The Classical Chat Thread

[Gurn Blanston]

Didn't I see someone mention on the Forum within the last year, that L'Oiseau-Lyre was releasing a box of Classical Era disks, like their Baroque box? That was the last (and only) mention I have seen of it, and I did a little searching just now, to no avail. Does anyone else recall this, or was I smoking opium at the time and dreamed it? 

[mc ukrneal]

("factually incorrect (and just a continuing propegation of Russian PR/lies)"),

As example, in one of the first posts I made on the topic, there was a link to some of her tweets (here: http://imgur.com/gallery/gDJLo), where she refers to Ukriane as Nazis, the party line from Russia. That is factually incorrect - they are not prosecuting jews, building death camps, creating a version of the arayan race, etc. There was a small group that had influence during the events on maidan that was quite extreme, and Russia uses this group to scare everyone.

[mc ukrneal]

Didn't I see someone mention on the Forum within the last year, that L'Oiseau-Lyre was releasing a box of Classical Era disks, like their Baroque box? That was the last (and only) mention I have seen of it, and I did a little searching just now, to no avail. Does anyone else recall this, or was I smoking opium at the time and dreamed it? 

Alas, I don;t remember. But that would be nice.

[Todd]

I see you did say that earlier

Actually, I have maintained it all along.  Evidently, you were arguing against something that was not written.

On the other hand, her tweets are 1) factually incorrect (and just a continuing propegation of Russian PR/lies), and 2) Rather hateful in their entirety. In addition, the position she is tweeting is not ethically defensible.

So what?  Speech that is factually inaccurate and what you deem as being ethically indefensible is protected, at least in the US.  Even "hateful" speech, unless it meets pretty tightly defined standards of actual hate speech, is protected.  (The value and wisdom of so-called "Hate Speech" standards is another topic altogether.)  In Canada it may not be.

The problem with this standard (and your standard) is who makes the judgment? There is no good answer for this. Any answer would be flawed.

Talk about a red herring.  The answer to your rhetorical question is: The courts. 

Also, I notice you did not answer the main question: Do you support the TSO's actions in this case?  Evasiveness in this case makes it pretty clear that you do.  You disagree with Ms Lisitsa, and you think she should be punished. 

Your paean to employers rights is almost touching, but totally off base.  In this case, as an arts organization, I would expect the TSO to take the true moral high ground, allow her to play, make the very clear statement that the organization does not support her opinions, but that in its dedication to openness and artistic quality, they would move forward.  And then, as suggested earlier, they would never invite her back again.  Instead, they caved to pressure from a small number of individuals who want to punish those they disagree with.

Also, I'm not quite sure what church doctrine has to do with any of this.  That's two red herrings in one post.

[jlaurson]

I disagree - it's not all bad (and will get back to Todd's post at some point):
1. They at least looked into it when they didn't have to
2. Most of the posts are rather tame if rude, though some later tweets not included here are pretty insensitive (worse could be said)
3. They gave her a chance to respond

1.) I don't understand. Are you suggesting that their action could have been more outrageous (i.e. not even remotely fact-check and cancel), and that therefore they have done a 'due diligence' on this?

2.) We agree. The posts that the TSO gave as supporting material for the reason of the cancellation are tame and don't amount to much more than a politically-incorrect way of expressing the opinions of a side which is politically incorrect to take in a manner that is juvenile sometimes, crass often. Nothing, by the way, that people wouldn't easily get away with saying about the other side in the conflict. [Mind you: I believe {not that my thoughts matter or should matter in this} that Putin/Russia/Russian rebels are easily the more blameworthy, more distrust-worthy elements in this conflict, but in toto, it reminds me of the cartoonish way the West depicted Serbs as evil and the rest as victims in the Balkan Wars, when the reality, as best as it can be approximated, was and remains far, far more complex.] In any case, that makes the decision of the TSO even more baffling.

3.) So what? That's meaningless. She's not supposed to have to justify herself for this stuff in the first place. "I heard you did something that might offend somebody. Justify yourself, or else!" That's precisely what we've been arguing about. The majority in this forum agrees that this is not looking good for the TSO, because they allowed themselves to be drawn into a conflict that is decidedly not theirs... and make moral/pseudo-ethical judgment calls that they probably ought to have delegated to audiences (ticket buyers).

