 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Meighan Stoops
Date: 2002-12-14 17:35
Just wondering if anybody else out there is as confused/annoyed as I am over the tape requirements for the san fran bass audition. For those of us whose resumes did not pass (and apparently there were many), we are expected to record 5 excerpts on tape. That much is to be expected. However, the committee will NOT accept any cd's or md's. It must be a cassette. It also says:
"Please play all excerpts straight through with no edits in the tape. You may stop playing and re-record any excerpt at will; but please submit a cassette that is representative of your best efforts."
Huh?
At first I thought it meant no stopping between excerpts; now I think that they just don't want tweaking on individual excerpts. What do you guys think? Poorly worded, I'd say.
Incidentally, the excerpts chosen are:
Gotterdammerung: Vorsspiel
Grand Canyon 2-3
Daphnis 2 noodles (165-167, 169)
Don Q (14-19)
Shost. Violin Concerto (II. 23-13after24)
-Meg Stoops
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ken
Date: 2002-12-14 19:39
Hmmm, being the suspicious type the audition committee intentionally wants cassettes as the older format is tougher to hide inserts and plugs. However, if a person had the digital equipment (and most home computers have the capability) or access to a studio/two track or more you could easily drop it on a CDR and unsuspectingly transfer it back over. They certainly went to the trouble of more or less emphsizing a straight through recording, including dead air, starts and stops ... standard practice. Either that or the orchestra seriously needs to stick a crowbar in their wallet and get in the 21st century technology-wise. v/r KEN
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lowclarinetman
Date: 2002-12-14 20:05
Hi megan good luck with your san fran tape. My resume also did not hold up to whatever standards they desired.
i also feel the tape part of the requirement to be a bit funny. I am certianly not going to record straight on to the tape. I will not edit individual excerpts(each will b a once through) but I am certianly goign to record where how it sounds best(and yes that will most likely include recording in a very dry room and adding some reverb)
It is also easier to "arrange" the tape on the computer.. so u r not required to record all the excerptr and then mix down to another tape to get the bad takes(and i am sure there will b more than a few) out. the sound will degrade if you transfer it using analgo means. So if I were you record on your PC or whatever you are goign to use and arrange it very nicely and then mix it down to the tape with say 5 seconds between each excerpt.
this is a big audition and i am darn sure going to send in a tape that sounds s good as i can possible make it.
they are trying to make sure that people don't do the cut and paste tapes where u play a few measures at a time and mix and slpice it all together.. sadly it is not possible to prevent people form doing such things and the digital media makes it very easy to do. Cool edit pro and a few hours of work and it is impossible to tell. wether it is ethical is an entirely different story, I am not going to, but will there be people out there that will.. probably... people see the 95k a year price tag on the position and get tempted. if u want/need any advice feel free to talk to me, recording is a hobby of mine.
BTW use a really good mic, i can't stress that enough.. i use condensor mics, i feel that they reproduce the clarinet sound best... i am using a rode NT90(or somethign close to that i forget the exact #)
hopefully i'll see u in march
cheers
bob
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette, Webmaster
Date: 2002-12-14 20:16
Lowclarinetman wrote:
> people see the 95k a
> year price tag on the position and get tempted
And, if they're tempted at 95K/year then I suggest they do some reading up on the cost of living in SF ... It's not a horribly good wage for that town.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Larry Liberson
Date: 2002-12-15 02:17
If you really want to make a tape that is not representative of your playing in order to get an invitation to an audition, go for it.....
.....of course, that audition will be, of course, at your own expense -- and you will be found out in less time than it will take you to play a phrase.
It's your money!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2002-12-16 08:22
$95,000 in San Francisco is not that good????? That's about £60,000!!. I can imagine London musicians having a feeding frenzy over a figure like that (and then they die...........)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2002-12-16 11:50
graham wrote:
>
> $95,000 in San Francisco is not that good????? That's
> about £60,000!!. I can imagine London musicians having a
> feeding frenzy over a figure like that (and then they
> die...........)
