My friend, Lauren DeRoller, recently wrote a post on her blog that hit a chord with a lot of people, including me. You can read the post here, but to sum up, she points out a lot of the problems with orchestral auditions, from a candidate’s perspective. I won’t rehash Lauren’s whole post, because it’s well worth a separate read, but I want to write about my own perspective as an OSM retiree. I was unhappy with the audition process for many years, mostly once I found myself on the opposite side of the curtain. I haven’t taken an audition since I won my job at the OSM in 1992, but I’ve been on many, many audition panels. Lauren has already talked eloquently about the challenges facing the candidates, so in order to continue the discussion, I thought a post from the other side would be helpful.
A quick disclaimer! This is solely an opinion piece, and does not reflect the views of any other person or organization.
First I’ll quickly explain the audition procedure. An opening becomes vacant, so a notice gets sent out to the members of the various musicians’ union branches, that there will be an audition on such-and-such a date with a list of excerpts the candidates are expected to prepare. From then on a (usually large) number of people start frantically practicing that list. The would-be candidates send in an application form to the orchestra, and are given the date and time and other details. If you’re Canadian auditioning in Canada, you can’t be turned down as a candidate. Also, there is always a “national” round of auditions, and if nobody is hired at that round of auditions, there would be an announcement for an “international” round, to be held within a certain number of months. The list of excerpts must be the same for both the national and international auditions.
I can’t speak for all orchestras, so I’ll confine most of my comments to how it works at the OSM. By the time I won my position in 1992, all the rounds were “blind” (the candidates played behind a screen) but that was a fairly recent change. Due to concerns that candidates were rarely hired at the national level of auditions, it was agreed, through negotiation, that there would be a screen for every round. That way, if the Music Director, or other members of the panel, had a bias against hiring Canadian players, that bias could at least be neutralized at the international level of auditions, though it wouldn’t necessarily mean that more Canadians would be hired at the national level. Obviously, other biases (use your imagination) could also be neutralized with a screen. As a side note, back before my time there was also a “local” level of auditions, at least in Montreal. My former colleague, Pierre Beaudry, (bass trombone) had to undergo all three levels of the audition process before finally winning at the international level. I believe he was the last man standing at the previous two, which is a convincing argument that there might have been a bias against hiring Canadian musicians at the time.
From what I’ve heard, previous generations of orchestral candidates (and this was a wide-spread practice) often only had to play a couple of solos or excerpts for the Music Director (MD), often in his private office. There were very few set rules, it seems. It’s easy to see why this was problematic. If the MD was friendly with one person, they could get hired despite deficiencies in their playing. The opposite could also be true, somebody who played very well and fit in with the section might not get hired because the MD didn’t like them. The MD had pretty much absolute power. Even after auditions were more formalized and the screens were introduced, the MD still had a lot of power; for instance, at the OSM they had 7 votes vs 1 vote each for the other members of the panel. All the MD needed was one member to vote with them and they would get their choice. Plus they had the power of veto. Those rules have since been changed and now each member of the panel has one vote, except the MD, who has no vote. However, in certain situations during the tenure process, the MD still has the power of veto.
Despite the efforts to create fairness, there are aspects to the audition process that I still find problematic. One frustration is the number of auditions that don’t produce a winner. The amount of money the orchestra wastes on auditions where nobody gets hired is practically criminal, to say nothing of the waste of time for the panel, the MD, and above all, the candidates. The candidates have put their lives on hold to spend months practicing their parts in good faith, and have paid their own expenses to travel to said auditions. Not choosing a winner after all that, is not only horribly deflating on the day, it discourages participation in future auditions, which continues the pattern of not hiring. This is definitely a widespread problem, not confined to the OSM.
So, I have to ask myself, why does it happen so often? In my opinion there are a few reasons, one or two of which could be remedied. One is that the list of solos and excerpts that have to be prepared is often way too long. There are no limits set in the collective agreement, so every section leader decides the list for the auditions for their section. It’s easy to get carried away when writing a list, because there is a lot of music to choose from, so if there were a limit of, (and I’m just spitballing here) 2 solos and 10 orchestral excerpts —with specific passages and not whole symphonies to study—that would be manageable. Thus, a candidate who was already working at another job, or was already subbing in the orchestra, or who had other commitments (aka, life stuff), could reasonably prepare that list in a short time. (Between the announcement and the audition there are usually only about 3 months).
The people who can actually spend upwards of 5 hours a day practicing their audition lists are usually younger players who may have limited orchestral experience but practically unlimited time. If you’re looking for musicians with experience, which most major orchestras hope for, then why create a scenario where you’re less likely to attract the people you want? It’s shooting yourself in the foot. One could argue that a very long repertoire list actually favours younger, less experienced players. Of course, many wonderful orchestra members won their jobs fresh out of school; it’s not always a bad thing. I’m just saying, let’s even the playing field by shortening the excerpt list.
