THE PERFORMERS POINT OF VIEW

Radio Record, Volume I, Issue 41, 27 April 1928, Page 5

THE PERFORMERS POINT OF VIEW

The following letter was sent to an Auckiand paper which has published much matter about broadcasting from the listeners’ point of view. But this version of the position did not appeal, and only some of this letter was given publicity. The writer has therefore forwarded to us:A great deal has ,appeared in the Press from the point of view of those who listen in, about»the quality of the programmes, and of the artists who broadcast from time to time, but so far as I have not™noticed anything from the brvadcaster’s point of view about listeners-in. I was at the listen-ers-in meeting here last month, and noticed a number of prominent artists there, and at first I hoped one of these performers would arise and tell the listeuers-in on behalf of the others just what they thought of them. However, it was very soon apparent that the meeting had been called to "bait" the Broadcasting Company, and to let one particular speaker have a night out and air his wit, if that is. the right word for it; so the artists, and many others who disagreed with most of the speakers (that is, about half those present) lay low and kept their thoughts to themselves. After all, it was the listeners’ meeting, they had paid for the hall, so why not let them enjoy themselves? Now, let me say a word or two from the performer’s point of view. The listeners, or many of them, evidently think that the payment of a few pence a week gives them the right to ring up the radio stations, without giving their names, and make offensive remarks or comments on some of the items, because, fosooth, those items do not please their particular taste, although they may be most pleasing to thousends of others _ listening in. Some of these _ listeners-in appear to think, too, that they have the right to write offensive, and (of course) anonymous, letters to the artists, and evidently to the company,

too, judging by what one reads in the "Radio Record,’’ objecting to their items. ‘This, mind you, to some of the leading performers in the Dominton, not to mere ‘‘try-outs." LEut in: any case, whatever the standing of the performer, he or she is entitled to common courtesy. What on carth has given these people the right to be rude and offensive tv the broadcasting artists? Just imagine a state of things wliere at a public concert members of the audience got up and shoutea, ‘‘Can’t yer stop that woman howling? or "Why don’t you shoot the cows?" and a few other pleasantries of that sort. This is the kind of thing that frequently comes through on the telephone, and yet other listen-ers-in are good enough at times to write and express the pleasure they have received from these ve.y items. It is about time the listeners realised that no programme or artist can ever please all listeners at the one tinve. The tastes are much too varied in such a vast audience, which may number 10,000 or even 40,000 or more. Unfortunately most of the people who enjoy the programmes don’t bother to write or xing up. It is usually a pestiferous minority who make the noise. After all, how many people actually opposed to the company attended the mectiug here in Auckland a few weeks ago? Possibly 150 to 200 out of something like 12,000 subscribers (license holders), and cf those 150 or 200 probably not more tian 50 were license holders. These folk made a lot of noise, of course, but it was a small percentage, wasn’t it? If the dissatisfaction had heen in any way general, why, the large ‘own Hal! could not have held them. Well, listeners, if you don’t like an item, or items, shut the darn thing off and try again later. I may not be on then, but don’t be rude, or if you must, at least give your name and address.-A RIEGULAR PERFORMER.