 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2012-07-16 18:49
The Vail, Colorado Daily has a very good article on orchestral auditions
http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20120711/AE/120719977/1078&ParentProfile=1062.
Much of it is common knowledge to us, but there's some very perceptive advice from Ricardo Morales:
"We feel we play a phrase sensitively, with great intention, and that doesn't always translate behind a screen. The player must never overestimate the wisdom of the committee."
In other words, an audition is not the place to show your artistry. It's the place to play perfectly. You show your artistry by placing high enough in the audition to get a tryout with the orchestra.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2012-07-16 20:11
So playing with "artistry" and playing "perfectly" are independent of each other, or maybe mutually exclusive? Why not just program a synthesizer then, as it can play "perfectly" a thousand times in a row?
I think it's unfortunate that the focus in orchestral playing nowadays seems to be on absolute technical "perfection" rather than artistry, the latter which requires a some risk-taking and can result in "mistakes". Maybe that's a reason that most modern orchestras, regardless of location or conductor, sound alike (to me).
Every time I read things like this article I'm grateful that I didn't try for a career in classical music (besides the fact that I've never had the talent to succeed in the field).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2012-07-16 21:49
I believe what Morales was trying to say is that orchestra committees are generally conservative and the competition is fierce. So in order to get moved on you have to pretty much play everything perfectly, notes, rhythm and intonation. When he studied with me I advised him not to play with rubato unless a passage traditionally was played that way. The same thing with vibrato. I didn't discourage him, or any of my students, not to play musically, that's different from being "artistic" He didn't mean not to be musicially. You would be amazed how many opinions there are on the same committee as to what is musical and what is not. I've heard some pretty bazaar comments over my career sitting on audition commettees. Early in my career at an audition a member of a commettee wrote that I over phrased in the Mozart Concerto and another, in the same commettee, wrote that I didn't phrase enough on my solo piece, the Mozart. That was a long time ago. At least with our auditions a person has to get 5 out of 9 votes to move on, good luck with that if you don't at least play perfectly, because so many others will. That's just the starting point. You can be an artist when you play for the conductor. ESP eddiesclarinet.com
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
Post Edited (2012-07-16 21:51)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: larryb
Date: 2012-07-17 02:27
So, at that level, it's not about being the best of the best (everyone auditioning is accomplished), or standing out, it's about playing strategically to get the greatest chance of landing the job. In other words, the smartest musician has a greater chance of succeeding. It makes sense.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gsurosey
Date: 2012-07-17 03:49
As much of a perfectionist as I am in most of my life, I'm definitely not a perfect clarinetist. I will slur 2-tongue 2 (or more), till the cows come home since I will never be able to tongue some of these things as quickly as they're supposed to be played and still play cleanly. To get through some quick passages, I have to throw in a light accent to get my tongue moving. And even if I could play the excerpts perfectly in my sleep, I'd have to get through the audition without some level of panic.
Something about the 'alone-ness' of it gets to me I think. It's almost impossible to not think of it as me vs. whoever is listening. Just this past spring, my jury performance and recital performance of the same piece (1st mvt of Brahms' 2nd Sonata) were very different. Even though they were less than 2 weeks apart, the recital was a whole lot better than the jury. I only played it twice between those 2 times, so I didn't cram practicing in there. I was a lot more anxious playing for a 3-person jury by myself than I was performing it for a larger audience with my accompanist at my side. Even then it wasn't perfect, but I thought it was pretty good and it was one of the more solid performances on that day's recital.
I'll stick with the community groups where nobody is perfect (though we have some very good players), there isn't so much pressure, and my doubling abilities are useful. Plus, I didn't have to audition for any of them. I've never walked out of an instrumental audition even remotely happy at how I played.
Good thing I dropped my delusion of playing professionally a long time ago, or I would drive myself crazy drilling excerpts and losing sleep. In a way, it's almost a bummer since in mid-September, there will be an audition just a couple miles down the street from me (Rochester Phil - recently posted - 2nd/Eb clarinet).
