Symphony Orchestra Appointment

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24914, 29 June 1946, Page 6

Symphony Orchestra Appointment

The Prime Minister’s announcement of the appointment of Mr Andersen Tyrer to “ undertake the “ assembling, training, and organis“ing of the necessary personnel for “ a national symphony orchestra " and his explanation of it do nothing to allay disquiet about the method of the appointment. Mr Fraser’s explanation, which seems to be a form of justification for a procedure that he knows to be wrong in principle, is that the Government wishes “to expedite the development of permanent orches- “ tral work in the Dominion ” But it does not explain why a project that has lain neglected for too many years has suddenly become so urgent that time cannot be taken to pursue the most desirable course of calling applications for its organiser-conductor. These applications should have been called for not only in New Zealand but also in other countries, so that the best qualified applicant might be selected. Instead, the Government, having consulted an unnamed *' leading musical authority tn “ Britain ”, has made a two-year appointment. It is defined as a preparatory one: at the end of the two years of organising and training the appointment of a conductor will be “ considered ”. Two points should be emphasised in this regard. The first is that, if a permanent conductor is to be appointed, it should be his responsibility to choose his players and -organise and train them. The second is that, if Mr Tyrer does this preparatory work acceptably well and is willing to continue it. then his claim to be appointed conductor will be such as cannot easily be set aside. It will be exceedingly easy to appoint him conductor then as he has been appointed now to this pre-conductorship; it will b“ much more difficult then to do what the Government, for no good and given reason, has chosen not to do now—that is, search the world for the best man and set up a panel of advisers to make sure he is selected. If Mr Tyrer is made conductor, two years hence, as a *" proved ” man and without competition, the proof will be insufficient: there will be no real evidence that his is the best appoint ment possible, and nothing short of the best possible is good enough. If. on the other hand, the position is advertised and another man, his superior, is appointed, it will not be a ready-made, perfected orchestra that Mr Tyrer will hand over, as every musician knows. It will be as good an orchestaa as Mr Tyrer WWWMMHH

can prepare for Mr Tyrer’s conductorship; it will be an orchestra that another conductor will have to refashion and retrain, re-educate and reinspire, for his own long-range purposes. In other words, the Government’s plan either makes Mr Tyrer’s ultimate conductorship ceD tain or it goes, the wrong way about preparing for another man’s conductorship; and both alternatives are unsatisfactory. To say this is to cast no reflection on Mr Tyrer, who is known to be a competent musician and organiser, but only on the method of his appointment. That is wrong both in principle and in practice.