Virtual Discussion Panel
:: Auditioning the Audition Process
:: 1/22/2007 - 1/1/26/2007
Thank you for visiting this Virtual Discussion Panel. Although active discussion between panelists has ended, you are invited to post a comment to any panelist's contribution or to the discussion in general. Once submitted and approved, your comment will appear on the Polyphonic.org home page along with other recent comments to Polyphonic.org content.
About this Virtual Discussion (Click to Show)
Panelists
Robert Levine's Statement (Click to Hide)
 |
Robert LevineSenior Editor |
For Day 4, I'd like to focus on an aspect of the hiring process that happens after auditions - namely the granting of tenure.
I've spent the past 33 or so years (except for a sabbatical year and a year in a quartet) in four full-time orchestras. During that time, exactly two of the many musicians hired by those orchestras were not granted tenure. I suspect that this is pretty representative of the experience of most US and Canadian orchestras, although I'm sure there are some outliers as well.
Contrast this with what Fergus reports from Berlin, where roughly 1/3 of new hires are let go after the probationary period. What explains this very striking disparity?
I can think of three possible explanations. The first is the process; Berlin's is more impersonal, in the sense that a much larger number of people are making the decision to terminate, which for most musicians would be a hard decision to make.
The second is that Berlin is not trying hard enough to make good decisions in the first place.
The third (which is the one I favor) is that Berlin views the granting of tenure as when they make the real decision to hire, while orchestras over here view it as merely a confirmation of a decision already made - a decision which will stand absent strong evidence that the original decision was a mistake.
What do the panelists think?
A modest proposal defended
I'm grateful to the panelists for the thoughtful consideration of my modest proposal, although I wish there had been more discussion of its second part, which was to spend far more time with semi-finalists before they even get to the finals.
It's true that the idea of remote auditions could be difficult to administer and costly as well. But so is the present system. Those of us on the listening side of the screen tend to forget this because most of the cost of the current system is borne by the candidates. But an audition with 60 candidates in an orchestra's hall is liable to cost a total somewhere between $25,000 and $50,000 - most of which is paid to the airlines by the candidates. A system that would cost orchestras more would be well worth the expense, especially if some of that cost (say, $100 per audition) could be recouped directly from the candidates. And it would likely be less expensive overall. We tend to forget that auditions are as much for the benefit of orchestras as candidates; a system that put more of the financial burden on large employers rather than small employees would be fairer than what we have.
I think a system could be designed in which, once or twice a month, 10 to 15 orchestras across the country have an audition day, during which 50 to 100 applicants for various orchestras on various instruments come to play their audition. I can't believe that the resulting $5-10,000 (50 - 100 candidates @ $100 per head) wouldn't cover the cost of running the audition.
The current system is exactly analogous to a system of college admissions in which each college not only has its own entrance exam, but insists that candidates travel to the college to take that exam. That would likely cut down on the number of applications, but that's hardly a positive outcome for colleges, is it? I know for a fact that some very qualified candidates for jobs in my orchestra haven't come to auditions because they couldn't travel on the day of the audition, for whatever reason. That was our loss as much as theirs; perhaps even more. And it was a loss caused solely by our insistence on running the cheapest system possible for processing large numbers of applicants.
Over the course of a 30-year career, my orchestra will pay a section musician more than $2 million in salary and benefits (in 2007 dollars and 2007 rates). Wouldn't it be a good investment to spend a little more upfront to make sure that we've got the best possible person for that $2 million?
Post Reply for Robert Levine's Statement:
Please log in to comment:
Tanya Ell's Statement (Click to Hide)
 |
Tanya EllCellist; The Cleveland Orchestra |
From the candidates perspective, (and I speak not only for myself but for numerous friends who have won jobs over the past 5 years), it never feels like receiving tenure is a guarantee. The audition process is so harrowing though, that anything after that feels like it will be somehow easier. This is merely an example of the fact that playing in the orchestra tests very different skills than the audition.
From speaking to colleges, I have gathered that the tenure process is problematic for the committee simply because it becomes too personal. The decision of firing someone is too heavy for such a small group of people who are most often in close and friendly contact with the person on probation. It would to make a lot of sense to increase the number of people responsible for making such a decision. Why not allow the entire orchestra to vote a member in or out?
If more quality time was spent with each candidate prior to hiring, then the tenure process would be used more as a mode of back-up than anything else. Our current track record of most always granting tenure would make more sense under those circumstances.
Post Reply for Tanya Ell's Statement:
Please log in to comment:
Neal Gittleman's Statement (Click to Hide)
 |
Neal GittlemanMusic Director, Dayton Philharmonic |
Robert's report of the rarity of un-granted tenure jives with my experience, too. A few thoughts....
1. Perhaps this confirms that for all its flaws, maybe the current system in the US works pretty well.
2. It may also reflect the fact that the talent pool is so deep and so accomplished that to paraphrase an pol from many years ago, "there ain't a dime's worth of difference" between one audition winner and another. We may just be hiring the person who happens to have their skill, nerve, stamina, biorhythms, and luck all line up on one particular day. And there may, indeed, be other candidates who had one little star just a bit out of alignment who would have been just as good (or maybe even better) than the winner. But if that winner proves good enough at the day-in-day-out job to win tenure, then who's to say the audition yielded anything but the (or a) right result?
