BANNED FROM 4YA.

Evening Star, Issue 22684, 25 June 1937, Page 11

BANNED FROM 4YA.

.. / ' . TO T-ffE EUITOR. . . Sir,—We live to learn. fliavo been frequently informed that the reception of 4YA in Wellington is about as poor as that of 2YA in Dunedin. Is it not possible that the observers who sit in judgment on Lieutenant Asten’s popular regimental military band have heard, its performance to the accompaniment of that surging, fading, and general absence of clarity that so frequently seem to be the natural concomitant of broadcasts from the national stations? To talk of the Otago llegimental Band not being up to standard is simply not a statement of fact, and 1 for ono would urge Lieutenant Asten not to let the matter drop.—l am, etc.. Woodwind. June 24.

TO THE EDITOR. Six-,—One cannot help but agree most heartily with the opinion expressed by “ Digger ” when he says “ what a perfect mess this. Government seems to be making of the whole of the broadcasting business, and yet what was it not going to do.” Professor Shelley w-as appointed director amidst a great fanfare of trumpets heralding the arrival of one who was going to clean up the whole business, and what has happened? Nothing but squabbles and much hot air. Your article 1 Banned From 4YA,’ however, shows clearly at least that one part of this wonderful director’s organisation has been the appointing of observers to report on the quality and suitability of such organisations as the Otago Regimental Military Band. The identify of these observers, however, is not only kept strictly secret, but those who fail to find their favoux-. have no means of ansxvering criticism, nor is any detailed criticism made of their work. ■All that is said is that it is “ unsuitable.” If New Zealand’s own talent is to be fostered (and I presume Professor Shelley wished to do that), surely what is wanted could be made clear. From the evidence of such qualified musicians as Dr V. E. Galway, Mr Vernon Griffiths, and Mr Alfred Walmsley it seems there is nothing wrong with the band’s work—yet why is it barred from 4YA? Simply because Professor Shelley’s observers say it is “ unsuitable.” Surely the Broadcasting Service has not more qualified men than those quoted to criticise the work of performers. If it has, might not their identity bo disclosed? We should then know who is running the Broadcasting Service. The treatment given to the Otago Regimental Band and what is tantamount to insults bestowed upon it are just what lias happened to other talented organisations and individuals. In Australia and elsewhere are to be found to-day New Zealanders giving first-class service in radio, and yet these artists could not find engagements in New Zealand; evidently they were just “ unsuitable.” Instead We have broken-down vaudeville artists from abro 1 and cheap American records—all very suitable, evidently, and all very expensive, too. Here wo have a proven organisation of talent in the Otago Regimental Military Band under a definitely talented musician in Lieutenant L. 0. Aston, and yet not only are they not wanted, but are told insultingly that they are not good enough —because Professor Shelley’s observers say they are “ unsuitable.” Yes, the Government promised us a lot of things in this x’adio business; it also promised us a lot in 1914.- We know what it gave us.—l am, etc., Digger No. 2. Juno 24.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—ln reply to ‘‘ Listener,” I would remind him this controvei'sy is not x©-

garding the ability of the broadcasting technicians to properly stage a broadcast. Few people possess what is termed the A 1 voice of the broadcaster, but the technician’s job is to watch every note and “monitor” it as it goes out over the air. If the technician knows his job we get a good reception—all else being equal—as for instance the recent wonderful broadcast of the Coronation ceremony and the King’s response. In the case of a band, and more particularly a military band, a musical knowledge on the part of the technician is essential. Whether the 4YA technicians possess that or not I do not know. One thing Ido know, and that is, the standard of the performances of the Otago Regimental Band is a high one, vouched for by such well-known musicians as Dr V. E, Galway, Messrs T. Vernon Griffiths, M.A., Mus.Bac (Cantab), Alfred Walqisley, /and ,C. V. Smith, and also by a’very large section of the Dunedin music-loving people. If “Listener” is correct in bis assertion, “ it may be taken as quite definite that competent observers were appointed,” then why not publish the names of such critics? I have a somewhat hazy_ idea that amongst the many ambitious statements made by Professor Shelley was something to the effect about encouraging local talent. In what way is the treatment meted out to the Regimental ■Band likely to encourage that band to reach what the observers term broadcasting standard? ]f the observers are so competent, why can they not advise what the defects arc? The authorities for the assertion that this band is up to the standard ate not ashamed to back their opinions with their names, so why not disclose the names of the critics, for an opinion is as valuable as is the party who expresses it. The unassailable fact is that the Regimental Band is up to a high standard, and the observers might do listeners a service by discovering why this band’s high standard does not go over the air. There is something wrong somewhere, and it is not the band.— I am, etc., Digger. June 24.