Untitled

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2178, 28 December 1875, Page 2

The word amateur is now so promiscuously applied to all those who, in providing amusement and profit themselves think that they are also providing amusement for the public, that the term " amateur" will soon be given to every vocalist, actor, el hoc omne genus who does not absolutely earn his living by the particular line lie affects, and is not good enough to be deemed worthy of ranking as a professional. So great had this confusion of titles, " amateur " and " professional," become in England in matters connected with sport, that it was found necessary to lay down stringent rules to exclude from purely amateur competitions that mongrel race of would-be sportsmen who will only run or jump when any prize of sufficient value is to be won, and are not always over-particular as to the means of winning it. With this view the Amateur Athletic Club drew up a code of definitions to distinguish between the two titles; and the line which marks the boundary once broken, in ever so small a particular, is to be deemed sufficient to exclude the transgressor from ever again appearing in the ranks of amateurs. Something of the same kind seems to be wanted over here at this present time, when those calling themselves amateurs appear on the stage as actors, vocalists, &c, time after time, and while they claim for their performance that leniency which is supposed to fall to the lot of the amateur, they derive all the emolument which is the avowed object of the professional. An amateur, as the term implies, may, as the very meaning gf the word— amator or lover—tells us, means one who cultivates a taste or art from the sheer love of the thing, i.e., he is fond of singing and therefore strives to excel in it, and as he succeeds in his endeavour to sing well, or fencies he does, or others fancy it for him —it all comes to the same thing in the end—he is induced to join with others in giving some entertainment at which his friends and neighbors and as many of the public as approve of the object for which the entertainment is given come together, good-naturedly prepared beforehand, to applaud ; " be to his faults a little " blind; and, in short, to be well pleased with whatever they see or hear. So far so good ; many can spare the time to patronise these entertainments ; few —when the object is good—grudge the money; and the end is that some deserving institution or person ia benefited to the amount of twenty to thirty pounds; the performers have had, very likely, profitable subjects on which, to spend their spare time, while, if the entertainment has been got up carefully and with pains, it is not two to one that the audience has not been fairly well amused. The case is different, however, when amateurs seem to think that the merit of their entertainment is the sole reason why large audiences patronise them, and imagine that they will do just as well wit'iout announcing an object to which the proceeds will be given. It is plain, or ought to be plain, that no matter how amateur (if the term be taken to mean that which is devoid of professional excellence), their performance may be in point of merit, the mere fact of their own pecuniary advantage places them at once in the rank of professionals—and very often in the rank of very indifferent professionals — to be judged of and criticised as those would be. We are led into making these remarks because we knW that for some time past certain amateurs in name have at the various benefit performances, which have lately been so numerous, been in the habit of receiving remuneration for their services which have been supposed to have been rendered gratuitously, have in fact been paid as professionals; while they still cling to the protecting influence which the name "amateur" is supposed to yield. More than this. Last night there was at the Theatre Royal an amateur performance, at which, though money was charged in the ordinary way, no announcement whatever was made as to the proceeds being devoted to any object other than the benefit; of the promoters of the entertainment. We are therefore bound to believe that they played simply and entirely for themselves, and though there is no reason in the world why they should not do so, and though also we were glad to see they were well supported and hope they will bo again, yet we emphatically take exception, if this be the case, to their being called or calling themselves amateurs. An amateur performance must, we repeat, have for its object the benefit of some person or society other than thtf performers themselves ; it may be an institute or an hospital; it may be for any purpose, other than pru vatc gain, previously announced; it may be for such an end as the Thames Ama-

teurs lately played for, viz., their wardrobe fund, which was given to enable necessary additions to bo made to the properties of Hie Club before "they appeared again in public ; but it must not be to enable on* or all of the performers to put a sum of money in his, or her private purse, to expend exactly as heor she pleases. If it be for this object, the performance cannot be called an amateur one, or the performers amateurs.