It has come to my attention that my post, “Zen and the Art of Auditions,” did not sit well with a few of you. Specifically, at least a few of my colleagues in Montreal. I’m feeling conflicted about this, because on one hand, I don’t love the feeling that I’ve pissed people off. I always try my absolute best to write with honesty, integrity, compassion, and most importantly, humor—but I can admit, I may not always succeed.

On the other hand, I was simply sharing my perspective, as the child of an orchestral violist who has spent literally an entire lifetime doing auditions and observing the bizarre (and often toxic) culture of symphony orchestras.

While it may have seemed that I was pointing a finger at the OSM in particular, even going so far as to single out a colleague who has kindof given up, as far as I can tell—what I was really trying to do, is call attention to the fact that a profession with so much expressive, creative, and collective healing potential is shooting itself in the foot with their current hiring system.

I used said colleague as a symbol for MANY people who have checked out, in all the professional orchestras I have ever worked with or heard about over the years; for reasons that I believe to be quite understandable, and solvable.

Now, unlike my previous audition posts, I do intend to get into some solutions here. At least, I will attempt to open up your perspective a little bit, if you still believe the audition system is “the best we’ve got.”

But I’d like to start by reviewing the problem.

The problem, is the orchestral hiring system of holding auditions—with some lucky exceptions—is not reliably bringing in the type of candidate who makes a great colleague. Slowly over the course of the last several decades, this has contributed to unhealthy work environments all over the world that can feel more like a bunch of disconnected individuals on stage, than a collective. I mean, this is what an orchestra should feel like, no? A team?

As always, please feel free to disagree with me!

Here is what I consider to be a great colleague/teammate in an orchestral setting:

1. Is a technically solid player who has relatively good control over their nerves.
2. Has experience playing in a professional or training orchestra; ideally, years of it.
3. Actually LIKES playing in an orchestra, and is seeking out this job for the joy of it; not just the steady paycheck (both is absolutely okay).
4. Is a sensitive musician, in that they are constantly aware of everything that’s happening on stage, and responding quickly and intuitively in a way that serves the group as a whole.
5. Is a musician who understands that the whole of an orchestra is greater than the sum of its parts. That in connecting with each other on stage and with our audience, we are actually connecting with something far greater than all of us combined. We are in the business of healing.
6. Is kind, emotionally intelligent, and good at communicating in a healthy way with their colleagues.
7. Cares deeply about the experience of the audience—who understands that we aren’t just doing this for ourselves; we are doing it for our community.
8. Has interests/skills outside of classical music, who is not only a wonderful boost to energy and conversations, but might be interested in using these skills in a way that engages more people in our community. (ie, someone who happens to LOVE making silly videos, who could capture some behind-the-scenes hilarity and attract younger people via Tik Tok)
9. Is not Caucasian—whenever possible—so that our audiences become more diverse as they start to see themselves reflected on stage. So people from a wide variety of backgrounds feel welcome in a venue historically full of upper-class white people.
10. Is always willing to grow and evolve; and who understands that in order for an institution to survive in these rapidly changing times, it ALSO needs to be willing to grow and evolve.

The problem, is that our hiring system is designed around only ONE of these 10 things. ONE!! “Is a technically solid player who has relatively good control over their nerves.” Yippee. So fun, can’t wait to work with that person.

Every so often, an orchestra lucks out and one of the technically solid players with nerves of steel also happens to have some/many of the above traits. But it’s not on purpose!! It’s a fluke, a miracle of sorts.

Look, I’m not saying everybody in an orchestra should have ALL THE ABOVE TRAITS, but we could at least be trying to keep an eye out for them in prospective candidates, so that our work environment slowly improves over time? Imagine if everybody on stage had at least 5 of the above traits! Imagine if there was a way to screen out narcissists, who ruin things for everybody!

“Well that’s all well and good, Lauren, but how on earth do you propose doing that?? We’ll admit that the audition system is flawed, but it’s the best we’ve got.”

