Prelim straight to final seems pretty common for Cleveland.

Anyone know when his Atlanta trial is, or if it already happened? It seems reasonably plausible he could end up not taking this position.

Yes, I took an OSM audition once (international round) and was surprised by how few people were at the audition compared to a typical US audition, but the fact is most Americans don't want to deal with immigration. It can especially be a problem for people who are married or in a long-term relationship, as it can be hard for their partner to get work in Canada. There is some legit "discrimination" though: OSM's CBA says that as a tie-breaker, they'll favor the candidate who resides in or studied in Quebec, or if no candidate did, the candidate who resides in/studied in Canada. So if you think of all the auditions you've ever taken that come down to an hour+ of deliberation... just know that in the case of OSM, you basically automatically lose in that situation as an international candidate. Anybody know if other Canadian orchestras have similar clauses? I kind of assumed it might just be a Quebec thing.

Could you clarify what's wrong about what I said? Just that it's an orchestra round instead of full trial weeks?

I believe they were basically using this to cast a wider net before privately inviting more candidates to trial. I heard that Martha Long (principal of Oregon Symphony) was offered a trial from the audition. Not sure how many others they plan to have out.

Definitely in agreement here, I just wanted to address those couple of points and then felt like my response was getting too long so I should cut myself off. One of the most straightforward reforms I can think of (that would save a lot of time and money and suffering) is extending the opportunity for orchestras to hire (or trial) prior finalists when there are new openings. Those candidates have already proven themself in a “by the books” process, so it’s not like some sketchy back room dealing. In fact, prior finalists are incredibly likely to be the candidates that the committee “has in mind” when they commence a new process, so allowing this kind of hiring would substantially reduce the frequency of auditions that are tainted by some kind of sketchiness to the process. Even if the committee tries to hold the next audition as fairly as possible, these prior finalists are almost certainly auto-advanced, which is the most common source of people feeling distrust in the system and making claims of auditions being rigged. Holding an entirely new process from scratch every time is a union rule in the name of “fairness” that makes it much harder and more costly for eminently qualified candidates to get hired, and leads other candidates to spend more money on auditions where the committee already has a favorite. Why are we making it harder for orchestras to hire candidates who’ve already proven in a fair process that they’re qualified?

Re: screening of candidates: I think a more intensive screening of resumes could go a long way to preventing people from wasting their money. At an audition I attended last year for a Big Fancypants Orchestra, there were fewer than 15 candidates. For an orchestra that has the reputation and the compensation package to attract candidates of the highest caliber, that seems to actually be a pretty reasonable number. But that raises the question: is it the orchestra's responsibility to prevent candidates from wasting their own money? From the committee's perspective, if a resume is borderline, they might as well give the candidate a shot—after all, it only takes them 10 minutes to consider one more person. It's us as the applicants who have to invest weeks of preparation and hundreds of dollars, and therefore it's up to us as candidates to determine if that investment is worthwhile. If the orchestras won't dissuade more applicants from coming to the audition, then that leaves the responsibility on applicants to better screen themselves. --- As for the general audition disillusionment: I think people who are disillusioned with the process could benefit from reckoning with the fact that while there is randomness in auditions, there is less randomness than they think. If you're really qualified, a prelim is a minor hurdle to not really worry about. Occasionally the committee might be exceptionally picky, or you might have a bad day and play a round you know isn't good enough, but when you don't advance out of a prelim you should be able to point to a pretty clear reason why. It seems to me that most of the candidates who win auditions have become qualified by playing with orchestras of that caliber (or better) as substitutes, or by winning and holding a position with an orchestra just a step down. If you're not yet setting yourself apart as qualified, the best way to develop your skills is by playing with people who are better than you, which means working your way up as a freelancer. Gigging and the audition circuit create a virtuous cycle. Put in a snarky way: if you're so qualified, and these long term sub contracts are so ubiquitous, why don't you have one?

I heard today that Gus Sebring and Mark Almond (SFS associate) were advanced to trials. I was shocked to hear Gus even took the audition at his age, but he’s definitely still got the chops.

Chelsea McFarland is the new 3rd horn in Philly after the conclusion of trials. She was previously acting 3rd horn in Atlanta.

They advanced one person to finals. I don't know about overall turnout, a friend just listed a few names to me of people in attendance he recognized. These committees need to recalibrate their expectations if they think they're entitled to massive turnout for a low-paying position in the middle of nowhere.

That's genuinely absurd. Would be funny if it weren't despicable.

A friend at the audition said they advanced very few people out of prelims, and thought it was likely a no-hire but wasn’t certain. I’m also very curious for confirmation on this one.

Belated info but finalists were, afaik: Meghan Guegold, Logan Bryck, Jason Friedman, Dilon Bryan, and Young Kim.