[kishnevi]

Didn't I see someone mention on the Forum within the last year, that L'Oiseau-Lyre was releasing a box of Classical Era disks, like their Baroque box? That was the last (and only) mention I have seen of it, and I did a little searching just now, to no avail. Does anyone else recall this, or was I smoking opium at the time and dreamed it? 

Perhaps I was sharing your pipe, since I remember that, and also mention of  a Medieval/Renaissance box.

[Wakefield]

Didn't I see someone mention on the Forum within the last year, that L'Oiseau-Lyre was releasing a box of Classical Era disks, like their Baroque box? That was the last (and only) mention I have seen of it, and I did a little searching just now, to no avail. Does anyone else recall this, or was I smoking opium at the time and dreamed it? 

Perhaps I was sharing your pipe, since I remember that, and also mention of  a Medieval/Renaissance box.

Yes, it was the info provided when the set of the Baroque Era was released:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/LOiseau-Baroque-Christopher-Hogwood-Conductor/dp/B00IRQS24A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1428593878&sr=8-1&keywords=oiseau+lyre+baroque+era

Further sets will be The Classical Era and Medieval & Renaissance.

But, AFAIK, there aren't still release dates announced. 

[Gurn Blanston]

Perhaps I was sharing your pipe, since I remember that, and also mention of  a Medieval/Renaissance box.

Yes, it was the info provided when the set of the Baroque Era was released:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/LOiseau-Baroque-Christopher-Hogwood-Conductor/dp/B00IRQS24A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1428593878&sr=8-1&keywords=oiseau+lyre+baroque+era

But, AFAIK, there aren't still release dates announced. 

Ah, OK then, thanks for that. I thought I was losing it. I probably AM losing it, but at least not on this! 

[mc ukrneal]

So what?  Speech that is factually inaccurate and what you deem as being ethically indefensible is protected, at least in the US.  Even "hateful" speech, unless it meets pretty tightly defined standards of actual hate speech, is protected.  (The value and wisdom of so-called "Hate Speech" standards is another topic altogether.)  In Canada it may not be.

Ethical and legal are different. I'd think you'd get that distinction by now. We're talking ethics, not legal.

Talk about a red herring.  The answer to your rhetorical question is: The courts. 

That is a legal argument and not an ethical one. I thought we had set the legal aspec to bed. Even so, this is flawed. Why is a court more trustworthy of making ethical decisions?

Also, I notice you did not answer the main question: Do you support the TSO's actions in this case?  Evasiveness in this case makes it pretty clear that you do.  You disagree with Ms Lisitsa, and you think she should be punished. 

I thought it was pretty clear I supported the TSO's actions. You seem unable to grasp that.

Your paean to employers rights is almost touching, but totally off base.  In this case, as an arts organization, I would expect the TSO to take the true moral high ground, allow her to play, make the very clear statement that the organization does not support her opinions, but that in its dedication to openness and artistic quality, they would move forward.  And then, as suggested earlier, they would never invite her back again.  Instead, they caved to pressure from a small number of individuals who want to punish those they disagree with.

Also, I'm not quite sure what church doctrine has to do with any of this.  That's two red herrings in one post.

You are dismissive of what you don't agree with. Ethically, you have now put individual rights as superior. I would not do that. As to the rest,  I expect no more from an arts organization than any other. You may want to temper your expectations in that regard.

[Todd]

We're talking ethics

Only sort of, but keeping it purely "ethical", you did not make a compelling case that factually inaccurate speech, or "hateful" speech, or any other speech you disapprove of on "ethical" grounds can legitimately be suppressed.  In speech related matters, "case by case" is usually synonymous with arbitrary and capricious. 

The proof of this is that you cannot even apply your own standard in this case - that is, nothing the pianist uttered violated anything you wrote: "In general, people can say whatever they want as long as it does not incite immediate unlawful behavior, does not include child pornograpy, is not libelous/slanderous, is not an invasion of pivacy, and does not violate the public health." 

You completely ignore you own "standard" and come up with a new one on the fly that fulfills your desire to punish those who disagree with you.

Ethically, you have now put individual rights as superior. I would not do that.

I unambiguously place individual rights ahead of collective rights when it comes to matters of speech.  You are a collectivist on matters of speech.  Got it.

