Thoughts, After Reading All

College Majors Music Major
141

Talent is what Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart said about pornography " I know it when I see it". We know talent when we hear it.

There are plenty of people who make a living, and some a very good living, at doing things they have no talent for. Some of the profs I know talk about a player having a “connection” with the music they are playing. I’ve heard highly regarded symphony players who, when doing a solo recital play all the notes and none of the music. Fraud, plain and simple. But that’s life.

I’ve worked for many years in recording studios and the axiom there is that it’s the people that shouldn’t be walking in the front door to record that keep the business alive. You learn to treat that band of terrible accountants with respect and professionalism because if it weren’t for them coming in to record you would be out of a job. I figure it’s the same way with music schools. If they only accepted the kids that were really born for making real music they would be out of business very quickly. This isn’t just for music but for math, chemistry, architecture, etc… Law schools and med schools turn out mediocre students every day … and then we go and hire them to help us.

Art, like intonation, is a matter of conscience- it’s between your kid and the composer and hopefully the audience. We are all sending our children into the void, bows and paintbrushes in hand, hoping for the best. Everyone can’t be investment bankers.

142

Do you mean professional orchestra musicians? That’s not surprising, as they rarely give solo recitals. Or are you talking about students. Anyway, “fraud” is strong language.

This is a pretty abstract conversation and I’m not sure what your point is any more. At first I thought you were saying that a great talent will always triumph. My counter point is that talent requires support, development, resources, and luck.

That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it. :slight_smile:

143

That isn’t fraud, playing symphonic music is a different beast then being a soloist, and how an orchestra, or a chamber player handles the music is very different. If you are playing in a pit orchestra on Broadway or in the NY State theater, it is a pretty mechanical thing, you are playing the same thing over and over again, the same way, and the stories about broadway pits are true, people knitting down there, reading the paper when not playing, etc…and the talent required to do that is quite different. Chamber music is more akin to soloing, the ensemble has to connect with the music and the audience, but playing in an orchestra is different.

I also will add that soloists don’t make for great orchestral musicians (though some soloists are great at ensemble playing, Josh Bell does it with St. Martin’s, leading from the first chair, and he is excellent at it IMO, others not so much, as when Fritz Kreisler would sit in with the orchestra after he did his solo piece, orchestra musicians rolled their eyes and said he was the worst second violinist out there lol).

There are orchestra musicians who are great soloists, David Chan, the CM of the Met Opera Orchestra, is a fantastic soloist, Glenn Dictorow the retired CM of the NY Phil was, others are as well, but most are not. Being a soloist is a rarefied air kind of thing, few can do it well, and that orchestra musician you saw soloing simply wasn’t a good soloist, that doesn’t make orchestra musicians frauds, it means they don’t have what it takes to be a soloist…but doesn’t mean they aren’t a good orchestral musician. I will add that I have seen a lot of orchestral musicians who I wonder why they take them, probably because they had great technical skills, because I am of the school of thought an orchestra does and should have a personality, and someone mechanically playing, no matter how perfect, detracts from that, but that is me. Put it this way, the last chair in any major orchestra is someone who at the very least has the skills it takes to play at a very high level, they are well trained, have gone through hell to get there, and while I may question their interaction in the orchestra or other things, I would never call them a fraud. A fraud to me is Milli Vanilli, or the pop stars who are all flash and auto tune and have no real talent (some do, I heard Demi Lovato sing the National Anthem, she has quite a voice). I have some issues with classical music as a whole, I think they are promoting the technicians over musicians, the competitions are rife with that, and with orchestras I see a lot of orchestras being full of dispassionate members going through the rote motions, but I wouldn’t call it fraud.

144

I think it would be a sad world if musicians/entertainers weren’t “allowed” to perform, record or even make a ton of money just because some judgmental standard deemed them to be average/mediocre/untalented. JMO.