“It’s the best we’ve got,” aka “we could never fix the problem so why bother trying” is what we in the coaching world refer to as a limited belief. It’s what I was talking about when I wrote the phrase that seemed to bother a few of you, “what a small little world they live in.” I wasn’t trying to be condescending; I was trying to point out that we live in a world FULL OF POSSIBILITIES, and yet, we are only allowing ourselves to look at them from a tiny little pinhole. As in, let’s pick a candidate based only on their sound in the context of a very alienating, stressful experience. As in, we could just keep tweaking the existing system.

I mean, sure. Things might get a little better if we make some small changes.

For instance, we could:

-Have candidates play chamber music with members of the orchestra in round 2 or 3

-Have candidates register their instruments, so that committee members must take into account that someone MIGHT just have a GORGEOUS SOUND because they’re playing on a 5 million dollar Stradivarius, on temporary loan; only to be replaced on the first day of work by the harsh-sounding cello they could actually afford. In fact, we could take it further and insist that if you show up with a fancy loaner, you will be asked to play on the more average instrument that we keep in the back.

-We could have a few members of the section go through the audition process each time, non-anonymously, as a “control variable.” ie, committees could measure candidates against the actual level in their orchestra; and, if anything unusual happened in the audition, the ringers could express as much to the committee. TOTALLY a hypothetical here, but a conversation between the committee and the ringers might sound like this:

Committee: “Everybody is playing too loud! We can’t advance anybody!”

Ringer: “Oh! But, I’m playing just as I always have? Plus, we were told a week ago that the audition is in the hall instead of a tiny rehearsal space, so I prepared to project! I didn’t realize we’d actually just be playing from one side of the stage to the other?”

Committee: “Got it! Okay, is there anything else that might be making everybody play too loud?”

Ringer: “Well, the stand is being placed RIGHT in front of the screen?”

Committee: “Oh god! We are also sitting RIGHT in front of the screen! No wonder it feels like every candidate is blasting our faces off! Alright, let’s move the stand back, or ask everyone to play a bit quieter!”

-We could (gasp!) lower our standard a bit for who advances to round 2, allowing for the fact that our ideal colleague might be EFFING NERVOUS in round 1.

-re: the above, I understand that the committee does not want to be listening to auditions all day, but we could add a day or two? Some orchestras have 5 days of prelims. Isn’t it worth it, for somebody you might be working with for the next 30-50 years??

-Also, we could start offering a trial with the orchestra to EVERYBODY who passes round 2, so the orchestra can move on and test their other qualities already. You know, rather than just making three exhausted, hungry candidates play to the death against each other for a hungry, exhausted committee.

There are some reasonable solutions above, right? Some that I came up with, some that colleagues came up with, some that are already being implemented in other orchestras.

BUT IT’S NOT ENOUGH!!!! Okay??

These solutions are like pushing the mud around with a rake in the aftermath of a flooded basement. We need an overhaul!! We need to approach the problem from a completely different angle.

The question is not, “How can we make auditions better?”

The question is:“How can we re-design the hiring system, so that we attract our ideal colleagues and thus improve our work environment; so that our profession stays relevant and necessary for our community?

I’m proposing that we reverse-engineer. We work backwards, from the desired end-result. If I were leading the committee to re-design and implement a new orchestral hiring system, here is what I would do:

Step 1: Make sure the committee is made up of relatively neutral people who best represent the values of the organization. (Maybe the orchestra would vote from a list of contracted musicians and administration; but I’d also like to get all the subs in here for the brainstorming portion of this process. They happen to be the group of people who know the culture of the orchestra extremely well; but are not attached to the way things currently are. They’ll have unique ideas. The contract members might have some blind spots, given that they benefited from the current system, and thus might be a wee bit invested in believing that it works.)

Step 1.5: Have the committee go through some anti-racist/ethics training just to be safe. There is a reason most orchestras put a screen up for auditions.

Step 2: Now that we’ve got our Think Tank, I would ask questions like, “What are our values here in this orchestra?” “Why are we doing this?” “What does a healthy work environment look and feel like?” “How do we see our audience?” “What would we like to offer them?” “What role do we want to serve in our larger community?”

Step 3: We’d survey our audience* and the community extensively. We’d ask: “What do you notice or appreciate during a performance?” “Why do you come to shows?” “Is anything confusing or disappointing?” “What would make you come to more shows, or any at all?!”

