HAVE WE AN ORCHESTRA? A Reply to Dr. Beaglehole

New Zealand Listener, Volume 16, Issue 406, 3 April 1947, Page 6

HAVE WE AN ORCHESTRA? A Reply to Dr. Beaglehole

po 4 While we do not usually print

articles in reply to articles, we do

not often have such an occasion as

the National Orchestra’s first pub-

lic concert. We therefore break

our rule in order to print this in-

teresting comment

by DR

H. J.

FINLAY

HE aarticle on the National Symphony Orchestra in The Listener by Dr. Beaglehole was doubtless read by music lovers with much interest. It was one of the few attempts I have so far seen to appraise the real merit of this latest flowering of New Zealand culture ‘-the Press reports have been perfunctory and not of an analytical nature. Dr. Beaglehole’s article, after a preamble on crilicism in general, really boils down to an opinion that it is time we took the blinkers off, and that the orchestta is not so good after all. His criticisms are directed at (1) the actual playing, (2) the choice of programme, and (3) the choice of encores. If he had written stating that his personal preference was for a particular kind of playing and music, and that he personally _did not like encores, no one could cavil, for he is entitled to his opinion; but by adopting a tone of informed criticism and saying outright that so many things were bad, he invites an answer from the large number of listeners who doubt whether his criticisms are valid. Since Dr. Beaglehole took up so much of his article with a general preamble, I may digress for a moment also before considering his charges. I would like to feel that I am voicing the thoughts of very many hearers of the National Orchestra, who may have all sorts of different views, expéctations, and academic knowledge about music, but who are united in one thing-a deep love of it, or rather of that part of it regarded by common consent as "good music." Most of us who are in this band are not experts; we have not had the opportunity of hearing the London and New York Philharmonic under Beecham or Toscanini at first hand; we are not star performers on any orchestral instrument; ahd we cannot pick up a new score and immediately hear what it sounds like. ut we are accustomed to listening (and I don’t mean while reading or chatting at the same time, but really intently listening) to the best records of the best erchestras and conductors, both over the air and on our own gramophones-oftén surprisingly faithful-and we can’t help developing a strongly critical faculty in

so doing. We are accustomed to following whatever works we can with miniature scores over and over again, and, to comparing different versions of the same work to learn something of interpreta-tion-not only the conductor’s intention, but the composer’s also. We are accustomed to practical and theoretical knowledge of at least one musical instrument; we know something of composition for it, and perhaps of orchestration as well. We are accustomed to reading all be can about anything that pertains to the orchestra and those who wrote for it, and to discussing our impressions, both visual and aural, with our fellow devotees. These are our qualifications. I maintain that because of them there are in New Zealand many more surprisingly acute and informed critics than Dr. Beaglehole would have us believe, and that wt are capable of coming to some justifiable conclusions differing from his own. By What Standard? Criticism, to be informed or valuable, must have a standard. By what standard are we to judge the National Symphony Orchestra? The standard of the normal performance given by the London Philharmonic, or the standard of the previous performances heard in New Zealand? Obviously the former is unfair and irrational; neither Mr. Tyrer nor any member of the orchestra would be so uncritical as to think we can be classed with the world’s really great orchestras after but a few performances. But it can be reasonably maintained that even now the-quality of tone and precision of playing compare more than favourably with that of many recordings of named orchestras not quite in the front rank. Listen to most of the records of the Boston Proms., the Chicago orchestra, the average French orchestra, and I guarantee a critical ear will often prefer the local playing. True, we haven’t got that individualised woodwind tone that a Stokowski orchestra gets, but there are many like myself who regard a normal fine tone as pre-ftrable-the sort of sound that Brahms and Schubert expected and heard. In view of what has been inflicted on us in the past in New Zealand, can anyone reasonably criticise the oboe, horn, and bassoon tone that we have heard in the orchestra, and that must have given so many like myself a feeling of deep content. I ask Dr. Beaglehole to think back to almost any recording he can remember, and recall the beautiful-play-ing here of the horn meditation (not only the tone, but the phrasing also) at the end of the Bralims first movement, which can make or mar the whole climax, the exactly right tone of the oboes in the third movement, some of the woodwind passages and chords at the beginning of Tristan, and many other wonderful moments-to think back, and in justice say that this was first rate indeed. Let us be fair then, and judge this orchestra, for the present, not by the best possible results of the world’s best orchestras, but very largely with the memory in gur minds of what the previous best has been in New Zealand. And, taking "that view, do not by any means let us say that our National Symphony Orchestra is quite perfect, that

