Rochester Phil Private 🎺 Audition

Yes! I’d say the main point of debate had on this thread is the nature of private auditions, not so much one-years. But I love everything you said!

Let's not make a whole bunch of assumptions and stir up drama for no reason. The RPO has audition protocols dictated by its CBA, like any other orchestra. It also has a policy with regard to pre-advancing section players and subs, like most other orchestras. I can say with certainty that the orchestra committee and audition coordinator take seriously their obligations to uphold the rules and run fair auditions.

The fact is that the RPO screens *all* auditions, for *all* candidates, through the final round. There are no unscreened semis, and nobody is pre-advanced to an unscreened round. An unscreened super-final can occur if the majority of the committee elects to proceed in that fashion by a secret ballot, however if they have elected to hear an internal candidate then they will be informed that the screen must remain in place regardless.

Having experience playing in a section is as much an advantage as it is a disadvantage. The pressure to win one's own job again coupled with the ability of that person to receive direct and often contradictory feedback from a multitude of one's colleagues can make it difficult to succeed behind the screen. In *many* cases, the recipients of one-year contracts do not win tenure-track contracts for the chair they occupy, even when they are beloved by the orchestra members.

It's fine to question philosophically whether a private audition is problematic, but please don't create a hypothetical scenario to support your view in which none of the existing rules are followed. I would personally imagine, without direct knowledge of this particular set of circumstances, that the urgency of filling the chair along with the logistics and expenses associated with holding an open audition make this the most viable solution. It's rather late in the season, and if they advertised and organized an open audition, they'd likely be holding said audition mid-summer when most qualified players, both experienced and green, will be at conflicting festival engagements.

In any case, it will be a blind audition, and it seems to me akin to having an aggressive resume screening process to ensure that all candidates in attendance will be both available on short notice for the duration of the season, and capable of succeeding on the job. It seems like it would be potentially pointless to end up hiring a very green player with great chops and no experience who is still learning on the job (or perhaps someone who immediately wins a tenure-track job elsewhere). It's a one-year after all.

I agree! I’m not sure why one-years have become so so prevalent.

it saves money for the orchestra.

I don’t think that being in the majority of what orchestras do makes what you do right, nor does simply doing what is easy.

Again, just because “most people are doing it” doesn’t mean it’s right and that the next generation of musicians coming up aren’t dedicated to changing this. You bring up a great point on the short timeline, but in the age of social media and most information being made available online, I don’t see how posting a call for resumes on their website within a short deadline wouldn’t get the word around. Additionally, in this type of situation, the audition could be held at the very beginning of the following season. Whatever the method, I feel strongly that orchestras have to dedicate energy to figuring out how to conduct hiring processes fairly, even when it’s difficult.

Agree with everything said here. One-year positions are often appointed without an audition at all, but smaller/private auditions are also fairly common. Most orchestras would not be interested in spending the money required to hold a full international audition for a position that isn’t tenure-track.