"MUSICAL."

Lyttelton Times, Volume LIX, Issue 6876, 14 March 1883, Page 5

"MUSICAL."

TO THH BDITOB. Sib,—-As one who ha* had some slight "journalistio experience," I oan eordially endone tho oenoluding »enteneea of your critio's letter published to-day. Perchance, " 8.W." and other* do not sufficiently understand the difficulties a> critic labours under, who goes back to the office and begins his work, only when all the rest are gone home eomfortably to beds who is hurried, per* haps, by the compositors who are waiting for "copy," and who, very likely, has no time to revise, and no ohance even to read over what he has said (and thus see what he has left unsaid) by reason of having his sheets taken away sometimes as fast as they are written. With tho oritioism of "St John the Baptist," I do not desire to trouble—doubtless, many a " one of the audience" could remember failings or faults not spoken of j yet it might be quite possible that at the same time a more genial tone might have been used, and the blame in one part softened by greater praise in others. But it might be well to enlarge upon a point of principle whioh "S.W." refers to—vi*., the general principle of criticising instead of merely reporting local performances, " which are not intended for repetition," A first performance of a company is criticised to h to acknowledge worth, to expose error, and to inform such of the publio as are not there whether the per* formenoe is worthy of patronage. Quite right. Still, even then how often you generously pas* over tome fault* a* naturally incidental to a « first night," even though the same eonv pany may h*n performed the eame thing ia» j

dosen towns before f But you do not titrable) as a rule to do more than merely "report" in the most ca»uai way » lwt performance. How, just in the same way ihould (I venture to think and have long thought) a perform. anoo which is not to bo repeatod be treated Those who were present ueed not the newspaper retwmS, nor wilt their judgment bo altered by it | nod those who were not preieDt cannot be greatly interested in mere details, and hence nothing more tbaiu a general report i» needed. Moreover, in Ihe matter of musical performances, bow many things are needed to make a real ■aeeetn! A false note by an aeeompabi«t, a mislead by a violin, the forgetfulness of an onran-blower, the wrong turning of a page, io„ ko., &a., &c- may came a linger to fail, y«t the fault may be none of hit j and it may be of such a kind that none could know of it save the performer or perhaps the conductor. A smtioai perform* ance is therefore subject to special difficulties, and yet how hardly iu faults are of t*n told in public print! Are others eo treatedP Are speakers «oreported; are their faulty pronuociationi, tbeir ilip« of grammar thus publicly ebown up ? Nay, rather do you not set them right and nhow tbeir belt rather than their wont aide. Compare the two, and it should bring good wholesome reflection. I write, Sir, at ouo having experience of many sides in this matter; and seeing how little good a detail criticism can avail when no repetition performance is contemplated j knowing at I do «o many who are really capable, and yet who prefer not to come forward for fear of some nervous tlip being publicly notbed a* an error j knowing, alio, that mutio in inch a place ihould be fostered and not quenched j and feetinp, also, that people deserve trerj encouragement who (for no pecuniary benefit wAiitever, for no return whatever to. themselveii, for nothing hot enthusiasm for music) have spent long time and suffered many inconveniences in the study of any musical work of merit j therefore, Z think that it might be well to report rather than criticise such performance* as are here referred to.

I do not at all think that amateurs desire "praise or nothing," though probably quite content with the " nothing } w and at a 1 matter of principle it is perhaps the best that can bo given to them. But if criticism it attempted, I think, for the reasons here mentioned, it should be permeated with the spirit of generosity rather than sternness. They really deserve all the consideration accorded to a public speaker; their attempts claim all the leniency which can be granted to a "first night;" and a.t the same time the uselessnets of what may be called " posthumous criticism" may b» advantageously remembered.

I write this temperately, and with no object in view save a desire to see whatever talent the place may possess both fostered and encouraged for the public good. I hare no desire to provoke futile discussion, and merely offer these suggestions in the hope that they m%y be of general benefit.—l am, &,0., NEMO. March 12. PJS.—Tour (so-called) "cynical" critic ia quite welcome to my name if he so desire; but so far aa the public is concerned, it is far better that the subject should be considered solely on its merits.