SANDS AND BANDSMEN.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XXXIV, Issue 12, 25 March 1905, Page 22

SANDS AND BANDSMEN.

< By

Presto.

-The following letter from Mr W. 8. ■Ring, the judge at the late contest, came to hand last -week: —"'Dear Presto —1 have just perused the letter "written by Mr Parker, solo cornettist of the Wellington Garrison Hand, which appeared in your column on March 4th, and with your permission will reply, as it appears from Mr Parker's remarks Jlhat he was somewhat afraid that his style would not please me. He has done himself and me an injustice—himself first, in not placing confidence in jny judgment of hie musical worth, as did all the soloists of repute who were present at the Auckland contest, and to me for several reasons, one of which is his statement that I judged him at Timaru in October, 1803, and the impression likely to be conveyed is that lie played in the solo competition, which, however, is not the case. However, in Hie rendering of the selection, Mr Parker played solo cornet for Kaikorai, and J preferred Mr Buckley’s playing to hiei. 1 have never judged Mr Parker in solo Competition, and I had looked forward W'ith some pleasure to hearing him at Auckland. Every artiste shows to advantage in a different way, and that 1 was well pleased with Mr. Parker at Auckland was shown in my remarks of his excellent rendering of the bolero movement solo in ‘La Straniera.’ This particular effort of his was very charming, but I do not altogether admire his rendering of the cornet solo in "Mendelssohn,’ but lie probably played as he was instructed, to. An artistic performance always appeals to me, and had Mr Parker 'faced the music’ in the. solo event •his reputation would not have suffered in any one’s estimation even had he been beaten by the wonderful exhibition pf, the winner, Mr Kerr. Besides, there was just room enough to have .won the cornet contest if something Juensational in the way of a performance had been put up after No. 1 player’s net) bit. Bandsmen look to artistes of Mr Parker’s standing to give on great occasions masterly renderings of a solo us did Mr Kerr. I feel that Mr Parker Jias perhaps unconsciously misunderstood me and my methods, and probably on reflection will himself fee] that he should, as all the great artistes did at Auckland, have submitted himself to the test, and shown that confidence in the judge which his brotber-bandsinen did. 1 trust if again Mr Parker should have the opportunity to play under my adjudication that he will embrace it ahd eliminate from his mind any such idea that he may ‘play at a disadvantage and not do himself justice.’ If he is the artiste I take him to be, he will never fail to ait least do himself justice.”

With ' reference to this matter, my footnote to Barker’s letter has been taken in the wrong light. I said Parker was justified in doing what he did — that is, if he didn’t want to play there was no one could make him; but 1 aid not say that I agreed with him that Mr King was biassed, and he. was right in not playing before him. Mr King hns answered Mr Parker, and the public can judge for themselves. “tempo” writes from Wanganui:—• "Re last week’s notes. Regret that tilth a fine player as kb-J. Parker should yvrite what is evidently intended for a Tefleetion upon the judge at your late contest. Mr Parker states that he previously played under Mr King at Tinti»ru, but he omits to make it clear that there were two judges, in separate boxes. BignOr Sepia rise on that occasion acted yvith Mi- King. Also‘he does not mention that, although nominated he did not compete in the 'solo competition. We therefore must conclude that he re ffers to Mr King’s judging of the band lie played with, viz., Kaikorai. 1 have looked up Mr King’s notes and find frequent commendation of the solo comet work, and certainly nothing to the contrary. It is an absolute fact that the Kaikorai Band owe their position at the contest to Mr King’s consistency. Hu the first evening’s playing of the "Viva Beethoven” selection, Mr King gave Hum second place with 100 points, X>r 8 behind Wanganui, b'ignor Squarise awarded Wanganui P 23, Lyttelton 121, Timaru HO, and Kaikorai 117. On the jeecond test, "Lortzing," Mr King gave Wanganui 128, and again placed Kaikorai second -with 115, whereas the other judge only gave them 03, and placed six of the nine competing bands above them. In the grand aggregate,

thanks to Mr King, they finished second, but Signor Squarise’s figures gave them sixth position, behind Wanganui, '.l’imaru, Lyttelton, Dunedin Navals, and Oamaru Garrison. In view of these figures it seems most absurd that any Kaikorai player should take exception to Mr King’s judging at this particular contest, solely on the playing of the test selections. Mr Parker’s challenge io considering that he had the opportunity Kerr and Buckley seems rather childish of meeting the latter at Timaru, where both the judges were practically strangers to Buckley, and above all at Masterton, on a test solo with Mr Ord Hume in the box, one of the best known authorities in Great Britain. Again, if for the reason stated. Parker did not intend competing, it was clearly his duty io have Informed the officials early in the week, and so saved the subsequent disappointment. His action contrasts very unfavourably with Buckley’s, who although indisposed, at personal inconvenience, kept faith with the committee.”

I purpose giving a review of the new scheme for judging put forward by Mr Eugene Hulse of this city. In his letter to me this gentleman states that he has been watching our contests for some years, and he notices there is always dissatisfaction at them, and that after a good deal of time and- thought he puts forward a new idea, but as lie does not claim infallability for it, he would be pleased to receive any suggestions from my numerous readers. He starts with two judges for first class contests, and one for second class, but instead of the old way of each judging the whole band, the work under the Hulse scheme is divided into fourteen sections, each judge having half. John Brown takes the sections under the following headings:—Attack and precision, nuances, ensemble, balance, intonation, interpretation, dynamics. The maximum number of marks under each heading is as follows:—Ko. I 15, 2 15, 3 15, 4 15, 5 15, 6 25, 7 5, total 105. Now comes the point which strikes me as being the kernal of the whole thing. At the present time a judge makes his remarks to the shorthand writer, and after the performance he makes up his points and (say for attack the maximum is 20) says his performance warrants me taking off 4 points, leaving 10 to their credit. Now, there may be six movements in the selection in question, and how is the conductor or band to find where their attack was incorrect 1 It is an impossibility. I am not finding fault with the judge, but the system. Tinder the Hulse system, the conditions are altered. For instance Mr Hulse has taken one of J. Ord. Hume’s judgments and moulded them into his system, with the following result:—Aßo. brill —Good attack but too noisy for indoor work, as loud as ean be possibly blown (interpretation 2). Maestoso —A little better now, and the band do well; letter A, is far too dreary and dead, good band nevertheless, but far too slow (interpretation 2). Andante—Again far too slow and striving for effect (interpretation 1). Cornets arc not in tune at. B (intonation 1). Allegretto—Very good. Andante —Band all right, although the weary tendency prevails, good band, but not correct style of rendering (interpretation 2); . Moderate—-Very much too accented, in every detail, by quartette (dynamics 2). Grasp—Very fine paying, although accents too much marked (dynamics 1). Pomp--Good, although loud nuances I),' letter I’’ excellent; repiano breaks note at opening (intonation 1); accompts are detached (ensemble 2). Allegro—Good playing, but letter H is deadly in vengeance (interpretation 2). And. Espress —Nice duo cornets, and this movement plays well; quartette not directly in tune (intonation 1). Allegro—Accompts are a. shade too prominent'(balance 1). —John Brown, Adjudicator.