145

Please musicprnt, there is no reality that “last chair” in a major orchestra represents the poorest player in the section. In fact, in many major orchestras string sections are rotated (section players being those below principals/concertmasters and assistant/associate principals/concertmasters). This is true even of many (if not most) conservatory orchestras. In those professional orchestras that don’t rotate, string auditions are often announced for “5th (often endowed) chair”, simply meaning that “we don’t rotate and this is where you will be seated”. The chair where the player is seated is not necessarily an indication of his playing ability vis a vis others in the section or, for violins, there is no truth that a 1st player is necessarily better than a 2nd. There are certainly some concertmasters who would be outplayed by section players in a scroll to scroll battle - it all depends on what positions open up and who wins them through the years. Similarly, wind players can audition for (example) 2nd Flute because that’s who is leaving - the audition winner could well be a better player than the principal flute.

I have some comments on your thoughts of wanting more “interaction” from players also. This is based on personal professional orchestral experience and that of colleagues. First, you aren’t the only one who has thought orchestras can look “dull”. There are some conductors out there who want swaying, smiling, rotating, “personality” - all within reasonable bounds, of course. This seems to have increased (my non-scientific observation) since Youtube became popular. There are other conductors who don’t find the theatrics necessary. Both approaches need to be understood in the context of an orchestra being one unit, reacting to the direction of the conductor to produce one interpretation, not 80 or so different approaches to the score. The concertmaster and other principals may have to lead to interpret these directions to the sections, so you often will see apparent “personality” there, but sometimes, it is mere histrionics. In other cases, it is a good section leader making sure the players understand bowing subtleties.

You can find a lot of “personality” in some of the Baroque groups with the shoulder instrument players standing and often dancing to the music. Similarly, non-conducted chamber orchestras may encourage individual displays of “personal engagement with the music”. These are smaller groups that may still be able to hold together the desired ensemble sound. For a full orchestra, individuals “interacting” with the audience may not produce the same desired result of a unified performance. This is also the reason for a dress code - one ensemble, not individuals standing out in the crowd. A soloist, on the other hand, needs to stand out - let the personality out!

146

I am well aware that in professional orchestras seating is not based on skill,what i meant was that the worse player in a high level symphony is still an incredibly skilled musician,that is all. Some orchestras do use rotating seating, some don’t, usually the principals don’t rotate (though Seattle used a rotating CM when Schwartz was there, not sure today).

Orchestras are obviously ensembles, and yes, they have to play together, but Itzak Perlman several years ago in an interview talked about being troubled that conservatories were turning out students who were basically a product, and that there was a mentality that playing in ensembles meant uniformity of styles, that it meant an army of what he called musical automaton marching to the beat of the conductor, and he said that bothered him, that an orchestra or a chamber group were a group of individuals playing as individuals who come together. I was at a talk by a member of the Philadelphia Orchestra and he talked about the individual approach to the music, that what made the music is what the musicians brought to it.

This is nothing new, the Philadelphia orchestra is famous for both its sound and also for what has been called many thinks, usually it is credited to Stokowski, but Ormandy did a lot of that as well, and it continues to this day. Critics love to call it histrionics, and go off on rants about dionysyism and so forth, but it is also about having an alive sound that reflects common music making, not going through the motions. I have seen many of the great orchestras, and the best ones have it. I have heard criticism of Dudamel, that he is all flash, but I saw him conduct the LA Philharmonic and it was one of the better ones musically I have seen, the Philadelphia has it, the Berlin has it IMO, Rattle knows how to get that out of the musicians. On the other hand, the hometown orchestra hear despite the whole hype about a native son conducting it, is often workmanlike and boring, they appear instead of musicians doing what they love going through the motions to meet a date (it isn’t as bad as it was only the last couple of music directors, but still). There is a regional orchestra in my area that is even worse, they have some great players, some of the principals are world class, but they are also full of what someone rightfully called a bunch of sour old musicians who look like they are playing on a stage full of limbergery cheese, and it makes for a very unfulfilling concert experience.

