15 November, 2007

a PROOF. foolproof that is. updated for funniness at the bottom.

First of all, show numero deux went very well. The audience laughed more at physical comedy than spoken witticisms, but it was still very fun.

Now, to recent blogginess readings and comments.

Over at WTOC, the last two posts are of utmost interest to me.

First of all, because of the "2nd year syndrome" (as I like to call it).
The post is a GREAT explanation of the continued stagnation of young artists in this business. I was discussing this with a cast mate just last night (before our entrance in Act III).

Here is the evidence: A proof, if you will humor me:

A. Let [X = number of students graduate with Bachelors OR Master's degrees in Voice or Opera each year from Y number of conservatories, universities, and colleges, all of which have charged exorbitant amounts of money for tuition each year (upwards of 45,000- except the 1 or 2 in each Master's level that was on full assistantship).

B. [Z number of singers (comprising of XY plus N (non music majors who want to be singers after a four year major in international relations and then a private teacher who says they are ready)] between the ages (most likely) of 21-30, audition for YAPs or RAPs each year. The majority are sopranos.

C. [Z minus (60% to 40% of Z)] singers receive a live audition with a number of companies (anywhere between one and twenty-five/thirty) for that summer or next year's resident artist program. At this point, singers are thinking that they are the upper crust, the top 40 or 60 percent OF those that have even received a live audition, and they have a ONE in possibly 250 chance of being accepted to a summer program that hears 350 singers over 3 days. (250 sopranos, regular breakdown for every other voice type)

D. Let your chances = 1 in 250 IF an overwhelming majority of the following are true:
e = experience onstage is greater than performances just in your college shows
p = programs previously attended include mid-level summer apprenticeships
rr = your resume has no mistakes on it, and you sing the right rep. that day
t = your audition time is not right before a bathroom break, or after lunch break
c = you coached with the actual staff accompanist of the program last week
t = your teacher personally recommended you to Mr. Domingo
v = you have the voice of an angel
l= and you Look damn good in your burgundy and NOT black dress

E. Factor in the following:

PS = previous singers from last year, extremely talented, who already have a working relationship or audition history with the program you want to be in, and there is ALSO a two year "expectation" via AGMA or the studio to apprentice level of training and allegiance to the program.

NPA = Number of Previous Applicants that have already sung with this program in the past, who are auditioning again, and would have NO reason NOT to get in, unless they accepted a contract at a program ONE level HIGHER than the program you are auditioning for.

And finally,
NSN = Number of singers needed. 16 to 20?

I'd say your chances go from 1 in 250 to...well, you get the picture.

Now, I'm not saying this practice is WRONG by ANY means. I believe that most programs DO take very talented singers, DO enjoy their work, and DO want those singers to return a second year, and then return as mainstage singers.

All I AM saying, is that each year that this practice is repeated, (yes, FROM the schools taking too many music majors and telling them they are ready, TO the programs that will take THIRD year repeats even though AGMA says they can't be there), there are more and more and MORE singers that MAY be talented, but may NOT have even been heard, who actually DO fill all of the requirements above, but have just never been "that soprano" who was heard twice by a great program, asked to do it the third year, and then invited back for her 2nd year there.

And what I WILL say to that practice, is that programs should get it a bit more together in terms of being honest about what they are looking for.
If you're one of the top summer programs and you send out an email in August to the singers who YOU would consider asking back for a 2nd year to ask about their "plans to re-audition", what is the harm in that?
Then you KNOW that if you want that girl back, you have one less spot for a soprano who may travel from LA to NYC for an audition. Maybe you won't accept 40-60% of the soprano applicants, and only hear the cream of the crop top 20% of soprano applicants, sending back many-an-application fee (for those that send unheard apps back), and saving 500-600 sopranos from shellacking their kitchen table with rejection letters.

If you're a residency program that takes kids for 2 years, and you have a full lyric, why are you auditioning other full lyrics in that soprano's first year? You KNOW you won't take a full lyric, because you only need one.

The question is, I suppose, is it BETTER/to the singer's benefit just to be HEARD? Is that an honor in itself? Does that start the ball rolling on a good future audition/relationship so the panel can see your progress?
Or would it be better if you knew they weren't taking your voice type in the first place?