the conductor, soloists, and ensemble are "equal to anything to be heard anywhere: that kind of praise destrgys itself, and I do not think is given by the mass of intelligent listeners. But do let us*be honest and admit that the results we have heard from this orchestra, even in two performances, are so far ahead of anything previously heard here, and so much more precise, delicate, robust, and balanced than anything we had come to expect from New Zealand musicians, that we must say "Here is something quite new and fine in our musical

world." That is not going into irrational transports, nor can it lead to smug selfsatisfaction and consequent deierioration in the orchestra itself. A sensible body of men and women, drawn from all over New Zealand as this orchestra is, cannot be adversely affected by the outspoken reaction "This is very much better than we had expected." They do not believe that this means it is the best that can be expected, nor, since they are individually artists, is it likely to slacken their efforts to improve, An artist must satisfy not only the public and the conductor, but also himself or herself, and the careful and exhaustive selection of this orchestra makes it reasonably certain that its members are all artists in this respect. Such people should, as Dr. Beaglehole states, nothing so much as admiration without discrimination." But let us not, when it is due, withhold from them admiration with discrimination. The Fairest Test About the fairest test and means of comparison we have is simply to ask, "Does the orchestra sound like what we are accustomed to hearing from the best records and reproducers?" Yes, this orchestra does-and no other New Zealand orchestra I have ever heard sounded remotely like it. I suggest that, in the absence of comparison with other orchestras in the flesh, this is the only com-mon-sense yardstick to measure the National Symphony Orchestra’s present merit and subsequent improvement. Let us consider some of Dr. Beaglehole’s specific indictments as regards the playing. The statement that "some of these people have never heard an orchestfa before, let alone played in one," is unjustly belittling. Dr. Beaglehole apparently spent much time peregrinating for the perfect acoustic spot, doubtless an interesting experiment, but somewhat distracting to those who wished to listen. It is difficult to see just how the horns could have "rather exploded at the beginning of the Brahms," seeing that the opening bars are scored for only two horns and marked "p"; as a matter of fact there was a slight faulty intonation on the first chord, but that was all. To

go on to say, "It looks as if they will work up a good tone" is another remark that will be dismissed as cheap by who actually heard the many beautiful horn effects-chords, solos, soft holding notes, stopped no‘es, etc.-that were plentiful in both programmes. Dr. Beaglehole’s praise of the woodwind section "when left to itself’ does not enhance one’s opinion of his critical faculty, for it was in the woodwind section that one of the few lapses in balance occurred; throughout the first concert the bassoons\ were far too weak, inaudible in chordal passages, and faint even in important solos. The contrapuntal solo at the beginning of the Brahms second movement, though marked poco f, and its repetition later on, were almost inaudible, as also were important parts in Tristan, etc. This defect was not a matter of my imagination; it was confirmed to me, and the difference at the second concert was noticeable, where the bassoons were in perfect perspective in Carnival Romaine, the London, etc. To say after hearing the performance of Shropshire Lad that the strings had worked up "little delicacy" is at. least ungrateful -I could think of much stronger terms, That Dr. Beaglehole did not notice a piano in the strings until they "managed to show promise of this in the first bars of the last movement of the Brahms" again does not inspire confidence in the carefulness of his listening- but perhaps he was preoccupied with finding another acoustic position. The passage referred to is not intended to be excessively soft, being marked only p sotto voce-and it was correctly played that way; much earlier in the symphony were real pianissimo passages, played as such, but perhaps harder to realise since mostly in conjunction with wood or brass Notable was the accompaniment to the horn solo near the close of the first movement marked pp, and especially the five bars closing the third movement, which were most tenderly and softly played. If Dr. Beaglehole did not enjoy this, and longs for "really angelic syllabling"-whatever that means-lI, for one, would bear with him as a fellow-listener entitled to his personal whims, but not as critic and guide. Some Imperfections Actually, if one were to insist on some criticism, it would of course be quite easy to point out a number of things that were not perfect. The Flying Dutchman was rough in places (yet it is a storm scene); the trombones not sufficiently solemn or pregnant with doom, the Redemption motive, especially the second half, unevenly played, with occasional rough tone, and the climax of the storm not sufficiently prepared or overwhelming. The impression I got from hearing this item played not only at the concert but also at rehearsal was one of insufficient familiarity with it. The Tristan excerpts were probably the poorest played of any to date; that is, of course, judged by good recordings of them. The tone and balance were often uneven and, while many of the woodwind chords were near perfect, others left much to. be desired. In general, the poorest effects occurred: where the fullest orchestra was necessary; this