Orchestras are not rock concerts or worse, pop concerts, but they also shouldn’t be ossified museum pieces either that are put together for robotic precision or to pretend like they are ‘high art’ that is above ‘the common’, and orchestras like soloists or rock groups have a relationship with the audience, and when I call it boring is when it is a one way street, where the orchestra and the conductor are ‘playing over’ an audience, not to it. Karajan was not Dudamel, yet the Berlin under him (and under Rattle) left the audience feeling like they were part of the music, sharing somethng, whereas other orchestras are playing like they are casting pearls before swine. It is a cultural issue as much as a musical one, but it is important and it comes from within. A guy my S sees here in NY is a kind of violin guru, he teaches and also works a lot with professional musicians of all kinds, and he said that when over the course of his own study and career that working with people from the Philadelphia orchestra was one of the most amazing things he had been around, that as a group they were some of the most giving and warm people he had ever worked with, that talking to them about music was to see their faces light up and the joy of sharing came through, whereas with other orchestras and their musicians, it was what he described as coldly professional at best and often was bored tolerance…and it makes a big difference with what goes on stage. Orchestras can’t be 80 soloists playing together (read reviews of the Curtis Symphony to see why), but they are a collection of human beings, not automatons, and they are playing for human beings, not music critics.

147

Astute observations with regard to my stomping ground, Musicprnt!

148

I’m not sure I follow you, musicprnt. I don’t think we have any argument - some orchestras have great conductors who produce great, not boring concerts. Others don’t. And, I can tell you from personal experience which conductors musicians prefer to play for.

Sorry if I offended you with the “last chair player” rant. One of my personal pet peeves. Too many out there - you are obviously not one of them - think professional orchestras work like middle school groups. I wish audiences could get beyond the assumption that first chair means best, last chair means worst. You’d be surprised how often this comes up at cocktail fundraisers.

By the way, the rotating concertmaster position that Seattle tried got them in trouble with the Union.

I’m done with this thread. (and I do believe in the necessity of luck as well as talent for success - artistic or monetary, but I’m not getting further into that one.)

149

No, don’t misunderstand me, when I said fraud I meant an offense of the highest order, an obscenity to however you describe god. Not being a good soloist is one thing, playing notes that have no meaning, no musical value is another. Pablo Casals once described an incident in an opera pit he was playing in. He got all excited because his favorite part in the score was coming up and he remarked he was so to the cellist sitting next to him. The cellist replied that this was his favorite part of the score too because it meant only twenty minutes to dinner. If you are knitting in the orchestra pit you need to get the hell out and give the spot to someone who understands music.

I’ve heard plenty of section players who, when teaching or playing chamber music - opportunities where you can hear them playing more or less exposed, produce wonderful, lyrical music. Even scales and arpeggios should be sublime when played with intent. You’ve all been to master classes where the teacher picks up their instrument to demonstrate some passage and out comes something so unlike what the student was playing it floors you. That’s what I’m talking about. I’ve heard Classical players talking about it as “being connected to what you are playing”. I’ve also heard some of the ancient Blues musicians I’ve played with call it “Having the shit.” It’s very simple: either you can play or you can’t and if you can then everything else is personal taste and people are welcome to love what you play or hate it or worst case be indifferent.

As far as what a symphony audience perceives about chairing in an orchestra, I think you are giving them too much credit in the knowledge department. Maybe at a fund raiser people are aware of seating, but from my experience over the years of talking to the people sitting next to me at concerts, few have a clue as to which composer they are listening to let alone orchestra chairing politics. Of course it could be the price break I’m sitting in…

150

You have very strong feelings and I’m glad you have a forum to express them.

151

Sorry if it is a bit out of place. I’ve spent all of my adult life in the arts and this, believe it or not, is a pretty normal way of viewing things. This is how the discussions often run, but you are right in your inference that it’s out of place here. Point taken. So where is the best place to stay when auditioning for NEC?

