BROADCASTING PROGRAMMES.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19137, 21 October 1927, Page 13

BROADCASTING PROGRAMMES.

; 10 TEE EDITOB 07 THE FBESB. I Sir,—l am pleased that my letter has I had the effect of opening up this question, and your correspondent, '"Pip," has it is very evident, been "pipped" !,y the matter being ventilated through til" columns of your valuable paper. I regret, though, that your correspondent, who, it Ls obvious, is writing as an interested party, has seen lit to misrepresent the tenor of my letter. Firstly, I made no such statement that the Broadcasting Company were hoarding up wealth. I merely stated, what is a positive fact, that it is impossible to get detent artists for the paltry sum of 10s 6d per night, and that the quality of the programmes were poor tor that reason, and, further, that the items put over the air were a monotonous repetition. That is amply proved by a perusal of Monday's programme. I must thank "Pip" (who is, evidently as regards the income of the Broadcasting Company, very much in the know) for correcting me as to the* amount received by the company. I merely stated that their income was something like £IOOO per week; ''Pip' states it is about £B4O, and as it is increasing every week, my estimate is not far out. However, let that pass and accept his figures. That clearly goes prove that the company are in a position to givo us a quality of programme in keeping with what we are paying. "Pip" makes a lot out of the condensed report of the Wireless Commission's report as to the working of the Australian stations 2BL, 2FC, and 3LO. This is entirely beside the question and has not the slightest bearing on my complaint. Evidently your correspondent introduces extraneous matters into the discussion for the purpose of clouding the real issue, but he is not getting away with that stunt. My grouch deals with the local company in putting over second-class programmes when we have been definitely promised the best, and the suggestion that they endeavour to work on the lines of the Australian stations would not entail any great expense. Of course New Zealand cannot afford to pay artists like Elsa Stralia anything up to £SO per week for a three weeks' season. That is not expected, nor would such an expense be warranted, but we are justified in demanding something far above the prior quality matter served up recently. It is common talk amongst artists in Christchurch that they refuse, and rightly so, to broadcast for such paltry fees as offered. Surely, even at "Pip's" own figures, the company are in a position to right the matter by coining to light with a decent remuneration, arid as they have a silent night once a week, and a Sunday, this only leaves them five nights in each week to incur expense. When the company realise their responsibility to the public and' give us programmes in keeping with the income derive,d, then all will be well, but it would be as well to remember that they may not always have a. Government—or Minister—so easily persuaded that they are giving the public value for money received, and unless there is a decided improvement matters will come to a head. — Yours, etc., RADIAL.

TO IBZ EDITOB OV tSX PBBSS. Sir, —As it is not a characteristic of real musicians to be mean and underhand, one can assess the value of the anonymous correspondence which appears in The Pkess attacking members of the Broadcasting Company. One writer in to-day's paper, disguised under the noni-de-plume of "Square attacks the programme organiser for alleged partiality in tho selection of artists. Nothing* is further from fact—except that the preferences are based on the way in which an artist is graded as a singer, and on tho type of artist that is needed for ft particular night. I happen to have been in the studio, and I know a little about the working of it. The gramme organiser cannot,put the same artists on every night, as some would like to be—how they do like that desoised half guinea! It would be fairer if anyone who felt he had a just grievance would interview the company's officials.—Yours, etc.,. BARITONE. October 20th, 192". ' • • TO THE EDITOR 0» THE PBESS. Sir, —May I be permitted a few lines in reply to "Radial" and "Square Deal." "Radial" has no doubt just cause for his complaint (as have many more listeners-ih) concerning vthe stuff put on as programmes at '6\A, Christchurch.. In my humble opinion there is not enough • variets - . Who wants to hear three or more pianoforte efforts in one night, interspersed with a Zither banjo or mouthorgan solo, etc.? It is monotonous to have also the Radio Christchurch Trio four nights weekly. These artists, even when they are good, and play very classical stuff, soon exhaust their repertoire, and the inevitable repetition occurs. There is too much of it, aud too often, and it appeals to only the few. Surely, there are other good people obtainable, singers of good songs, either male or female, with an occasional comic or not too heavy stuff, instead of the imitation Carusos, singing Italian (with English accent). I knowit is quite, impossible to get the professional artist; he is not coming for 10s a night and hang about for 2j hours (with a free rehearsal thrown in). I fail to see how the director can accomplish all the wonders "Square Deal" thinks possible. For the reason I mentioned the goods are not obtainable at the price offered, and to have firstclass talent the Company must make the fee worth while and give quality, not quantitv. I Whether "RadialV or "Pip's" figures are correct, as to income of Radio Co. of New Zealand does not matter. What the listeners-in require is more variety of programmes and. some departure from the stock turns served up nightly, of which we are sick to death. —Yours, etc., VALVE SET. October 20th.