Posted by rebuttal on September 12, 2001 at 11:17:15:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Colorado anyone?? posted by there on September 12, 2001 at 03:08:37:
There are more than two sides to these stories, adsl-65-65-180-26.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net. Yours is most often the one that is heard. Not sour grapes to me though, just naive whining. At risk of offending, I'd suggest you just suck it up and learn from the experience, and try to look at other sides of the issue.
The side that seldom gets heard is the one that really chaps me as a CUSTOMER (read paying/supporting patron): That outstanding, experienced, known players will NOT take auditions for the majors because (despite your claims of favoritism/unfairness) musicality is not a major consideration in the audition process. Now before launching a tirade, consider the bases for current audition success. Technical accuracy? Absolutely. Precision? Of course. Yet, while these terms communicate a foundation for musical expression, they are not the basis for ensemble-sense and musicality. Simply put these are givens, yet current audition practice in most of the country gives heavy favor to exerpt-memorizing 6-8 hour per day practice room phenoms, who have that level of capability most clearly-defined (at least on their "any given day") The author of one of my old method books talks about these players who would (his words) have a tough time squeezing out a high B flat for a glaring conductor. In all fairness, what makes more sense to an ensemble's success? If (simply put) technical capability is the primary basis for the music-making experience, then how many of us BBSers are even "entitled" to be considered "musicians"? If a practice-room whiz can nail Cellini or successfully subdivide the Ride, but is socially-weak or has so little ensemble experience or intuition that they cannot get along with even the trombone section, what (in all fairness) does THAT do for the consumers of "the product"? Is THAT fair?
dp