3. We don't make music with droids. We make music with human beings, who are, of course, human. And so are we. So unless someone REALLY doesn't fit in (or unless their stars aligned in a totally anomalous way on audition day), it's likely that by the time we've shared however long the probation period is, very few probationers have risen (or sunk) to the level where we just can't bear to live with them.
Having had the chance to read Nathan's most recent post, a brief reply regarding "politics". While I'm sure there are some deserving musicians who've been denied tenure because they didn't kow-tow sufficiently, I suspect that "politics" is more often than not a fig-leaf for the person who feels wronged.
I've heard rumblings that "politics" is the reason that many of my orchestra's string openings are won by members of the orchestra auditioning to move up in the section. But we almost never drop our audition screen, and especially not when there's a chance that a candidate could be "one of ours." If insiders are winning, they're winning fair and square.
We were once accused of "politics" at a harp audition -- someone was SURE that a local harpist had fixed the audition, and the "proof" was in the audition list. The list did, indeed, have "harpist" written all over it, but that's because I had vetted the list with the Milwaukee Symphony's fabulous Danis Kelley -- who wasn't a candidate. And no, the local harpist didn't win the audition!
Post Reply for Neal Gittleman's Statement:
Please log in to comment:
Nathan Kahn's Statement (Click to Hide)
 |
Nathan KahnNegotiator, Symphonic Services Division, AFM |
I strongly disagree with the moderator's assertion that "orchestras over here view it as merely a confirmation of a decision already made." Quite the contrary, denial of tenure is occurring much more frequently than the moderator's example. And from my viewpoint at the AFM, I have received far too many calls where the unexpressed reason for denial of tenure had not to do with the probationary musician's performance ability, or their ability to work with the Music Director, section or others, or general behavior/demeanor, but with the probationary musician's insufficient efforts to patronize the Music Director and other key political leaders in the orchestra, otherwise known as ass kissing.
Inherent in this question is an assumption that US orchestras are somehow doing something wrong because they may not be denying tenure at the same rate as the Berlin Philharmonic, IF that is in fact the case. As I have said numerous times in this discussion, I firmly believe in the right of each orchestra and its membership to determine what is right for them. If an orchestra feels that their tenure process in their orchestra is working for them, so what?
But for the moment let us assume that the moderator's premise is the case. In that event, I would think it comes down to Fergus McWilliam's point number one. In the Berlin Philharmonic, the vacancy belongs to the orchestra. In the US, the vacancy is in the domain of the Music Director, notwithstanding that the Music Director may consult with certain musicians about his/her decision.
If an orchestra an orchestra feels that the tenure process in their orchestra is not working for them, then they need to discuss that with their Music Director.
Post Reply for Nathan Kahn's Statement:
Please log in to comment:
Fergus McWilliam's Statement (Click to Hide)
 |
Fergus McWilliamhornist; Berlin Philharmonic |
My Berlin Philharmonic colleagues would be flattered to learn that our search/hire system has attracted the interest of the panel participants and the readers. However I must point out that we are not alone in this. Other German orchestras use much the same system, a fundamental feature of which is that the conductor has much less input than is common in the USA.
With reference to Robert's 3 assumptions, here are my reactions:
1) To be granted tenure by the Berlin Philharmonic, a probationary player requires a 2/3 majority vote of a secret ballot at a full orchestra meeting (whereas at the audition only a simple majority of those attending will have been necessary). Indeed, the final tenure decision does offer individual voting orchestra members the chance to be more ruthless if necessary, because it IS a secret vote.
2) & 3) We do take the auditions very seriously, however it is indeed the probationary period that is the all-deciding phase. We must try to ascertain if we have found not only the right musician but also the right partner for a multi-decade artistic AND business relationship.
As is well known, we choose our own music directors too, an aspect often singled out to illustrate our democratic principles and independence. However the truly most important decision we are responsible for is the hiring of our own colleagues, the consequences of which are far longer-lasting and impacting.
Yes, it's all about the ownership.
Post Reply for Fergus McWilliam's Statement:
Please log in to comment:
Rip Pretat's Statement (Click to Hide)
 |
Rip Pretatbassist and Assistant PM; Milwaukee Symphony |
I am totally fascinated by Fergus McWilliam's description of the Berlin Philharmonic's audition procedures and I thank him for taking the time to elaborate after Nathan Kahn and I made references to Berlin's process.
"The vacancy belongs to the orchestra" and "The orchestra decides who is chosen - all musician-members vote on the basis of one musician - one vote" Two powerful statements almost unimaginable to most American orchestras.
Although one can imagine the criticisms such a system might promulgate here (what does a tuba player know about violin articulations?" or "why should the strings hold a majority of the votes for a second oboe audition?"), the sense of ownership (the reality of ownership!) that such a system grants to the orchestra membership and the responsibility it demands is more than a little intriguing.
