Milwaukee had split prelims for their recent 4th horn audition. I've experienced split committees in Cincinnati, as well. At the recent Milwaukee audition, these were my biggest complaints: • Candidates were not notified that it would be split committee • Candidates were not notified which room they'd be in until the runner opened the door for us to take the "stage." • Half of the candidates were in the concert hall, half were in the Atrium, which are not comparable acoustically. I felt this created an unfair advantage for those in the hall. • The Atrium setup had candidates enter through double doors, and about 10 feet out there was a chair. The alcove with the double doors was extended with curtains, so candidates basically played in a curtained-off cubicle with sound going directly backwards into a double door alcove, basically a box. Candidates could not tell how large the space was, where the committee was, and had to compete with traffic noise seemingly right next to us. I assume this is what notabassplayer meant about the awkward makeshift tunnel. For horn players, that's especially problematic since our sound goes backwards. I understand split committees allow orchestras to hear more people, and I support this. However, I think the rooms need to be comparable in order for it to be fair. It felt like half the prelim candidates were set up for failure, and half were set up for success.

Thanks for the correction!

"The blurb also notes the entire negotiating committee was made up of female section string players." We need more all-woman committees.

I take it back. I believe the third horn was tenured in the 2014 or 2015 season, but has since left.

No horn player has gotten tenure there in about 10 years, either, as far as I'm aware.

That also sounds like illegal discrimination against folks with disabilities.

Ben Poirot

Oh no worries! I am super curious about others' lists and reasons. Re: Phoenix, this particular instance was a decade ago. I didn't know about the hotline until much later. Hopefully it hasn't happened since, but they seem to have an abundance of no-hires, too.

From my experience and understanding (in the US), a trial would be a short-term test run, a final round to the audition. If the candidate passed their trial, then a probationary period will start. That usually lasts 1-2 years, depending on what kind of orchestra it is (salaried or per service). Then the candidate would either be given tenure, or not. I've played trials and offered trials, and I truly think it is the only way to determine if someone will be a good fit musically. The tenure process would then see if they are a good fit overall. The trial allows you to hear an audition candidate in context, before committing to a longer term contract with them. The audition candidate also gets to decide if they want to join the orchestra. To me, the trial is the closest to a standard job interview as we get in this industry.

And Phoenix. The pay, and the last time I auditioned there, the proctor went in and out of the hall, slamming open the stage door. I was also first in the day, and by the third group, the list had completely changed. Nope

You didn't ask me, but my no-go list: Utah - 3 no-hires in a row for the same position Kalamazoo - 2 no-hires in a row. Second time, they didn't even take anyone out of the semis. For a per service Orchestra, that's a big no to me. Madison - the audition was run suspiciously, the lists for each round were extremely taxing, and there was almost no time between rounds. 3 rounds in 3 hours is too much. Especially for brass. Illinois symphony - after picking a winner, they announced who made the sub list. The rest of the FINALISTS were invited to submit a recording to be considered as a sub, even though they just played a final round for the committee, live. Any full time orchestra that doesn't pay enough to live off of. And honestly, any orchestra that asks for a recorded round gets a hard no from me. For all the reasons you listed, plus the fact that recordings are always due a month before the actual audition. So the people who are "less experienced" or less ideal have even less time to prepare, have to take the extra time and expense to create a recording, and continue working on the rep until you hear you aren't invited to the live audition. It's a huge time **** and some of us have to work thank you very much.

Thanks for the reply. I understand the many reasons for no-hires. I think this is a flaw in their procedural rules. It sets auditions up as failures from the get-go. What unintended and damaging consequences do you think would come from a trial? I don't share that view, but I'm curious about why you say so.

I will add that I've been on committees for tenure-track, full-time positions, as well as for regional orchestras. I've been on a committee for a full-time job where we decided on a no-hire. So I understand that sometimes, competent folks just don't show up, or they all have a bad day. Looking back, I still wish we had offered a trial to at least one person. It's impossible to get a real feel for a person's playing simply from an audition. How should the next generation gain experience if these regional orchestras won't hire anyone? How can freelancers get back on track if the regional orchestras would rather have an empty chair? If there is no section round, how shall anyone demonstrate their ensemble playing? Now that we have been back to work for a year or two, our ensemble playing doesn't matter if they don't even advance someone out of semis. My biggest gripe is certainly with the regional orchestras. I believe full-time orchestras should at the very least offer a trial (military groups excepted due to the unique nature of the job). I don't think there's a real way to gauge a person's playing without that context. Then there is the probationary and tenure process. I believe the Met refuses to have no-hire auditions, and they have been very successful not only in diversifying their ensemble membership, but with hiring and tenuring folks. Why shouldn't we use that as an example? The regional orchestras should certainly at least offer a trial to the best player or players who show up. I generally find the committees are made up of people who are insecure about their own playing, and somehow expect the cream of the crop to audition for them. The lists they make are ridiculous, the auditions they run are sketchy, and when there is a no-hire, the qualified folks there that day will never come back, thereby reducing the pool of qualified players in future auditions. I wish this would actually discourage no-hires, but it doesn't seem to. None of it offers a solution. I can understand why salaried jobs would have no-hires, but as a whole, I think all of us who still audition should take a stand against orchestras who continuously have no-hire auditions. It wastes the orchestra's time and money, and our own. It doesn't accomplish anything at all.

Thanks for your reply. I do understand that military bands are in a unique position where trials are not possible. That makes perfect sense. And while I still think no-hires shouldn't be a thing, I get it in this situation. I think another issue is that so many musicians had to pick up non-music work in order to survive, and it cuts into the ability to practice properly for an audition, let alone take time off for the audition itself. Not all auditions have section rounds, either, so even if one has been working consistently for 20 years, if there's no section round, section chops aren't a factor.

Oh! Being asked to play a first round excerpt again as a sort of mini superfinal because ”the music director wasn’t here for that one and wants to hear it.”

Being told this will be the final playing round, then having another round. Putting all transposed parts on the stand for a horn audition. Proctors walking in and out during your audition. No carpeting. Proctors announcing the wrong number for you. No union steward at a union audition.