The Classical Chat Thread

[kishnevi]

The Jerusalem Quartet suffered in concert heckling a few years ago for the crime of being Israeli...
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/the-jerusalem-quartet-should-classical-music-really-be-a-legitimate-target-for-political-demonstration-1932679.html

[jlaurson]

The Jerusalem Quartet suffered in concert heckling a few years ago for the crime of being Israeli...
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/the-jerusalem-quartet-should-classical-music-really-be-a-legitimate-target-for-political-demonstration-1932679.html

And it happened in 2007, when I attended: http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2007/04/jerusalem-quartet-at-libr.html

[Florestan]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but when these opinions risk [...] offending people, it's best to keep such opinions to yourself.

By the same token, Solzhenitsyn should have kept his opinions about Gulag to himself, lest he had offended Lenin, Stalin, Khrushtchev and the KGB.

The TSO is suppressing art on political grounds. 

Exactly.

It's the politicizing of everything, even piano concerti, that irks me.

Me too.

[Florestan]

The Jerusalem Quartet suffered in concert heckling a few years ago for the crime of being Israeli...
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/the-jerusalem-quartet-should-classical-music-really-be-a-legitimate-target-for-political-demonstration-1932679.html

And it happened in 2007, when I attended: http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2007/04/jerusalem-quartet-at-libr.html

The world is fullpacked with idiots. Especially useful ones.

[jlaurson]

The real outrage is the apparent (or alleged/official) measuring stick by which the TSO decides whom to exvite. From their own press release, this marvel:

TSO president Jeff Melanson cited "ongoing accusations of deeply offensive language by Ukrainian media outlets." And: "As one of Canada's most important cultural institutions, our priority must remain on being a stage for the world's great works of music, and not for opinions that some believe to be deeply offensive."

Wow! "Opinions that some believe to be deeply offensive are enough to nix someone? That's free speech? Free speech, but only if we like it, please!

By that measure nothing would ever get done, in any society.

Toronto Star has a very sensible (I happen to think) Editorial about it: https://twitter.com/ClassicalCritic/status/585760678176227328

[Florestan]

In a particularly weak explanation of why the orchestra was dropping her, TSO president Jeff Melanson said Lisitsa was bounced over "ongoing accusations of deeply offensive language by Ukrainian media outlets." And, he added: "As one of Canada's most important cultural institutions, our priority must remain on being a stage for the world's great works of music, and not for opinions that some believe to be deeply offensive."

This misses the point on at least two counts. First, Lisitsa was not invited to Toronto to discuss her provocative political views. She was scheduled to play the piano. And second, banning a musician for expressing "opinions that some believe to be offensive" shows an utter failure to grasp the concept of free speech.

We don't have freedom of speech to protect only those we agree with, or those whose views are inoffensive. We have it precisely to protect people who have unpopular or even outrageous opinions.

Amen.

[mc ukrneal]

I guess I am in total disagreement and late to the party.

The TSO have failed in one area - consistency. They let Gergiev conduct and fire this pianist.

Organizations (public or private) are not required to support artists (or employees) and are free to dismiss them at will. It is kind of stupid for artists to have strong public positions on political issues as they eventually run afoul of someone. This behavior is nothing new in the World (Dixie Chicks anyone), so all of this thrashing about censorship seems overly dramatic.

In any case, shouldn't we also be evaluating her tweets? Here is a link to some of them: http://imgur.com/gallery/gDJLo. Can't really say that they are particularly worth supporting or giving her a forum for them.

By the way, they have not infringed on her free speech in any way. She is still free to say whatever she wants.

[Florestan]

It is kind of stupid for artists to have strong public positions on political issues as they eventually run afoul of someone.

Oh yes, they should just keep their effing mouth shut up and play, play, play! 

You made the Toronto Star case even stronger on both accounts.

[mc ukrneal]

Oh yes, they should just keep their effing mouth shut up and play, play, play! 

They should. I wish more would. You can have Sean Penn while we're at it. They should not be able to say whatever they want and expect no one will respond to them, especially when it seems to be hateful stuff like some of what this pianist was writing. This thread is focused on her treatment by the TSO, but little is being said about her and her posts. We are all assuming that this is why she has been fired (I assume so too for now, but the TSO has not come out and explained).

I really don't understand this opinion that people can say whatever they want without consequences.

[Florestan]

little is being said about her and her posts.

Her posts are utterly idiotic and horribly bad taste, but I fail to see the reason why she should be banned from performing on their account. If political idiocy is a good reason for preventing artists from performing, then all Hollywood studios should be razed to the ground, actors and directors inside. 

[mc ukrneal]

Her posts are utterly idiotic and horribly bad taste, but I fail to see the reason why she should be banned from performing on their account. If political idiocy is a good reason for preventing artists from performing, then all Hollywood studios should be razed to the ground, actors and directors inside. 

I believe that has been suggested more than once...

[Todd]

Wow! "Opinions that some believe to be deeply offensive are enough to nix someone? That's free speech? Free speech, but only if we like it, please!

The TSO offered the craven response one would expect.

Organizations (public or private) are not required to support artists (or employees) and are free to dismiss them at will.

That is just factually incorrect.  At-will employment is not even universal in the US, let alone other countries, and even in at-will jurisdictions, it is not that easy except in the context of layoffs.  Were only firing people as easy as you suggest.

I assume Ms Lisitsa executed a well defined contract, and the TSO paid her so as to not breach their obligations and open themselves up to litigation for financial harm.  Any good contract will have out clauses, and the TSO exercised the out clauses.