152

Many of us who post here have also spent our entire lives in the arts. I’d say you should stay in the Colonnade. They have a special NEC rate and the Midtown is kind of run down. :wink:

153

I second the Colonnade. There will be many auditioners there. You can listen to the competition. (whether you want to or not) Good luck.

154

@momofadult:
I get your point, and thanks for clarifying. Unfortunately with orchestras it isn’t all about the conductor, it is also the players as well. A good case in point for this IMO is the LA Phil, if you look at videos of them done more than a few years ago, they were full of these wooden, sour musicians, half the orchestra was alive, half seemed to be marking time until they left or something. It started changing with Salonen, but it has come to flower with Dudamel, I was shocked when I saw them a couple of years ago, the difference. Some of it no doubt was Dudamel’s influence, but from what I can tell it also was they had turnover, and the people they are replacing them with are alive, they are deliberately it looks like trying to find people who are alive and musically interested.

One of the knocks on the blind audition system is that allows someone who is musically precise, plays at a high level, get in but who is dead otherwise, the kind of thing the post that started this thread is sort of talking about, where in a sense the orchestras were looking for superior note playing rather than musicians. From what I have read in recent years, there has been some talk of either partially or fully abandoning the blind audition process, not sure how I feel about that. Most orchestras also have a trial period, and that is what makes me think it is orchestra culture that also dictates what happens, I think it is why the Philadelphia is as it is, while the NY Phil is as it is (as you can tell, I am not a fan of the NY Phil. Funny part is, I have seen Gilbert conduct the Juilliard orchestra and him creating magic with them, I suspect that is because that particular orchestra is full of kids who are still eager [they have several orchestras at Juilliard, but the ‘main one’ is generally kids who really are good at it and care], and I think part of his problem with the Phil is the culture there.

I agree with Hotels, the Colonnade is a nice place to stay, and it is very close. The Midtown is kind of shabby (if clean), but to be honest, it isn’t all that much difference in price than the Colonnade. There is a sheraton in the Prudential Center, and there is the Copley Hotel a bit up the road on Huntington (the knock on the Copley was the rooms were small), but I haven’t stayed in either and quite frankly, the Colonnade was the same price.

155

With what JPB was talking about, I kind of get that. With the pit orchestras, the answer to that is they are playing the same score over and over, it is basically a job, and there is little room there for artistic expression (if you read the book “Mozart in the Jungle”, while I didn’t like the tone of the book much, the description of pit orchestras is valid from what I know from people who make their living doing it, and these days with theater owners and producers basically trying to eliminate live music, or maybe have a couple of synthesizers, it isn’t exactly getting any better). And yes, there are people in orchestras who are frauds as you call it, I can’t/won’t deny it, but some of that you have to be careful with, too. The world of music has changed a lot and the kind of musician once could get into orchestras and such, because to be bluntly honest, the standards of playing were much less. My son studied with a principal of a pretty high level regional orchestra, the teacher got into the orchestra right out of conservatory (a high level one), and they would fit the bill of what you are talking about, not curious about the music, and quite honestly my son said their playing skills were such that he wondered if they could have gotten into Juilliard pre college these days…it was after he left studying with this person and started with a high level teacher that he realized how basically crappy they were, he was shocked…but that was common. That orchestra has a number of musicians in it that we got to know pretty up close and personal, and many of them were shockingly lame…but it was because they came up at a time when the level of musicians was much lower. Put it this way, his teacher had been in a high school a casual player (strings), did the school orchestra, probably had a private teacher, but was able to get into one of the top conservatories (this was late 70’s) and got into the orchestra they are in right after graduating…that wouldn’t happen today, the level of playing is too high, and the competition is too fierce.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t people in the orchestras who are playing notes, sadly a lot of the talented music students I have seen are doing just that, they have been honed by teachers and the pressure to practice a lot from an early age into being technically very sharp, but they are playing notes the way their teacher told them to, there is no musicality, there is no passion, and no understanding, many of them when they hit conservatory are shockingly ignorant of music theory, music history, and worse, don’t care about it at all, and there are kids auditioning (and getting into!) music schools who don’t know or care to know the difference between baroque, classical and romantic era music and how they differ in how you approach them. The problem is in what you define as talent, if you are talking the ability to play notes with technical precision, that sadly these days is what a lot of music teachers seem to get their jollies off of, then ‘natural talent’ is not necessarily a big deal, you can get a lot of that through rote practicing and imitation, which is what a lot of high level students are doing. If you mean in the passion for the music, the musicality, the feel for the music and what goes with all that, then I won’t disagree with you, I can’t, because that kind of thing comes from within.