Regarding the challenge of the day (the tenure process), I believe that the moderator's first and third theories both have merit. The first, that Berlin's process is more impersonal and therefore makes a non-renewal decision easier to make is probably true. Tenure review committees tend to have a larger representation from the individual section or instrument family, where close personal relationships have had a chance to develop over the probationary period. Some probationary musicians may also have had the opportunity to develop a friendship with the music director. It is natural that people would be reluctant to recommend the non-renewal of a close friend unless it was obvious that the musician was incompetent. On the other hand, it would be difficult to develop a close relationship with fifty or more colleagues in the course of a year or so, and so a vote of the entire membership of an orchestra would likely be more objective. That said, it would also be much more difficult for the majority of the members of an orchestra to vote with personal certainty about the qualifications of a section string player.
The third theory (that the granting of tenure, absent strong evidence to the contrary, is, for many orchestras, merely a confirmation of a decision already made) also rings true. Clearly, Nathan Kahn disagrees, and I would be interested in knowing what the rate of denial of tenure has been for ICSOM orchestras over the last ten years, and whether that rate has indeed been growing.
While it seems unlikely that hiring decisions will be taken from the domain of the music director, given that most musicians will be around long after the music director has departed, perhaps it is time that orchestras give some thought to the idea that the granting of tenure should be in the domain of the orchestra musicians......on the basis of one member - one vote!
Post Reply for Rip Pretat's Statement:
Please log in to comment:
Chuck Ullery's Statement (Click to Hide)
 |
Chuck UlleryPrincipal Bassoonist, SPCO |
The most important aspect of the tenure process for me is the hiring process. Take enough time and care during the audition process, don't allow yourself to be rushed into making a quick decision, be really excited about your final choice, and tenure-granting will most likely never be a problem, no matter what system you use for probation. The root of probation is really testing (or tasting?), or trying, so if you've done enough of that before you hire the person, most problems are avoided. The bigger problem for me is how you keep the probing and communication going after tenure is granted. Namely, how can we get professional about job reviews in our business? How can a person be a hero when he or she is hired, hear no feedback for 30 years, and then get a non-renewal notice. What should be happening in between? Has there been a forum on this issue?
May I add some more audition thoughts, since I have been out of the loop for a couple of days? We have had some success in St. Paul with actively recruiting for the finals stage. Someone who comes highly recommended, either by people in the orchestra or by respected colleagues outside of the orchestra, are often given a week or two (or many more) of concerts with us, along with a short solo recital (open to the orchestra and management) which includes an appropriate piece of chamber music. These candidates have no higher or lower standing than candidates who have made it through the more standard audition process. We are also looking for the right player, someone with a big musical personality, someone who will challenge us, and add to the group in a big way. We definitely look for someone who will fit in, but that is certainly not the main, or the most important, criterion.
It does help us that we have an extremely sympathetic management that does not pressure us to get the job done fast. We very happily use high caliber substitutes for weeks that we cannot fill with candidates. Because of our Artistic Partners (no Music Director) setup, neither do we have a conductor pressuring us to hire a principal horn player for "his tour".
Also, for us, we have been very happy with our results when recruiting outside of the orchestral field. People with solo or chamber music careers may not realize that they might enjoy an orchestra position, and never look at audition ads. We go and tell them about us. We don't worry about how old they are, and we don't care about the extent of their orchestral experience, only whether or not they are an exceptional musician.
I'm sorry that I have not been able to participate fully in this forum because of being on tour, but I look forward to reading all the postings when I get home next week. Thanks to everyone for great ideas!
Post Reply for Chuck Ullery's Statement:
Please log in to comment:
General Comments on This Discussion (Click to Hide)
1. Does the player show up late?
2. Does the player have an odd personality such that he/she causes discord in the ensemble?
3. Does the player work well under pressure?
4. Does the player actually like music? Is He/She curious? Well-read?
5. Can the player speak to groups of schoolchildren?
6. Does the player speak badly of others behind his/her back?
7. Is the player always complaining about his/her salary?
In some of the best chamber ensembles, players are hired based on recommendations from others in the group.
What do any of things have to do with the job an individual is capable of doing in an orchestra? Most musicians are "odd". If the person was able to win an audition, I would say that they "work well under pressure". If the player did not "actually like music", I think they would have given it up by now. "Curious" about what? The ability to speak in front of groups of children should not be a requirement. I don't feel that questions 6 and 7 are applicable, either. What makes it okay for the reference to "speak badly of others behind" the back of the prospective hiree? Regarding showing up late, that depends on what your definition of "late" is, and if it became a problem for a newly hired orchestral musician, I'm sure it would be handled properly by the Personnel Manager.
I hope that people don't forget that one of the most important aspects of being a musician is the actual PLAYING.
I'm fascinated by the Berlin model, and while it may be brutal to some, it puts everything on the same level. The concept of a face-off of the candidates (Mozart at 20 paces!) has a particular appeal, at least to me. No politics - no excuses - everyone knows how the competition did.