It is kind of stupid for artists to have strong public positions on political issues as they eventually run afoul of someone.

That's right.  Artists should do what you think they should do.

By the way, they have not infringed on her free speech in any way. She is still free to say whatever she wants.

Sort of.  I love this type of circuitous argument.  She was banned from performing for the TSO.  She can still say what she wants anywhere else.  The problem is that the TSO's behavior creates a chilling effect.  Ms Lisitsa may choose to temper her public remarks at some point (like the Dixie Chicks did), though for now she is talking to RT, but the more important effect is that other artists may decided to clam up.  Best not to say anything.  It is stupid for artists to take a stance on issues.  Unless it is the correct stance.

I really don't understand this opinion that people can say whatever they want without consequences.

I missed these arguments in this thread.  Who made them?

In the US, with its extensive case law on the subject, there are some defined limits on speech, and some speech can be punished legally by the state.  Private action can be taken against speech far more liberally.  And it is.  Personally, I find the existing limits on speech to be far too onerous, and private limitations are worse still, but I'm unabashedly in favor of more open speech and expression than the US has today.  I don't mind if it is coarse or offensive.  People do not have a right to not be offended.  Some more extreme speech (eg, shouting fire in a theater, slander/libel) should certainly be punished, but barring some type of clear, identifiable, actual risk or harm, punishing people for speech, and purposely trying to silence people now and in the future, which is precisely the result of the TSO action, is unacceptable.  Establishing de facto prior restraint is good for no one.

Who cares what Ms Lisitsa tweeted?  I read a couple, and her jumbled response to the TSO action.  Big deal.  All manner of celebrities, minor and major, say and write gibberish all the time. The idea that they should not be able to practice their craft is absurd. 

[stingo]

But when I buy my concert ticket, I'm paying to hear music, not politics.

[Todd]

But when I buy my concert ticket, I'm paying to hear music, not politics.

Same here.  Likewise, when I buy a movie ticket I expect to see a movie, though they can be political sometimes.  They may even express views I disagree with.  Come to think of it, stage works like opera can do that, too.  Where can one be safe from ideas?

[Karl Henning]

Where can one be safe from ideas?

The Internet.

[mc ukrneal]

I missed these arguments in this thread.  Who made them?

Who cares what Ms Lisitsa tweeted?  I read a couple, and her jumbled response to the TSO action.  Big deal.  All manner of celebrities, minor and major, say and write gibberish all the time. The idea that they should not be able to practice their craft is absurd.

You did! Just above. I highlighted the key part. No one is stopping her or any other artist for practicing their craft. But those of us who pay for the privelege may decide to take our business elsewhere. And I, as a consumer, certainly don't have to support such idiots.

But when I buy my concert ticket, I'm paying to hear music, not politics.

Unfortunately, this is not always the case. There are many such examples in history.

[Todd]

You did!

Incorrect.  I explained in pretty simple language what types of limitations there should be on speech and expression.  Ms Lisista's actions do not pose any risk to anyone.  You, it seems, prefer an unprincipled, arbitrary and capricious standard for suppressing freedom of expression.

No one is stopping her or any other artist for practicing their craft.

The TSO did.  She cannot play the concerto.  She cannot practice her craft.  That's what the article is about, and what the posts have been about. 

And I, as a consumer, certainly don't have to support such idiots.

Good to see you consider art and freedom of speech and/or freedom of expression as things to be viewed from a consumerist standpoint.

[jochanaan]

Here's a link to the story with actual facts, for those who don't want to support the click-whore NL:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/music/ukrainian-born-soloist-dropped-from-tso-for-her-political-views/article23812295/

*sigh* If every musician who expressed an opinion that offended somebody were forbidden to play, our concert calendars would diminish by at least half and probably more.  I say, let her play; perhaps with the disclaimer that "any opinions expressed are those of the performers alone and do not necessarily represent the views of the board."  But of course, the cancellation is a fait accompli...

[jochanaan]

They should. I wish more would. You can have Sean Penn while we're at it. They should not be able to say whatever they want and expect no one will respond to them, especially when it seems to be hateful stuff like some of what this pianist was writing. This thread is focused on her treatment by the TSO, but little is being said about her and her posts. We are all assuming that this is why she has been fired (I assume so too for now, but the TSO has not come out and explained).

I really don't understand this opinion that people can say whatever they want without consequences.

Consequences, yes: but since her tweets have nothing to do with how well she plays, those consequences should not extend to cancelling a concert.

[mc ukrneal]

Incorrect.  I explained in pretty simple language what types of limitations there should be on speech and expression.  Ms Lisista's actions do not pose any risk to anyone.  You, it seems, prefer an unprincipled, arbitrary and capricious standard for suppressing freedom of expression.




The TSO did.  She cannot play the concerto.  She cannot practice her craft.  That's what the article is about, and what the posts have been about. 




Good to see you consider art and freedom of speech and/or freedom of expression as things to be viewed from a consumerist standpoint.

This has always been the conflict - between the artist's vision and the consumer who supports it. There is nothing new in this. This ying and yang has been going on for centuries, but you seem to be caught in an idealist position. Sounds good, but not particularly practical. The TSO has not supressed her freedom of expression, so you seem to be saying a lot of nonsense. She can continue to say whatever she wants on the topic, but not on the TSO's dime. Again, though you deny it, you are basically saying there is no consequences to people's behavior.

And I am not so sure she doesn't pose a risk (depending on your point of view). Ukraine has essentially been at war with Russia the past year. Your view of potential risk could be quite different if you lived there.