Robert P. Commanday, Editor

You would think that by now the process of finding and selecting music directors for symphony orchestras would be well worked out, that at least the procedure would be set. Not a chance. It's still a crap shoot, at every level of orchestras.

The major orchestras, our country's oldest, most established ones, the New York Philharmonic, the Boston Symphony, the Philadelphia Orchestra, are floundering about. The little fellas are no better off. Last Sunday, in an article by its music editor, the New York Times was greeting the engagement of Zubin Mehta's brother Zarin as the Philharmonic's executive director with a sense of confidence that this new chief would solve the vexing problem of finding the next music director, now that Riccardo Muti, to the relief of many, has declined the post.

It seems to be a given that at that top rank of orchestras, the executive director does the negotiating and calls the shots. Ernest Fleischman, executive director of the Los Angeles Philharmonic from 1969, was the genius who drew Carlo Maria Giulini, then Andre Previn, then Esa Pekka Salonen to its podium, meanwhile engaging Michael Tilson Thomas and Simon Rattle as principal guest conductors. Peter Pastreich is presumed to be responsible for the San Francisco Symphony's getting Tilson Thomas. Similarly, Henry Fogel has been the guiding hand at the Chicago Symphony.

Perhaps Zarin Mehta, the Philadelphia Orchestra's Joseph Kluger, and the Boston Symphony's Mark Volpe will find and sign the right music director for their orchestras, though the candidates most often named are hardly at the level of the illustrious conductors who have worn the purple on those podiums. The problem is complicated. The United States has never cultivated and rewarded its conducting talent. Today it is paying the price for having favored the exotic and foreign-born. There is no logical progression for a conductor in America from one level of orchestra up to the next.

This has to do with American's focus on "celebrity" qualities, on the often-external qualities of conductors that charm or otherwise convince the members of symphony boards, people not chosen, or even known, for their musical acumen and experience. Hence the importance of the executive directors as leaders, guides, and as tough-minded characters who can bargain hard with the artist managers representing conductor-clients.

One way or another, the major orchestras will land the fish for their podiums. The prize is too large, the money too big for there to be any doubt that the most successful "name" conductors will be chosen. But the story for the next levels of orchestras is quite different. How are their conductors chosen, and by whom?

It's a scramble and a jumble. In the descending order of orchestras, ranked by budgets and schedules, executive leadership is less and less professionally experienced and independent. Conductor searches are run by board committees chaired by the symphony association presidents. The common procedure is to engage from five to seven or even more guest conductors, each to lead one program or program set in a season or season-and-a-half marketed as a "Season of Discovery." Whether the opinions of the subscribers, the orchestra musicians, and the board members are taken into account in the final reckoning begs the question of whether the procedure can insure the choice of the best.

It is totally unreasonable to imagine that over a year's time, any of the respondents will remember clearly the differences among the candidates and make fair evaluations. A more equitable arrangement that is occasionally used brings in the four top-ranked candidates, thoroughly vetted as to their experience, their programming, their track records, for one full day of rehearsals with the orchestra, each assigned one hour and working with material of their choice. The orchestra, the board, the attending public and the relevant committees then can evaluate what has happened. That way is economical of everyone's time. The orchestra association is not investing an entire concert program in each candidate, and neither the conductor nor the symphony must stay on hold for up to a year's time.

In any case however, regional orchestras such as the Marin Symphony, which is facing exactly this conductor search dilemma on unconscionably short notice, have the option of engaging a professional consultant to guide it through the process, from screening the candidates to the final selection. It makes every sense to call in a master conductor or deeply experienced executive director from a major orchestra to be the guide and counselor in this matter. The cost is negligible in terms of the investment the orchestra is making for perhaps a whole decade, an investment in its present and future that is incalculable.

The broad, actually national scope of this problem can be seen in an instant by going to www.google.com, running a search on the words "conductor search" and scanning the scores of articles that come up.

The problem goes all the way back to America's historical reliance on European musical models and talent. We never got over that, as far as conducting is concerned, and never properly cultivated and encouraged our own. To this day, the American musical institutions do not seriously seek and recognize our own conducting talent. We're paying the price, for the results are, more often than not, mediocrity.