 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: William
Date: 2013-08-18 16:44
Just for discussion, isn't there a better way to select new players for an ensemble?? Pro's, Con's.....go for it :>)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2013-08-18 18:47
My favorite audition committee story came from Leon Russianoff who lamented at a clarinet congress about the process at Eastman, "Guaranteed, the one clarinetist auditioning that day who sounded like a train going over a trestle would be the one chosen the winner by the committee."
Of course the only other option would be to have ONE voice (the conductor) do all the choosing. First off, everyone would have have some beef with that scenario, let alone the "maestro" who would never sit through the other 298 godawful applicants.
...........Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2013-08-18 19:21
Well, given that an audition isn't a good way either, really, because it only represents a snapshot at a specific time under specific (usually at least mildly adverse) circumstances, the result might not be any worse if preliminary selections were by recommendation and final decisions based on in place auditions with the prospective player playing in the ensemble for a time.
Auditions do weed out those who don't deal well with stress. But some auditioned section positions in smaller orchestras or local bands don't involve that much stress once the player is part of the group. What they don't do is show conclusively what the auditionee can bring to the table (or can't) in terms of ensemble skills and flexibility.
In the case of auditions for principle chairs (or even section parts) in major orchestras, most of the players who audition already have reputations, having played elsewhere, and I suspect are already reasonably well-known to the conductors and possibly the committee members. I think those auditions are mostly to satisfy players and local AFM officials that everyone has a "fair" shot at the available jobs. I've never been completely sure why players whose playing is well known (e.g. Morales, Nuccio, or other proven performers) can't simply be hired without the whole audition process and the expense it entails for those who dutifully attend and play. Auditioning behind a screen on a bare stage with no ensemble to work off of is not a way for a player to show what he or she can really do.
So, in answer to the original question, my bottom line is to say that in most cases, an orchestra or band would do as well just to approach someone whose playing is already known to them or recommended by someone who is considered a reliable judge. If the player accepts the invitation, bring him or her into the ensemble on a probationary basis and it becomes the player's position to keep or lose.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2013-08-18 20:14
Karl,
I think this IS pretty much what happens in reality. For top orchestral auditions there are probably about 6 available players out there that COULD be selected. Even where there is no strong union (and I think we should be somewhat proud that we still do have a fairly strong union in today's climate) it is a good idea to have more hands in the decision.
One more story: For all of Herbert von Karajan's ego maniacal tendencies, the one move he made that nearly got him canned by the Berlin Philharmonic was appointing a woman to a principal position (Sabine Meyer). And even after the dust settled on that controversy, his relationship with the orchestra was permanently strained.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2013-08-20 00:51
That's the best and fairest way to choose a player for a professional orchestra. Especially when it's behind a screen to be fair. Before the use of a screen women usually didn't win most auditions, now they win a great many. We use a committee of 9 in Baltimore. A player has to receive at least 5 votes to move on to the semi finals. Only about one out of ten usually move on but that can vary depending on the instrument and the committee of course.
When I taught at Peabody we would usually have all three of clarinet teachers on the committee back then. A student would be accepted on how high their average grade came out in relation to the others and how many the administration wanted to accept. Yes, there were a few times politics played it's ugly hand but for the most part it was fair. It's easy to raise a students average by giving them a higher score than they deserved to give them a boost but they had to get a decent score from the other teachers as well or it would be all to obvious. It was fair MOST of the time.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
