LIBEL BY CRITIC

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 33, 8 August 1934, Page 18

LIBEL BY CRITIC

A BACH SOLOIST

THE "INTRUSIVE H"

8.8.C. BROADCAST

(From "Tho Post's" Representative.) LONDON, June 28.

How far a newspaper writer may criticise a singer or an actor was discussed in a. case brought before Lord Hewart, tho Lord Chief Justice, in. tho King's Bench Division. The singer, Mr. Steuart Wilson, sued the British Broadcasting Corporation and the writer of a.certain paragraph for damages for libel.

■ When the Bach choir sang Bach's "Passion" at Queen's Hall in April, 1933, Mr. Stcuart Wilson took the part of the Evangelist—a soloist who sings words which describe tho action of tho music.

The performance was broadcast. In the next number of the "Radio Times" a criticism appeared under tire heading of "Vocal Sins" which said : "I have just been listening to the broadcast of Bach's glorious Passion music. While, on the whole, the rendering was excellent, there was one glaring fault that simply marred tho performance of one of the singers, and I am amazed that the 8.8.C. could engago anyone quite so incompetent in his breath control.

"Tho intrusive H must have appeared hundreds of times. "Thus 'Pilate's wife' became 'Pigh-highlate's . wigh-highf'; 'Potter's field' became 'Po-ho-te-her's fecheelod'j 'high priest' was turned into 'high-high-prce-hcest' and so on through the cntiro performance. "It was simply ghastly. It seernsto me, much as I admire in broad outline the great work of tho 8.8.C., that in one respect they, arc sadly lacking. II: they once,made the rule that under no circumstances would they engage anyono who was guilty of either the intrusive 'h' or the tremolo—and rapidly enforced. the rule—the standard of singing in England would bo immeasurably raised in. a few years. The .two faults I mention are grave and widespread, and the 8.8.C. has .it in its power to cure the trouble." Mr. A. Wheatleigh, of Clapham Common, was tho writer of tho criticism. j COMPLETE EXAGGERATION. In the ease -before .the Court, Mr. Wilson contended that the criticism implied that he was devoid of the skill and knowledge necessary for controlling his breath while singing, and that ho was unfitted for broadcasting vocal music. The defence was a denial that the words were defamatory, of Mr. Wilson and that they were fair and bona fide comment. Mr. Austin Farleigh, for Mr. Wilson, said that Mr. Wilson had been a public singer since 1919, and had sung this particular music more than 4.0 times under different conductors, Dr. Vauglian Williams and Dr. Adrian Boult among them. What was published was a complete exaggeration. It was entirely untrue and it was highly damaging to say that a singer could, not control his breathing. There wero occasions on which Mr. Wilson did use the "intrusive H" but he would say that, in fact, lio never sang some of the words which were represented as having been sung by him. Explaining that Bach's syllabic treatment, when translated into English, had to be compromised in such a way that sometimes one syllablo _ was carried over two notes, Mr. Wilson said that various compromises had been arrived at. Not satisfied, ho had used a version which was entirely his own. Mr. Wilson gave vocal illustrar tions in the witness box of how he sang passages from the work, and explained that the intrusive "H" was used to emphasise a word or to lighten or chango tho colour of a note. "THE BEST BUTTER." Mr. Wilson agreed with Mr. Stcuart Bevan, K.C. (for tho defence) that Mr. Wheatlcigh sent him a copy of the article with a letter which said, "Apart from the intrusive 'll' your rendering of tho part was all that could be desired."

Mr. Bevan: That was fair enough to you?— That is what is called in "Alice in Wonderland" the best butter. (Laughter.) I gather that you approve of the "intrusive II" in certain cases?-—I approve of its use when it is used artistically, but it is a matter of taste. It is not incompetence. Mr. Arthur H. Fox Strangways, music critic, said he heard Mr. Wilson's rendering of the part in Bach's work, and Mr. Wheatleigh's criticism surprised him. , Mr. Richard Capell, music critic, said I since 1913, he had hoard Mr. Wilson's concerts, and had criticised him when necessary. He listened to his performance in Bach's work iv question, but heard nothing that impaired or ruined it.. He could not recollect. ' whether Mr. "Wilson used the intrusive "H" or the elongated vowel, but he would have noticed had the "H" been used hundreds of times. "The proper use of the intrusive 'H' is not a sign of incompetence in breathing control," said Mr. Cape!!. "It is a device to assume a control or command of the brca thing. Of course, its abuse is detestable and to bo deprecated. I dislike the intrusive 'H. It is a technical device which should remain hidden." VERDICT FOR THE SINGER. Lord Hcwart, summiug-up, said it was proper, in everybody's interest, that there shonld be full' and free criticism, provided it was fair. Nothing could bo moro unfortunate and farther from the true position than that they should imagine that the'question was whether they agreed with the criticism. The opinion of the jury was not to bo substituted for the opinion of a critic; the question was whether the criticism wont beyond what a fairminded person would write. "Great latitude must be given to opinion ami prejudice/ continued Lord Hewart. "Here exaggeration or even gross-exaggeration does not necessarily make a comment unfair. "The question you must consider is: Would any fair man, however prejudiced he may be, however obstinate and exaggerated his abuse, say what this criticism has said? "Therefore, on the question of fair comment, you must be extremely liberal when considering matters on which men's minds are moved in things like music and taste and style in music.

"If they use strong language, every allowance should be mado m their favour. But they must believe what they say. That is tho question for you.

"A critic can use, ridicule, sarcasm, and irony as weapons, so long as he does not "use them unfairly."

Lord Hewart said there did not; socrn to be the slightest suggestion of malice against cither tho 8.8.C. or Mr. Wheatleigh.

"But," he, added, "no fair comment can exist upon a foundation consisting of untrue allegations of: fact."

The jury found in Mi1. Wilson's favour and awarded £2000 damages against the British Broadcasting Corporation anil Mr. Whcatloigh jointly, and £100 .separately against Mr. AVheatleigh.

Lord licw.-nt granted a stay of execution on the usual terms,, so that counsel for tho defendants might consider Die question of^ au appeal.