Some really excellent points here. But I don't think anybody expects a trial candidate to be fully adjusted on day one, only that they show the ability and desire to adjust. I think you've argued against yourself tho. I know for sure that orchestras aren't interested in players who cannot get into the swing of things relatively quickly. That's part of the meaning of "good fit". It's not an exact fit, but close enough that a player can jive with an orchestra/section style, attitude, ethic, and habits. If the player isn't a close enough fit it won't be a productive relationship. Learning to do all these things takes experience. Not all excellent musicians have this experience. Some people are more naturally flexible. There are a lot of variables but we're all in the same boat in terms of advantages and disadvantages. And you're right about about standparters needs... But that's why it's a vote. Enough people need to vote against you, it's not dictated by one person usually - tho inevitably there is always a deciding vote. Democracy ***** sometimes but it's better than the alternative. Many times, players are awarded positions despite complaints of members in the section. It's about balance! Every orchestra has its own process... Hopefully it's a good one!

We can't expect players to only auditions for jobs they're qualified for. It's hard to even know that information. But yes, it's on the players to build their experience and be as ready as possible to take on a job and it's responsibilities which are well beyond simple execution. Moreover, if we don't have experience that prepares us to do a job well and confidently on day 1, we shouldn't be so surprised that an orchestra would pass us up. Auditions are hard on orchestras. Imagine coordinating a date for all your string Principals (likely very in demand teaching and performing, apart from their orchestra duties) and a globe trotting MD to sit down and listen to dozens of players. Committee members paid a pittance... Imagine the disappointment a year later when despite their need to fill that seat, they cannot offer it to the person on trial because they simply don't cut it?? It feels like an incredible waste of everybody's time. And the fact that they couldn't figure it out in that season's time further underlines their lack of real world preparation. Anyway, I agree that the audition process could be better but so far I can't think of a better way!

Sorry for being slow to respond! It definitely gives me pause, but the desire to hire within orchestras is extraordinary. It has major contractual implications for instance - the longer a seat goes unfilled the less likely another section could have a much needed expansion - the board would never agree because the orchestras seems to be "getting by"... Also, members want consistent colleagues, and to know they get the same pay and benefits as they do. Rather than having subs who aren't consistent (in presence or playing) or losing great subs would take permanent work in a lesser orchestra because of the consistency etc... I think there is an assumption that we are actually ready for the big gigs after doing some training orchestra. But many committee members bemoan the frustration of passing outstanding auditions only to discover that the winner (in their trial) has no real valuable experience to contribute to the section, or no actual leadership skills, or a very narrow understanding of styles. Often after no-hires it seems like orchestras feel duped because too many people focus on winning the audition and not enough on developing the skills and experience that orchestras seek for the longevity and artistic growth of thee organization.

May I add a thought that there are more and more players who feel quite entitled to these positions. Just because one orchestra hires you doesn't indicate that another orchestra or it's process is bad or unfair because they didn't hire you. I find it odd to read complaints about "highly qualified" candidates not being hired. More than anything it shows (on the part of the complainant) quite a low/dismissive level of understanding and maturity with regard to what it means to be a) a good musician, and b) a professional. Ideally everybody in the finals has demonstrated a certain level of competence, but that is far from everything. I don't like no hires either but I've also served on committees and know how tricky the process is. Everybody hates it, but a no hire is necessary at times. It's the price of democracy! It is also more and more difficult to come across well in trials when so many players only know how to fit in and not how to actually contribute. The best orchestras want to better themselves with new hires, not stay the same or hire a trainee.