What GlassHarmonica and I were talking about,though, is the concept of ‘natural talent’ that people throw around, how someone can be ‘naturally musical’, can be ‘self taught’ and play at a high level, or the idea that it is all about natural talent. This is where it gets hard, in what is a different between someone playing an instrument and being a musician? There is natural ability on an instrument, there is no doubt about that, a facility, much as there is for sports, and in that, yes, to be a musician, you need some of that; however, I also have seen a lot of music students who achieved much higher levels of playing simply because they for various reasons at an early age were forced/themselves practiced long hours, and through repetitious practice mastered the mechanics of the instrument, who outshone the natural players in that regards. It is very much the talent is overrated department of things, that you also need drive and determination and passion and the willingness to work at it. On the other hand, if you are talking the elements of musicianship, things like musicality and a passion for the music and also things like loving to perform, interact with an audience, then there is inate talent to that that cannot be taught, I have seen plenty of kids that teacher’s and competition panels drooled over who it is obvious could care less about the music, who have no feel for it, have no stage presence, connection with the audience, who have been taught (pathetically) by their teachers to ‘sway to the music’, to close their eyes and so forth, to mimic what great musicians do, rather than feel it. That kind of talent alone, though, only gets you so far, without the willingness to work, to do the rote mastery, to learn how to play in ensembles, the grittiness and determination to tough it out, those with those kind of abilities (as opposed to the technical) who don’t do that won’t get anywhere, and that is what GlassHarmonica and I were talking about. “Natural ability” musicians only go so far, that kind of thing works in fiddling and folk music, probably in pop music, might work to a certain extent in Jazz (ie in that you don’t need all the formal training and whatnot), but even in those forms, if you don’t work at the craft, don’t gut it through, you don’t do much.

While I wouldn’t call it a fraud per se, I do get what you are talking about. In the strings world, where so much (for some ridiculous reason) of teaching is based around creating soloists, there are a lot of kids like I am describing, who have no musicality, no feel for the music, are basically master technicians at their craft, and this being sold as ‘great musicians’, the competition circuit and high level pre college programs are full of these kids, and when they get on stage to perform it is painful to watch them, for all their mastery of the instrument, they have little else, yet this is often promoted by teachers and others as ‘superior’ musicianship, why, I don’t know, perfect intonation is not music, it is engineering.

156

Ok, Musicprnt, I understand your perspective better. I said I’d stay out of further conversation, but one more insight from a different perspective.

The LA players you noted probably were marking time until the paycheck came in. The conductor does have an enormous influence on the “corporate culture” of the orchestra. For the players, this a job - (and, if one is lucky, also Art.) But, being a job, every player in the organization is subject to the personality and methods of the “boss” - the conductor/music director. As with any organization, some are more capable of harnessing the potentials of the players and command more respect and greater efforts. Players know that the Union rules are going to protect their jobs. They have to produce, but may not always produce brilliantly - this may not be an overt thought, but orchestral musicians are human beings and sometimes are subject to bad moods, mild illness, difficult work situations with co-workers or work conditions, trying family situations, etc. It is unfortunate, but we can’t always serve Art as we wanted to when young and idealistic, sometimes life interferes. (By the way, I was shocked when as a 20 year old a professor told me this - I thought I would be serving the highest Art at all times and darned lucky to have the chance to do so. As a now far-from-20 year old, I get his point, despite trying at all times to be personally professional.)

