One orchestra or none?

Press, 28 November 1977, Page 16

One orchestra or none?

Sir,—- In your article in today’s issue you offer the alternative of one orchestra or none on the grounds that the continued existence of twe orchestras could jeopardise the city and Arts Council grants. What your writer does not make clear is how the abolition of the C.O.T. grants would bring about the demise of the C.S.O. Surely the cutting off of grants would quickly terminate the activities of the C.0.T., leaving Christchurch with one orchestra. A less drastic alternative, which should appeal to those concerned about economy, would be to cut the orchestra grants by half. At this level they would be insufficient to maintain the activities of the C.O.T. but would, if transferred to the C. 5.0., permit a considerable expansion in their activities. —Y ours, etc., M. P. FOGDEN. November 25, 1977

Sir, — At the annual meeting in March 1975 many of us spoke against Mr Rich’s proposed trust constitution for the Civic Orchestra Foundation on the grounds that we considered it unworkable. In support of the proposal Cr Caygill told us that we had to have a “people’s orchestra” subject to public control and not

just answerable to its subscribers. The trust constitution was rejected overwhelmingly by the meeting. Four months later the Canterbury Orchestra Trust was formed with substantially the same constitution that had been rejected in March. Now well over two years later it has taken a costly court action, at the public’s expense, to establish the truth of what was said in March 1975, namely that the constitution was “unworkable”. Now what has happened to our “people’s orchestra”? — Yours, etc.,

PETER BARTON. November 27, 1977