Double Trouble in St. Louis OR Legitimate Social Protest

[ZauberdrachenNr.7]

Saturday evening at Powell Symphony Hall in St. Louis, Missouri, protesters turned Brahms' Deutsches Requiem into their own Michael Brown Requiem for the young African-American who was shot and killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri over the summer.  The grand jury's review of the shooting has yet to be made public.  Whatever you think of the case, I believe Protesters should be given an A for creativity (some of the audience members' expressions are priceless!) but should the concert hall be a venue for public protest?  See it here :

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/06/us/michael-brown-symphony-performance/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Too many empty seats in Powell Hall that evening!

[ibanezmonster]

This is f***ing retarded.

[ZauberdrachenNr.7]

This is f***ing retarded.

Perhaps so.  The protesters could not have gained any goodwill through their demonstration and it prob. worked against them.  But their purpose is also to impinge on the consciousness of the audience and in this they succeeded.

[NorthNYMark]

Wow--I found it remarkably moving.

[Ken B]

I am sorry but all I see are self righteous hooligans who do not know what happened. None of us knows.
When did knowing the truth become so unimportant?

This sort of thing is simply disgusting, an attempt to bully and yell the loudest and get your way, to turn everything to your political ends.

And I include those musicians who clapped. If I were on city council I'd cut their funding.

[Cato]

but should the concert hall be a venue for public protest? 

No.

If they wanted to rent it for a memorial concert, fine.  But of course that would take... 0:)

[Mirror Image]

This wasn't the venue for this so-called 'protest.' The people at the concert hall paid good money to see the St. Louis SO perform and this what they get? Like Ken B said, these people KNOW NOTHING. They're just as clueless as I am or Ken B is about it. Anyway, I think these people should be reprimanded for disrupting what, otherwise, could have been a beautiful evening.

[ibanezmonster]

This wasn't the venue for this so-called 'protest.' The people at the concert hall paid good money to see the St. Louis SO perform and this what they get? Like Ken B said, these people KNOW NOTHING. They're just as clueless as I am or Ken B is about it. Anyway, I think these people should be reprimanded for disrupting what, otherwise, could have been a beautiful evening.

Yep.

I am sorry but all I see are self righteous hooligans who do not know what happened. None of us knows.
When did knowing the truth become so unimportant?

At the risk of offending a ton of people, the answer to this question is: since the beginning of time. This is like religion- no one has seen how the universe started, yet people will divide based on what they want to believe.

"Whose side are you on?" It's like choosing between Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. Is there a video recording of how the universe was created? No. Is there a video recording of Michael Brown's struggle with the police officer? No. Okay, then, let's pick a side given that we don't know anything. Sounds logical, right?

My suspicion is that people divide because certain individuals convince people to divide in order to take power. If you can't be a leader of one group, start another group to become a leader of. 

Of course, there are legitimate concerns about police behavior that need to be addressed, but the fact that people get riled up when they know nothing is somewhat disturbing and doesn't reflect well on society in general.


Besides that, why you gotta do this at a Brahms concert? Michael Brown Requiem? Wtf... 

[NorthNYMark]

I agree with those who are saying that we don't really know what happened, and the police officer in question should absolutely be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.  That said, I think much of the protesting involves things we do know about in terms of how various aspects of the investigation, and the response to the protests, have been handled.  Things like the body laying for hours, no detailed crime scene report made, the county's (and the prosecutor's) history of problems involving race and policing, etc.  I don't expect us all to agree on these points, but I think that to reduce it to the question of what actually happened during the shooting is to misunderstand the complex causes of the anger here.

Regarding the appropriateness of the venue, I can see the points everyone is making, but it seems to me that to claim that the brief (and rather prettily sung) protest would have ruined peoples' evenings or prevented them from hearing the Brahms they went to hear is overstated.  I can't tell at what point in the concert this occurred, but I see no evidence that the Brahms work was not performed in its entirety.  It's not like anyone got hurt, or had to miss the music (which I imagine resumed after the brief interlude).  Generally, whenever someone protests, people who disagree with the cause will find whatever venue they choose to be inappropriate.  It seems to me like this was peaceful, short, and effective. If nobody were to get even mildly annoyed, it probably wouldn't really be a protest. 

[Rinaldo]

That said, I think much of the protesting involves things we do know about in terms of how various aspects of the investigation, and the response to the protests, have been handled.  Things like the body laying for hours, no detailed crime scene report made, the county's (and the prosecutor's) history of problems involving race and policing, etc.  I don't expect us all to agree on these points, but I think that to reduce it to the question of what actually happened during the shooting is to misunderstand the complex causes of the anger here.