No, it's not a good figure if you want to live anywhere in the SF area. SF is near the "top 10" in the US (NYC, Boston, Juneau, Anchorage, San Diego, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Fairbanks, Ann Arbor, Seattle).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2002-12-16 13:41
Sure, but I bet London would be in the top 10 most expensive places relative to US cities.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette, Webmaster
Date: 2002-12-16 14:16
It ranks after NYC:
Hong Kong, Moscow, Russia, Tokyo, Japan, Beijing, China, Shanghai, China, Osaka, Japan, New York City, USA, St. Petersburg, Russia, Seoul, South Korea, London, UK
(Ref. http://www.imercer.com/international/home/news2.asp)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: liquorice
Date: 2002-12-16 14:48
A recent survey showed that London is the worlds 10th most expensive city. San Francisco is in position 21 in the world (the 4th most expensive city in the USA). As far as I know, an orchestral musician in London could earn around £40,000 per year. I don't think it's too bad to earn one and a half times that in a city with a cheaper cost of living!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: liquorice
Date: 2002-12-16 14:58
Mark- I also used the Mercer survey. If you check the survey for 2002, you'll see that London moved up from 12th place to 10th place.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette, Webmaster
Date: 2002-12-16 15:51
liquorice wrote:
>
> Mark- I also used the Mercer survey. If you check the
> survey for 2002, you'll see that London moved up from 12th
> place to 10th place.
If you check what I wrote you'll find that I used the 2002 data ...
I know personally that 95K/yr in San Fran is barely livable as an income for 2 people to survive on - you will not be eating out much, you will not be able to go to many of the wonderful things going on, you will not be living in one of the better neighborhoods. You'll be commuting to work from the Oakland side (because the prices for housing either directly N or S of San Fran aren't any better).
When they compute the average costs for housing in the major cities remember that they toss in the cost of what I would consider sub-standard housing; a reasonably nice place in the city of SF will cost you upwards of 750K (750K buys you a "fixer-upper", and not one on Russian Hill ...) - and making 95K/yr doesn't come close to qualifying you for a mortgage.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bryan
Date: 2002-12-16 16:36
I think I would be tempted to endure the hardship of San Francisco on $95K per year.
--Bryan (living in Brooklyn on a whole lot less)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RS
Date: 2002-12-16 18:38
I think I could get by pretty good in Frisco on 95K. I live in the D.C. area which ain't cheap neither and I do alright on alot less than 95K. Of course I don't eat out much or take vacations. Fortunately I would rather woodshed than indulge in expensive activities. And since I already own a fine collection of instruments this activity is practically free (I might spend a couple of hundred bucks a year on reeds and repairs).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: liquorice
Date: 2002-12-16 18:53
Mark wrote:
"I know personally that 95K/yr in San Fran is barely livable as an income for 2 people to survive on"
It might be barely livable for people in other professions, but for a professional orchestral musician, 95K is a very good salary (even in San Fransisco- according to the Mercer survey!)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: HAT
Date: 2002-12-16 20:40
95K = a lot of money for playing the clarinet anywhere on earth.
Can you raise 2 kids, buy a house in SF on that salary alone? Probably not too well.
But in that respect, you won't be too different from most other musicians on the planet.
Bottom line, being an instrumental musician professionally is not for those who want to live like lawyers and doctors. Unless you are one of the less than 1% who get really, really lucky and even then you might not get to live in the city you really want to live in.
David Hattner, NYC
www.northbranchrecords.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2002-12-16 21:02
HAT wrote:
>
> 95K = a lot of money for playing the clarinet anywhere on
> earth.
True. But this part of the thread started on the assumption that 95K/yr would attract someone to SF. The money shouldn't be the attraction. If you want similar money and a significantly lower cost of living, wait (a long time) for an opening in the Detroit or Cleveland Symphony Orchestras.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Suzanne
Date: 2002-12-16 21:18
Gee, I live in LA on about 15K... looked like LA was up with SF, and I sure wouldn't mine an extra 80K a year...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: HAT
Date: 2002-12-16 23:18
Mark,
You can only wait for another opening to happen if you're good enough to win every audition you take. I think you know this.
But even if you ARE good enough to win them all, you probably won't. Ricardo Morales may be the best player around, but even he failed to win several auditions he took along the way. The only way to get a job at all is to be at every audition, no matter where it is and consistantly make the finals.
It would be nice to be able to make a great salary in a cheap place to live. We as musicians understand that we don't get to make a lot of choices about certain things, including what city we live if we want to work with full-time orchestras. I should hope that music conservatories are pointing this out to their students.
Chances are what SF pays will be PLENTY to attract at least a half-dozen players to the audition who could theoretically win. Of course, there will be dozens more who don't have any chance of winning who will also go.
