The Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra is having a private audition for a one-year principal trumpet position. Is this even allowed anymore? They didn’t have any prior auditions, nor was this posted in the union papers.
The discussions here about whether one-year positions make it easier or harder to get a tenured spot are irrelevant. RPO held a 1-year audition because their Principal is taking a 1-year leave. It is not a permanently vacant spot. Orchestras have considerable leeway to run the hiring processes for fixed-term, non-renewable, non tenure-track positions as they see fit.
Seems to me like the argument here hinges on whether or not getting a one-year spot has bearing on whether that person gets the tenured job in the future. I think that obviously it does - let's say that the one-year spot is handed to the top sub, the one-year goes well, they auto-advance to an unscreened semi-final and are handed the position. Obviously they benefited the connections within the orchestra that got them the one-year in the first place. Even if they have to play a prelim and the entire thing is screened, wouldn't you assume that the experience of playing in the section would give that player invaluable intel? If the goal of auditions in general is to give all players a fair shot, this practice seems to subvert it.
I agree with OP that just because something is commonly done doesn't mean we should keep doing it. We should be in the habit of questioning the way our institutions run and make sure they align with our values as musicians.
Let's not make a whole bunch of assumptions and stir up drama for no reason. The RPO has audition protocols dictated by its CBA, like any other orchestra. It also has a policy with regard to pre-advancing section players and subs, like most other orchestras. I can say with certainty that the orchestra committee and audition coordinator take seriously their obligations to uphold the rules and run fair auditions.
The fact is that the RPO screens *all* auditions, for *all* candidates, through the final round. There are no unscreened semis, and nobody is pre-advanced to an unscreened round. An unscreened super-final can occur if the majority of the committee elects to proceed in that fashion by a secret ballot, however if they have elected to hear an internal candidate then they will be informed that the screen must remain in place regardless.
Having experience playing in a section is as much an advantage as it is a disadvantage. The pressure to win one's own job again coupled with the ability of that person to receive direct and often contradictory feedback from a multitude of one's colleagues can make it difficult to succeed behind the screen. In *many* cases, the recipients of one-year contracts do not win tenure-track contracts for the chair they occupy, even when they are beloved by the orchestra members.
It's fine to question philosophically whether a private audition is problematic, but please don't create a hypothetical scenario to support your view in which none of the existing rules are followed. I would personally imagine, without direct knowledge of this particular set of circumstances, that the urgency of filling the chair along with the logistics and expenses associated with holding an open audition make this the most viable solution. It's rather late in the season, and if they advertised and organized an open audition, they'd likely be holding said audition mid-summer when most qualified players, both experienced and green, will be at conflicting festival engagements.
In any case, it will be a blind audition, and it seems to me akin to having an aggressive resume screening process to ensure that all candidates in attendance will be both available on short notice for the duration of the season, and capable of succeeding on the job. It seems like it would be potentially pointless to end up hiring a very green player with great chops and no experience who is still learning on the job (or perhaps someone who immediately wins a tenure-track job elsewhere). It's a one-year after all.
On the flip side of the coin, if a 1 year contract proves to be a great addition to the orchestra, why are they hardly awarded tenure? In my opinion, playing with the orchestra for x amount of time is a much better measure of success within the orchestra
My angle is that this is a wrong practice and bad for our industry. This gives way to excluding people who aren’t in privileged pipelines and doesn’t create or encourage equity. It allows the established to become more established and doesn’t give a chance to people who might not know all of the right people at the moment.
I don’t think we should go through certain processes because they give us the results we want, but rather we should go through the right hiring processes that are equitable, above-board, and fair, simply because that is the right thing to do. And I think your last sentence there gets at the heart of what we need to change. Having the recommendation of certain established orchestral players to then get recommended for an audition, which as you said involves “requiring privilege“ to do so is wrong, and someone along the way in the hiring process has to do something to reverse that need, instead of just letting things through as they are.
Again, just because “most people are doing it” doesn’t mean it’s right and that the next generation of musicians coming up aren’t dedicated to changing this. You bring up a great point on the short timeline, but in the age of social media and most information being made available online, I don’t see how posting a call for resumes on their website within a short deadline wouldn’t get the word around. Additionally, in this type of situation, the audition could be held at the very beginning of the following season. Whatever the method, I feel strongly that orchestras have to dedicate energy to figuring out how to conduct hiring processes fairly, even when it’s difficult.
1-years are treated very casually compared to tenure-track positions and this is pretty much common practice. Different orchestras have wildly variable policies for 1-year contracts in their CBAs. These kinds of contracts are often awarded without holding an audition at all—the orchestra might simply appoint their first-call sub, the runner-up from their last audition, or some kid who played principal at a festival the music director guest conducted at the previous summer. A private audition isn’t about formalizing an informal appointment so much as it’s about the orchestra wanting to cast a slightly wider net (without being completely arbitrary and just hiring the principal’s favorite student or whatever).
Agree with everything said here. One-year positions are often appointed without an audition at all, but smaller/private auditions are also fairly common. Most orchestras would not be interested in spending the money required to hold a full international audition for a position that isn’t tenure-track.
The discussions here about whether one-year positions make it easier or harder to get a tenured spot are irrelevant. RPO held a 1-year audition because their Principal is taking a 1-year leave. It is not a permanently vacant spot. Orchestras have considerable leeway to run the hiring processes for fixed-term, non-renewable, non tenure-track positions as they see fit.
Seems to me like the argument here hinges on whether or not getting a one-year spot has bearing on whether that person gets the tenured job in the future. I think that obviously it does - let's say that the one-year spot is handed to the top sub, the one-year goes well, they auto-advance to an unscreened semi-final and are handed the position. Obviously they benefited the connections within the orchestra that got them the one-year in the first place. Even if they have to play a prelim and the entire thing is screened, wouldn't you assume that the experience of playing in the section would give that player invaluable intel? If the goal of auditions in general is to give all players a fair shot, this practice seems to subvert it.
I agree with OP that just because something is commonly done doesn't mean we should keep doing it. We should be in the habit of questioning the way our institutions run and make sure they align with our values as musicians.
On the flip side of the coin, if a 1 year contract proves to be a great addition to the orchestra, why are they hardly awarded tenure? In my opinion, playing with the orchestra for x amount of time is a much better measure of success within the orchestra
I don’t think just saying that this is better than not having an audition at all makes it okay.
My angle is that this is a wrong practice and bad for our industry. This gives way to excluding people who aren’t in privileged pipelines and doesn’t create or encourage equity. It allows the established to become more established and doesn’t give a chance to people who might not know all of the right people at the moment.
1-years are treated very casually compared to tenure-track positions and this is pretty much common practice. Different orchestras have wildly variable policies for 1-year contracts in their CBAs. These kinds of contracts are often awarded without holding an audition at all—the orchestra might simply appoint their first-call sub, the runner-up from their last audition, or some kid who played principal at a festival the music director guest conducted at the previous summer. A private audition isn’t about formalizing an informal appointment so much as it’s about the orchestra wanting to cast a slightly wider net (without being completely arbitrary and just hiring the principal’s favorite student or whatever).