----------
Rachel
Clarinet Stash:
Bb/A: Buffet R13
Eb: Bundy
Bass: Royal Global Max
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-07-17 12:18
Maybe it's time to say goodbye to the "screened" audition. Sensible orchestras only begin there--eventually the finalists have to play with the orchestra, etc. As many pros on the "other side of the screen" have pointed out, the person involved (as a person), and how they fit the style of the orchestra and personalities around them, are factors as important as the note execution.
Say what you want about nepotism or student-elevation...those methods were at least more reasonable regarding the whole person involved.
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2012-07-17 15:26
The conductor has his say, as well, and if he desires, it's final.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rmk54
Date: 2012-07-17 16:55
The music director rarely ever attends the first two rounds.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2012-07-18 17:16
It is true, in most major orchestras like mine the conductor only attends the finals. They don't really want to sit through 2-3 days of auditions. You would be surprised how many mediocre players show up for these auditions, some down right weak. We recently had a principal bassoon audition in Baltimore and we had about 75 players audition after we screened them. We sent about 5 to the semi finals and two to the finals. Both played in the orchestra for several weeks and we did hire one of them. In our orchestra the conductor needs at least 3 members of a nine member committee to vote for someone but the conductor does have the veto power not to hire someone. It may be slightly different in other orchestras. The best thing that ever happened in orchestra auditions was demanding the behind the screen auditions. That's the reason so many women and some minorities now play in American orchestras. It the best player that usually gets the job. I could only imagine what the committee thought when Ricardo Morales showed himself from behind the screen as the winner at his Met audition. Short, a little chubby, dark skined with an accent, he's from Porto Rico, and very young, I believe 20 or 21 when he auditioned. Would he have won it without a screen, perhaps in these days but maybe not many years ago. We'll never know will we? ESP
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-07-18 17:30
Maybe you're right about the screen, Ed.
All I can say is that I don't think it makes a heck of a lot of difference these days, especially when the finals are almost always without them, and there seems to be a new tradition of the finals taking place over a series of concerts, at which point anyone too chubby,short, tall, dark, light, ugly, pretty, or handsome [insert prejudice] might be weeded out anyhow. If people are crooked, they're crooked and a screen in the prelims won't help.
But your historical points are well taken.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2012-07-18 17:42
Quote:
"We feel we play a phrase sensitively, with great intention, and that doesn't always translate behind a screen. The player must never overestimate the wisdom of the committee."
In other words, an audition is not the place to show your artistry. It's the place to play perfectly. You show your artistry by placing high enough in the audition to get a tryout with the orchestra.
I don't think that's quite what he was saying. You DO want to demonstrate your musical artistry in an audition. The problem is that it's often difficult for an audition committee to pick up on a player's capacity for musical expression, because so much of the musical meaning of a player's performance of a part depends on its relationship to the context in which its played. In an audition behind a screen, that context is imperceptible to the judges listening. The auditioning player may be playing with an imaginary orchestra in his/her head, but the judges don't get to hear the orchestra, so they miss much of what might be good (or bad) about a player's performance.
This is true even of such "technical" things as rhythm. For instance, there are some players who can play in perfect rhythm by themselves but have great difficulty staying together in an ensemble.
So I think the point Morales was trying to make was that the audition process is inherently flawed, and that audition committees often come to bad decisions because the information they have to go on doesn't tell them much about what they really want to know. (Can this person make good music in my orchestra?)
A little bit of reflection suggests that minor technical flaws ought to be less important than musicality, even in an orchestral audition, since technical problems can always be fixed (and random errors are just a part of life), while there are no straightforward fixes for a lack of musical talent/ability. (And past comments of several professionals on this board support this.) The problem is that the most important things about one's playing are difficult for a listener to perceive in the screened audition.
So the real challenge for someone auditioning is not technical perfection (although obviously that's important)--it's finding a way to communicate to the people on the other side of the screen that you understand music and have what it takes to do the job when your medium of communication (playing by yourself behind a screen) is inherently limited in expressiveness.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
