SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA.

Evening Star, Issue 22452, 24 September 1936, Page 15

SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —The letters by Mr J. H. Oliver, Mr G. J. Errington, and “ Nutt' Said ” are an amazing example of “ imputing motives,” which ill-becomes them, to say the least. I fail to see where a “concerted attack,” or any appearance of one, has been made, or where the “ malice or vindictiveness ’’ exists in the letters. I certainly do not know who the other writers are, am not on friendly terms with cither conductor, and have nothing to win or lose by this correspondence. The Symphony Orchestra, however, is a very different matter. Having overlooked the fact that Mr Gil Dech was only guest conductor, I apologise if 1 have caused any pain by this carelessness, it being generally understood that his appointment was an established fact. Noticing what a hornet’s nest this correspondence has aroused it is easy to foresee that the suggestion made to strengthen the orchestra (not belittle Mr Gil Dech) would be equally distasteful to both gentlemen. Regarding “ British sense of justice and fair play,” Mr Gil Dech was at least afforded a hearing, and this fuss is caused by few suggestions and criticisms being ottered afterwards. M. de Rose was not even afforded a first hearing before the local critics would have “nipped the orchestra in the bud,” on grounds of _ “ imported variety ” and other insulting phrases (a great inducement to geniality, by the way) and not on his ability (so inadequately described by me), or lack of it. M. de Rose battled on and made the orchestra what it is, and the writer knows the combination has lost a conductor unequalled in Dunedin, as otherwise he would not have held the position so long with capable people holding other prominent positions on .the executive, and such an amazing lack of loyalty in so many quarters.— I am, etc., Tune-up. September 22.

*0 THE EDITOR. Sir, —Mr J. H. Oliver states that “ critics should bear in mind that our excellent musicians have not the benefit of a full-time occupation in order to present a full symphonic programme, like the Continental orchestras.” I did not suggest a full symphonic programme. but are there not numerous works of the great masters that could have been included instead of Haydn Wood’s light trash? The fact that our musicians are not full-time employed does not prove that they are incapable of doing the works of the masters. On the contrary, our musicians of the Symphony Orchestra have performed works often played for the first time in New Zealand, and have given excellent renditions of them. Regarding competence to judge, I am m a much better position to judge than our learned correspondent. Mr Itrrnigton goes off at a tangent, thanking everybody from the Government down. Naturally the society is very grateful for favours received and services rendered, and those people who received four and five complimentary tickets, and those who have received printing in the past from the society, fire also grateful. But your correspondent admits that the conductor is recognised as a leading-light orchestral conductor, and thus apologises for the inclusion ot tno light music in the last programme. But why did the society not secure Mr J. Wallace, who conducted the concert last year and gave such a masterly performance? I hope next concert will see us back to our good programmes, otherwise the society should change its name.— I am. etc., Organist. September 23.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—On reading three letters in tonight's ‘ Star;’ written by JrH. Oliver, G. J. Errington, and “ Nuff Said,” i tailed to see how their criticism could apply to my letter of Friday last, _ i included in this same letter no criticism of a personal nature; i merely stated, and still do definitely state, that at the last concert of the above orchestra some of the numbers rendered were of a mediocre standard compared with items given : in past concerts, and 1 still do most emphatically say that at times the orchestra played out of tune. My criticism was of a constructive nature, and 1 had hoped it would be taken as such. 1 am still sure that a majority of the musical people connected with our Symphony Orchestra, both those who are actively engaged and also listeners, will bear me out in saying that these two weak points were apparent at our last concert. Our Symphony Orchestra in the past has attained a very high level, and has since its inception improved the standard of musical appreciation. It must be evident to all that, despite some recent advances, the present state of musical culture is unsatisfactory. The hope of improving this state of affairs seems to lie not so much in active hostility to undesirable music as in the development of the faculties of appreciation. Let people learn to love what is beautiful in music and to realise the sources of pleasure comprehended in its pursuit. If the faculty of appreciation is strenghtened and the necessity for its operation realised, a new generation will grow up armed with the best of all weapons to withstand the insidious attractions of music which is vulgar, plausible, quasi-rhythmically attractive, shallow, meaningless, and utterly without reason for its existence except to resound in heads empty of brains and ears deaf to anything but the lower pulses of a degraded taste. It is really very difficult to play or sing well; not one person in 500 can ever have any hope of doing so. Our whole system of musical education is at fault. We devote no end of time and money, public and private, to training people to lie unintelligent performers when what we ought to do is to train them to be intelligent listeners. The_ Dunedin Symphony Orchestra has in the past helped to cultivate this power of appreciation, and I sincerely hope it will do so in the future.—l am, etc., Opus I. September 22.