[mc ukrneal]

Only sort of, but keeping it purely "ethical", you did not make a compelling case that factually inaccurate speech, or "hateful" speech, or any other speech you disapprove of on "ethical" grounds can legitimately be suppressed.  In speech related matters, "case by case" is usually synonymous with arbitrary and capricious. 

The proof of this is that you cannot even apply your own standard in this case - that is, nothing the pianist uttered violated anything you wrote: "In general, people can say whatever they want as long as it does not incite immediate unlawful behavior, does not include child pornograpy, is not libelous/slanderous, is not an invasion of pivacy, and does not violate the public health." 

You completely ignore you own "standard" and come up with a new one on the fly that fulfills your desire to punish those who disagree with you

I unambiguously place individual rights ahead of collective rights when it comes to matters of speech.  You are a collectivist on matters of speech.  Got it.

We are not talking freedom of speech. We are talking whether it is ethically correct (or not) for an organization to fire someone based on political views. This is the crux of the discussion, but you keep ignoring it and focusing on other items. You have your answer. Move on.

[Todd]

We are talking whether it is ethically correct (or not) for an organization to fire someone based on political views. This is the crux of the discussion, but you keep ignoring it and focusing on other items.

Hey, that's pretty neat, pretending that speech is not related to political views. 

A rather significant determining factor in the ethical-ness of an employer's action is the cause of termination.  Here, it was speech.  It is unethical to fire someone for speech that does not violate ethical standards.  Ms Lisitsa's speech did not violate ethical standards - even your stated standards.

[mc ukrneal]

Hey, that's pretty neat, pretending that speech is not related to political views. 

A rather significant determining factor in the ethical-ness of an employer's action is the cause of termination.  Here, it was speech.  It is unethical to fire someone for speech that does not violate ethical standards.  Ms Lisitsa's speech did not violate ethical standards - even your stated standards.

No. The cause was political views. It can be ethical to fire someone whose views you don't share. Whether her speech violated (or not) ethical standards, mine or yours is besides the point. 

[Todd]

No. The cause was political views. It can be ethical to fire someone whose views you don't share. Whether her speech violated (or not) ethical standards, mine or yours is besides the point.

Good to see you are steadfast in maintaining your fiction.  The only way political views are made known is through some sort of speech or active expression.  The two are inextricably linked, and in your own posts you mentioned "crossing some sort of line".  How does one do that without speech or action?  The implication of what you write is that people with views you, or some mysterious person or perhaps "they", disagree with should simply remain silent.

And, if anything, your insistence that it can be ethical to fire someone for holding views you don't share is even more troubling with even broader implications.

But here, in this case, unless there was some type of explicit morals or ethics clause in the arrangement between Ms Lisitsa and the TSO, it was the TSO that acted unethically.

[ZauberdrachenNr.7]

I read this thread entire and felt as if I were in the midst of a Supreme Court discussion - the points raised and debated are impressive.  Well, often they are.   

To me, it's censorship alright; and I wonder how many orchestras will hesitate to book her after this?  (I'm sensitive to the issue 'cause one of my favorite conductors, Furtwängler, was tarred and feathered for much less) The same conservatism that means war horse repertoire will also translate into avoiding trouble whenever possible.  Lisitsa, now = trouble.  And now she is in the sights of organizations that may not relent.  How this impacts her career will be interesting to watch.  It fascinates that Gergiev was allowed to perform and she not; am interested specifically in the possible contractual aspects involved.  I found several examples of Canadian music contracts and one of the clauses (Orchestras Canada - "unites the national voice of Canadian orchestral communities") reads "professional attitudes are to be expected."  While that statement is so loose as to be nearly meaningless, if that or a similar clause were in her TSO contract, it would permit an administrator to make the case that Gergiev's conduct is professional, hers not.  Her tweets as someone here observed are "juvenile;" to my mind, at best unprofessional.  If something similar were in her contract, it would have proved an easy escape clause, censorship though it be. 

[jochanaan]

I read this thread entire and felt as if I were in the midst of a Supreme Court discussion - the points raised and debated are impressive.  Well, often they are.   

