The New York Philharmonic to play in North Korea!

[Bonehelm]

NY concert to be broadcast to all North Korea

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - A concert by the New York Philharmonic in North Korea next week that officials say could break cultural boundaries and draw the two countries closer will be broadcast throughout the reclusive Communist state...."


http://www.reuters.com/article/musicNews/idUSN1927719020080220

AND then there's this....



This article is just published today by the Music Director of the NYPO, Lorin Maazel:

Why We'll Play Pyongyang
By LORIN MAAZEL
February 20, 2008; Page A14

Last fall the New York Philharmonic accepted an invitation from the North Korean government to add a concert to our tour of Asia, currently underway. Our plans were met with excitement, shock and, in some quarters, dismay.

But the overture from Pyongyang should not have come as a surprise. The winds of change have been blowing through the split halves of the Korean peninsula. Lee Myung-bak, President-elect of South Korea, has laid out an economic program for establishing closer ties with the North, marking a departure from his prior platform.

In this light, and with the backing of the U.S. State Department, negotiations for our visit to North Korea were set in motion. We requested that the concert in Pyongyang be open to the average citizen. After practical details were settled, we sorted out a program that would showcase the vitality of American music and the New York Philharmonic's unique history. We chose Dvorak's New World Symphony, commissioned and given its world premiere by the New York Philharmonic, and George Gershwin's "American in Paris."

I have always believed that the arts, per se, and their exponents, artists, have a broader role to play in the public arena. But it must be totally apolitical, nonpartisan and free of issue-specific agendas. It is a role of the highest possible order: bringing peoples and their cultures together on common ground, where the roots of peaceful interchange can imperceptibly but irrevocably take hold. If all goes well, the presence of the New York Philharmonic in Pyongyang might gently influence the perception of our country there. If we are gradually to improve U.S.-Korean relations, such events have the potential to nudge open a door that has been closed too long.

In many decades of making music I have found myself in highly charged political situations, such as driving to East Berlin and back during my tenure as music director of the Deutsche Oper (1965-71), on my way to check out a Felsenstein production at the Unter den Linden Opera. In October 1964, I was staying at Moscow's Leningradskaya Hotel the day Khrushchev was deposed, though no news of it had been given. The streets were empty, but I was eventually driven through three concentric rings of tanks to get to a rehearsal, where I found the Russian State Orchestra on stage ready to play Mahler 2.

Twenty-five percent of the singers at the Deutsche Oper during my tenure were American. New generations of former enemies were making music together. Every time an authorized American entered East Germany, it was a reminder to the authorities of our Berlin presence and our determination to reaffirm it. When I was conducting Russian orchestras in Moscow and Leningrad at this time, scores of ordinary citizens whispered surreptitiously, "Thank you for being with us." The presence of foreign artists, especially American, somehow strengthened their belief that they had not been forgotten. We Westerners were their lifeline.

Human rights are an issue of profound relevance to us all. Any citizen, anywhere, can be deprived of them -- brutally under tyrannical regimes, subtly in more open societies.

As an artist passionately devoted to freedom of expression and respect for the individual, I believe that America's reputation as a safe haven for the persecuted must remain unassailable. If we are to be effective in bringing succor to the oppressed, many languishing in foreign gulags, the U.S. must claim an authority based on an immaculate ethical record, toughened by economic clout. Woe to the people we are trying to help if we end up in a glass house. We would then be unable to defend our human-rights record with honor, would weaken our position dramatically, and could be of little help to the people who might require our aid in their time of need.

I composed an opera to a text drawn from George Orwell's scathing indictment of tyranny, "1984." I spent years of my life wrestling with its horrors: brutal torture, systematic injustice, contempt for any human dignity. One of the subtle currents flowing through the novel is the power of music, notwithstanding its official suppression by Big Brother, to nurture and inspire the populace in the face of oppression. My experience with Orwell only affirms the profoundly ethical role I believe the arts and artists have to play.

I write from Asia, where we are on the second leg of the Philharmonic's tour, after three concerts in Taiwan. The tensions surrounding the history of Hong Kong, Taiwan and China are slowly fading. What a different world it is here now from the one I knew 40 years back, when the sound of saber-rattling frightened us all.

