Melbourne Symphony Orchestra cancels pianist’s performance after dedication to journalists killed in Gaza
Jayson Gillham was scheduled to perform at Melbourne Town Hall on Thursday but he was dropped for going ‘beyond the remit of his contract’
您正在查看单个对话串。
Unpopular opinion time:
People pay to see and enjoy listening to a symphony, not listen to political opinion. And while I’m entirely on the side of the protestors, and stand firmly against the atrocities committed by Israel, I’d be against this at a symphony as well.
I know it’s impossible to comprehend, but sometimes, people need a bread from the negativity in the world. We don’t go to political rallies to hear how our congressmen and women enjoy listening to Taylor Swift for a reason…
Begin your downvotes.
Isn't the point of protest to not let people forget about things? How easy would it be in the west to not notice, the media certainly isn't keeping up on it. Every time I see one of these I think, that's a braver person than me, and thank fucking god for the Streisand effect. No downvote, but strong disagree.
They hired the guy to make fancy with the piano and he staged a protest?
So if a protest isn’t disruptive, it isn’t effective? I think you need to look up what protest means.
The point of protest is literally exactly that. The point of protest is to make the message impossible to ignore.
I’d urge you to look up the definition of protest and see where it says that it should be disruptive?
See-
I’m talking about REAL definitions. Not what people have turned it into.
“Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue,” King wrote. “It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.”
MLK is not a dictionary. Try again.
If you genuinely think a dictionary has a better understanding of protests than Martin Luther King Jr, you either don't know his history or are not being serious
So…. Anyone can rewrite the definition of something whenever they want?
Of course they can. Dictionaries are not the Bible. They exist to describe how words are used, not how they should be used. Words' meaning changes over time ("gay" meant "happy" in the 20th century, to use the tired example) and new words get added to the dictionary every day (most dictionary websites have little blurbs showing words they've recently added). Dictionaries have historically, and continue to, change in response to how people use words, not the other way around. If your entire argument rests on the dictionary definition of the word "protest" not explicitly mentioning that to be considered a protest, something must be disruptive, it's not a very good argument.
It also fails to consider that methods of convincing people who would rather simply ignore the issue to care about it that are not disruptive are few and far between.
lol…. Okay. Buddy.
And when exactly did "people turn it into" that? The purpose of a picket line is to be disruptive, and people have been doing those for over a century.
Yes I do think that. Protest tactics change but they seem to gravitate toward noncompliance and, yes, disruption. I honestly can't think of a successful protest that was all roses and hugs. Could be missing something.
I agree, but I also think it depends.
Protesters have blocked hospital entrance ways which is absolutely NOT okay, it can result in people dying and I think the protesters involved should be charged with manslaughter in those cases.
I think I'm fine with disruptive protests as long as it's not harmfully disruptive. I also think disruptive protests can piss people off and make them angry at you rather than what you are protesting about, and it can end up hurting your cause.
100% agreed
Ahhh… so, say you own a restaurant… and you pay a pianist to perform music while people dine- you’d be fine if he went on rants about civil unrest and war in foreign countries between songs?
I guarantee you’d fire him when you saw how it affected your profits.
Absolutely, because that makes my life more difficult, as a restaurant owner. I don't feel like that says anything about it tactically or morally though.
That hair splits very fine.
I'm speaking from within a fictional situation that was presented. If I were someone else would I fire someone...the answer is probably. My principled take as myself, I wouldn't for the reasons I've been talking about throughout this thread. Everyone has different reasons for what they do. OP put their opinion and I put mine. I don't know what else to say...
So it’s also okay for cellular companies to interrupt your phone calls with their support for politics issues? What about movies? Cool with a 10 minute long ad about civil unrest in the middle of a movie you paid to see? Can I interrupt your work to explain to you how bad some people have it in places you don’t know existed?
How about if I stopped ambulances from caring for the sick an injured? Because this shit ACTUALLY happened- and it is what happens when a line isn’t drawn between “making your point heard” and violating people’s rights.
Cool with a 10 minute long ad about civil unrest in the middle of a movie you paid to see?
He interrupted mid song for 10 minutes? Or was it a 2 minute preamble and then a regular performance?
"Oh, you're fine with this thing? What if it was something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT?!"
Yeah, a phone company is never never never going to alienate customers like that. And the power dynamics in that situation are quite different. If you're looking to suss out the limits of what I think about this than you've done it. I 100% agree people shouldn't come to physical harm. Again, that's quite a different situation than the one described in the article though.