Seeing the change in a group as you noted also doesn’t surprise me. There may be turnover - younger people who simply have more energy. I have also known more than one orchestral player about to announce retirement when a new music director is announced and the retirement plans are put on hold because of the desire to work with the “new guy”. Sometimes a guest conductor will enliven even a very jaded group by catching their respect. Other times, the guest comes in with an attitude and is rewarded with an attitude from the orchestra.

As I’m sure you know, it is typical that finals are not behind a screen, screens being typically used in earlier rounds. Sometimes, string players also have a round as a quartet with current concertmaster and principals. Often players, both wind and string, are invited to play one set of performances with the orchestra before an actual offer is made. As well, as you note, there is generally a trial period after which the new player can be sacked. All of these methods allow the orchestra time to decide if they really want the candidate. None of this makes the orchestral audition route easy for the player aspirant.

The screen is used in early rounds to eliminate the worst kind of bias. As you can guess this certainly does exist - a panel member wants to hire a former student, knows and dislikes an individual, wants to hire a family member, etc. ( I have seen all of these things happen when a candidate is past a screened round.) With a screen, candidates move on or fail to move on based on what is heard alone. I’m sure you’ve heard that the entrance area is generally carpeted to prevent a woman’s high heels from being distinguished from a guy’s footsteps. (There have been studies done that show that more woman were hired after this became common practice.) Union rules dictate many of the audition conventions and help protect the interests of the auditioner. As a musician, I would never want the screen down in the earlier rounds If no other reason, sometimes you play embarrassing badly due to nerves or whatever and I wouldn’t want to leave people with an impression that was not typical of my playing.

157

@momofadult:
That is an interesting perspective, and what you write I have heard as well. The screen was put up to try and take out bias,and there definitely was, if you look at professional orchestras 40 years ago and today, it becomes obvious why they did what they did, women were most definitely excluded (The Vienna Philharmonic, not surprisingly, is the last of the orchestras that still have misogynistic streak a mile wide), it also could exclude those who weren’t white/european as well, not to mention things like nepotism and so forth. Maybe you know, but for a while didn’t they pretty much do the whole audition cycle blind, then when they decided they probationally hired the person? Or have they always done the multiple rounds like that? I had heard rumblings they were thinking of doing away with the screens, that at least what I heard (and not being a musician, it is from rumors and from what musicians told me) they were not happy with a lot of the people that were getting picked, that they could play well, and were chosen for their sound, but basically were not going to be good fits with the orchestra, that they played rather mechanically, that their stage presence didn’t fit and so forth with the way the orchestra wanted it to be. The later rounds you describe make sense to me, that would show how well they played when in an ensemble and also might show how well they listened and also got along with the other members.

I also get what you are saying about youthful enthusiasm for ‘art’ versus the reality of playing in an orchestra, I can see where it can get old, and how people can slip into 'robotic ’ mode to go forward. However, there is the other side of that, an orchestra is a performing group with audiences paying to see them play, and there is a big difference between being in the pit orchestra for the “nutcracker” playing the 8 performances a week or more, than being in the NY Phil. It is a job, but it is also an art form and a performing art, and as an audience member seeing an orchestra go through the motions or people playing who look less happy than someone going to the electric chair or something makes for a pretty bad audience experience. Any orchestra can have a bad day (or worse, have a conductor who routinely fouls up the downbeat and has to restart the orchestra), and musicians get sick, have a fight with their SO, or whatnot, but the problem is when a large part of the orchestra looks like that. The NY Phil gets called on that a lot, by critics and people who go there, and it is pretty upsetting when an orchestra that prides itself on its talent (and there is little doubt of that) can have the kind of culture where that is okay. Some of the problem also quite frankly is age, the musicians tend to stay on well past standard retirement ages and very few of them are like Stanley Drucker, who was playing just before he retired like he was still 19, but there also in orchestras are a lot of musicians quite honestly who seem to be hanging on to their jobs and are not doing the orchestra any favors. My complaint is that the orchestra doesn’t exist to give musicians jobs, it exists to play the music and perform for the audience, and the direct analogy is a sports team that has abundant talent but gives a mediocre effort on the field. There is also the difference between the great orchestra that consistently plays are a very high level and energy, and an orchestra that is supposed to be great that phones it in most of the time and occasionally rises to the occasion. It is funny that WQXR when Allen Gilbert indicated he was going to leave the NY Phil , put out a comment question about who should replace him, and a majority of the people responding said “Rodrigo”, the fictional conductor on the Amazon series “Mozart in the Jungle”, and commented maybe he could get the Phil’s musicians to wake up.