*Side note, surveys of the like have been done, according to conversations I’ve had with various orchestra administrators in North America; and the results are in! Audiences don’t give much of a shit about the quality of the orchestra. What they do care about is: “The experience!” “Feeling like we know the musicians on stage!” “Feeling a connection to the conductor!” “Why can’t we use our cell phones?” “Why are program notes so boring?” “Why is it so dark?” “Why can’t we drink?” “Why don’t the musicians talk?”

Step 4: Taking all of the above information into account, we ask: “What does our ideal colleague look like??” And I’m not talking visually, necessarily; although I do think we should be trying to get more diversity on stage. I’m interested in psychographics. ie, What are this person’s values? Desires? Goals? Experiences? Interests? Skills? What do they care about?

(My list of 10 qualities I consider to make a great colleague above is based on psychographics)

Step 5: We ask, “What hiring system would favor this kind of candidate???” And then we get to work designing that system.

I could end here.

It isn’t my place to do this work for you—each organization would need to come up with its own unique hiring system, based on its goals and values. But here is what I would do, if I were designing a hiring system based on who I consider to be an ideal colleague:

Step 6: The application/pre-screening process would be more extensive. I’d ask for a resume; a 10 minute demo of them playing a few orchestral excerpts; a 2-3 minute demo of them improvising on top of an electronic-acoustic soundscape (these are my values, remember…); a written portion where they would answer a few essay questions; annnd if I’m honest, I’d also have them complete a Myers-Briggs personality test.

Step 7: I’d hire a team of specialists to go through these applications with the committee. Perhaps a psychologist, a lawyer, a business consultant, a transformational coach who just happens to be a highly-trained orchestral musician (ahem), a community outreach specialist, etc. (We’d be screening for signs of all the desired psychographics we came up with in the Think Tank.)

Step 8: The live round would consist of an interview, some chamber music with members of the orchestra, and maybe even some group improv. We would need to make sure to create a warm, collaborative, welcoming energy for each candidate, as this is the energy we want to attract! What we would be looking for, is someone that seems genuine (ie not just saying what they know we want to hear), easy to get along with, and of course, a dream to make music with. We’d be forgiving if they messed up once or twice, as long as it was clear they were a talented, sensitive, self-aware player.

Step 9: Each candidate would obviously have different strengths and weaknesses! So we give 3-5 of our top choices a week-long trial with the orchestra; ideally paying for their travel and hotel. Here, we would get a sense of how they do in the wild. Are they technically accurate? Are they blending well with their section? How do they react when things don’t go as planned? How do they interact with their colleagues on the break? How does their energy affect the workplace environment?

Step 10: And then, we’d make a very tough decision. Maybe we’d hire them all! There may very well be 5 spots. You bet your bottom dollar, whomever we hire would probably be loved by the orchestra; and they probably won’t skitter away to another job in a few months, either. Our new colleague/s will feel honored to have been picked for who they are as a WHOLE. They will feel seen and valued. And, they’ll get to be in an environment where we all work together to create something innovative and beautiful for our community. Where we have fun!!

(TL;DR My hiring process would consist of an application/pre-screening with written and demo material; a live round with interview and chamber music; and then a week-long trial with the orchestra)

Design your own system! I’d be happy to be a consultant for your hiring team.

Sadly, my hopes are low that anything even close to resembling this way of hiring might be implemented in the future. The union rules, which were created AGES ago with the best of intentions, are now so entrenched they can’t possibly evolve to make room for something new without a SIGNIFICANT amount of effort. And, do the people in power even want things to change? The system worked for you. Why would you want to change it?

Well, just look around you. Are people happy? Are people kind to each other? Does everybody on stage feel equal, valued, and like part of a team? Do you feel like this job matters? Would you want your kids to go into this profession? Are you excited to come to work? Do you linger afterwards, to talk ideas and dreams with your colleagues? Are your audiences growing and evolving? If we change nothing, will this profession still be around in 20, 50, 100 years? Would you like to use our collective power to heal even just a small part of this beautiful, broken world?

I am inviting you to let the answers to these questions guide you.

Just know, I love and respect you no matter what you choose to do.