Auditions are a joke. Major orchestras will field hundreds of applicants and leave positions open for years at a time. Each of us spends hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars preparing for auditions that might only hear five minutes of playing. We, as musicians, are told that this is just the way it is. Competition is fierce, it's a honor to even play in a famous hall, etc. etc.
It could be better though. It's so painfully obvious, but no one seems to talk about that.
Here are some immediate ideas - maybe you disagree with some, but I think in general these are easy fixes that should be no-brainers.
1) Only ask people to travel if they have a serious shot - every orchestra should be doing remote prescreening. If you are worried about fraud (which I think is overhyped), have a screened zoom call in which the personnel manager confirms their identity. With the money orchestras could save by not hosting the circuses that are first round auditions, maybe they could actually fly candidates out for a semi final/final and house them as would literally any other job that is interviewing people.
2) Limit total number of excerpts on lists/limit total number of non-standard excerpts on lists - What is the utility of an hour long list? Or a two hour long list? Their existence implies that too many people are playing winning auditions with just the standard stuff. But if that is true, why are there so many no-hires? Curious if there is actually an argument for anything beyond 10 excerpts, select solo rep, chamber music, and sight reading.
3) Vacancies must be filled - No longer than one year, no longer than two years, idk the right time frame. If you aren't getting the caliber of candidate you want, pay the musicians more. Some orchestras just leave vacancies open to save their bottom lines. Regular subs go on unemployment during the summer to make ends meet. This is no way to live.
The fact of the matter is that musicians who are trying to get into orchestras are the most vulnerable people in our field. We have no rights, and we routinely get treated like absolute trash. Why aren't musicians' unions regulating hiring behaviors? Why aren't tenured musicians advocating for better practices? We are all on the same team, when it comes down to it, and we should look out for one another.
Re: screening of candidates: I think a more intensive screening of resumes could go a long way to preventing people from wasting their money. At an audition I attended last year for a Big Fancypants Orchestra, there were fewer than 15 candidates. For an orchestra that has the reputation and the compensation package to attract candidates of the highest caliber, that seems to actually be a pretty reasonable number.
But that raises the question: is it the orchestra's responsibility to prevent candidates from wasting their own money? From the committee's perspective, if a resume is borderline, they might as well give the candidate a shot—after all, it only takes them 10 minutes to consider one more person. It's us as the applicants who have to invest weeks of preparation and hundreds of dollars, and therefore it's up to us as candidates to determine if that investment is worthwhile. If the orchestras won't dissuade more applicants from coming to the audition, then that leaves the responsibility on applicants to better screen themselves.
---
As for the general audition disillusionment: I think people who are disillusioned with the process could benefit from reckoning with the fact that while there is randomness in auditions, there is less randomness than they think. If you're really qualified, a prelim is a minor hurdle to not really worry about. Occasionally the committee might be exceptionally picky, or you might have a bad day and play a round you know isn't good enough, but when you don't advance out of a prelim you should be able to point to a pretty clear reason why.
It seems to me that most of the candidates who win auditions have become qualified by playing with orchestras of that caliber (or better) as substitutes, or by winning and holding a position with an orchestra just a step down. If you're not yet setting yourself apart as qualified, the best way to develop your skills is by playing with people who are better than you, which means working your way up as a freelancer. Gigging and the audition circuit create a virtuous cycle.
Put in a snarky way: if you're so qualified, and these long term sub contracts are so ubiquitous, why don't you have one?
We should do a general strike of auditions. I'm not even joking. Statistically speaking only one or two people stand to gain financially from going to any given audition anyways. The rest of us lose thousands even if we just take 1 or 2 a year. I'm in my 30s and way too old to be taking auditions "for the experience". I've had enough. I want money, or at the very least, an equitable and transparent audition process.
That is not even taking into account the emotional toll. Preparing for an audition is one of the most a-musical and crushing process we as artists have to endure. After a certain point, there is little if anything that is rewarding about it and we've been brainwashed to believe we have enjoy the process. Plus, the rampant misogyny and racism has disillusioned so many wonderful musicians. I have so many friends who are women who consistently will get to the (super)final round of (very prominent) auditions and then the screen comes down and for some reason, if there's a man in the round, it pretty much always goes their way (or a no-hire!)
Orchestras have faced absolutely zero consequences for what basically amounts to abuse of the work force. What exactly are we all doing this for when a section violin audition for the Philadelphia Orchestra ends in a no-hire? Enough is enough. Collective action is the only way forward. I do not want to go through another one of these when most of the people in charge on the other side last took an audition during the Clinton presidency.