The Classical Chat Thread

[jlaurson]

ARTS & LETTERS 4/03/2015
Bach & Beyond: Music For The Easter Weekend
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jenslaurson/2015/04/03/bach-beyond-music-for-the-easter-weekend/

[Todd]

Message to classical musicians in Canada: Only express popular opinions publicly.

[Brian]

Message to classical musicians in Canada: Only express popular opinions publicly.

Know what this reminds me of? In college, I talked to a bassoon performance major who said, "After high school, we don't really take classes on anything except music. So we're great at music. But when it comes to everything but music, we're morons."

I'll always remember that word choice. Morons.

[Todd]

Know what this reminds me of? In college, I talked to a bassoon performance major who said, "After high school, we don't really take classes on anything except music. So we're great at music. But when it comes to everything but music, we're morons."

I'll always remember that word choice. Morons.

I guess it's best that morons are censored by those who know better.

[Pat B]

I guess it's best that morons are censored by those who know better.

I don't consider canceling a piano performance to be "censorship," but this has probably gotten her much more publicity than the concerts would have.

Her statement seems like the writing of a moderately precocious 12-year-old.

[jlaurson]

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/

[Ken B]

It's great to know  that when I go to a concert I do not have to worry about being isolated from politics. I used to worry that if I spent a couple hours at a play or concert or reading a book I might miss out on the latest details, might lag in my participation in the struggle. I applaud this and hope soon that when bathing or peeing I will also be politically involved, be part of being a solution not the problem.

[Todd]

I don't consider canceling a piano performance to be "censorship," but this has probably gotten her much more publicity than the concerts would have.

I call it censorship, though I suppose one can make the circuitous argument that it is not because Ms Lisitsa is not being prevented from saying her piece, and she is being paid.  But it strikes me as punitive to prevent a performing artist from performing merely because of his or her political views, and it seems uncomfortably close to allowing prior restraint.  Surely modern, Western states can do better than that.

The action by TSO management is unambiguously craven.  It buckled to pressure, real or imagined.  Of course, maybe a big donor is a Ukrainian ex-pat, in which case the decision is at least partly financial.  Then it would be more understandable, as well as craven.

It's definitely garnered Lisitsa some publicity, though I find it hard to believe that this will become much of a story in major outlets or materially impact ticket and CD sales.  For instance, I can say with a great deal of confidence that it will not make me any more or less inclined to buy Ms Lisitsa's recordings or those of the TSO.

[Ken B]

It's definitely garnered Lisitsa some publicity, though I find it hard to believe that this will become much of a story in major outlets or materially impact ticket and CD sales.  For instance, I can say with a great deal of confidence that it will not make me any more or less inclined to buy Ms Lisitsa's recordings or those of the TSO.

It will make me (even) less inclined to support subsidies for the TSO. 

"Surely modern, Western states can do better than that."
Like Gurn, I admire your drolleries Todd.

[Mirror Image]

When Lisitsa expresses her personal opinion, especially one that is a hot-button issue, then, naturally, she could alienate her audience. The TSO did what they had to do in not allowing the performance to go through, but she should be allowed to perform once the dust has settled. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but when these opinions risk possible ticket sales or even offending people, it's best to keep such opinions to yourself.

[Todd]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but when these opinions risk possible ticket sales or even offending people, it's best to keep such opinions to yourself.

Ticket sales I can see - for a private institution, not one partly or heavily dependent on public funds. 

As to not offending people: When has that been an even remotely admirable or desirable goal?  Some people are bound to be offended by anything.  What guiding principles, if any, do you suggest in determining what is offensive? 

[Pat B]

I call it censorship, though I suppose one can make the circuitous argument that it is not because Ms Lisitsa is not being prevented from saying her piece, and she is being paid.  But it strikes me as punitive to prevent a performing artist from performing merely because of his or her political views, and it seems uncomfortably close to allowing prior restraint.  Surely modern, Western states can do better than that.

