I believe finals are tomorrow

Kate Carter, Carmen Abelson, and Caroline Slack won the section violin jobs Robbie Herbst won the 2nd Violin Assistant Principle job

Something I wish people recognized is the difference between how things are and how things ought to be. Yes, if you want to do well in auditions, it's a good idea to prepare for unexpected events (long waits, room too hot or too cold, bad acoustics, etc.). You probably should only commit to auditions that you are able to prepare fully for. You shouldn't have made those three mistakes. But is the way things are good? Some people aren't willing to ask this question because they are too invested in this world as they know it (maybe they have won a job, maybe they have already spent lots of time preparing for auditions in a particular way). Why do we need to test a players resiliency in bad acoustics and with unstable waiting periods? Does this in any way measure the skills of playing in an orchestra? All of this is pinned on the musician - you should just prepare better. You should be unflappable, etc. But what should orchestras do? Why don't we hold them to as high of a standard? I agree with OP that these are issues for organizations, not the musicians who are trying to join them. Some orchestras run their auditions like it's fear factor when they are really just an alright per-service group. I've seen orchestras advance one person out of a competitive prelim while a dozen people stroll in (auto-advanced) for the semi finals. Not every orchestra is like this, but I think it's pretty common to experience the attitude that 'we don't respect you or your time. Our standards outrank the quaility (and pay) of the group itself, and we are really just interested in hiring the players we already know anyway.' It's because they have all the power and have no incentive to wield it fairly. Musicians will turn on each other and say that their audition results are their own responsibility and suggesting changing the system is just lazy complaining. I think part of the reason people get so defensive is because it sounds like this criticism diminishes their own accomplishments if they won a job. Jobs are so shiny and on such an exalted pedestal that, once you have one, you feel beholden to the process that led you to it. That doesn't mean we can't imagine a more humane system that thinks critically about what we are testing when we ask someone to audition.

Word on the street is that there was an issue in this audition that lead to the personnel manager resigning before it had even concluded

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.

I don't disagree with anything in this post, but it's missing a larger point that matters to me more. This post, and others like it, operate under a framing that emphasizes what the musicians auditioning can do to succeed (very by-the-bootstraps). This makes sense, because this is how all of have been taught to treat progress and success on our instruments since day one. What I'm driving toward, and what I wish more musicians had to capacity to engage in, is an analysis and critique that puts the questions to orchestras: how should they treat their employees and prospective employees? What should our systems look like? We get so locked in our narratives of personal success (even the terminology around 'winning' or 'losing' auditions, which is such a strange way to think about a job application process) that we forget to ask the structural questions. Or, more likely, we just never were taught to ask them to begin with. If you 'win' a job, are you just going to take your spoils and tell the next person that they need to work harder? Or are you going to use the new power you've gained to advocate for your peers? This is what I'm saying: solidarity, not complacency. Whether each of us, on an individual level, is doing what they can to find success is beside the point. What matters here, in this forum, is what we can do to help each other.

I think that collective action rules and this would be fantastic if it could be accomplished. I know that a lot of people would balk at this or say that it's impossible. Perhaps, but we need to acknowledge how the audition process pits musicians against each other, and when we are divided we are powerless. They exploit the sense of competitiveness and individualism that is drilled into us from our first lessons. Would it be so difficult, though? If musicians were to identify the worst offending orchestras and to have an actual picket line the day of auditions? As someone taking an audition, I would not want to have to cross a picket line of my colleagues to get to the warmup room. I think the first step is getting people to realize that it's possible to change the things we don't like about the world we come from. We aren't passive objects in the audition process - we are people with agency and power.

these are some interesting points, and a few that I think merit responses: 1) I don't totally understand why it would be harder for someone new to auditioning to record vs. take a live audition. My feeling is that taking live auditions is more of an acquired skill that making a good recording. I understand that there are technological (and cost) demands on recording, but in my experience students/younger players have more access to those things via schools and from their peers. I personally borrowed mics from my friends for years before buying one. Same goes with space - one of the best resources for recording is the school you attend. At any rate, even if you do have to front some money, isn't it better to spend it on a mic (which is an investment) than a plane ticket? I haven't crunched the numbers, also, but is it really more expensive to review a higher volume of tapes than to conduct a full round of live auditions? I honestly don't know, but it seems the two are at least comparable. 2) I agree that the standard of playing is very high across the board, but I think my point remains that if people are really acing the standard excerpts, why are so few advancing to later rounds? Maybe it's different in the percussion world, but even in the regional orchestra auditions I've taken it's pretty normal to take 10-20% of the first round. In full-time groups, sometimes only one person advances out of the first round, or even none (!!!!). So yes, the standard is high, but the behavior from orchestras is actually that our standard isn't high enough. 3) Sure, there are broader cultural issues surrounding long vacancies and no-hires, but I don't think it's just a lost cause. AFM could adopt hiring best practices with guidelines for filling vacancies. They could have a list of orchestras that are repeat offenders. We could make enough noise about this that something changes. As to the last point you make: yes, we all agree that it's bad, but why do we assume it's the best possible way? Have we really tried anything different? As far as I can tell, it's been the same **** for decades. Here's a thought - why would we assume in the first place that succeeding in an audition makes you a good orchestra player? The two are completely different skill sets. What if orchestras stopped putting the highest possible premium on perfection and paid more attention to musicality, collaboration, bringing a positive contribution to the ensemble, etc. I'm not saying I know what that would look like, but my only point is that maybe this is part of the reason the orchestras don't like the candidates that they are getting, and that so many orchestras have toxic cultures, and that we (I) are/am endlessly bemoaning the ridiculous, Kafkaesque nature of all of this?