And of course you're right, Mark. Money is not the attraction for anyone who tries to be a professional clarinetist. I bet there isn't even ONE out there who decided to be a musician for the money. Which is why I get so upset when the media calls musicians trying to bargain for a decent and semi-dignified lifestyle 'greedy.' I have seen it even recently in the Chicago Tribune, in fact.
HATTNER
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2002-12-17 00:50
HAT wrote:
>
> Which is why I get so upset when the media calls
> musicians trying to bargain for a decent and semi-dignified
> lifestyle 'greedy.'
And why I was on the steps of the Dallas Opera last year helping my buddy hand out union flyers before the opera started ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: HAT
Date: 2002-12-17 14:55
Mark,
Take me seriously when I say "Thank you" for doing that. It is deeply appreciated by all in the profession.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Larry Liberson
Date: 2002-12-17 16:58
Not too many years ago, the Pittburgh Symphony would note (in their job vacancy advertisements) that they offered the highest weekly scale of all American orchestras -- as adjusted by the local cost of living indices!
In regards to musicians being greedy -- or "greedy" -- well, of course we are! After all, how many times have we been told that we shouldn't need or expect to be compensated for our talents/music since we're having so much fun, right?
Of course, using that inane reasoning, neither then should the Red Wings.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Morrigan
Date: 2002-12-18 02:14
A lot of you describe 'living well' on this salary, buying a house etc.
Isn't being in this orchestra enough? I don't expect to ever 'live well', I know it's something that comes with the livestyle of being a musician.
Can't simply playing music and doing what you love be enough to satisfy you? What happened to it 'not being about the money'? 'Starving for your art'?
I'm 19 and already do... But I wouldn't have it any other way.
If you're thinking about raising a family on this salary, like you're expected to provide this income, should your partner know and respect your decision to be a musician from the beginning?
Just my way of looking at this situation; I'm only young.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mitch K.
Date: 2002-12-18 04:11
To Morrigan:
What?! So am I expected to be forever poor because I'm a musician? I don't think so! One of the societal "goals" is to be able to support yourself without having to play clarinet in the Embarcadero Bart Station in downtown San Francisco. I agree with you in that most, if not all, of us enjoy making music. I also agree that probably no one has gone into the music profession, well, at least "art" music, to become rich. However, I do fell that it is not expecting too much, nor beyond reason to want to make a living wage. Unfortunately in San Francisco the living wage is much higher than elsewhere.
Yes, 95K/years is a good salary. No, $95K/year in SF does not mean you are rich. Yes, it is possible to survive in SF on $95K/year. I know, I've survived SF on MUCH MUCH less than that. Granted, this was 10 years ago, right before the dot.com boom (before "Internet" was a household word), but the City was still quite expensive back then. And, thanks to the dot.com bust, prices are dropping all over town and the Bay Area.
Good luck to all of those auditioning. I'd join you if I hadn't sold my bass two years ago. :-(
Mitch King
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Morrigan
Date: 2002-12-18 12:36
Hehe, not *expected*! Like someone said earlier, your average classical musician is hardly ever going to live like a doctor or a lawyer.
Just saying that music is enough for me, money isn't even a part of it. Except when I buy my new set of clarinet next year... Oh boy!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Hoit
Date: 2002-12-18 16:49
grrrrrrrrrr
you know there is a reason i dislike analog media. I just finished recording my tape and putting it all in order and making it sound all nice and happy... but I am now confronted with an interesting problem.. I don't even HAVE a tape player that can record decently. geez. Oh how life would be simpler if they would accept CD's. Now I am going to have to chase down a tape recorder. Oh well at least i still have time and I have the stuff recorded well.
BTW Meighan... did you listen to the wagner excerpt... I cannot find the darn thing anywhere in the opera... it is obvious how it is supposed to go, but it would have been nice to be able to hear it before i recorded.. The recording I have is Furtwangler with the Teatro alla Scala and no where in ANY of the vorsspiels(much less the first one) is there anything that remotely sounds like this excerpt... lol I was able to find the little clarinet excerpts from the green book in it.. but none of the bass stuff... such is my life i guess, personally i'm chocking it up to bad recording quality and furtwangler.. if its not one thing its another I got to try to find a tape recorder now.. ciao
bob hoit
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
