Imagine this: a musician has been playing with an orchestra for years—concerts, tours, productions. They know the repertoire, the style, the colleagues. Then, finally, they get the chance to audition for a permanent position. They prepare, perform, make it to the final round. And then? ‘No winner.’
The seat remains empty.
Months later, the orchestra calls them back. Not as a new member, but as a substitute. Again.
How does that make sense? What are they really evaluating in these auditions?
All of this happens under the (sometimes incredulous) gaze of the jury, which often include musicians who themselves secured their positions in an era when auditions were almost unheard of.
At this point, legitimate questions arise. What exactly are they still trying to prove?
Is today’s level really that low?
Let’s look at the data: according to Hallam (2001), new generations of musicians have developed a higher technical and interpretative level compared to previous generations, thanks to improved teaching methods, advanced technologies, and broader access to high-level musical education. Moreover, the number of professional musicians has significantly increased, making competition for stable positions fiercer than ever.
And this phenomenon is not limited to music. In many fields—from the arts to finance—the rise of specialization and globalization has led to a surge in highly qualified candidates competing for an increasingly limited number of career opportunities (Freeman, 2008).
The reality is that talent and hard work alone are not enough.
This was also highlighted by Dr. Passarotto, a neuroscientist, pianist, and expert in music psychology, during our PAME Equipe seminar about psychology and physiotherapy laboratory applied to music at the Verona Conservatory.
Research in performance psychology demonstrates that musical training alone accounts for only part of a musician’s professional success. While technique and academic preparation are crucial, they are merely the starting point.
According to a study by Macnamara, Hambrick, and Oswald (2014), deliberate practice explains only 21% of the variance in musical performance quality. In other words, technical preparation is just one piece of the puzzle.
Professional success depends on many other factors: networking, experience, mindset, personality and career adaptability, socio-cultural background, work environment and colleagues relationships.
And here’s the key point: if talent alone is not enough, it is clear that the environment plays a determining role: as demonstrated by the study by Burland and Davidson (2002), It showed that young musicians who receive structured opportunities and consistent feedback are significantly more likely to achieve professional excellence.
An audition system that frustrates rather than develops
If we borrow an analysis from the financial and HR fields, an interesting phenomenon emerges.
A study by Groysberg, Nanda, and Nohria (2004) on 1,052 star analysts on Wall Street found that their performance dropped by 46% in the first year after switching companies (and, consequently, their work environment and team), with an additional 20% decline over their career.
So here’s the provocative question:
Does a talented individual suddenly lose intelligence and forget everything they’ve learned overnight?
Of course not. But individual success also depends on the environment and the support dynamics within a structure. A musician, just like a Wall Street professional, does not thrive in a vacuum—they need a system that believes in them, that allows them to express their full potential, and most importantly, one that evolves synergistically with them.
So, let’s get back to the point:
Why do these orchestras have musicians perform as substitutes for years, invite them to the final rounds of auditions after they’ve already proven their worth on stage—only to reject ALL of them with a 'not suitable' verdict?
What exactly are they trying to prove?
After years of collaborations, are these musicians really not good enough?Or is this just a game of power struggles and internal conflicts, disguised as a supposed pursuit of perfection?
Invest in talent, don’t waste it.
Let’s assume for a moment that after watching these candidates perform, pushing them through two, three, or even four rounds of selection, none of them are exactly what you had in mind (assuming that ‘ideal’ even exists).
But here’s the fundamental truth that many orchestras (and not just them) fail to acknowledge: talent is not a fixed, unchanging trait. It evolves, it grows, it refines itself in the right environment. And if your goal is to find a ‘perfect’ musician on the first try, then maybe you’re looking in the wrong way.
In over ten years of orchestral experience and more than 80 auditions and competitions, I have seen this principle violated time and time again.
I have personally experienced the uncertainty, inconsistency in evaluations, and the complete lack of a long-term vision in assessing a musician.
Now, working in HR and career counseling, I see how these dynamics are often ignored in talent selection: there is a tendency to evaluate only instantaneous performance, failing to recognize that an individual, when placed in a supportive environment, can develop a far greater potential than what they might showcase in a single audition (or job interview).
But this requires a system that genuinely invests in people, gives them time, and grows alongside them—rather than discarding them, only to call them back later when convenient.
After all, if the quality of a musician cannot be judged in just a few minutes—because, let’s be honest, even from a statistical and performance-based perspective, that is an insufficient metric—then why does the trial period even exist?
Just as in corporate recruitment, the challenge is not only to find the "perfect" candidate at first glance, but to find a promising person being able to be an asset, to create a team and an environment where talented people can develop, adapt, and contribute their best.
If we continue treating musicians like disposable assets rather than investing in their development, we are merely creating a sterile system that frustrates rather than nurtures.
So, what now?
If the average level of musicianship has risen but permanent positions remain unfilled, then perhaps the problem does not lie with the candidates but with the selection system itself.
Maybe it’s time to ask ourselves:
Assuming that a 'not suitable' verdict is truly an honest evaluation—and not the result of internal politics, power games, or a reluctance to embrace change—are we really searching for the best talent, or are we simply perpetuating a broken system?
The real issue in these cases is not just that musicians fail their auditions, but that the system itself keeps burning talent instead of fostering it—while hiding behind the comforting illusion of ‘back in my day…’
A convenient narrative, for sure.
As long as we keep choosing to believe it.
© Dott. Luca Mazzon - PERPSY.it - Performance & Clinical Psychologist *
*The contents on the blog PERPSY.it - of which the blog owner Luca Mazzon is the author - may not be copied, reproduced, published or redistributed because they belong to the author himself. Copying and reproduction of the contents in any way or form is prohibited. The publication and redistribution of content not expressly authorised by the author is prohibited.
Bibliography
· Burland, K., & Davidson, J. W. (2002). The role of the family in supporting learning and development in elite young musicians. Psychology of Music, 30(1), 121-134.. Training the talented: How do musical skills develop? British Journal of Music Education, 19(3), 253-276.
· Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
· Freeman, R. B. (2008). The new global labor market. Focus, 26(1), 1-6.
· Groysberg, B., Nanda, A., & Nohria, N. (2004). The risky business of hiring stars. Harvard Business Review, 82(5), 92-100.
· Hallam, S. (2001). The development of expertise in young musicians: Strategy use, knowledge acquisition, and individual diversity. Music Education Research, 12(2), 123-138.
· Macnamara, B. N., Hambrick, D. Z., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). Deliberate practice and performance in music, games, sports, education, and professions: A meta-analysis. Psychological Science, 25(8), 1608–1618.
· Papageorgi, I., Hallam, S., & Welch, G. (2007). A conceptual framework for understanding musical performance anxiety. Psychology of Music, 35(4), 443-465.
·
Comments