maybe they just weren’t that “into” you

I’ve been reading the discussion boards over at MyAuditions.com with interest over the past year. There have been a few auditions (flute in Detroit and harp in Cleveland are the most recent controversial examples) that have either drawn many, many applicants but not hired someone, or else they have hired someone who was already in the orchestra – in some cases without advancing anyone from the preliminary rounds.

There are the usual aspersions cast regarding the fact that the audition may have been fixed, that it’s defrauding the applicants if the orchestra clearly intends only to hire from within and not from the cattle-call pool of unscreened applicants.

I doubt that’s ever the case. If it is, it’s exceedingly rare.

Why?

Because an orchestra cannot function without its musicians. If an orchestra holds several auditions either without hiring someone or it hires from within, and its methodology is opaque, word gets around. People that have a choice will go somewhere else to audition. The quality of the pool goes down, and it gets harder and harder to find qualified applicants for any given position. I’ve seen it happen.

So it’s in the orchestra’s best interest to maintain transparency in its process, and to make sure that auditions are as fair as possible.

If you look at the two orchestras currently embroiled in controversy (at least on the message boards), you’ll notice two very different approaches to the audition process.

Detroit allows anyone who wants to audition to come and audition. They may require tapes from applicants who don’t seem to have the requisite experience for the position, but if they play really well, they could be invited to come. Every round, including the finals, is held with the applicant hidden behind a screen. This ensures, as much as is possible, fairness and a lack of crony ism. The music director is also present only for the final round, which gives the musicians on the committee control over whom he may pick to hire.

In Cleveland, on the other hand, they issue invitations only. Applicants may apply, but they are screened pretty ruthlessly, and if you’re not invited, you can’t come play. Numbers are kept low, usually no more than 30 applicants are allowed at any audition for any instrument. All rounds are held in the open, i.e. no screen. and the music director is present for all rounds. It is a system that has worked well for them for years, but has lately come under fire due to charges of nepotism and cherry-picking.

Any system is able to be subverted and abused, but some methods are more equal than others, and as always it pays for the applicant to beware, and to investigate as much as is possible the audition history of the orchestra that they wish to audition for, as some orchestras clearly have blemished records, while others seemingly take all-comers and give them a fair shake.

I started the post up to this point in the morning, and now that I’m back from rehearsals, I’ll finish up my thoughts on this topic.

It’s amazing, how often discussion boards talk about auditions and also mention that there must have been some “funny business” involved.  I generally regard that as a sign of ignorance of how the industry conducts its business.

Most every orchestra I know of bends over backwards to not only keep their audition process on the straight and narrow, but to keep its appearances kosher as well.

Members of audition committees don’t want a pall of strangeness to hang over their audition – they want it to be on the up and up.

This is important not only for the orchestra, who might be open to lawsuits for bad hiring practices, but also for the potential winner(s) of the audition, who should be secure in the knowledge that they were hired fair and square.

But still, the cry of “foul!” one of the first salvos fired when there either isn’t a winner or a current member of the orchestra is hired for a position.  It’s easy to do, and it’s easy to believe, because it’s so easy to fall into a pattern of cynicism in this business.  It is easier to believe that the system is unfair than to believe that one might have under-performed at an audition.

Crony-ism might have been the norm back in the day, but it’s largely a thing of the past these days.  Even places like Cleveland, which have maintained their unique system for decades, and with good results for them, have begun to change their audition procedures after allegations (still unsubstantiated) about unfairness were voiced in recent years.

And the sad thing is, such allegations are generated in an atmosphere which suggests guilty until proven innocent, and the stigma on an innocent organization can last for years.  All because one person with an overdeveloped sense of sour grapes and cynicism decided that the result of an audition didn’t pass their muster.

Surely the state of discourse can rise above such tactics, can’t it?