is quite understandable, for the present orchestra has, after all, a membership of only 65, and lacks many of the instruments and players necessary for a full Wagner or Strauss orchestra of about 110, The massive outpouring of sound and brass choir effects simply cannot be got with the means at hand, and it is unfair to criticise too heavily a performance that fails from the outset in this respect, but which is still vastly better than any we have heard here before. That is the point to bear in mind. Should the orchestra then not play Wagner? Well, either it does sg with these relatively slight imperfections, or we get none at all. I know which alternative I prefer. Curiously enough, the Strauss, though even more demanding teghnically than the Wagner, was relatively much better done, Don Juan at least comparing favourably with several recordings that have been issued. A fine chance for effect was lost in Espana, where the orchestra could have toned down to the merest whisper just before the shattering trombone passage; nevertheless the actual performance had more verve and fire than any recording I have heard. Chéice of Items Consider now Dr. Beaglehole’s criticisms of choice of items for the programme. Of the first concert he says, "What can you make of that as an exercise in programme-building?" Who said it was to be such an exercise, and why should Dr. Beaglehole’s evident personal preferences be consulted to the exclusion of others? After all, there are those wao occasionally like to hear something besides Bach, Mozart, Haydn, "and early Beethoven. Let some of us be fearless and iconoclastic enough to say that, with the wealth of neo-classical and modern music available and too little heard, we find a long programme of Bach considerably boring. Let us be honest enough to say that a Tchaikovski, Mahler, or Sibelius symphony in the middle of a Haydn or early Beethoven concert, however artistically shocking, might be a welcome breath of life. I wonder: just how many lovers of orchestral music today, on hearing the two played in succession, would really say they preferred the second Beethoven to the second Brahms-or, worse still, the first Beethoven to the first Brahms! The third is a different matter: it is the weakest Brahms, and the strongest early Beethqven, but even then there could be doubts. It seems to me that Dr. Beaglehole overloeks the fact that devotees of orchestral music fall roughly into two classes -those whose chief delight is in form! and method, and those who enjoy colour and texture. The same divisions exist, of course, in pictorial art. It seems to be clear, from his expressed preferences, that Dr. Beaglehole likes structural music of relatively simple type, with not too much volume or colour (or as he calls it, "romanticism"). But the orchestra for which most of that sort of : music was written, the early classical orchestra, consisted, besides the strings, of only two horns, two bassoons, two oboes, two flutes, two trumpets, and sometimes two clarinets-a relatively small. body of players. In addition, the horns and trumpets were so handicapped by methods of manufacture that they could not be written for freely gnd their parts in the score are largely uninteresting. Since the National Symphony Orchestra has three of most of the above instruments, also trombones, tuba, harp and much more in "the

