No decision on musical directors

Press, 30 August 1977, Page 3

No decision on musical directors

By

BRIAR CAMBOURN

The resolution of Christ-1 church’s orchestra dispute’ now hinges on one factor —| musical leadership of the single orchestra that has been proposed. The Canterbury Orchestra, Trust — the officially funded; body — says that one director, its own Dobbs Franks, isl all it can afford, and all that is necessary. The Christchurch Symphony Orchestra, which has called itself “the only true management” since the trust was set up in July, 1975, says that if both orchestras are to! be seen to be equal parties during the interim administration. its conductor, Peter] Zwartz, must share the post' of musical director with: Dobbs Franks. The man probably best able to solve the problem is! Peter Zwartz himself. His I employment with C.S.O. ends; in November with the con-| elusion of the present sub-' scription concert series. If he declines to offer his services I at that time, in recognition of! his appointment’s being the; sole obstacle to a working! agreement between the two; administrations, there will be no issue. Mr Zwartz has a music publishing business in Wei-, iington. He has no contact; with the C.S.O. but flies] down each month to rehearse! with the orchestra and conduct its concerts. According* to correspondence between the C.O.T. and the C.S.O. earlier this month, he would lose no income if he terminated engagements with the C.S.O. Mr Zwartz is on holiday l

■ and was not available for •; comment last evening. •| Dobbs Franks is a fullstime musician whose main 11 source of income is from his employment with the trust, i, according to the trust’s chairl;man (Mr E. J. Bradshaw) in a letter to the C.S.O. In addii tion, Mr Franks was con-; : tracted, and for a minimum period of four years. Only ■ 18 months of this has t elapsed. ! “Under the contract he is : appointed sole music director > of the orchestra, and my ’ l board is quite unable to entertain any departure from •lits contractual obligations,” ’Mr Bradshaw said in the ■(letter. 'j “All that you are asked to I do.” he said.’ “is to withdraw from orchestral activities for a period and to support the ’ j Canterbury Orchestra. If ’jagreed to this would mean I that for the period you I would have no work for a '; music director, and it does J not seem too much to ask I that he should also withdraw.” * In addition, the trust hadj ([neither the money, nor the! i means of getting the money! J to pay two music directors. It was also the trust’s J opinion that joint musical, ] direction would probably! . “split the orchestra down the I middle.” It had “sound! J grounds” to believe this, i “We do not want to create . a situation where one group I could ever say to another* ■ group: 'Our conductor is ■ better than your conductor’,”! ; said the trust’s secretary- j manager (Mrs Helen Holmes).!

Was there a possibility of personality conflict? This was how sectional support might be interpreted by the public, she said. The trust is now awaiting a reply to a letter sent on Friday to the chairman of the C.S.O. (Dr David Shelley). It says that the trust would consider “useless” any meeting which did not give a “positive assurance” of the desire to reach an agreement, and which refused to accept the concept of a solo music director. Under the proposal made by the trust to the C.S.O on June 10, the trust agreed to retire en masse all its trustees. and to establish an interim board of administration in return for the C.S.O.’s withdrawal from all orchestra) activities for two years. The interim board would comprise the chairmen of the two existing management groups, and a neutral chairman from a judicial background nominated by the president of the Canterbury Law* Society. The C.S.O produced a set; of seven counter-proposals 10 days later. The trust has conceded six but will not’ accept rhe seventh, which requests joint directorship.