Posted by Rick Denney on September 08, 2003 at 10:49:49:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Going Pro??? posted by never mind on September 07, 2003 at 17:20:08:
The problem is that tuba players have one definition of "best" and other musicians have various other definitions of "best".
Too many tuba players put beautiful tuba sound at the top of the list, thinking that will cover for slips in intonation, rhythmic anomalies, or unmusical interpretation.
For musicians not listening to their own instrument (i.e., I'm sure that violinists are picky about violin sound, but not about tuba sound), I'd bet that musical interpretation ranks first, on the assumption that intonation and rhythm will be perfect. Any beautiful sound will probably be fine, even if it is not the prescribed beautiful sound favored by tuba players.
I have heard demonstrations of Guarneri and Stradivarius violin replicas (good replicas) where the classically held differences between them are apparent in an A-B test. Yet both were beautiful in the hands of a master, and I doubt any, say, clarinetist would care which one they got. Another violinist might care, of course.
I read your second bullet differently than you probably intended, but it works both ways. To me, it said that if the best applicant isn't chosen, then they would not be able to take ownership of that position even if they had been selected. Clearly, the committee in that case defined "best" differently than the performer, and doing that job would always produce tension between those competing concepts. If someone isn't being completely themselves in an interview, they will be unhappy if selected, because they will never be able to be themselves. This is true no matter what the profession, and that's why it's so important not to second-guess the committee.
Rick "who wouldn't want to work for an organization with arbitrary and capricious decision-making processes, even if asked to" Denney