This audition was scheduled to end today. Any word yet?
I’ve been told Final Round had 3 people.
2 people were pre-advanced to finals: one is the son of the principal clarinet player who was also appointed a semi 1-year for this season, and the other is the current bass clarinetist.
1 person advanced from the prelim rounds.
The current 1-year appointee, Rosario Galante, was offered the job.
in the music world there are many great players who deserve equal shots.
would the committee advance more ppl if they knew who they wanted weren’t auto’d?
let alone in no other biz in the US would relatives allow to report to each other.
What’s your solution?
why was his son given privilege in auto advance? did he earn it or was it because of his father? did he take an audition for the temp appointment or again was it because of his father?
was his father on committee or advising?
transparency into how this orchestra works is necessary as a solution.
People having questions about this audition process isn't attacking the musicianship of the winner. However insulting people for asking questions, calling them jealous or telling them to go back to the practicing is really garbage. Its very clear that though some people are really great at playing their instrument, their HR skills are lacking.
thank you. even if its 1 vote gained from your parent its still 1 vote closer to a salaried $45.000 job in the US.
how could a committee agree to this knowing there would be an auto advanced relative and still argue fairness here
I am a current member of the orchestra and have been on numerous previous audition committees, including a clarinet audition a few years ago, but was not on this year's clarinet audition committee, a few things:
-It is our long standing policy that ONLY currently contracted players are auto advanced to the SEMIS of an audition, AND that the screen must stay up the entire time if someone currently in the orchestra is in an audition. We more recently have started keeping the screen up through finals regardless anyways. I can't comment on how things went down this time around but if the semis were skipped because of limited people that is a pretty standard thing to happen at most auditions.
-Voting happens completely in secret and we are NOT allowed to discuss before voting at all, so this notion of the principal clarinet pushing for a number that he "knows" is his son is ridiculous. As said before a winner needs a majority of a 9 person committee AND MD vote to secure a win, all done in secret with no discussion beforehand so it is not a system where someone can force something within the committee
-This notion that Rosario was "handed" the one year that got him auto advanced is also ill-founded. Besides from just being an extremely great player and wonderful colleague, Rosario also made finals at our one-year audition a few years ago. Starting in prelims, completely screened. He did not win that one, the winner no longer plays and the runner up is now in a much larger orchestra. All that to say there's plenty of grounds for Rosario being appointed a one-year for this season, and also should note that all one-years this year were appointments so we could wait to audition until it is a tenure track audition to gather hopefully a larger applicant pool, this was not just done for Rosario/clarinet.
-This notion that Omaha has shady audition practices is quite silly, we have been in constant discussion of tweaking audition practices to follow NAAS standards, and going into these conversations found that we already were hitting the vast majority of those standards. As someone who has been on multiple committees and taken tons of auditions across the country myself I feel Omaha has by far some of the most fair practices that exist.
-I think the people commenting are just wanting to fuel an unnecessary fire. Rosario is more than good enough for this job, I sit near him every week at work and his musicianship, technique, and professionalism are astounding and I will not be surprised at all when we lose him soon to a larger orchestra. I don't know what the previous people commenting expect when a more than qualified candidate who is related to someone in the orchestra wants to audition for a job. This was done as fairly as possible and I respect my colleagues on the committee to have done a fair job selecting a winner who happened to be Rosario.
Was that true of the principal bass audition in 2019? I recall the person on a one-year who would go on to win the audition started in the finals. They also kept the same numbers through each round, which made it obvious to the panel who the pre-advanced players were, although I've heard that policy has been changed.
This is partially true. The winner (who was on a one year, this is correct) did not start the audition in finals - they started in semis since they were a current contract holder. Screen stayed up through finals as well, and the screen came down when a superfinal was called. This is in line with the procedures outlined in the CBA with regard to a current member of the orchestra in the audition. While a contractual policy change requires waiting for a new CBA, the orchestra has been favoring keeping screens up for the entirety of the audition as of late.
Yes, the one year position was actually based on video submissions and the said player then won the principal position a year later. It's true that they kept the same numbers in the prelims and semis for people who advanced which is a really bad call in my opinion...
Omaha has had a history of bad practices in terms of auditions and hiring process. One other recent audition which was won by someone within the section (pre-advanced to the semi) but the resulting position was NOT offered to the runner up (named) and instead was offered to a none-contracted substitute musician who did not even take the audition.