THIS.

Regarding the appropriateness of the venue, I can see the points everyone is making, but it seems to me that to claim that the brief (and rather prettily sung) protest would have ruined peoples' evenings or prevented them from hearing the Brahms they went to hear is overstated.

And also this.

Since when does a protest have to cater to a paying audience? It was peaceful and if it ruined somebody's evening because it forced them to think about different things then Brahms? Well that was the friggin' point.

[Ken B]

I agree with those who are saying that we don't really know what happened, and the police officer in question should absolutely be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.  That said, I think much of the protesting involves things we do know about in terms of how various aspects of the investigation, and the response to the protests, have been handled.  Things like the body laying for hours, no detailed crime scene report made, the county's (and the prosecutor's) history of problems involving race and policing, etc.  I don't expect us all to agree on these points, but I think that to reduce it to the question of what actually happened during the shooting is to misunderstand the complex causes of the anger here.

Regarding the appropriateness of the venue, I can see the points everyone is making, but it seems to me that to claim that the brief (and rather prettily sung) protest would have ruined peoples' evenings or prevented them from hearing the Brahms they went to hear is overstated.  I can't tell at what point in the concert this occurred, but I see no evidence that the Brahms work was not performed in its entirety.  It's not like anyone got hurt, or had to miss the music (which I imagine resumed after the brief interlude).  Generally, whenever someone protests, people who disagree with the cause will find whatever venue they choose to be inappropriate.  It seems to me like this was peaceful, short, and effective. If nobody were to get even mildly annoyed, it probably wouldn't really be a protest. 

All right. I have some questions for you.

1. Protesting in this venue to "raise" or "impinge upon" consciousness implies that ther concert goers in St Louis are unaware of the the shooting. Do you believe this?

2. Choosing to protest inside rather than outside implies that those inside, concert-goers, are more "in need" of hearing the protest than those outside. Do you believe this?

3. Hectoring concert goers with cries of "Black lives matter" implies concert goers are unaware of this, and in special need of this bit of moral instruction. Do you believe this?

4. Interrupting people's recreation rather than protesting in a public forum implies a special right to override their wishes simply because of how they spend their leisure. Do you believe this?

5. Presuming to lecture people does indeed depend upon an understanding of what happened. Whatever the "complex causes of anger here" the justification for any actions you take based on that anger depend in large measure on whether you are right about what angers you or not. If a group of birthers protested Obama's election this way, would it matter that they were wrong? 

6. If I want to protest something I prefer to protest those responsible. What basis have you for suggesting concert-goers are responsible even granting the shooting was unjust? Anything but their skin colour?

[ZauberdrachenNr.7]

Anyway, I think these people should be reprimanded for disrupting what, otherwise, could have been a beautiful evening.

Interesting to note that several of the protesters (inc. the organizers) were arrested at a Cardinals game - but not at Symphony Hall!  A reflection of what truly matters in American society?  Perhaps - the Cardinals bring much-needed influx of $ to downtown St. Louis.  BTW, the protesters were careful not to interrupt the music; some standards of civility applied!

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

All right. I have some questions for you. [etc]

This is a good list, and I agree with the spirit of it. From where I sit, this protest looks like superfluous grandstanding.

What is kind of sad is that I've seen opinions to the effect that this event somehow helps classical music be more "relevant" or whatever. First of all, this protest had nothing to do with the music; it could have taken place anywhere. (At least the recent Klinghoffer business was about the actual music.) Second, I strongly suspect that people who favor such protests only favor them when they're in agreement with the particular stance being expressed.

[snyprrr]

Who "organized" that, I wonder,... hmmm?

Yea, sorry, don't "believe" it.

Soros vs Koch- who funds what?

Professional 'Social Justice Advocates' being bussed in from Chicago?



Just please do keep a sceptical eye towards what happens in the US- the law that prevented the government from inflicting propaganda on its own citizens was struck down LAST YEAR, hence, it's not surprising that shooting "drills" have been passed off as real.



If you know what an "oppresed minority" WANT to hear, it's easy to get them to go along with your Saul Alinsky based agitprop.



btw- where did ISIL/ISIS/IS get all those fancy flags and cool black outfits? where oh where? I wouldn't be surprised to see them wearing Chuck Taylors!!