To me, it's censorship alright; and I wonder how many orchestras will hesitate to book her after this?  (I'm sensitive to the issue 'cause one of my favorite conductors, Furtwängler, was tarred and feathered for much less) The same conservatism that means war horse repertoire will also translate into avoiding trouble whenever possible.  Lisitsa, now = trouble.  And now she is in the sights of organizations that may not relent.  How this impacts her career will be interesting to watch.  It fascinates that Gergiev was allowed to perform and she not; am interested specifically in the possible contractual aspects involved.  I found several examples of Canadian music contracts and one of the clauses (Orchestras Canada - "unites the national voice of Canadian orchestral communities") reads "professional attitudes are to be expected."  While that statement is so loose as to be nearly meaningless, if that or a similar clause were in her TSO contract, it would permit an administrator to make the case that Gergiev's conduct is professional, hers not.  Her tweets as someone here observed are "juvenile;" to my mind, at best unprofessional.  If something similar were in her contract, it would have proved an easy escape clause, censorship though it be.

Well, I still maintain that if we were to deny a musical forum to anyone so disingenuous as to express wrong or inane ideas in a public forum, our musical lives would diminish by about half, maybe more.  Musicians are musicians.  They may or may not be well-informed and compassionate; they may or may not express themselves well on other subjects than music.  But this is essentially irrelevant to whether or not they can sing, play or conduct well.  I just "glanced" at a recording of Ms. Lisitsa playing the Liszt B minor Sonata, and however she expresses her political views, she can certainly play.

And that's my last comment on that subject.

[jlaurson]

Ionarts-at-Large: Trio Wanderer in Romantic Redemption

http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2015/04/ionarts-at-large-trio-wanderer-in.html

The Trio Wanderer is one of the ARD International Music Competition Prize Winner alumni
that make that competition's name in the chamber music field quite so prestigious. Their
recordings (Best of 2009 here, Best of 2012 here, Messiaen) are of library-building quality,
rivaled only by the Beaux Arts Trio and the Florestan Trio. In short: worth a trip to the Musik-
verein's Brahms-Saal even if it isn't my favorite chamber venue in Vienna. (Shaped like a coffin
and just a little less lively.) Snark aside, it's not that bad a place to hear Haydn, Schumann,
and Tchaikovsky. Nor is it surprising to hear such an ultra-conventional program there, down
to the abuse of glorious Haydn as the warm-up piece. (Complauding™*!)

And the Haydn Trio No.43 in C (the Vienna venues every only list Haydn by the incredibly
useless Hoboken numbers, as if "Hoboken XV/27" were particularly meaningful to everyone
but a musicologist with not much of a social life) did indeed sound like a warm-up, sadly. It
came and went—...

[jlaurson]

Ionarts-at-Large: The Takács Quartet in Vienna

http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2015/04/ionarts-at-large-takacs-quartet-in.html

The heart of chamber music of Vienna beats in the Mozart-Saal. But the
offerings at the Brahms-Saal of the venerable, more famous Musikverein
can be tempting, too... and if and when the Takács Quartet calls whence,
the resident-ionarts unit will drop whatever he is doing and head over to
hear one of our longest standing favorites. Even in an utterly conservative
program such as they presented at the Musikverein on Tuesday, February
10th: Schubert, Schubert, Beethoven. And the Beethoven "Razumovsky
1" at that... not that there is anything wrong with that. But it's not the
modern Beethoven à la op.135 which might have been the programmatically
redeeming element severed very severely at the end.

The Brahms-Saal, if you haven't been, looks and feels something like what
an Egyptian sarcophagus must, from the inside, and with a similar average
age of its contents. Or imagine a Russian oligarch with more money than
sense who got to re-design Wigmore Hall after watching a 70s Hercules film:
Doric columns in rusty red and emerald green stone tiles and gild plated
carvings, cherubs, and Greek maidens (as pillars) everywhere. If it wasn't
hallowed traditional grounds, people would call for the wrecking ball.

The Schubert Quartettsatz...

[jlaurson]

ARTS & LETTERS 4/19/2015
Free Speech, Rachmaninov And Twitter Posts: How The Ukrainian War Invaded Toronto's Stage
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jenslaurson/2015/04/19/free-speech-rachmaninov-and-twitter-posts-how-the-ukrainian-war-invaded-torontos-stage/

[Florestan]

Excellent article, Jens!