Personally, I am disappointed when I read audition notices that say "Note, we will not be hearing any sopranos this year". Of course, I would have RATHER them considered or just heard me..who is to say that who they have already is better or worse than I am?
BUT when you pit that against a 30 dollar audition fee, getting to NY, getting an accompanist, and the hoopla of the day and THEN getting a rejection even if you sang so so so well, is it worth it?

I haven't quite made a decision on that yet.
And I'm sure administrators will say it's worth it to hear people. To hear progress. To try and hear as many as possible even though we know there may not be a spot for them this year. Because you can always have that surprise voice that you have never heard of that blows you out of the water.
I'm not sure what most singers would say.

Let i = the imaginary number, (and square root of negative 2), and my general imagination of insanity while coming up with all of this.

Wow, I guess I DO remember some calculus after all. Washer method and 3D axes here I come!


Oh, but my real point is. IF singers between the ages of 21-30 were NOT doing all of this auditioning and possible participation in young artist programs (due to the fact that MOST singers really are only taken seriously in their late 20s and onward in terms of real futures on stage at leading houses in leading roles, with leading management), what would happen?
Would there be FEWER singers trying to make this a career?
Would the undergrads who can't get in to programs at ALL (because they've only been a tenor for a year and a half!) still be trying this 5 years later?
Would the GRADS who can't get management or a mainstage audition because of no experience on their resume still be able to afford 30 auditions a year?
Would singers go back to the "old school" ways of studying with one teacher, one method, once a day, out there in upstate New York, secluded, until they were ready for their MET debut?

Again, no answers here, just questions about the future of the form.

g


--------------------
EDITED to include the following because I sent part of this post to my family (yea, they don't know I blog) and this is what my brother, the ACTUAL first year analyst at Goldman Sachs has to say about my proof.
Read on for more mathematical amusement.

Dear family,
While "bigSis" is insane, I too can go insane when you're sitting at work waiting for the credit department to come back with numbers to input into your model and they were supposed to come back an hour ago and we're still waiting. Enjoy my mathematical additions to Sis's theoretical proof. Or don't enjoy them. I don't mind.



Sis's odds of getting an audition and a job in the next two months: (updated - with numbers)


Throw out the first three steps of this proof. Since you have already proven that you can get an audition, and have experience, I wouldn't pit you against this "Z" number of people, but rather choose a probability, zPrime[a], that you will get an audition per season, with [a] being the number of auditions received and zprime[a] being the probability of receiving those exact number of auditions - the zPrime score will fall as the number of auditions [a] rises.

Using historical analysis, we can assume Sis has the following zPrime scores:
zPrime[0] = 2%
zPrime[1] = 15%
zprime[2] = 22%
zPrime[3] = 37%
zPrime[4] = 16%
zprime[5] = 5%
zPrime[6] = 2%
zPrime[7] = 1%
zPrime[8+] = .01%

(I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HE"S TALKING ABOUT ALREADY)

Using this breakdown, the Weighted average number of live auditions Sis receives is zPrime[a]!a! = 2.78. This is Sis's zScore (the amount of "1 out of 250" auditions that Sis receives)

Without any other help, you would take this zScore, and divide it by 250 to get your chances of getting an audition of 2.78 / 250 = 1.11% per season. Not Good.

D. Let your chances = 1 in 250 IF an overwhelming majority of the
following are true:
e = experience onstage is greater than performances just in your college shows True
p = programs previously attended include mid-level summer apprenticeships True

The previous two eliminating variables work together. Whereas the individuals who don't have e (maybe 3% of the 250) are inclusive in the individuals who do not have p (Probably more like 10% of the 250). Therefore, if you have p, you can ignore the e variable altogether. Having P puts you and 224 other people above 25 people in the group. If you reduce the denominator by 25, you essentially multiply your previous chances by 1.111x. To be conservative (and realize that there is that smallest of possibilities that some schmuck who hasn't had a mid level apprenticeship gets the job) we'll say that the multiplier of having p = 1.1x

rr = your resume has no mistakes on it, and you sing the right rep. that day True - This is a binary multiplier. It doesn't help you, it can only hurt you - so it's a 1x if you did it right, and it's a 0x if you did it wrong. Then again, assuming that maybe 1 or 2 of the auditionees get this wrong, it essentially IS a multiplier that helps you - but probably a negligible one, given that the person who screws up a resume probably would have screwed up something else on this list and therefore been excluded anyway

t = your audition time is not right before a bathroom break, or after
lunch break

