Keep up arts funds, says Sir Charles Groves

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34104, 17 March 1976, Page 2

Keep up arts funds, says Sir Charles Groves

The thing the arts in New Zealand could least afford was a cut in Government funds at a time of economic retrenchment, the British conductor. Sir Charles Groves, said in Christchurch yesterday.

.Sir Charles is in Christchurch as guest conductor with the New Zealand Symphony Hrchestra which will perform under him through the four main centres. and for four consecutive evenings in the Christchurch Town Hall. Sir Charles is conductor of the 85-strong Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra, and associate conductor of the Roval Philharmonic Orchestra of London. He has been con-

ducting for 40 years, and inextricably involved in music since his first taste as a small chorister at St Paul’s Cathedral in London. Race of <luHards “In New Zealand you can’t afford to be talking about reduced grants to the arts. If you need anything, you need more money.” he said It was those people who believed the user should pay for the arts who were so active in perpetuating the entirely wrong view that spend, ing on the arts should he cm when money was short in other sectors. If the arts fell into the doldrums curing recession, it • would take a lot o f money, and energy to revivi them. The arts would never be self-supporting. Sir Charles

Groves said. This was an in- „• ternational predicament. The I user alone could never pay. The holders of this theory might as well campaign to shut schools and close libraries. and bring in an era of intellectual regression. Whatwould happen would be the! . production of a race of dull-1 I ards The amounts given the arts! ( were so small that they were- ’ not even worth cutting back. Sir Charles said. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer! talking in England about cutting back expenditure on nub-; i lie services by thousands of) millions of pounds, the grant [to the Arts Council if s26mi seemed miniscule. If it re-j mained at s26m during econ-! ornic stress, it would make absolutely no difference to I ’ the economy. In England the Arts Council gave his orchestra a grant on the principle that it was matched by an equivalent grant from local bodies. Actually the amount wat not a grant, but a guarantee against; losses. If the orchestra did not! draw it all. it gave it back; to the council. The system! made the orchestra careful to he efficient in making the; most from ticket sales. It did this by making sure it got as many engagements as possible in Britain with the 8.8. C.. and other municipalities and societies. It was always able to fill its houses to 90 per cent of capacity. In addition it drew from a special activities fund which was supplied by firms and in-ji idividuals by covenant. This! was a legal arrangement in! which firms pledged certain! amounts over a period of I time, and were able to claim) [tax exemption. Sir Charles said he knew

■ nothing of the orchestra wrangle in Christchurch, or particularly wished to know

■ much about it, hut it was > [abundantly clear that no administration could survive f; without a secure financial 11 footing. ■ He blinked in surprise ■ I when he was told that Christchurch had two orchestral ad. jministrations — one officially J funded. and the other not — 'and only one pool of players. ; “The reader can make his .[own inferences. Sir Charles said. “But it is enough to say ■that orchestras need a secure c foundation.”