THE PHILHARMONIC CONCERT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume III, Issue 645, 28 May 1878, Page 2

THE PHILHARMONIC CONCERT.

rWa are not responsible for tho opinions expressed b oui correspondents.]

TO THE EDITOR. OF THE EVENING MAIL. Sir.—My absence from Oamarn since the publication of my letter prevented me from addressing yuu sooner touching the comments which appeared in your issue of last Tuesday. It may be as well to notice the denunciation of some of the audience contained in your critique, in order to deal explicitly with your column of commentaries. You say "We were gratified to obaerre

that most, of the occupants of the hack seats, who are prone, on such occasions, to show unmistakeable signs of weariness, wore not one whit more ill-behaved than were some aspirants to gentility, some of whom made themselves ridiculous by vociferously applauding, not out of compliment to tho performers, but in order to give vent to their peculiarities. Snch behaviour may be admissible in taprooms, but it is most objectionable at a higlt-class entertainment, and in the presence of ladies." Hero you distinctly denounce those who applauded only, making 110 mention of shuffling or_ whispering, which are not usually considered applause. In your comments on my letter, however, you say you did not mean to deprecate the applause, but intended your remarks to apply to a disorderly few whose "whispering and shuffling were audible throughout tho ball during the performance of some of tho more delicate pieces." Tho language of your critique is unmistakeable, and I must say that if it did not refor to the applause, twenty-one lines were written in complete ignorance of tho meaning of the words in the English language therein used. 11l your commentary oil my letter, you unfortunately make use of the word "shuffling." This term, as any of your readers can see, is more applicable to your paragraph in reference to my letter than to the conduct of the audience at the concert, deferring to the second part of the concert, you write—"We did not know what to say ; we might have given our readers a list of what was done and tho names of tho performers who did it, but that would have been interesting only to tho performers, for those of tho public who were present already knew all about it, and those who were absent would scarcely care about reading anything of tlie kind." This passage is somewhat offensive, but weak, and, if it is an attempt to justify your criticism of the first part, is somewhat illogical, as I presume your readers and "the public who were present" would be quite as much interested in one part of the concert as in tho other.

My letter to you was written solely in my capacity as President of the Society, was temperato in tone, and did not justify the little impertinences which you have taken tho liberty of indulging in towards ine as one of the performers, and which I pass by as unworthy of further notice. > So far as I was concerned, I was quite content with the spontaneous approval of the audience, having no desire for the spurious reputation obtainable from the ; columns of a newspaper. "scour reference ' to the use of ''butter" is unfortunate. Your stock of that much-esteemed article of consumption suffered a terrible reduction immediately after the last concert of the late Philharmonic Society. Possibly it was judiciously expended, but tho reservation of the balance was thoughtful in the extreme ; however, unfortunately for the interests of the Society, the " butter" ran short at the end of the first part. Trusting that ere the next concert is given you may be enabled to lay in a fresh supply, so that those whom you have made to revel in your oleaginous style of treatment may make strenuous efforts to secure a still larger share of that commodity which you appear to esteem their essential oil of existence —I am, &.c., J. O'Meagiiek.

[With tho publication of the foregoing letter we close our columns to n controversy upon a subject devoid of interest to the public. We are grateful to our correspondent for the gratuitous instruction in the art of criticism that he has endeavored to impart to us, and for the tenderness with which lie has treated us who have presumed to differ with him. For these reasons we have inserted his communication, which, although it occupies space that might have been devoted to more interesting matter, cannot possibly do anybody any injury, whilst its publication by us will perhaps save us from a charge of treating our correspondent unfairly. —Ed. E. M.] ®