General Discussions

Rainer Eudeikis, principal cello of SFS, gave his opinion on this process on a recent episode of the Cello Sherpa podcast. His opinion was that this recorded prelim works best when the committee is very selective, so that fewer candidates are ultimately invited to the live rounds.

Cheating is of course easier but they still have to play 2 live screened rounds if advanced, so it's easily disincentivized.

He also made the interesting point that the taped prelim (and using tapes in general) allow for younger players with less audition experience to fairly compete for jobs.

I'm not personally sure whether the financial and time benefit outweighs the many more variables now in the equation. While it certainly alleviates the financial burden on candidates, recordings can exacerbate a lot of inequities (instrument quality, recording quality, etc.) compared to a screened audition. Recordings are very expensive to do well if costs/time/space aren't provided by an institution.

Either way, it is an interesting experiment and I would like to see more results from this! You can listen to the episode here.

It probably doesn’t go against any written rule. In my experience, the practice of number drawing is facilitated by whoever is proctoring the audition, and it’s down to that person to do it in an unbiased way, or not. I would say having candidates maintain the same order from round to round, and then plugging in a preadvanced candidate as number 1 in the finals is decidedly NOT the fairest way to do it.

I would recommend that any round that includes preadvanced candidates in it should have a completely new numbers drawn. I’ve taken some auditions that use numbers for prelims and then letters for semis, so as not to confuse the committee and inadvertently favor a player because they are the same number as a candidate who advanced from prelims. All final rounds I’ve ever played, screened or unscreened, have began with all the candidates drawing numbers out of a hat or a bag. This is the most transparent way - having proctors predetermine the numbers is just an invitation for doubts about fairness and favoritism. I would also recommend that phones be taken, either from the candidates or the committee members (or both), before the numbers are drawn for a screened round.

I do think it’s acceptable for the proctor to determine numbers for prelims, based on the order that candidates arrive. Most ensembles assign you to a certain hour, and when you check in they tell you which number you are. I don’t think it’s a good idea to assign prelim numbers before check in, because of A) possible discrepancies in warmup time and more importantly B) it’s just too easy for candidates to share their numbers with members of the committee in advance, if they have a relationship.

I’m really sorry this happened to you. That’s an incredibly frustrating situation, and you’re absolutely right to feel upset—unequal warm-up or preparation time can materially affect how someone plays.

Yes, an audition run like this can and should be reported, especially if the audition was under a collective agreement. I would strongly encourage you to document everything as clearly and factually as possible (dates, location, approximate times, what you were told when you asked for more time, and how preparation time differed among candidates) and report it to the union. Stick to observable facts rather than assumptions about intent—this makes your report much stronger.

You may also choose to write to the personnel manager to outline what occurred. A professional, neutral description of the issue is appropriate. There should be no retaliation for raising concerns or for future auditions or hiring. In most orchestras, substitute hiring decisions are made by musicians—typically the principal of the section selects subs for hire and communicates this to the PM, and audition committees determine who is invited and advances at auditions. Administration does not control those artistic decisions.

I would hesitate to call out a specific orchestra publicly (though that choice is yours). Public call-outs often assume malicious intent when, in reality, these situations are frequently the result of administrative errors or poor coordination. The unintended consequence is that it can make the musicians, volunteers, or committee members—who likely had no idea this was happening—look bad as well.

I’m quite certain the musicians behind the screen were unaware of the issue and would be just as livid to learn that candidates were given wildly different preparation times.

Again, I’m really sorry this happened. Unfortunately, I’ve also experienced both very well-run and very poorly run auditions, and the quality of the process doesn’t always correlate with the size of the orchestra or how well the job pays. You’re not wrong to question this, and you’re within your rights to report it.

Is this different from the standard disclaimer included on most lists that reserves the right to ask for music not included on the list?