Matching Items (2)
Description
Every year hundreds of aspiring musicians audition for positions with professional orchestras throughout the United States. This study is designed to provide a comprehensive look at professional orchestral auditions for trumpet. While other resources rely on the single opinion of their author, this study gathers information from a broad range of sources to develop its conclusions. This project was completed in three phases. In the first phase, lists of excerpts from trumpet auditions were compiled. In the second phase, an online survey of musicians who have served on a trumpet audition committee was conducted. In the final phase, four principal trumpet players of major orchestras and one conductor were interviewed to look further into the criteria and procedures used in orchestral trumpet auditions. The results of this study can be grouped into four categories: the desired qualities sought in a trumpet audition, common mistakes and concerns for those taking auditions, common mistakes and concerns for audition committees, and a discussion of the top fifteen excerpts asked in auditions. The data from this study can be used to consider two different perspectives: what does an aspiring trumpet player need to do to win an audition? And also, what should a committee want to hear? Although there is a broad range of opinion when considering trumpet auditions, certain standards remain. Also, while most of those involved in this study agree that the audition process is among the fairest ways to determine the winner of a job with an orchestra, they also agree that significant changes to the process still need to be made. This is especially true with reference to the types of excerpts asked and the audition procedures used.
ContributorsHunsicker, John David (Author) / Hickman, David (Thesis advisor) / Hackbarth, Glenn (Committee member) / Hill, Gary (Committee member) / Pilafian, J. Samuel (Committee member) / Rogers, Rodney (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
Corporations in biomedicine hold significant power and influence, in both political and personal spheres. The decisions these companies make about ethics are critically important, as they help determine what products are developed, how they are developed, how they are promoted, and potentially even how they are regulated. In the last fifteen years, for-profit private companies have been assembling bioethics committees to help resolve dilemmas that require informed deliberation about ethical, legal, scientific, and economic considerations. Private sector bioethics committees represent an important innovation in the governance of emerging technologies, with corporations taking a lead role in deciding what is ethically appropriate or problematic. And yet, we know very little about these committees, including their structures, memberships, mandates, authority, and impact. Drawing on an extensive literature review and qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with executives, scientists and board members, this dissertation provides an in-depth analysis of the Ethics and Public Policy Board at SmithKline Beecham, the Ethics Advisory Board at Advanced Cell Technology, and the Bioethics Committee at Eli Lilly and offers insights about how ideas of bioethics and governance are currently imagined and enacted within corporations. The SmithKline Beecham board was the first private sector bioethics committee; its mandate was to explore, in a comprehensive and balanced analysis, the ethics of macro trends in science and technology. The Advanced Cell Technology board was created to be like a watchdog for the company, to prevent them from making major errors. The Eli Lilly board is different than the others in that it is made up mostly of internal employees and does research ethics consultations within the company. These private sector bioethics committees evaluate and construct new boundaries between their private interests and the public values they claim to promote. Findings from this dissertation show that criticisms of private sector bioethics that focus narrowly on financial conflicts of interest and a lack of transparency obscure analysis of the ideas about governance (about expertise, credibility and authority) that emerge from these structures and hamper serious debate about the possible impacts of moving ethical deliberation from the public to the private sector.
ContributorsBrian, Jennifer (Author) / Robert, Jason S (Thesis advisor) / Maienschein, Jane (Committee member) / Hurlbut, James B (Committee member) / Sarewitz, Daniel (Committee member) / Brown, Mark B. (Committee member) / Moreno, Jonathan D. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012