Cut-off age for top tier orchestra is 35? Is this true?
First, a little background. I will ask the actual question in the second paragraph so if my personal history is boring, simply skip this paragraph. I started music at age 9. I did not realize at the time how important it would be for me when I got older but when I was 15 I realized I was far behind my peers and I became extremely serious about practicing. I dedicated myself to practicing and I majored in violin performance in college. I am now 28 years old and I am still studying with a private teacher and trying to polish my playing for professional auditions. I have played in regional orchestras but what I really want to do is to earn a job in a top orchestra. Even though I have the technique to play every excerpt that gets required and I have a number of standard concerti under my belt for auditions I still need that extra bit of polish and technique to really stand out. Please understand, I am just trying to give an accurate idea of where I am right now on my path.
OK, so my professor has told me that if I don't get a spot in an orchestra by the time I'm 35 that it will be too late. He said that they just don't hire people older than that. That means I have 6.5 years left before it has to work out. But what does this mean for people who are already in an orchestra that goes bankrupt and closes when they're older than 35? Do those people become unemployable? I'm not talking about regional part-time orchestras. I'm talking about state orchestras and higher. I am practicing so hard that my family thinks it is starting to affect my mental stability. I'd like to think that even if I don't win an audition in the next 6.5 years that it won't necessarily be over for me. My fingers will still work great when I'm 40, maybe if it doesn't work out in time I'll have to try to lie about my age somehow.
Replies (18)
I don't think that's true at all. I have a family member who was drafted by a Major League Baseball team. In his field of athletics, age is definitely a big determining factor because you only have maybe 10-15 years at most that your body can perform at the highest level. So that's why they try to draft people right out of college, or even high school. We as musicians though can play well into our old age at a high level with the right training and work ethic.
35 is still very young in musician years. Don't stress, just practice hard, and make the necessary political connections.
My first teacher used to give me the 35-year rule. However, I've talked to others in major orchestras who've said it isn't true. The current CM of one was hired at 56.
However, there is a point at which one is too old. What is that point? No major orchestra will hire a 75-year old. What about other ages? It's probably different for different players because apparent age differs widely. Some people look old if their hair grays prematurely, or if they gain weight or smoke. Some people look young if they're into fitness, like to tan and have good genes.
The fact is, age discrimination is all around us anyway. Someone out of work at 50 is basically f*cked no matter what the career choice.
Also, there are those that keep their skills up, and those that don't.
It may be that your teacher means if you haven't gotten your first orchestral job in a 'good' orchestra by that age, you would be considered too old. If so, it might be less a question of age than years of experience as an orchestral player. And I don't know how regional orchestral experience would be perceived.
A good orchestra looks for players who not only have the technique for the excerpts, but know the difference between forte in Mozart and forte in Bruckner; who have the sense of blending into a section, rather than thinking soloistically; and who know how to follow. My guess is if a player hasn't been doing orchestra till they are 35, they may not impress a committee that they could learn.
The obverse side, however, shows in the interview Laurie posted recently with the newly appointed concertmaster in Pittsburgh--who's 27. To me, what seemed odd about that appointment was his youth. Sure, he'd be able to play the solos with panache and aplomb, but I wonder how good a section leader he would be, let alone a concertmaster. But it does go to show that there really are no hard-and-fast rules.
I think most people would ignore your age if you wowed their socks off with your competent skills. The only reason why age would come into consideration would be that they are looking at how many years they can get out of you before rigor mortis sets in. Young people die nearly as readily as old people in car accidents and freakish knife accidents. I'd say your odds are good.
It's interesting that if you look in particular at older photos of East European orchestras, Czech Phil, Leningrad etc. that they all seem to be old. I think the prevailing wisdom then was that you served your apprenticeship in "lesser" orchestras and would be considered for these great orchestras when you's learned the trade properly. It actually makes a lot of sense - and they certainly didn't play badly. I do wonder about the current policies in all fields. I work now in IT where it can really be prevalent (but with kudos to my current employer who took me on at 62!). Interestingly, in one of my first firms when I wasn't exactly young, I found that the youngsters coming in were told "this is the way we do things" and just accepted it - the two of us questioning things and looking for a better way were me and a colleague who was even older than me!
Someone else mentioned young ConcertMasters (Leaders). Yes, I would usually prefer to play for someone who's played the piece many times before and hopefully for good conductors and maybe picked up some of the "tricks of the trade". It's not just about playing the notes.
Love your positive outlook John. But I tihnk you forgot the locusts....
OTOH, maybe I had better stock up on non-decay strings...
I want to point out that the reason given by my teacher for the 35-year-old rule was $$: if someone started at an older age, they would not have contributed enough income for the orchestra's pension obligation.
Sounds reasonable Scott - but also surely negotiable. If they worked elsewhere their pension deposits could be transferrable. It would be sad indeed if a deal negotiated by a union and employer in effect ruled out older workers joining the force...
Most orchestras have blind auditions up to the final rounds of the auditions. Sure, at that point they will know if you are older, but if you are hands-down a better player, have solid intonation and rhythm, and have something musical to say with your playing, I think they'll forgive a lot.