A similar transformation may one day come to pass in Korea, where many believe the time has come to take the tiny steps that must be taken to lessen tensions, forging small accommodations and leading perhaps to a lasting reconciliation. We all wish them well on their way, long and arduous as it may be.

Mr. Maazel is music director of the New York Philharmonic.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120347076630878735.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Thoughts?

[PerfectWagnerite]

/quote]
I think he's a pretty good music director. I wish he conducts more at the MET but you can't have it all right?

[Brian]

Thoughts?

David Hurwitz had a thought.

[MishaK]

David Hurwitz had a thought.

That would be a first for him.

[greg]

they iz gonna get shot!

[greg]

David Hurwitz had a thought.

no, wait, let's send that guy over there instead, so HE could get shot.

[PerfectWagnerite]

Hurwitz is actually quite a nice guy. I sent him an email saying how I think his Robert Levine is clueless and he blasted me

[Brian]

Hurwitz is actually quite a nice guy. I sent him an email saying how I think his Robert Levine is clueless and he blasted me

I have corresponded with Hurwitz on at least two or three occasions and have come away with the impression that, no matter how zany he may get in his reviews, he is a great guy and one who sincerely says what he feels. He always has reasons for his more outspoken opinions, is extremely helpful in correspondence and has very rarely led me wrong.

[M forever]

You are far too young and inexperienced and uneducated in musical matters to decide whether or not Hurwitz always has a good reason for his "opinions". You don't understand most things about the musical cultures he often pontificates about either.

[Bonehelm]

You are far too young and inexperienced and uneducated in musical matters to decide whether or not Hurwitz always has a good reason for his "opinions". You don't understand most things about the musical cultures he often pontificates about either.

What do you think of the topic then, M? Please try to give your own opinions when criticizing other's. 

[M forever]

I think for a country as completely isolated any kind of contact with the outside world is good, a step in the right direction, and even if it means that compromises have to be made with the current regime. We can't make that disappear, but when we boycott the people as well as the regime, the people will suffer more and the regime will gain more.
That reminds me a little of Karajan's tour to the USSR at the height of the cold war, an event which had a very great significance for many USSR citizens who were able to witness the concerts. Of course, it didn't "achieve" anything, but it was a step away from the isolation of East and West during those days.

[PerfectWagnerite]

You are far too young and inexperienced and uneducated in musical matters to decide whether or not Hurwitz always has a good reason for his "opinions". You don't understand most things about the musical cultures he often pontificates about either.

He (Hurwitz) is also extremely protective of his fellow reviewers. Basically I said that Robert Levine has bad aural perception since he gave some recordings (like C. Kleiber's 1974 Tristan and Abbado's La Scala Aida 7's and 8's for sound quality and say that their sound is quite good when the sound is absolutely horrendous by any standards. He basically said Levine doesn't really listen to the orchestra and is basically attracted to the vocals predominantly. Then I said if that is the case how do you let him decide that by the fourth note of a recording you can tell whether a recording is good or bad (like Levine's review of Thielemann's Tristan). He basically said you can. I didn't really feel like arguing with him.

[Bonehelm]

I think for a country as completely isolated any kind of contact with the outside world is good, a step in the right direction, and even if it means that compromises have to be made with the current regime. We can't make that disappear, but when we boycott the people as well as the regime, the people will suffer more and the regime will gain more.
That reminds me a little of Karajan's tour to the USSR at the height of the cold war, an event which had a very great significance for many USSR citizens who were able to witness the concerts. Of course, it didn't "achieve" anything, but it was a step away from the isolation of East and West during those days.

Is good to see that you are also considering the welfare of the NK people, but you do know that the citizens of Pyongyang, the NK's capital, are all specifically "chosen" by the government, right? They are all extremists who are brainwashed from their childhood to believe that Kim Jung Il is their spiritual leader and everything he does is right, etc. To live in the capital of NK, one must be a loyalist and has to have a solid background with connections with the dictatorship government. They have to be healthy and able-bodied, too.

So, my point is that this "cultural exchange" event won't necessarily let the average NK citizen (who are mainly peasants really) have a chance to learn about the West's culture. The whole concert is broadcast on the country's biggest TV channel, but it is VERY doubtful that a normal resident (meaning those who are not those loyalists who are on a higher level considered by the govt) would even have access to a TV.

