when did brahms 3, shosty 9, beet. 8, beet. 6, brahms 4, and mendelssohn scherzo become so easy?????
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2007-03-07 13:17
Dave,
Thankfully, it's not your impression of the players that matters, but rather the committee's opinion. The ones who have been playing in one of the best orchestras in the country for years.
There were others who advanced, besides the 3 in the morning, but let's stay with them for a second. All three of them are among the very best young players in the country. One is in New World and has been to Tanglewood twice, as well as finaling in numerous big auditions recently. One is very young, yes, but also someone who routinely wins every competition they enter and has gone to the very best music festivals the last three years. One is an active player in a excellent orchestra who has also won big competitions recently. Every one of these players is going to have a major position in the next decade. I'm not saying that there weren't very good players who advanced, but there's no question for me that the ones who did were all serious, top-notch players, and the very best on that day.
Your comments about the first round excepts are very telling, as you believe there was nothing to separate people. Nothing could be further from the truth, as there were a total of 7 excepts asked, every one of which exposes the most fundamental issues of a person's playing. Every important aspect of playing that defines whether a person has it or not was on that list. The fact that you can't see how they set people apart speaks more about you than it does about the committee or the players who advanced.
You ask why they didn't limit the candidates and hold a "real" audition. That's a joke, because you or others would be the first to complain about that process not being fair if someone was left out. Furthermore, every player in the semi-finals was an excellent player and not every one of them made it to the final 5. Should they complain as well?
*******
Mags,
Your story about your audition seems sad and I'm tempted to be sympathetic, but frankly, it has no place here. It has no bearing on this audition at all. As far as the "behind a screen" nonesense.... that has been dispelled by every single orchestral player I've talked to. Your relayed, hearsay thoughts on it don't interest me at all.
*******
No matter how fairly an audition is run, there are always people who will complain. And yes, it is sour grapes, no matter how much you'd like to pretend it's not. From my knowledge of the orchestra, if they'd really wanted to manipulate the audition, Jonathan Gunn would have retained his acting position. Instead, it was run as fairly as possible, an another incredible player is getting a trial week. Nobody could reasonably ask for anything more.
Post Edited (2007-03-07 13:20)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2007-03-07 13:24
Nokia234,
You combined my statement with someone else's and said I contradicted myself. Also, here's a question for you: were you there? In my hour? And yes, those excerpts are easily played by any professional clarinet player. Please understand, I am not saying any of the people who advanced were not qualified, but rather many who were turned away, who regularly advance at other auditions, were also also qualified at the very least to play against some of those who did not play the first round.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vin
Date: 2007-03-07 13:33
This is such BS. Just because someone played well and advanced in another audition, it does not mean that they played well enough to advance. It is one thing to comment on a recording; we all can hear the same thing. Commenting that "someone good" didn't advance and therefore, the audition isn't on the level, is a crock. None of us heard the audition. And, for those that auditioned, I've got news for you- If you're playing really well and concentrating at the level that advancing/winning requires, you aren't in a position to evaluate yourself. You aren't able to listen with the same ears as those on the other side of the screen. Guaranteed, those that had bad rhythm, intonation, articulation, phrasing in one or many of their excerpts. And, Ms. Jonquil not only advances in auditions, she wins often. So, she must sound better than the people who "usually advance." When I've advanced and won auditions, I am concentrating on making music and blowing air; I have no brain power for self evaluation.
I was once on an oboe committee. A particular oboist auditioned who had advanced in the MET the week before. After the audition, he demanded comments as to why he didn't advance. I looked at my notes, and for his number (it was screened- no, nobody knows whose on the other side in 95% of auditions and when you think you do, you don't)) I had scathing comments as to not following dynamics, rushing in Mendelssohn, inability to play three identical consecutive notes with the same pitch, etc. I'm sure he played great at the MET, but he sure didn't for my orchestra; I heard the same bitching and moaning from his friends (was it rigged...how could he not have advanced.....blah blah blah). He didn't play well; maybe he thought he did, but he didn't.
While a lot of people get upset about auditions, generally the only people who whine about auditions are those that don't win them. If you are truly the cream, you'll rise to the top. Otherwise, stop whining and go practice.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2007-03-07 13:34
"anyone who knows anything about orchestra auditions will tell you that the whole "behind a screen" thing is a big scam."
I have been a member of 3 different professional orchestras over the last 13 years. During that time I've heard lots of auditions. Not once was the "being the screen" thing a big scam. If it had been I would have protested.
One thing that I can say for sure about EVERY audition that I've played in and listened to: there are ALWAYS people who don't progress through whichever round, who "get the feeling that this audition was not entirely on the level". This has nothing to do with the audition itself, but is just the perception of those people. These people seek to blame the excerpts/jury/accompanist/whatever for reasons why they didn't get further.
There are always excellent players at auditions who don't progress through all the rounds. This, for some people seems to justify to them why they didn't get through either. It's like thinking- "well if Tiger Woods didn't win, there must be something wrong with the golf course, because he's such a great player!"
The biggest mistake that people make is that they don't seek the real reason why they didn't get through audition rounds, which almost always has to do with the way that they play. And sadly, if they're not searching for the right reason, then they're unlikely to ever win an audition.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: energia eolica
Date: 2007-03-07 13:48
Dave, for you to say that those excerpts are "easily played" says a lot, since just playing them wasn't what the committee was looking for
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mags1957
Date: 2007-03-07 14:54
I wish to retract my statement "And anyone who knows anything about orchestra auditions will tell you that the whole "behind a screen" thing is a big scam." I do know of several instances 20-30 years ago where this was true, but It was ill-advised of me to assume it is still true, or was ever true in every audition. I apologize to anyone I offended with that remark.
My posts was only intended to speak to MY experiences 20-30 years ago, and not about this audition I also ended my post with JMO, which stands for "just my opinion". If you don't share it, fine. I absolutely know of some auditions in that period where the "winner" was selected in advance. If you choose not to believe me, that's 100% fine with me. As I stated before, I honestly believe that the people who get these positions deserve them - if you interpret that as sour grapes, so be it.
And J.J., your statement of "as far as the "behind a screen" nonesense.... that has been dispelled by every single orchestral player I've talked to."
That is every bit as much hearsay as my statement, so it doesn't interest ME at all.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2007-03-07 15:06
"And J.J., your statement of "as far as the "behind a screen" nonesense.... that has been dispelled by every single orchestral player I've talked to."
That is every bit as much hearsay as my statement, so it doesn't interest ME at all."
Fine, except that since you are the one making the accusation, the burden of proof is immediately placed upon you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2007-03-07 15:24
It's also worth pointing out that just because we are expressing opinions on here, it doesn't mean we should be insulated from any responsibility for what we say. It should be well within our rights to contradict what is said on here, where appropriate.
Mags, you may not realize it, but by choosing to air your story here and now, you are immediately drawing a comparison between the audition this week and your experiences years ago. To me, this is irresponsible, although you did sensibly retract some things you said. I give you credit for that.
Post Edited (2007-03-07 15:25)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JTS
Date: 2007-03-07 15:52
Dave, it is also worth remembering that some fine players don't advance because, subjectively, they are what the committee is looking for. Even if there is no discussion going on behind the screen, chances are, the panel likes the way their own principal plays and sounds. It's never as cut and dry as best rhythm/pitch/notes/dynamics. There is also tone and style, which are subjective matters. Especially with second clarinet auditions, I seriously doubt no committee will choose someone who wont blend with the principal player, unless they really feel the candidate can modify there approach to fit into the section. Auditions are as simple as who plays the best Beethoven 6, and sure, there are most certainly times when mischief is afoot behind the screen. While it's good to know and keep in mind some objective qualities of playing that help people win auditions, it's best to focus on making music and the value of what we do. Remember, a lot of great players lost many auditions before getting a gig, Ricardo didn't advance for second in Buffalo two weeks before winning at the Met.
JTS
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CPW
Date: 2007-03-07 16:07
This I heard from a participant who advanced to the semifinals and who was not a student of anyone connected with Cinci:
1. The audition was conducted fairly at least up to and including the point at which the reporting participant advance no further. Beyond that he/she could not and should not comment.
2. The semifinals Eb clarinet excerpts included Shostok. 9th and Daphne and Chloe
3. It was obvious to the reporting person that those who advanced understood how the excerpts the context of the piece within an orchestral situation.
.
Against the windmills of my mind
The jousting pole splinters
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mags1957
Date: 2007-03-07 19:03
"It's also worth pointing out that just because we are expressing opinions on here, it doesn't mean we should be insulated from any responsibility for what we say. It should be well within our rights to contradict what is said on here, where appropriate."
I absolutely agree, and I stand by my opinions, just wanted to clarify that they were presented as opinions based on my personal experience and not presented as facts. I have no quarrel with anyone who thinks differently than I do, and I agree that many good points were made. I was merely trying to comiserate with Dave, nothing more, nothing less. If anyone read anything I said as a slam to anyone in particular, or to people who win auditions in general, it was not intended.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2007-03-07 19:50
Well, at least no one asked the ubiquitous "what is the set-up on the winners clarinet?" question. ![[up]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley24.gif)
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2007-03-07 20:14
But no one has won YET Alseg! Just wait!
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2007-03-07 22:26
> Well, at least no one asked the ubiquitous "what is the set-up on the
> winners clarinet?" question.
Lemme guess...hard work. Years of hard work.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CPW
Date: 2007-03-07 22:32
I spent a week there one Sunday.
I went there....it was closed
Against the windmills of my mind
The jousting pole splinters
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2007-03-07 23:33
Fontalvo, yes.
Contact me offline if you want all the names who advanced.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2007-03-11 17:26
Just an offer to extrapolate my recent experience with an "audition." This one differs from the experience of the Cinci applicants in that I got feedback from the committee.
I'm building repertoire, and have been working on the Brahms Op. 120, No. 1 Sonata for Clarinet and Piano. I thought that I'd gotten enough facility with the first two movements to have them audited. I'd been practicing them for a month and have been playing the Harold Wright recording in my car continuously.
Here's what happened:
In movement 1, my auditor, a principle clarinetist with a good symphony orchestra said: You started every descending arpeggio before the beat.
In movement 2: He said, " I lost interest before you finished playing the first 1/8 note in the expressivo phrase.
So, I failed this audition --and I was not in the slightest aware that I was so far "out of it."
-- but benefitted from knowing why. Heck, my wife loved it!
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