Don't believe ANYTHING you see on the Mainstream Media (you know, the Entity owned by 6 Corporations). Oh, except when they're fawning all over Yissyrel- then you MUST believe them,- or be called horrible names. You Will Be Shamed Into Believing!




OBAMA (to the next President): You know, you can do whatever you want.
'
PRES.: Oh,... I WILL!! I'll gladly take all that you and' W' GAVE me and use it to the hilt! Please do expect Martial Law and relocation camps. Can't wait!!

[jochanaan]

I've read that at least one of the orchestra musicians liked the protest.

[Ken B]

I've read that at least one of the orchestra musicians liked the protest.

No-one disputes musicians can be tools. A co-worker of mine would have applauded the protest if the protestors wanted to impeach Obama or teach creationism in school. What would that prove?

[NorthNYMark]

All right. I have some questions for you.

OK--I'll play.

1. Protesting in this venue to "raise" or "impinge upon" consciousness implies that ther concert goers in St Louis are unaware of the the shooting. Do you believe this?

I don't believe that is the implication, Ken.  First, the fact that we are discussing it on this forum means that we (and those who may be having similar discussions in person, on TV, and throughout the wider internet) are as much the audience (if not more so) for the demonstration as the people in the concert hall that night. Second, to the extent that the concert-goers present that night were part of the intended audience for the demonstrations, I doubt that the demonstrators assumed that all those concert-goers had the same degree of awareness or the same opinions of the shooting, its aftermath, or its broader context.  I imagine that the demonstrators expected or at least hoped that a large percentage of the audience would be sympathetic to the demonstration.

2. Choosing to protest inside rather than outside implies that those inside, concert-goers, are more "in need" of hearing the protest than those outside. Do you believe this?

I don't believe it implies that, no.  As I mentioned above, all of us (who happened to have been outside the venue) have now heard it, and we probably heard more of it than we would if it had taken place outside the venue.  Outside the venue, the musical form of the demonstration (or the relation to the German Requiem) would have made little sense.  I don't think the demonstrators researched the attendee list for that particular event, to gear their message toward those particular attendees.  It was, rather, geared toward the event itself.

3. Hectoring concert goers with cries of "Black lives matter" implies concert goers are unaware of this, and in special need of this bit of moral instruction. Do you believe this?

I don't agree with the "hectoring" characterization, nor do I agree that the reminder implies that those particular concert goers are more in need of (or more likely to welcome) that particular reminder than anyone else in the wider world at whom the demonstration was aimed.  While a simple statement, I think it is intended to provoke a number of different responses from people with different views of the events in question.  Again, the fact that we are talking about it now suggests that they were successful in keeping this a topic of conversation, and for that I am grateful.

4. Interrupting people's recreation rather than protesting in a public forum implies a special right to override their wishes simply because of how they spend their leisure. Do you believe this?

No, I don't believe any "special rights" are being evoked.  Given the completely peaceful nature of the demonstrations--they didn't even interrupt any actual music, from what I understand--it seems like standard U.S. Constitutional rights to me (or did someone yell "fire" in a crowded theater that I missed?).  I'm also not sure I understand your suggestion that a concert hall is something other than a public forum.  I could see being upset if people were being prevented from getting to work or to their homes (which is often a consequence of large demonstrations in the outdoor areas you seem to be suggesting are more appropriate venues), but to get upset by having your concert delayed by--what, three minutes?--would suggest some kind of anger management issues, IMHO.

5. Presuming to lecture people does indeed depend upon an understanding of what happened. Whatever the "complex causes of anger here" the justification for any actions you take based on that anger depend in large measure on whether you are right about what angers you or not. If a group of birthers protested Obama's election this way, would it matter that they were wrong?

I'm not sure I really want to get into this with you, because I fear that we will be going around in endless circles.  My only point is that even if it turns out that the shooting really was entirely justified, the protests would still be justified, IMO, because of the way the case was handled and the history involving that police force and (especially) that District Attorney in charge of the proceedings.  You and I likely have different opinions of that history, and I respect your right to disagree, but I reject your claim that unless/until we get to the truth about the actual shooting, that the protests and demonstrations are illegitimate.  To me, the shooting in question is only the tip of a much, much larger iceberg--Michael Brown may or may not turn out to be the most appropriate symbol for the shocking history of institutional abuse and inequality in Ferguson.  To me, the outcome of the case is less important than the process by which it is being handled (though I recognize that many of the protestors may feel very differently on that score).