I will agree with "punitive," but the fact that they are not preventing her from saying her piece is a pretty big factor in whether it constitutes censorship.

[Todd]

I will agree with "punitive," but the fact that they are not preventing her from saying her piece is a pretty big factor in whether it constitutes censorship.

The TSO is determining where she may say her piece - were she to say anything during a performance.  (Maybe she could put in a very emotional performance of a nationalist Russian piano encore, which could offend the artistic sensibilities of the audience, who would very clearly see said performance as a rebuke of Ukrainian nationalism.)  That is the very essence of censorship.  It's sort of like the free speech zones the Bush Administration used, though less extreme, of course.  Those protestors could say what they wanted.  They just had to say it where they were told to say it.  It looks increasingly like that is the new standard.  You can say anything you like, just not here, and not if someone, somewhere dislikes it.

Of course, I'm not familiar with Canada's laws on free speech.  This may be pretty standard for them. 

[Pat B]

The TSO is determining where she may say her piece - were she to say anything during a performance.  (Maybe she could put in a very emotional performance of a nationalist Russian piano encore, which could offend the artistic sensibilities of the audience, who would very clearly see said performance as a rebuke of Ukrainian nationalism.)

She is claiming that the concert was cancelled due to her tweets, not the possibility of a political lecture by her, a provocative encore, Putin driving a tank onto the stage, or anything else she might do at the concert. Not that the Toronto Symphony had any obligation to provide her a venue for any of those things.

[Todd]

She is claiming that the concert was cancelled due to her tweets, not the possibility of a political lecture by her, a provocative encore, Putin driving a tank onto the stage, or anything else she might do at the concert. Not that the Toronto Symphony had any obligation to provide her a venue for any of those things.

Of course the TSO can cancel her appearance.  That doesn't mean it should.  It is a craven organization that doesn't want to allow a performance by someone with differing opinions.  That is, it engages in censorship.

[Pat B]

Of course the TSO can cancel her appearance.  That doesn't mean it should.  It is a craven organization that doesn't want to allow a performance by someone with differing opinions.  That is, it engages in censorship.

I didn't say the TSO's decision was what they should have done. I think it probably was not, though there is surely more to the story than what we know.

But it was not censorship, because "doesn't want to allow a performance by someone with differing opinions" is not what "censorship" means.

[Todd]

I didn't say the TSO's decision was what they should have done. I think it probably was not, though there is surely more to the story than what we know.

But it was not censorship, because "doesn't want to allow a performance by someone with differing opinions" is not what "censorship" means.

There's undoubtedly more to the story.

Okay, I'll adopt a narrow view of the word censorship.  What the TSO is engaged in could be even worse.  It is depriving a person of a public forum for artistic expression in retaliation for voicing unpopular political views.  The TSO is suppressing art on political grounds. 

[Pat B]

Okay, I'll adopt a narrow view of the word censorship.  What the TSO is engaged in could be even worse.  It is depriving a person of a public forum for artistic expression in retaliation for voicing unpopular political views.  The TSO is suppressing art on political grounds.

Regarding the TSO's action, I basically agree (though I believe true censorship is much worse than "depriving a person of a public forum for artistic expression").

But from her perspective: she made some trollish tweets, the TSO bit on them, and she probably gained a few thousand followers. So I don't feel too sorry for her.

[Ken B]

Regarding the TSO's action, I basically agree (though I believe true censorship is much worse than "depriving a person of a public forum for artistic expression").

But from her perspective: she made some trollish tweets, the TSO bit on them, and she probably gained a few thousand followers. So I don't feel too sorry for her.

I don't feel sorry for her at all. But I don't see her as the important issue. It's the politicizing of everything, even piano concerti, that irks me.

[Todd]

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

Exactly.  Hopefully, Ms Lisitsa is the only major-ish (classical/serious) artist deprived of a forum to perform for naughty tweets.  She may not be.  That's why this is as bad and possibly worse than narrowly defined censorship.  Someone had to be first, I guess.