You say a phone company won’t do that, but protestors blocked ambulances. Where is the line drawn?
And it’s okay that there’s no end to the interruption to daily lives so long as no one is hurt.
Again, I wonder how you’d like a 20-30 minutes lecture in the middle of a movie you paid for. Or an interruption of a conversation you were having with a friend or loved one.
It’s all in the name of protest you know. So… you HAVE to accept it.
I wonder how you’d like a 20-30 minutes lecture in the middle of a movie
2 minute statement before the performance, 30 minute lecture in the middle of a performance, totally the same thing.
I don't have to like it, That's literally my point. Let's try this, rather than try to find my line, which I've already said was somewhere around causing bodily harm to uninvolved people, what do YOU think is an appropriate form of protest? It seems like that's what you're trying to get off your chest in a round about way.
Any priest that doesn’t inconvenience anyone as a method of gaining attention is appropriate. Because if you have to get in my way to make me see your point-
You have no point worthy of my attention.
I’m not aware of all the things happening in the world because of assholes that tell and shout at me. I’m aware because I pay attention.
When did they say it had to be disruptive? They just said the point was to not let people forget.
If you consider the statement "x is bad" to be disruptive then I wonder what you think a "non-disruptive protest" actually is. Thoughts and prayers?
You can not let people forget about a thing without injecting it into everthing that exists.
The point is- that venue and event wasn’t there for them to proclaim their stance on politics. This was the right move.
End of story.
End of story.
Oh, okay then.
HEY EVERYBODY! JIMSAMTANKO SAYS IT'S THE END OF STORY! I guess we all have to stop talking about it now.
No- just the end of the story for me. Feel free to blather on about how you have the right to pester, annoy, and inconvenience people because you believe, or don’t believe in something being done somewhere-
my opinion will remain unchanged regardless.
Feel free to blather on about how you have the right to pester, annoy, and inconvenience people because you believe, or don’t believe in something being done somewhere-
Oh God the projection...
Neat!
I didn't find the definition that said "block ambulances", and I have to say that was effective when the hillbillies did that. I hope even your idea of "annoy people who can't help" doesn't include critical services.
I hate the message you started with. But I agree with this. These modern protesters are scum bags who often are a major reason why their own cause never makes much progress.
Ah yes, the massively disruptive tactic of checks notes saying genocide is 1) bad and 2) happening prior to playing a piano piece. You're right, he's really crossed the line this time. How can he ever expect to garner support like that?
He's almost as bad as the people with megaphones and signs marching and repeating chants!
Not this guy, I mean the protestors targeting random people like deflating tires of people going to work, throwing soup at art and standing in traffic. I don't get how this guy was protesting. It sounds like he was just saying common sense things. I don't get what the protest is here. Saying you support journalist doesn't seem like a protest. Just a statement
Tell me, when was the last time you went to a concert?
Because you should know, it's very common for someone to talk a little before the concert or before the piece about the piece itself, what inspired it, how it fits into the programme, etc.
That's what he did here. He explained what inspired the writing of this piece. No different to a conductor explaining that Shostakovich's 7th Symphony was dedicated to the city of Leningrad, which at the time it was premiered was being besieged by the Nazis. Or explaining how his 9th Symphony was a deliberate mockery of earlier composers' grand 9th symphonies, as a way to subvert expectations placed on him by Stalin's regime. Or how Beethoven's 3rd Symphony was written at first in honour of Napoleon, and then later changed to "celebrate the memory of a great man" after Napoleon went against Beethoven's republican idealism and crowned himself emperor.
Music has always been political, and in modern times no concert is complete without at least some discussion about the context in which the piece was written. That should be as true for a piece written to commemorate victims of a modern-day war as it is for mid-20th century or early 19th century pieces.
The good people of the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra disagree with you.
And how many concert venues have canceled acts because of their political affiliation/things they said/things they did.
MANY.
As is their right to do so. If you want to proclaim your support for a cause, do it on your fucking website. Not to a captive audience that didn’t pay to put up with it.
This is the most stupid take I read today and I was browsing Reddit earlier.
That’s NEAT!
WDYT about this bit of the article?
Gillham also performed a song by György Ligeti, where the pianist had noted Ligeti was from a Holocaust-surviving family and he spoke about the political background of the piece.
I think that’s irrelevant to the point. He was not there to protest events in Gaza. He was there to perform music.
End of story.
The quote isn’t about Gaza! It was fine to be “political” about holocaust survivors but not Gaza. That’s the point.