By the way, when you say "presuming to lecture people," are you talking about the demonstrators or about me?  If you mean me, I apologize if I came across that way--it wasn't my intention. I'm just trying to articulate how I feel about it.

6. If I want to protest something I prefer to protest those responsible. What basis have you for suggesting concert-goers are responsible even granting the shooting was unjust?

This goes to the earlier questions you asked, and how I answered them.  First, though I used the word "protest" earlier, I don't think that is the right word, as this was not about achieving an easily definable outcome.  This was more of a broadly-directed demonstration to raise overall awareness. If their intention was to influence the Grand Jury proceedings, then I'd agree with you that this was an unwisely chosen forum.  But I see it more as using the context of a  performance of the German Requiem (which was re-titled "A Human Requiem" for a recent performance in Montreal) in St. Louis as a means to encourage continued dialog about race, policing, economics, and political participation in the US. Again, the fact that we (and countless others in countless other fora, I would imagine) are discussing it suggests that they may have achieved that goal.  You seem to be interpreting the demonstrations as a direct accusation of the audience, and I honestly don't think that was the primary intention--I see it more as trying to get us to think about the connections between the performance of this work, in this city, with the recent traumatic events (granted, from the demonstrators' particular, and perhaps biased, view of those events).

Anything but their skin colour?

Huh?

[NorthNYMark]

This is a good list, and I agree with the spirit of it. From where I sit, this protest looks like superfluous grandstanding.

What is kind of sad is that I've seen opinions to the effect that this event somehow helps classical music be more "relevant" or whatever. First of all, this protest had nothing to do with the music; it could have taken place anywhere. (At least the recent Klinghoffer business was about the actual music.) Second, I strongly suspect that people who favor such protests only favor them when they're in agreement with the particular stance being expressed.

I'm nor sure I agree with your first (bolded) point.  To me, what made the demonstration so unusually effective was precisely that it could not have taken place elsewhere with the same impact.  The demonstration took the form of a requiem, in the city that has been traumatized by a particular death (which, as I acknowledged before, may or may not be a great symbol of many other struggles and possible deaths).  It could not have been a better chosen forum for such a remarkable event, IMO.

On the other hand, I think there is a lot of truth to your second point, though it works both ways (i.e., those who complain about such protests usually only do so when they disagree with the particular stance being taken).  For what it's worth, I have been critical of protests with whose point of view I've largely agreed when I've found them to be in bad taste, or violent, or disruptive, none of which I see as a problem with this one.  I guess that's why I don't get why this would upset anyone, aside from the simple fact that they might disagree with the message.

[Ken B]

It probably hasn't made any news but there was a similar incident in Ann Arbor today. A student piano trio was performing and between the Haydn and the Martinu a christian group protesting abortion started singing hymns and waving placards with pictures of fetuses aborted at the local hospital. The protestors left after yelling "children's lives matter too."

Then after the Martinu but before the Dvorak another group protesting the recent USSC gay marriage ruling broke out. They sang We shall overcome, unfurled banners of drowned children, whose death they ascribe to god's wrath over sodomy, and in leaving chanted "God hates fags" and "children need protection."

Then, believe it or not, just before the Dittersdorf a chapter of the NRA started singing and waving banners. They were badly out of tune but I think they sang half the first act of West Side Story, and shouted something about cold dead hands.  They explained gun control leads to rape and yelled "rape victims matter too."

The pianist gave a thumbs up.

[NorthNYMark]

It probably hasn't made any news but there was a similar incident in Ann Arbor today. A student piano trio was performing and between the Haydn and the Martinu a christian group protesting abortion started singing hymns and waving placards with pictures of fetuses aborted at the local hospital. The protestors left after yelling "children's lives matter too."

Then after the Martinu but before the Dvorak another group protesting the recent USSC gay marriage ruling broke out. They sang We shall overcome, unfurled banners of drowned children, whose death they ascribe to god's wrath over sodomy, and in leaving chanted "God hates fags" and "children need protection."

Then, believe it or not, just before the Dittersdorf a chapter of the NRA started singing and waving banners. They were badly out of tune but I think they sang half the first act of West Side Story, and shouted something about cold dead hands.  They explained gun control leads to rape and yelled "rape victims matter too."

The pianist gave a thumbs up.

Frankly, if such groups were to engage in that sort of protest, instead of bombing abortion clinics and picketing funerals, I think it would be tremendous progress.