Some orchestras also have contract clauses in which if runners-up can be automatically appointed to an vacancy within a specific amount of time after the audition. I wasn't aware of this until I was named runner-up at an audition, so I suspect many people might be surprised to learn this. I'd be curious to hear from people who have served on committees as to whether the decision to name a runner-up is affected more by external circumstances (retirements, a high-leverage position, etc) or simply two people playing at a very high level in the audition.

There is no such clause in their current contract. Most likely this, as most no-hires are, was the fault of individual committee dynamics and mismatched expectations.

While this doesn't apply to the Atlanta violin audition, I agree that many younger players who win auditions aren't ready to "turn pro." More audition winners (especially at these big jobs) are coming straight out of school rather than out of the current workforce or even a training orchestra. They have massive talent, potential, and work ethic, but often are completely untested professionally. On the other hand, there are countless extremely professional, respected players who just don't have the chops to win a major audition. And unless you change the audition model, there's very little anyone can do about that. It is clear that many of these players will eventually be great orchestra players but might need some time to adjust. In that case, why is a one-week trial superior to a one-year tenure process in a noncompetitive situation? Are we afraid of the stigma of not granting a player tenure? Should we always expect someone who can go from Class A or AA straight to the major leagues without adjustment? Or is it the player's responsibility to find a lower-paying job where they can professionally develop out of school before taking these auditions?

It appears the ASO has failed at least 4 section string trials in the last 2 years, all highly qualified players and at least 2 who currently hold ICSOM jobs. That is a very high rate for section players. The unsuccessful audition process I went through last year with the ASO exposed several professional faults that I feel are worth comment. • The audition committee designated two "backup trialists" to stave off the possibility of holding a third audition (the previous audition for the positions was a failed trial no-hire). This concept, while inventive, creates different expectations for the primary and backup trialists, and is also problematic if the identities of the backups are known to the committee. • My trial week was conducted with another trialist; the backup trialists had individual trials. This also creates differing expectations for candidates. • The music director was absent for the final concert of the trial week because of a scheduling conflict. • The committee switched mid-trial from a model where one member evaluated each applicant to a model where candidates were rotated around the section during the last two rehearsals. It seemed that the attitude to whether candidates would receive feedback during the trial process was mixed among members of the committee. • It was repeatedly stressed by the personnel manager after my trial that I continued to be under consideration and I would be notified if candidates were hired. I learned of the hires through friends, and never heard again from the personnel manager. The entire audition process took nine months. There are certainly changes to make, but I don't think it really helps to say "don't audition here." Orchestras are entitled to fail trialists if they feel that it is not a right fit. It certainly appears that the ASO wants to be especially demanding in their trial process, and candidates who audition should know that. I am happy where I am now; I only comment because I felt disappointed in some of the fixable professional elements of my audition process.

Sally Kim won this! She studied at NEC with Paul Katz and is currently a DMA candidate at the University of Miami.

I think asking every committee member to keep detailed prelim comments is a bit much, but fully agreed that there should be an established system in place to archive comments from the semifinals and finals, and make them available in a timely manner. Particularly in unscreened finals, this should be required! I took an audition last year that happened right before the summer break, and the principal told me that he could not find the comments after he returned from the break. Likewise, I played another audition early last fall where comments have still not been made available - and likely will have been forgotten - because nine months later, the audition process still has not been completed. A friend told me that his orchestra requires him to transcribe all his comments on his own free time to prepare to send out to candidates who request them. Surely there's a better system than this out there!

Some more details, confusing stuff here. After a single screened final for both positions, the section jobs were offered to Nick and Daniel Kaler (currently in the section), both of whom applied for only the associate position. As previously said, Daniel advanced to a screened superfinal round which resulted in a no-hire for associate. Drew was offered a position as a qualified alternate. I am not sure if they will have to play trials before the tenure process begins

I heard that one trial and one position were offered. Would also be nice to get some clarity on this from people who were at the finals/in the orchestra

I heard that multiple candidates advanced to the superfinal round this spring. This will consist of two trial weeks, one in the section and one in the titled position, along with a chamber music round. Not sure on the exact number of candidates left (3 or 4, I think), but was told it's the same number as the number of positions that are open.

Your point about the sheer unprofessionalism of the hiring process is spot on. In most other fields, candidates are competing against other candidates, and employers are competing against other employers. Even with screens, we see time and time again that, with some exceptions, the same candidates are winning the same tier of jobs. The only difference is that our hiring windows are much more infrequent, and we disguise our replacement for resume screening (the audition) as an interview process to which we invite more candidates who believe they are qualified than any other industry. In reality, the only interview in our field is the trial, in which there are often too few candidates to make a consensus decision to hire. Is there some kind of better system where a group of orchestras identify a small number of qualified candidates depending on available positions nationwide, roll out the red carpet, and find the best fit for both candidate and orchestra? Or does this compromise our national commitment to democracy, openness, and diversity in hiring? It will never happen in practice, but would a central blind audition to identify such candidates for interviews be a better system than what we have now?

I heard from one of the finalists, so your source is almost certainly better than mine. I've deleted my previous comment to protect the candidate's privacy.

I heard Danny Jin was offered a position. He studies at Curtis. 10 players participated in a completely screened final.

I heard Kathy Audas won this. She recently won a section job in Atlanta and graduated from Rice