Another reason there might be a no-hire situation, in my opinion, is that when the panel can’t see who is behind the screen, the whole process is dehumanized. The panel forgets that it’s not just sound emanating from nowhere; but that there is a human being behind there trying their best in a difficult situation. They start getting very nit-picky, to the point where they’re paralyzed and just cannot decide. Another issue I had is that I found myself forgetting whose playing I liked after sitting there for 8+ hours listening to the same excerpts over and over, despite having taken notes. Without visual cues to attach to the sounds we’re hearing, it’s much harder to remember who is who. It did help that for the last many years, during the first rounds we would vote between every 6-10 candidates, depending on the number of candidates that were to be heard. Removing the screen would mean losing the anonymity of the process, and maybe orchestras aren’t ready for that. Many biases exist, that’s a fact, but maybe taking the screen down for the last round at least, should be reconsidered as an option.
Here’s another audition feature that drove me nuts. The order in which the candidates play is decided by lots drawn once everyone arrives on the morning of the audition. This can be awful from the candidates’ point of view, since it makes for a very long day.* From the panel’s point of view, the problem lies when the candidates’ numbers must be redrawn for every round in which there is a change in the audition panel, or if there are candidates added during the second round (tenured members of the orchestra who wish to audition for a different post can choose to skip the first round). This redrawing of the numbers would happen at least once during the day, sometimes more than once. So, how to keep an overall idea of a person’s playing? It was impossible unless that person had a very distinctive sound or style, and even then, I would always second-guess myself.
Sometimes there’s no choice but to redraw the numbers, as in when two panels have been working at the same time and the candidates must be eventually melded into one group for the later rounds. I also see why, if there are added candidates, numbers had to be changed to guard anonymity. For the panel, it means that at every round of the audition, you’re starting fresh, as though you’ve never heard these candidates before. So a candidate you really liked in an earlier round, who plays less well later on, might not get through and you have no way of weighing their overall performance. Frustrating, to say the least.
Another problem with auditions, (as Lauren pointed out) is that a person might be voted out simply because they followed several strong candidates. Or a weaker candidate got to move on because they followed terrible candidates and sounded good in comparison. Of course, no panel is perfect, it’s made up of human beings too, and the whole process is exhausting and sometimes bewildering, so making the right decision is not always clear and easy. The sheer number of candidates can be overwhelming. That one comes down, literally, to the luck of the draw.
In the past, another major reason for a no-hire audition was the discussion that often arose before voting on each round. At times, one comment could derail the process, especially if it came from the MD. From feeling optimistic of our chances of hiring we could quickly descend into hopelessness. This is something that has been changed in the most recent contract. Discussion is limited now, and I hope that will help. However, NO discussion can be detrimental in certain cases. I’ve been on a few percussion auditions, for example, where I was really challenged to figure out what I should be listening for and who the best candidates were. If it hadn’t been for the discussion with the percussion players on the panel, I wouldn’t have known what to listen for, to be honest. Maybe unfortunately, the rules state that there must be a certain number of people on any panel, regardless of whether every member has a deep understanding of the instruments they’re judging.
One, controversial, way to help fill positions might be to allow hires without the audition procedure in certain cases. For instance, if someone is capable of playing as a sub in the orchestra steadily for several years, without complaints from their section mates or the MD, why shouldn’t that person simply be offered a permanent contract, after a tenure vote is taken? Fairness is a subjective term. On the one hand, it’s unfair to the many musicians who live elsewhere and would then not have the chance to audition for that position, but how unfair is it to the musician who has based their life decisions around being hired year after year, until suddenly they have to audition for the position they’ve been playing for years, and don’t win it?
Well, you’ll say, if they were the best candidate, they would have won their audition. That’s possible, but perhaps they are the best candidate, and simply had an off day, or, ( and I’m sorry to shock you) maybe the orchestra doesn’t need a better candidate than that person; they’re doing a great job, no complaints, remember. Their section likes them, they’re a good colleague. The transition from sub to tenured member would be seamless, like slipping on the proverbial glove. Musicians who are hired based on a single day’s hearing can throw a whole section into disarray. In which case, if the person doesn’t end up fitting in or measuring up, they may win the audition but not the position, by losing their tenure vote. (The probation period at the OSM is one year, but can be extended to two.) It’s an alternative I’d be in favour of, but I know it would spark heated debate amongst tenured members.
As you can see, hiring people for orchestral positions is a challenging process and I don’t see an easy path to making it fairer and less agonizing for everyone. With the huge flurry of auditions coming up at the OSM due to the pandemic and the change in Music Director, to say nothing of a long string of no-hire auditions, there will be many occasions to dissect the process and weigh the pros and cons of the way it’s currently done. I hope to see improvements to the audition clauses at every new collective agreement, but for the time being, the hopeful candidates are stuck with the way it is, and I wish them the very best as they tackle the herculean effort that is required to participate in an orchestral audition.
*Update! A former colleague, a member of the OSM, let me know that now, because of COVID restrictions, the candidates are asked to come at a specified time and will most likely play within a couple of hours, instead of who knows when. Great and unexpected side benefit from this horrible pandemic.
I love to hear from you!