158

I feel that I’ve taken over too large a portion of this thread and hope others reading this find the discussion helpful. Apologies.

Different orchestras have different variations on the audition system - and the specifics can vary between instruments - string vs winds as well. As far as I know, at least for the bigger places, the multiple screened, then non-screened rounds are common. Also, some kind of probationary period for winners is typical although some of the regionals may not have the probationary concert rotation. Often, the first contract is limited - perhaps a year with tenure possibilities after that. Orchestras also audition for one year only replacement positions with no possibility of tenure - these situations have all sorts of hiring/audition variations. Candidates do need to know what kind of contract they might be offered, situations aren’t necessarily consistent.

Candidates known to the orchestra - for example a 2nd flute player auditioning for a principal opening in the section - may be invited directly to the semi- or final round. In these cases, the player is relieved of having to emerge from the “blind” portion of the auditions. Invitations can also be issued to players outside the auditioning orchestra, but these invitations are limited. One of my kids auditioned at a “major” and followed a player he knew had subbed with this orchestra and was currently a player in a different “major”. This was in the first screened round - point being, your resume may not get you any advantage.

I have heard of music directors wanting the final round screened as a personal request. I only know of one hire done this way at a major orchestra, but that’s just personal knowledge. I don’t think that is common, but could be wrong. There may be some regional orchestras that hire after just one screened round, but I think that would be rare. Again, my personal knowledge doesn’t extend to all of the US.

There is also the possibility of being hired as a sub for an orchestra or for a group with a core of regulars with free lancers hired on a per concert basis. In these situations, a player had better be attentive, professional, responsive, and prepared or risk not being called again. I have heard personal managers announce that So-and-so will not be hired again - attitude problem. (Of course, that’s a good personnel manager - I know others who get repeat jobs despite less than stellar past performances with a group.)

I do agree with you about the disinterested appearances of some players. In fact, I thought one of my own kids was too “wooden” as he came along. I brought him to several major orchestra performances and pointed out the differences in players to him. I think this helped him relax and appear more “into” things - in his case, he really was playing quite well in his ensembles, he just has a natural, fairly flat affect that was magnified by being on stage.

As far as retirement age goes, I always thought it best to go out on top of the game, but as I age, I understand why that is not always a player’s decision. It can be necessary to continue working for the health care benefits needed for a sick spouse or dependent (I’ve seen that). Some that I’ve seen “hang on” are single and afraid of the next step in life. Some jobs have not paid consistently well through the years - for example, seasons may have been shorter at the beginning of careers - and a player really hasn’t been able to save enough to enjoy an earlier retirement. When younger I didn’t think that this was “fair” to the wonderful young players coming out of conservatory - all trained and no place to play. But, I do have some sympathy now for those who have a job they want to keep.

159

@Monofadult - we have definitely migrated onto a different topic. I enjoy each paragraph, and hope that the excellent discussion can be located by future readers on this multi-purpose thread with its generic title. I have been contemplating that when I add more status on S’ journey, I would create a new one called Jazz Bass Journey.

160

“Thoughts, After Reading All” is certainly a multi-purpose title. And each post contributes to the mass of “all” so the thread is always on-topic. :slight_smile: