 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Ryan K
Date: 2009-10-22 17:30
When reading this, it is important to account for the differences in judging wine, and judging music. One may have more criteria than the other, thus being generally more accurate.
Ryan Karr
Dickinson College
Carlisle, PA
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2009-10-22 18:23
In forensics meets in the 1960s, I found it a great advantage to speak first or last. Usually, we drew numbers at random out of a box, but it was suprisingly easy to put on a show of nervousness and talk the person who'd drawn the first or last number into trading places. (Generally I preferred to go first if I thought the competition looked weak and dull, but if I knew the group included at least one good, dynamic speaker, then I preferred to go last.) I don't know why in the world these kids thought someone who said she was scared would beg for the most conspicuous spot in the lineup, but the tactic usually got me the number I wanted (until I'd whupped those kids enough for them to start warning each other about me...).
However, for music seat jumps and auditions, I really was scared witless and I preferred to hide in the middle of the pack!
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2009-10-22 22:58
10 years ago I arrived slightly late at an audition. They'd already drawn numbers, but because I was only slightly late and had travelled far to get there, they let me play last. I got the job...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2009-10-22 23:55
Liquorice:
> because I was only slightly late and had travelled far to get there, they let
> me play last.
Was that here?
Zwingli would spin in his grave, bending rules like that, tsk, tsk.
;)
--
Ben
Post Edited (2009-10-22 23:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2009-10-23 06:19
Yes Ben, that was here. It's the last time I've ever been late in Switzerland!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nessie1
Date: 2009-10-23 11:31
In the days when I used to compete in quite a few music festivals I definitely felt that either first or last was a good position. This was not so much because of any psychological effect on the adjudicator but because if you go first you have not heard what the other competitors are like (which may make you more nervous) and also you "get it over with". On the other hand, if you play last you may be reassured that the rest of the field is not that great and go in confident that you can impress the adjudicator more.
In terms of my success rate, I'd say that my theory produced more wins/good placings than when I played in the middle.
Vanessa.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2009-10-23 12:50
>>I go with the theory to crush the competition - then it only matters that you went, not when you went.
>>
Good point. None of the theories about the best spot in the order mean anything unless the person plays well enough to deserve to win. I think the order matters most in the two opposite situations: in hot competition with several people, all of them capable; and with an exceptionally weak competition that puts the judges to sleep. With the latter situation, it helps either to get to the judges first, before they snooze off, or to startle them awake at the end.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SVClarinet09
Date: 2009-10-23 15:38
In high school whenever I auditioned, I always auditioned behind the same people. We always signed up to the rear of the auditions and the girl I always signed up behind was usually my competition. I knew what their weak spots were. I know for a fact other people would sign up behind people we knew weren't as capable as us just to get a higher score. All state auditions however were random and you were assigned a slot. I would have much rather been the first or last one there then get stuck behind the guy who's made 1st chair the last 3 years in a row.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-10-23 15:43
What you really want is to be the first AND the last. Then you're sure to win.
Well, unless it's Chicago, New York, Berlin, the Concertgebouw, or . . . 
Post Edited (2009-10-23 15:44)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2009-10-23 19:41
A friend and I spent years debriefing our students and tracking all-district audition results in Virginia's district III. Going near the end of the day was a terrific advantage for a top player. One local band director INSISTED that her students go for the latest possible slot in the day. Her folks won slots 2,3 & 5 that year.
The primary reason was that there were 120-200 clarinets auditioning and many were just plain bad and didn't meet minimum requirements. Near the end of the day, great rewards went to the players who provided the judges with a breath of fresh air.
Another factor that I feel certain of is that judges are unlikely to award perfect or near-perfect scores to early auditionees no matter how good they are. If more comparable students come along during the day, how can they separate them all?
But, as Leila points out, only the better players are going to get an advantage of this kind. And since sharing this info with several band directors in the area, I've found audition results to be more even throughout the day. I'm not sure how they're doing it, but I've seen much less disparity between how students I know are scored, and where their abilities lie.
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lrooff
Date: 2009-10-24 05:45
The danger to going last is that if you aren't really confident in your ability to trounce the competition, you'll have heard some very good players and may start to think, "That guy's fantastic. I'll never beat him." Generating negative thinking can have a negative effect on your own performance (voice of experience speaking), so make sure you go on after realizing and reminding yourself that you are usually your own worst critic, and that you can ace the performance.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2009-10-24 14:04
Of course, the question that can't be answered is: how would numbers 2,3 and 5 have placed had they auditioned at random points throughout the process? Where they were in the audition list didn't change their playing skills and probably didn't change their execution by much.
Most (if not all) superstitions usually have their basis in an action's having been associated with a good result at least once in history.
That said, if school (all-county, all-district, all-state, etc.) auditions were winner-take-all affairs in which only one winner is declared, the last to audition, if he/she is very good, indeed has only one competitor. The judges already have a choice in mind for first place. Either the last one to audition plays better or he/she doesn't and all the incompetent playing in between becomes meaningless, so the judge's job with regard to the last one is easier than it has been throughout the rest of the process.
But those auditions are for ranking all of the players who audition (for seating as well as acceptance or rejection), not just choosing a single winner. If you're competing to be #1, last to audition is probably a slight advantage if you would have been in the running anyway.
You're right that most conscientious judges wouldn't award a perfect (I'm not so sure about a "near-perfect") score to the first few auditionees for the reason you suggest - you need to leave room for someone whose audition is even better. Judges can't really know what the range will be on a particular day in a specific setting. But all that does is keep the upper range more limited, and if Drucker or Morales were to sneak in and play, there'd still be room to score them higher.
In most school-level auditions, there is a fairly clear division among the audionees into three groups. A few will play very well and will be competing for the top chairs. As judge you remember their performances fairly clearly over two or three hours of listening. A few (sadly, however, more and more) will play more or less incompetently, sounding as though they've never seen the audition material before they walked in the door and wouldn't have gotten much benefit from practicing it anyway - the solo or other material is simply over their heads. The third group is in the middle - they get an OK but not really refined sound, they articulate in (mostly) the right places but with technical flaws, they play the notes and rhythms (mostly) accurately but without much enthusiasm, commitment or musical meaning. Those are the ones who are tough to rank - their problems and strengths are all different and generally average out to "OK," except that the judges have to put numerical ratings to each area of the performance. In my experience, if there's any unreliability in the results, it's mostly within that middle group.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-10-24 23:46
I have a great deal of experience with this on both sides of the fence. I've played several auditions in my early days, won several, came very close in some, did not get anywhere with others. I've heard a good many auditions as well sitting on the other side of the table. I can honestly say that when you're auditioning against 60-80 other players or listening to that many it makes absolutely no difference where you play in the line up. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2009-10-25 09:09
I disagree with Ed to some extent. Of course HOW you play is much more important then when you play. But from listening to many auditions I've noticed how the panel can lose concentration at certain points during the middle of a long audition. I also find for myself how difficult it becomes to really listen to the 35th rendition of the Haydn cello concerto. It's much easier to be attentive at the beginning or the end of a long audition day. Of course, if some phenomenal player comes in and makes incredible music, you will notice it no matter when they play. But I do think it's possible for above average players not to advance, that may have had a better chance if they'd played at at time when the jury was less bored. Sad but true...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2009-10-25 12:48
>>You're right that most conscientious judges wouldn't award a perfect (I'm not so sure about a "near-perfect") score to the first few auditionees for the reason you suggest - you need to leave room for someone whose audition is even better.>>
My band director in grammar school and middle school and the two conductors of my high school orchestra compensated for that tendency by holding seat jumps from the back to the front. The kids who went first were the last-chair players. The first-chair player auditioned last. I'm pretty sure that the working assumption (that the teacher got it right the first time and that the first chair player deserved the seat) contributed to my holding onto first chair in the high school orchestra, because my honest assessment was that second chair played better than I did. The other way I held the seat was seniority, I suspect: I was a year older than the guy in second chair.
The age thing interests me, too: With school children, I think the older kids have a huge advantage. In part that's because all the kids are work in progress. The judges presume that the older kids have had more time to make progress. With the kids younger than teens, I think that's usually an accurate assessment, too. But I also think there's a "seniors rule" bias, especially when judging teenagers: the older kids have paid their dues and deserve the honors and privileges, according to this thinking. Sometimes inequity results, as with my friend stuck in second chair year after year.
With adults, I suspect the opposite rule of age discrimination comes into play -- the rule that cuts off most competition entries at age 30. Fresh meat.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
Post Edited (2009-10-25 12:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
