Are fully screened auditions really impartial? I was thinking about this today and wondering if anyone who has served on these types of committees could shed any light on this... It has been rumored that some committees have the ability to pull "nameless" resumes during screened finals. Is this true? Aside from the fact that someone who intimately knows a friends playing can tell who they are from their sound/the way they play, this adds to my feeling that as great as it sounds, fully screened auditions are not that impartial. I know that they are kind of the best option we've got, but with those two things in mind, isnt it all kind of a ruse? Fully screened auditions certainly protect from gender and racial bias which is super important.. but I wonder if it also protects the committee from any scrutiny when they hire a known friend.
top of page
AUDITION FORUM
bottom of page
This is a topic I've been considering a lot lately. Over the years I've served on many audition committees across multiple orchestras, all of which were blind throughout hiring. Initially I favored keeping the screen up, but my opinion has gradually shifted. Now I feel the screen has an appropriate place (ie. in prelims or if someone on the committee has a clear conflict of interest) but I don't think auditions should be screened to the end. Here's why.
Screens remove valuable information that is useful to the committee. Experience is the main one, but also stage presence, poise/confidence, communication skills, etc. This is relevant to the job but off the table in a blind audition. Also I would point out there are people who sound fantastic but are horrible colleagues. This matters too.
Second, while the screen gives the appearance of objectivity, I've found that committees still have as much disagreement about candidates' playing. For example, if a trumpet player changes from pistons to rotaries (or a trombonist from tenor to alto) this changes the sound color, but it can easily be misunderstood and debated by a committee who didn't have eyes on the situation. If the screen were clarifying things, consensus would be easier. But I've observed the opposite.
So I now believe the 'objectivity' gained by the screen is actually negligible and not proportionate to the value of the information sacrificed. That's why I now recommend the screen be removed in finals unless an obvious front runner has emerged who has won over a majority of the committee. In those situations, you can probably hire blind with confidence.
Racism, sexism, ageism, personal bias, etc. are real and we should strive for fairness. But I do believe that most musicians are wanting fair auditions and trying to hire the strongest candidate for the future of their orchestra. I think our own personal advocacy for fairness in the workplace will advance that cause more effectively than blind auditions will.
One final thought. I hear a lot of people complaining about candidates being auto-advanced or orchestras hiring players on one-year contracts. I know this is frustrating. But please understand that being a sub or one-year is really hard. That person has essentially been auditioning every day for the past year (or more!) not knowing if they will have a job next season. If they can manage that stress, consistently play great, avoid any personal conflicts or backstage politics and still have a committee voting for them, I think that says more than if they can flawless execute excerpts behind a curtain.