It is also worth mentioning that in every documentary you see on National Geographic or Discovery Channel or BBC or w/e about NK, the citizens are "actors". That is to say that they are chosen and trained by the govt to meet and give interviews etc to the media from the outside world, because the govt creates their image by those "citizens". Everything you see and do in NK is closely monitored by government workers (who are supposed to be merely "tour guides") so that you won't see things the govt doesn't want to show the world. So basically every person you see on the street is an "actor"...

Of course, cultural exchange between an isolated country and a well-developed country is certainly a step in the right direction as you said, but the effect on NK citizens' knowlege or impression regarding the West will remain unchanged for the most part.

[MishaK]

Is good to see that you are also considering the welfare of the NK people, but you do know that the citizens of Pyongyang, the NK's capital, are all specifically "chosen" by the government, right? They are all extremists who are brainwashed from their childhood to believe that Kim Jung Il is their spiritual leader and everything he does is right, etc. To live in the capital of NK, one must be a loyalist and has to have a solid background with connections with the dictatorship government. They have to be healthy and able-bodied, too.

So, my point is that this "cultural exchange" event won't necessarily let the average NK citizen (who are mainly peasants really) have a chance to learn about the West's culture. The whole concert is broadcast on the country's biggest TV channel, but it is VERY doubtful that a normal resident (meaning those who are not those loyalists who are on a higher level considered by the govt) would even have access to a TV.

PF, you should remember when making such arguments that the turnaround in the Soviet Union for example (as in a number of closed societies) was not started by ordinary citizens, but indeed by loyalist cadres who had been exposed to more open societies: Mikhail Gorbachev, who had worked in the Soviet embassy in Italy and elsewhere. If there is just one North Korean Gorbachev in that audience, this silly concert might just achieve something positive (even though it's Maazel who's conducting  )

[Sergeant Rock]

So basically every person you see on the street is an "actor"...

I was stationed for a year on the DMZ between between North and South Korea. From our vantage point on a hilltop overlooking the Zone and across the border into the North we could see a perfect village. Immaculate. Every morning trucks would drive into the village and "peasants" would dismount and work all day in and around the village, as if it were theirs. In the evening the trucks took all the peasants away. It wasn't a real village but one designed to be seen by the outside world. North Korea is a surrealistic place....no, more like a Monty Python sketch. An example: Since it was ostensibly a demilitarized zone the largest weapon allowed was the 50 caliber machine gun. While I was there, the North Koreans moved in a large caliber canon. At the next meeting between the two powers our spokesman pointed out the violation and provided photographs, demanding the canon be removed. "Oh, no," the North Korean spokesman replied,  "we have no such weapon there." "Look, we know it's there. We can see the thing!" "No, no, you're mistaken."

When they infiltrated the barrier, ambushing and killing a man-four signal team that had been repairing telephone lines, they denied that too.

This concert won't change a thing. But it will allow Kim Jong-il to gloat and use the concert as proof that he's respected by the West. I agree with Hurwitz. Unless there is a true cultural exchange, there will be no change. This concert is a propaganda coup for the communist regime.

Sarge

[drogulus]

This concert won't change a thing. But it will allow Kim Jong-il to gloat and use the concert as proof that he's respected by the West. I agree with Hurwitz. Unless there is a true cultural exchange, there will be no change. This concert is a propaganda coup for the communist regime.

Sarge

      I don't think there's an unambiguously right answer to such situations. Either you hand Kim his propaganda coup or you keep up the isolation as a statement you know has limited utility except as a principle. I come down on the side of keeping the NK regime as isolated as possible and let them break the isolation by reforming or ending it. But it's on a case by case basis. Sometimes such exchanges might have value. It's hard to see it in this case, though.

[MishaK]

      I don't think there's an unambiguously right answer to such situations. Either you hand Kim his propaganda coup or you keep up the isolation as a statement you know has limited utility except as a principle. I come down on the side of keeping the NK regime as isolated as possible and let them break the isolation by reforming or ending it. But it's on a case by case basis. Sometimes such exchanges might have value. It's hard to see it in this case, though.

