Retrospection

Radio Record, Volume III, Issue 13, 11 October 1929, Page 25

Retrospection

A Tribute to Present Standards

O doubt there are hundreds of others _ throughout New Zealand, like myself, who often wonder what must be in the minds of many listeners who ‘write in condemning programmes, announcers, and methods of the Broadcasting Company. Exactly what is it these dissatisfied ones expect? Take the first-mentioned growl, "Programmes," The writer has been connected with radio since it became popular here. In the early days ye was practically no broadcasting ‘orth mentioning. Radio sets «were of poor design, and required great patience in operating, and it was considered a great feat to receive a full programme through from any station in one evening. The first machine I possessed was a two-valve De For‘est, for which I paid the modest sum of £60. I can remember the time when with this machine old 2YK, Wellington,; was just audible, and we would sit round hardly daring to breathe for fear someone might upset the tuning and lose the item we were listening to. The programmes then were practically all gramophone records, and poorly reproduced. As time went on programmes improved and became more numerous till they have developed into _the remarkable stage reached to-day. Take all the complaints that have jéen received, and I venture to say that not one of these growlers ever listened to. a programme in the days above referred to. Again, I think I can safely say that every seasoned listener who can trace his first connection with radio back to, say, 1923 or 1924, is . more than satisfied with present-day standards. It is only those who have been associated with radio for four years or more who can really appreciate the wonderful strides that have been made in the programmes. I have been connected with the retail side of radio for years, and have OE NE: A AS a

installed machines totalling well over three figures. This has brought me into contact with every class of the community, and has done more than any other way towards making me realise ,the many tastes to which the Broadeasting Company have _ to cater. I have gone in one evening direct from one home where jazz items were not tolerated to another where, as soon as a really good orchestral item came through, the dials- were turned again for more jazz. Both these tastes have to be catered for. The R.B.C. cannot transmit jazz only and ignore the other class, who desire better music. Nor can they indulge in highclass musical programmes and offend the ears of those who cannot appreciate the better music. For a listener and his wife to spend an evening at the talkies the cost may be anything up to 10s. for the evening’s entertainment. Yet for the huge sum of 1d. per night many can find hardly an item to satisfy them on an evening’s broadcast programme. The R.B.C. is working wonders in the way of providing better and better programmes, and if the views of the 40,000-odd listeners in this country were made available, probably 35,000 would have hardly a growl. Why, it is hardly worth the R.B.C. considering the other 5000. Some few months back I had the pleasure’ of a two hours’ personal chat with Mr. Harris, of the R.B.C, That conyersation opened by eyes to the difficulties that beset any concern catering to the tastes of the community, and I came away satisfied. that the R.B.C. was doing all in its power to proyide pleasure and information for all. . Concerning the announcers, I have never, in my experience of radio, heard. better. During the last two years I have heard the announcers of many countries, and have yet to hear a finer announ’2r than Mr. Drummond, of 2YA. If Mr. Drummond were removed to make way for someone else, I daresay 75 per cent. of the radio listeners would protest. If any listener is still in doubt, all I can say is invest in a short-wave set and listen to overseas programmes, ne}

and it will then take very little convinecing as to the high-class of announcer employed in New Zealand. Constructive criticism is always. welcomed. Destructive criticism makes it harder for the R.B.C. to carry out its work. Let those who criticise, before they post their letters, just think for one moment if they could really improve on the programmes themselves, if they would make better announcers themselves, also, what better and more varied entertainment of up to 70 items: could be heard anywhere in one evening for 1d. or even 50 times that amount, if they would just give a little more thought to these points, perhaps most of these growls would never find their way into print. Radio is one of the wonders of the age, and instead of continually pulling the R.B.C. to pieces, we should be thankful that for the insignificant sum we now pay we are privileged to enjoy the wonders of this modern marvyel.--"Well Satisfied" (Gisborne).