The Christchurch Symphony Orchestra

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33816, 12 April 1975, Page 14

The Christchurch Symphony Orchestra

Sir, — Recent letters and:' news items about the Christ-;; church Symphony Orchestral 'dispute refer to opinions ex-! pressed by one pressure;, igioup as being those of “sub-;, scribers.” As a 1974 sub-:, scriber,. I object to this. I l ' (have received no communication from this group, and dissent from their opinions I land actions. They can hardly ■ have attempted to obtain the' opinion of the majority of 1974 subscribers; my name, for example, was easily accessible, under “Friends of I the Orchestra” on each concert programme. However, I; .hold the news media respon- ' Isible. for unwittingly helping : [this group. From silence or from ■ misleading articles, | moderate Foundation members would have gained the 1 impression that the dispute 1 was v’ -tually over, and the ' annual meeting last month 1 a formality. Few bothered to ' attend, and the meeting was I] dominated by the vociferous;' and relatively well-organised L faction of a faction, with un-/ fortunate results for the/ orchestra.—Yours, etc.. i M. LEVER. H April 10. 1975. ; Sir.—So Christchurch con-; 1 tinues its musical debacle.; 1 According to the television!' news last night, the Christ- ' f

church School of Instrumental Music has advertised 1 for a conductor for its youth .orchestra instead of just in- . v.ting one as it has done in ■ the last 20 years. Advertisi ing for a conductor would > almost certainly preclude the appoi .tment of Mr Southi gate, for no conductor of his > stature would be likely to ; apply. The young people are thus losing the inestimable llbenefit of a first-class coni ductor actually resident in - Chri "church. There must be i many first-rate musicians! among the teachers of the, C.5.1.M.. and it is a wonder' ;ithey did not give sounder; adv e to the C.S.I.M. council.—Yours, etc.. SAD STATE ' OF AFFAIRS. April 11. 1975. Sir, — Will Peter Bartoni please understand that what; “Counterpoint” and “Double; Counterpoint” spelled out; in their recent letters was; completely factual and cannot be refuted. The motive; (o' the choirs, expressed’ Through individual sub-.

■scriptions to the foundation,’ is the root of all our orche tral troubles, perpetuated; bv their selfish attitude in! trying to manage the orch-. e tra they need to accom- ■ ‘panv their few concerts each! I year. They will always ihave the orchestra even though the fact remains ■that the orchestra itself l much prefers the presentation of full-scale symi phony concerts as against I

f (the secondary role of merely Haccompanying either of the -Ichoirs from time to time. ’(The independent board of ■'trust can be the only prac-; •jtical solution, to this, by I “now, ludicrous situation. — >' Yours, etc.. FURIOSO. I April 11, 1975. I I Sir. — Mi Barton’s . letter j ’ misleads with figures again, 'but of greater consequence' ■‘is the implication that, in' his eyes, the orchestra exists ' in part, on the choirs’ and the; ’.Arts Festival’s behalf. The! (power squabble over the I ' orchestra in recent years is I ! beginning to be explained to I ' the unsuspecting public. The; “Royal Christchurch Choir”] ' group have championed | ' Cavdarski as their man: the (“Harmonic or Arts Festival” group have over the past' years pushed Dobbs Franks' as candidate for the post of I musical director. Neither' group wanted to know or 1 find out about our brilliant! yourg New Zealand con-; ; ductor. William Southgate, [for th reason that in In.ither case is he “their man.” How crucial it is now Ito grant our orchestra the 'independence it has earned by setting up a trust, utterly free from eithei of these factions, with trustees, whose motives for supporting the development of our orchestra are in no way suspect. — lYours, etc.. I TRIPLE COUNTERPOINT. April 10, 1975.