But query who is helped by the isolation? We've been isolating Cuba and North Korea for over fifty years to practically no avail. Nothing has changed. As long as there is an external enemy who restricts access to resources, it's always easy for a dictator to rally the country around him in defense against a powerful external enemy. It also makes it easier for the dictator to blame any shortages on the evil intent of an external enemy, thereby deflecting from his own shortcomings. Isolation just doesn't work. Compare Cuba and North Korea to the situation in the Soviet satellite states in Eastern Europe, with which the West practiced gradually more and more open exchange. I'm much more with the Willy Brandts of the world who seek to influence others by example and through openness.

Another couple of quick examples: the dissidents in Iran would be nowhere without a certain level of openness of Europe towards Iran. Or alternatively, consider the cases of South Korea, Taiwan and Indonesia. All of these were brutal right wing military dictatorships after WWII and have only gradually democratized. But we kept open relations with them throughout. They have developed much better than NK or Cuba.

Again, I think this concert will mostly be useless for everyone involved, except that it may signal some goodwill of teh US towards NK to finally negotiate properly, which is seriously needed given how badly GWB f-ed up that situation. But North Korean democracy will not flower as a result. If regime change comes to the North, South Korea's "sunshine policy" will have much more to do with bringing it about than any US embargoes or NY Phil concerts.

[drogulus]

But query who is helped by the isolation? We've been isolating Cuba and North Korea for over fifty years to practically no avail. Nothing has changed. As long as there is an external enemy who restricts access to resources, it's always easy for a dictator to rally the country around him in defense against a powerful external enemy. It also makes it easier for the dictator to blame any shortages on the evil intent of an external enemy, thereby deflecting from his own shortcomings. Isolation just doesn't work. Compare Cuba and North Korea to the situation in the Soviet satellite states in Eastern Europe, with which the West practiced gradually more and more open exchange. I'm much more with the Willy Brandts of the world who seek to influence others by example and through openness.

Another couple of quick examples: the dissidents in Iran would be nowhere without a certain level of openness of Europe towards Iran. Or alternatively, consider the cases of South Korea, Taiwan and Indonesia. All of these were brutal right wing military dictatorships after WWII and have only gradually democratized. But we kept open relations with them throughout. They have developed much better than NK or Cuba.

Again, I think this concert will mostly be useless for everyone involved, except that it may signal some goodwill of teh US towards NK to finally negotiate properly, which is seriously needed given how badly GWB f-ed up that situation. But North Korean democracy will not flower as a result. If regime change comes to the North, South Korea's "sunshine policy" will have much more to do with bringing it about than any US embargoes or NY Phil concerts.

    I vote for a very ugly internal collapse as the only effective way of resolving the NK situation. A lack of good will on the part of outsiders is not what prevents the NK regime from changing. They don't want to change.

[MishaK]

    I vote for a very ugly internal collapse as the only effective way of resolving the NK situation. A lack of good will on the part of outsiders is not what prevents the NK regime from changing. They don't want to change.

Nobody cares whether the NK regime wants to change. The Rhee regime in the South and its successors didn't want to change either, neither did those of the Kuomintang or Honecker or Jaruzelski. They were all overtaken by events. But consider this: gradual internal change always brings more stable governments and greater prosperity in its wake than violent overthrows. Violent overthrows are usually led by violent mobs, usually headed by demagogues of a different political color who rarely have the patience for the trappings of constitutional orders and the rule of law. Remember that the current Iranian regime is also the result of the violent overthrow of a despotic predecessor. External violent overthrow without a preexisting internal democratic movement is equally disastrous (viz. Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.).

[drogulus]

Nobody cares whether the NK regime wants to change. The Rhee regime in the South and its successors didn't want to change either, neither did those of the Kuomintang or Honecker or Jaruzelski. They were all overtaken by events. But consider this: gradual internal change always brings more stable governments and greater prosperity in its wake than violent overthrows. Violent overthrows are usually led by violent mobs, usually headed by demagogues of a different political color who rarely have the patience for the trappings of constitutional orders and the rule of law. Remember that the current Iranian regime is also the result of the violent overthrow of a despotic predecessor. External violent overthrow without a preexisting internal democratic movement is equally disastrous (viz. Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.).

     I didn't mean I wanted a violent change. That's what I think will happen. Most likely a coup will be followed by a Somalia type disintegration. The nature of the regime is what determines what can follow it, so the case is quite different from anything in Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan, because North Korea is so extreme. It's more like Jonestown than a country.