This is an interesting multiplier. Assuming that there are 3 bathroom breaks and a lunch break every day of the three days, that means that 12 people are doomed from this variable. If this removes 12 people from the running, it is essentially a 1.05 multiplier for anyone who doesn't get removed. Since this is totally random, it could have an effect on the good, or bad people. Therefore, you have to put a 50% discount on it, because it may remove those great singers that wouldn't have been removed from any of the other factors, or it could remove the bad singers who would've messed up on their resume anyway and not needed a bathroom break to remove them from the running. Overall, the multiplier is probably near 1.025x

c = you coached with the actual staff accompanist of the program last week

I can imagine no more than 10 people auditioning happened to have coached with the staff accompanist. This means that it would give you a 25x multiplier. But, the accompanist can only do so much to help you get the actual job, so I would divide that 25x multiplier by 10, giving you a 3.4x multiplier (you take the excess multiple of 24x and divide by 10 to get 2.4, then you add that to 1x)

t = your teacher personally recommended you to Mr. Domingo

A personal recommendation is good, but probably 20 people got recommendations by someone as well. That would mean a 12.5x multiplier if that made it a sure thing, but of course, divide by 10 because a recommendation once again doesn't get you the job. Multiplier = 2.15x

v = you have the voice of an angel

If this is true, it is mostly already reflected in the combination of recommendations and previous experience and the fact that you are at this level already. But given that we have not removed some people that may have had recommendations and experience but still have "demonic" voices, we can say that there still remains 50 of these people in the pool. This is a 1.25x multiple.

l= and you Look damn good in your audition dress

Looking good won't get you the job (SO NOT TRUE LITTLE BROTHER!), so you have to put a discount on this multiple. Given that, probably half of the sopranos are less than good looking, but only one quarter of them show it because the others put way too much make up on for the audition so you can't really tell. Therefore, this will eliminate about 75 candidates or so. This is a 1.4 multiple, but divide that down by 10 to get a 1.04x multiple because looks probably matter much less than singing.


E. Factor in the following:

PS
= previous singers from last year, extremely talented, who already have
a working relationship or audition history with the program you want to
be in, and there is ALSO a two year "expectation" via AGMA or the
studio to apprentice level of training and allegiance to the program.

NPA
= Number of Previous Applicants that have already sung with this
program in the past, who are auditioning again, and would have NO
reason NOT to get in, unless they accepted a contract at a program ONE
level HIGHER than the program you are auditioning for.

PS and NPA can be looped together. The assumption is that there can only be about 20 to 30 of these in every 250 person applicant pool. That being said, this is a pretty good thing to have, because it pretty much gets you ahead. It , gives you a 1 in 30 chance to get the spot. Discount that down because it doesn't always work like this in reality. Normally it would give you an 8x multiple, but if you mark that down by 10, you get a 1.7x multiple.


And finally,
NSN = Number of singers needed. 16 to 20?

This actually HELPS you. Originally, we were assuming they only take 1 singer. If they take 5 sopranos, you just got 5 more chances. Multiplier for everyone = 5x

(HE GOT THIS WRONG< BUT IT"S STILL AMUSING)

I'd say your chances go from 1 in 250 to...well, you get the picture.

This is the way the proof works, Your chances = zScore time NSN (number of singers needed) / 250. Then you add every multiplier to either the numerator of the denominator depending on if you are helped or hurt by having or not having that variable. In Sis's Case =

zScore * NSN * p * c * t * v * l *
---------------------------------------------- THEN - multiplied by the probability of auditioning around bathroom/lunch

250 * PSNPA

Sis's chances of getting a job this season are =

2.78 * 5 * 1.1x * 3.4x * 2.15x * 1.25x * 1.04x
--------------------------------------------------------------------
250* 1.7

This yields a 34.2% chance to get the job.

Not Having the auditions in the bathroom/lunch spots move your chances up to 35.0%

That’s a 1 in 3 chance! Awesome.


(thanks to my amusing brother for that mathematical rendition of my chances at being employed).

No comments: