THE PHILHARMONIC CONCERT.

Marlborough Express, Volume IV, Issue 153, 16 January 1869, Page 4

THE PHILHARMONIC CONCERT.

To the Editor of the Marlborough Express. Sir, —As a member of the Philharmonic Society, 1 feel it my duty to pass some remarks on the comments made by you in your issue of last Saturday. It is evident to any regular reader of your paper that the production alluded to did not emanate from yourself, or any local reporter ; but I do not take umbrage at your seeking out those who are able and willing to fairly and impartially criticise entertainments of the above kind, though they be but visitors in Blenheim. At the same time, it is also incumbent on you, and the responsibility rests on your shoulders if you do not also perform your duty to the society, in my concluding observations I think I show clearly that a spirit of animns prevades the whole critique. Firstly, not one word is written which would show the public that this was the first concert of the soc ety. No one perhaps in Blenheim is better awaie than you are how difficult it is to secure heariy co-operation so as to carry to a successful issue any sort of entertainment; and no one is more ready than yourself to extol the praise of those who endeavor to place before the public amusements of a legitimate nature. So far, so good. Why, then, is he so severe on the first attempt of a young society, when you know it was the wish of the members to do their best and please all. Secondly, you were, fully aware of the difficulties under which this concert was undertaken. You know perfectly well that up to late in last year, sickness prevented some of the members, and bereavement others, for taking an active part in its practices. You also know that on former occasions many of the members hud not been backward in taking part in charitable causes by giving their time to the furtherance of such objects. Surely on this score alone you might have displayed some lenity in passing such a critique, the severest I ever saw made on any amateur performance by any paper. Thirdly, I am at a loss to know what is meant by the “ temporary satisfaction” from which the gentlemen might have been relieved had they retired, and I also failed to see any attempt to make free with the audience. I imagine, however, you refer to them 'not leaving the stage. Perhaps as you know the building in which the concert was given, you will suggest what part they could have retired to out of sight of the audience. I, unfortunately, am not sufficiently versed in music to say whether the concert was the complete failure your readers must infer from your report; but to show it is wrong in one main point (if not in .many others), 1 would draw their attention to the fact that in the critique the following appears : ‘‘lnstrumental soldi pi mo ; no name. This solo seemed to run better than the iomier one, but only

obtained partial favor. The gentleman appeared to be a very mechanical performer; not enough light and shade.” Now, Sir, this solo was never played, and concluding, I would ask your readers to say whether it does not show animus to criticise a gentleman who is represented to have performed a piece which was never played, owing to the absence of the lady on whom this duty devolved. All I ask is “ let them judge.” I am, &c., J. Kissling.

To the Editor of the JMarlhorough Express. SIK, —When you informed your readers that you were to treat them to a critique on the late Philharmonic Concert, you might think it strange, but I could have informed any of them who was to write it, and also the description of article they might expect, and moreover, the reason for such a harsh production. However, as the writer is shaded by the editorial “ we,” you will take the benefit of my opinion, which is pretty general, on the subject. It is, at first sight to an impartial reader, a very harsh and one-sided production. That it is a classical critique, who can doubt? That the critic is a judge of music, we must also acknowledge; lor has he not told your readers that “the instrumenial solo, no name, ran better than the former one, and only obtained partial favor?” Has the critic mistaken my old Scotch >ong, “ Duncan Gray,” for the last named piece? for 1 must tell you that although in the programme, it was not played at all, and Duncan only came to the rescue. I cannot help joining with public opinion, and if you like, “ blow my own trumpet” in a small critique on your apology for the criticism. 1 would agree with you that such endeavors by the Press are calculated to be fruitfull of much good to such societies ; but you must know that “milk is best for babes,” and a somewhat lenient critique would have been more becoming and encouraging. You begin the critique with “ we,” in the fourth line, and then make the article appear as if it had been communicated—there is something wrong here ! You follow with a hope that it will be received in the same friendly spirit as it is given. I hope you have satisfied yourself that I am now doing so ; if not, just go and enquire at Ewart’s bar why it was given. It is no secret ; and you will also learn how it was expected to be taken —if it is given in a friendly spirit. “ O guard me from my friends !” I regret much that you have given space to such an effusion in your paper, after the several words of encouragement you have given to the society, and especially when you must have known it emanated from a person who was a stranger, and whom the society had very properly refused to associate with.—l am, &c., James Gorrie. [ We shall not aggravate the evil by appending any lengthy reply to these letters now, or hereafter; and saving one error common to both our correspondents, shall reserve what we have to say for a few months, until the avalanche of letters with which we are threatened, has subsided. Both were perfectly well aware that we were in no way responsible for a word in the article in question, not only because we disowned it by adding the word “Communicated,” which no one has a right to impugn without evidence, but no secret was made of the matter, or his opinions, by the author and others, for as Mr, G. correctly states, everyone knew all about it, as they did the contents of the above letters, long before they reached us. It is therefore (no doubt) in perfect good taste, and in a friendly spirit that we are attacked in the way we have been since Monday last, when the writer of the critique left for Nelson. They will be pleased however to knovv'that this gentleman, who was not “sought” by us, but introduced to us by one of themselves—will read this correspondence in a few hours hence, when he will doubtless appreciate them as intended, and reply accordingly.— Ed. M E.]