That being said, I do believe for principal positions or exposed positions, such as in the wind and brass section, you will find that it is very difficult to find a position in a major orchestra. I have a relative who is a professional flautist and has to face this every audition. Younger players are often considered "moldable", meaning the committee may be more likely to believe that the player can mold and adapt to the players in their section and the style of the orchestra, whereas an older player they may view as unable to do that as easily. For a string section player, that I don't believe would be as much of a concern.
I have no business even trying to answer the question, "Is 35 too old." However, I did notice one point that seemed to me to be relavent. The statement came from, "the professor." As much as I have respect for the teaching profession, there is a cliche that says, "Those that can, do and those that cannot, teach." Now I'm not trying to start a war with music professors, but I wonder if someone in academics can be an authority on what really goes into the decisions professional orchestra make about who to hire and who not to hire?
Robert,
There may be some musicians in academia who are out of touch with the realities of the classical job market--perhaps older ones nearing retirement at small out-of-way colleges in the middle of nowhere.
However, having been in academia, I can assure you that the majority know exactly what the market is like. Few music professors lead a life apart from symphonic performance. They have either spent time in symphonies, or perform locally. They play summer festivals and they talk with their colleagues. Many have spent time in major orchestras. They have students preparing for auditions and have seen the repertoire lists and practiced the excerpts themselves. They have colleagues and former classmates in symphonies.
People with doctorates aren't 22-year-olds just out of school who haven't experienced the job market. They are older and experienced. There is flow between the world of the symphony and academia. Just because some is called "professor," don't assume they live some sort of cloistered life.
Robert, I appreciate your trying to help but that assumption is unwarranted. My professor was the associate concertmaster of a top-five orchestra for 40 years. I won't say who it is because I respect his privacy and I've no interest in giving people the wrong impression of him. It isn't even that I don't trust his opinion, I merely started this thread for second (or perhaps third and fourth) opinions on the matter. The saying "those who can, do and those who can't, teach" is only repeated frequently because it's catchy, not because it's necessarily true.
I agree with the previous two statements. That "saying" is an old stereotype and is not even close to accurate. Having spent two years teaching middle school orchestra, it is not the first time I have heard that phrase. To be a professor of any study, but particularly that of applied music, can only be achieved after YEARS of studying the performance of that instrument, usually through doctorate level. All professors of music have vast experience in the industry, usually at the kind of level that most of us can only aspire to. While I don't agree with the idea that there is a particular "cut-off" age, this professor is no doubt speaking from personal experience and what they believe to be true. The people who go into teaching but are incapable of "do"-ing inevitably fail at teaching and do not become professors of violin!
The people who go into teaching but are incapable of "do"-ing inevitably fail at teaching and do not become professors of violin!
This is especially true these days due to the stiff competition for the very small number of college teaching jobs that come up each year.
The OP's professor may be right about the difficulties of winning a major orchestra job after 35, but for more mundane reasons than prejudice on the part of the orchestra. A recent NY Times article explored the near-universal decline in the performance of major league baseball players over 30, and it would be surprising if classical musicians, who must comply with rigorous technical standards, did not suffer much the same fate.
While mid-career musicians in their 40s may have advanced musical ideas and maturity, it's difficult to keep up the speed of youth, just like an athlete (trills, vibrato, etc.). There is also the "volitional window" described in the article: few 36-year-olds have the same ability, opportunity, or desire to practice like they did at 24. Family and professional responsibilities prevent one from practicing 5 hours a day, even if one still wanted to, as do sore muscles and stiff fingers.
Might not part of the answer be that the level of proficiency we see in the string players just coming out of school is extraordinarily high? I've heard from more than one professional player nowhere near to passing their primes that if they auditioned for their orchestra today with the skills they had when they first auditioned, they wouldn't make the first cut. At a convention I attended two years ago, I met two players just out of school who had won principal chair in their respective sections in major orchestras. That has to be scary.
I've also known violinists whose skills did not decline noticeably until they were in their late 70s and early 80s. Many of them espoused the philosophy that their goal was to play as well or better than they had the day before and not worry about the person sitting next to them. They all enjoyed making music, and played Brahms' 1st for the 100th time with the same enthusiasm they had the first time they played it.
I have a suggestion for anyone facing those condescending little digs about "those who teach." We got a lot of that in the public school music profession. My response was a prominent post:
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't teach become school administrators.
Those who can't administer run for the school board.
Once everyone is tarred with the same brush, the condescending types tend to fade into the background noise.
you forgot one: those who can't teach teach gym
Good lord, stop dissing on the teachers already.
This discussion has been archived and is no longer accepting responses.
Violinist.com is made possible by...
Dimitri Musafia, Master Maker of Violin and Viola Cases
Johnson String Instrument/Carriage House Violins
Subscribe
Laurie's Books
Discover the best of Violinist.com in these collections of editor Laurie Niles' exclusive interviews.
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 1, with introduction by Hilary Hahn
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 2, with introduction by Rachel Barton Pine
August 5, 2011 at 10:29 PM ·
Hi Patrick,
I've heard the age of 35 cited as the cap for winning a *principal* position in a *European* orchestra. Not being a part of the European orchestral scene, I couldn't begin to evaluate whether that's true or not.
Musicians over 35 do win jobs in the US. It's not so common, but most people auditioning are well under 35, so that's not surprising. I would say some conductors seem to prefer younger musicians. Not yet bitter, and in the orchestra world, youthful excitement is what is stressed in many interpretations these days. But not all... you just have to find the right fit.