I don’t think being a runner up in the past for a section spot (who knows how many years ago) qualifies to snub the current runner up that was named for a titled position. The orchestra is clearly showing favoritism and unethical practice and really sends bad message to people who have done it the right way by taking the audition and going through all the rounds.
Who is there to police these events? Obvious nepotism and favoritism… How can anyone take these auditions seriously
I’m surprised that this happened in a union orchestra that’s well regarded. It’s laughable to me that someone would even mention the sub‘s past achievements as the reason that qualifies them snubbing the current runner up. No one is questioning the qualification of the substitute musician. I’m sure this person is a very fine player but the said person did NOT take the audition and that’s the end of the story. Does anyone expect to be awarded a one year position based on how they auditioned from years ago??
The comments on this post that are suggesting Rosario did not win this position on his own merit are deplorable. As someone who knows him both personally and professionally, I can say with 100% certainty that he definitely deserves this job. He is a fantastic musician and human being, well-liked by his colleagues and peers, and easy to sit next to.
Please don't jump to conclusions about a situation you know nothing about. Instead, consider being supportive of someone who has diligently worked to navigate the messy waters of orchestral clarinet playing and auditioning. Bravo to Rosario!
I am a member of this orchestra, I was NOT on this committee.
Normally I stay far away from contributing to online discussion. However, I am seeing quite a few accusations and assumptions being thrown around, and while I can't confirm or deny anything with 100% certainty, I think I can add a bit of additional context to the conversation.
Rosario is an excellent clarinet player and musician who is extremely well liked among his colleagues. I expect we are very proud to have him as a tenure-track musician going forward.
To the best of my knowledge, there were only approximately 15 applicants. Again, since I was not on the committee this is second hand knowledge and may be incorrect, but considering there seem to have been multiple clarinet auditions around this time I think it may be accurate.
Within the last year or two, principal players held meetings with management to put in place better practices for a more fair audition process. To the best of my knowledge, one of these practices included the screen staying up if anyone on the committee has a significant relationship with a player, or they are contracted to the orchestra.
Contracted players are only advanced out of the preliminary round, NOT auto advanced to the finals. Since there were so few applicants (from my information), I understand it may have been a bit muddy. Also, I'm fairly certain this or something similar is a pretty common practice among orchestras around the country. *Players are NOT advanced based on relationship to members in our orchestra, as I've seen suggested in this thread.
I vehemently trust and respect the integrity of my colleagues that sat on the committee, and while it's understandable there are questions from the outside, it's still disappointing to see people immediately leap to an assumption of nepotism hire, but I suppose that's your right.
Thanks for your attention, I hope this adds a slight bit of context for everyone.
so the son was given a temp appointment by his dad which allowed him to be auto advanced to the final round of an audition led by his dad where his dad picked the winner?
as someone who’s been behind the screen many times, it’s very easy to pick out a candidate you know let alone your son.
I get the impression you're just set on being argumentative, so I'll leave it at this.
The two contracted clarinet players were advanced past the preliminary round, not auto-advanced to a final round. The fact these two happened to be the same is, in my opinion, unfortunate, but understandable considering low turnout.
Rosario has taken clarinet auditions here before and not won. I'm really uncertain the point you're trying to make.
Each member of the committee receives one vote and the winner is subject to MD approval. The principal doesn't just 'pick the winner.'
Best of luck in your future auditions.
Look up the CBA. You can see how the process is run. There is a committee of 9 plus the music director. The winner is chosen by a majority vote from a secret ballot, with the music director receiving three votes. The winner must be acceptable to the majority of the committee and the music director. The decision to hire does not come down to one person‘s opinion.
Just one thing, it is always a bad idea to auto-advance people to a final round, my mind will not be changed on this. At least it was screened, and it's not Rosario's fault that the audition was run the way it was. But it's a dumb audition policy
It is incredibly striking to me to see how quickly a person would immediately disqualify one other person's countless hours of work, study, and growth with one sentence. "One is the son of"... It seems like perhaps the actual issue is not with the fact that a completely over qualified, competent, and deeply gifted musician has won a position with a professional, full-time orchestra, but that it is with this preconceived notion that Mr. Galante won a position through it being 'rigged'. Maybe he played really well or maybe not that many people showed up to the audition... these are all things that we cannot control... regardless, there are many clarinet auditions occurring at this moment in time for which we should be thankful for. Y'all take good care now and practice them Baermanns....
does everyone not deserve an equal chance?
You are making all kinds of assumptions to even speculate that equal chances were not given. Jealousy is not a good look. Congrats to Rosario! He is a fantastic player. This is well-earned