percussion department, it would be unreasonable to expect it to sey che excessive time to the pérformance of works that would leave many of its personnel unoccupied, and could not display its resources. Occasional performances of the three last Mozart symphonies (in¢identally, how do we know that they are not up to Mozart until we hear them play it?) such Haydn as the Salomon set, and all*the Beethoven works would be a reasonable demand; to censure" most other music as too romantic is a matter of individual opinion. In selecting programmes, Mr. Tyrer doubtless largely considers what he believes toxbe the trend of modern orchestral taste. That he is not too far out in his judgment is evident if one considers the average run of orchestral music broadcast by the best American symphony orchestras. It may again, of course, be purely personal taste, but I for one approved wholeheartedly of both the programmes so far played and could, wish for many like them, though a different arrangement might please purists more. Nor have I much objection to the type of encore played. These items were lighter in character of course, but after all, not every listener is ivory-tower and high-brow, and not everyone’s blood runs cold at the prospect of the particular pieces Mr, Tyrer is playing at the school-children’s concerts. It is nice have one’s head high -in the artistic clouds, but it may be sounder in the long run to have one’s feet on the earth of commonsense. Mr. Tyrer, I judge, is playing as encores the kind of music that many people not so far advanced as Dr. Beaglehole will welcome as relaxation, and for school-children the kind of music he thinks they will appreciate at that age and will lay the foundation for greater understanding later. Consider even Peter and the Wolf: what better way could an orchestra instil into the mind of a child the idea of the Leitmotif, so fundamental to Wagnerian and other music later? Actually, Peter was superbly played, not only with vim, but considerable artistry and was obviously intently listened to and enjoyed. What also is the harm in the Rumanian Rhapsody? Like Dr. Beaglehole, I think it is rather dull music, but its rhythmic character has~strong attraction for that large section of musical people whose rhythmic sense is much better developed than the harmonic or melodic; Bolero has a similar effect, with the addition of. crescendo of sound as in the Rhinegold Prelude. Moto Perpetuo and Handel in the Strand are light, sparkjing pieces, and despite Dr. Beaglehole’s statement, I don’t think many people really look for a joke in’ the Grainger-they take it as music, nok as a comic. Why Encores? "Why encores anyhow?" Dr. Beaglehole asks. Well, if.you are giving peoplé a very enjoyable time, and they demonstrate how sincerely they are enjoying it, and how much they would like a little more, it borders on rudeness at least to adopt the attitude, "There’s the programme; take it or leave it." » There is also one very important aspect of the matter that has not been touched on at all either by Dr. Beaglehole or by any Press-notice I have seen. That is the fact that this orchestra is intended -primarily as a_ broadcasting one, and that its "over the air" audience was many times greater than, and at least as critical as, that actually in the Town Hall. One pronounced feature of this, which alters the significance of

several of Dr. Beaglehole’s remarks, is that the effect of the broadcast (feous a good set) was very different from that got in many parts of the.Town Hall. Critics have remarked that the harp was inaudible, the, brass blaring, the balance wrong, etc. None of these defects was apparent during most of the broadcast, due to the strategic placing of the microphones, and the elimination of resonances and echoes which affect many seats in the hall. The first number in both concerts was not -perfectly broadcast, and I have been informed that adjustments during this time were continuous. After that, nobody could reasonably quarrel with the balance or distinctness of all the instruments or the light and shade. I attended the rehearsal in the Town Hall on the afternoon of the second concert, and was able to make a direct comparison with a rehearing over the air at night. Although the echoes in the empty hall were exaggerated, allowance could be made, and it was most noticeable that what sounded like "tinny" high harp notes were clear and distinct over the air, while a variety of percussion and oodwind timbre effects which had been simply inaudible in the afternoon came over the air beautifully clear. . The brass choir work blended with the orchestra without ,stridency, and the whole of the complex London Symphony was particularly successfully broadcast. Dr. Beaglehole should therefore bear in mind that the defects he fancied were not audible to the majority. That the broadcasting was sQ carefully and adequately done here makes it the more regrettable that Dominion coverage could not be better, Neither concert was relayed to the main centres, and the first one was merely half broadcast outside of Wellington. Only a small percentage of the musical public of the Dominion could have listened satisfactorily under such conditions; no orchestral broadcast can be tolerated, let alone appreciated, unless the set can give it ample volume, without treble or bass cut-off, and without extraneous noises of any kind. The authorities are sufficiently convinced of this orchestra’s major importance ‘in our musical life, but apparently it is not possible to link up the four main stations for every concert, in the absence of land-lines suitable for transmitting music. One must, however, recognise the excellence of the work put into. these broadcasts at Wellington. It was plain from the results that special care had been taken to ensure the maximum effect, and that the land-lines and controls were minutely watched the whole time. Of the many people we have to thank for the pleasure received from these two concerts, let us not forget the. technicians at be, hall and in the control room, who/could so easily have dulled the whole broadcast, and who kept it living and vital and free from, transmission defects. Let us not forget Professor Shelley and the other broadcasting authorities, who have had this project in ‘mind for so long, and have seen it triumphantly begun. And. let us not overlook that no orchestra could have. given such performances without most adequate selection, discipline, and conducting. Whether Mr. Tyrer was or was not the best possible conductor to choose for the orchestra’s initial efforts is now of no interest; the fact is obvious that he has got results for which the Town Hall ,audience, and that much larger unseen body, whose general opinion I hope I am voicing, were deeply grateful,