It would be really interesting to take a historical look at blind auditions. They’re often used as a model in discussions about equitable hiring practices bc when they first started, they pretty effectively increased women’s participation in orchestras and did a little bit to mitigate the overt racism of the time. But my guess is that the process has become looser and looser as decades have gone on, which leaves a field believing it has a meritocracy when it really doesn’t.
Once I auditioned for the Oregon Symphony and plainly saw the proctor give my resume that they asked everyone to bring to the panel behind the screen. I thought I must have imagined it but then my friend who auditioned after me asked, "Did you see them give your resume to the panel?"
I don't think any audition is ever truly blind. Even if it was on the day (and I'd estimate that at least 80% are not blind on the day), orchestras then use the 'trial' process to either get rid of the candidate who won the blind audition or to appoint their preferred candidate. Orchestras use the trial period to make subjective and intangible assessments of the candidate that are often not even based on the candidate's playing abilities. They are usually more related to their social popularity and how many friends they have on the committee making the trial assessment.
Don't know if I mentioned this, but my brother met the son of the former tubist at The Met. He pushed for blind auditions, leading to women getting positions in the orchestra. One of the things he did was have the candidates take their shoes off before they walked on stage. (Brilliant!) After several women "made the band" he was approached by some guy who had been in the orchestra forever who screamed in his face that he had "ruined the orchestra".
Can you please explain #7? Not sure I understand how a tenure process makes an audition not blind. Also, I believe you may have left out one: The winner is chosen before the audition even begins.
It would be really interesting to take a historical look at blind auditions. They’re often used as a model in discussions about equitable hiring practices bc when they first started, they pretty effectively increased women’s participation in orchestras and did a little bit to mitigate the overt racism of the time. But my guess is that the process has become looser and looser as decades have gone on, which leaves a field believing it has a meritocracy when it really doesn’t.
Once I auditioned for the Oregon Symphony and plainly saw the proctor give my resume that they asked everyone to bring to the panel behind the screen. I thought I must have imagined it but then my friend who auditioned after me asked, "Did you see them give your resume to the panel?"
I don't think any audition is ever truly blind. Even if it was on the day (and I'd estimate that at least 80% are not blind on the day), orchestras then use the 'trial' process to either get rid of the candidate who won the blind audition or to appoint their preferred candidate. Orchestras use the trial period to make subjective and intangible assessments of the candidate that are often not even based on the candidate's playing abilities. They are usually more related to their social popularity and how many friends they have on the committee making the trial assessment.
Don't know if I mentioned this, but my brother met the son of the former tubist at The Met. He pushed for blind auditions, leading to women getting positions in the orchestra. One of the things he did was have the candidates take their shoes off before they walked on stage. (Brilliant!) After several women "made the band" he was approached by some guy who had been in the orchestra forever who screamed in his face that he had "ruined the orchestra".
Can you please explain #7? Not sure I understand how a tenure process makes an audition not blind. Also, I believe you may have left out one: The winner is chosen before the audition even begins.