I wish you bland music in your future. Bury your head in the sand and enjoy it.
You CLEARLY didn’t read the article:
“Over the last 10 months, Israel has killed more than one hundred Palestinian journalists,” Gillham told the crowd on Sunday.
“A number of these have been targeted assassinations of prominent journalists as they were travelling in marked press vehicles or wearing their press jackets. The killing of journalists is a war crime in international law, and it is done in an effort to prevent the documentation and broadcasting of war crimes to the world.
“In addition to the role of journalists who bear witness, the word Witness in Arabic is Shaheed, which also means Martyr.”
I did. The point I was making is that he got dropped because of political Gaza but not the holocaust. Both of these are confronting and might upset people who just want to listen to some music.
If he spoke out against Gaza and in support of Israel, would you still be against his cancellation?
Because if you can’t honestly say that you are against this regardless of his stance- than you’re not here to debate the point-
You’re just here to toss in your support for a cause.
My entire point is about the concept of what is and isn’t not acceptable for hired entertainment to include in their performance.
I’d be against him speaking against Gaza because I’m against genocide. How is this so hard to understand.
Yup. Not all ideologies are equal. And not all are worth defending. Not sure where you got that idea.
It is widely acknowledged that external international pressure was one of the major factors in ending the apartheid regime. Therefore, it’s worth considering the impact of raising awareness among international audiences, even those not politically engaged, to put pressure on Israel to end their genocide.
On one hand, you have the discomfort felt by attendees to a live symphony performance in Melbourne, Australia having to listen to the pianist spend 30 seconds introducing the song:
Over the last 10 months, Israel has killed more than one hundred Palestinian journalists. A number of these have been targeted assassinations of prominent journalists as they were travelling in marked press vehicles or wearing their press jackets. The killing of journalists is a war crime in international law, and it is done in an effort to prevent the documentation and broadcasting of war crimes to the world.
In addition to the role of journalists who bear witness, the word Witness in Arabic is **Shaheed, which also means Martyr.
On the other hand, you have the discomfort felt by the victims of war crimes and genocide perpetuated by Israel.
Personally, I don’t think it’s that hard to judge where the cost/benefit analysis goes on that, but of course it’s a personal value judgment. Perhaps you don’t hold the same values I do, or not to the same degree, but for me, it’s obvious that using your platform to raise awareness and to put pressure on Israel is the right thing to do.
Anytime someone says they believe in the genocide in gaza I have to wonder what other antisemitic conspiracy theories they believe.
Do you believe ex-KGB agent and neo soviet klepto-fascist President of Russia, Vladimer Putin, when he claims zionist Ukraine is committing genocide against Russians in the Donbas?
Do you believe republican state representative, KKK grand wizard, and christian fascist David Duke when he says zionists are committing genocide against white Americans?
If not, then I don't know why you believe ex-KGB agent and islamo-fascist president of Palestine Mohammad Abbas when he says zionists are committing genocide against Palestine.
First of all, let’s not conflate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. I am an ardent opponent of anti-semitism, and while criticism of Israel may well be used as a dog-whistle among anti-semites, that doesn’t mean that all criticism of Israel is inherently anti-semitic. Indeed, I am very happy to know that there are many Jewish people who oppose Israel’s genocide who I can stand with.
As for your question - I don’t believe any individual person’s claims of genocide, but rather consider the evidence. These are the facts as I know them:
I could go on, but honestly, that’s enough for me to call it like I see it. Israel’s grand ambitions extend at least as far as driving all Arabs out of the territory immediately surrounding Israel, from the banks of the River Jordan to the Mediterranean sea, and possibly further. They are willing to go to any lengths to achieve that goal, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, extrajudicial killings, mass murder, bombing civilians, destroying schools, hospitals, mosques, regardless of who is inside, they’re willing to illegally push people out of their homes, bulldoze Palestinian settlements, steal, kill, and lie about it the whole time they’re doing it.
Israel’s grand ambitions extend at least as far as driving all Arabs out of the territory
This is just projection. The only side who's goal is to drive people from the land are the people chanting "from the river to the sea palestine will be arab".
Just ignored all of my comment to get upset about a rhyming chant, did we?
You have the projection backwards. It’s the genociders who project into that chant.
He even had to change the ending of the rhyme to make it fit his worldview.
The original chant In Arabic is “Min al-mayyeh li-mayyeh, Filastin arabiyyeh” which means "from the water to the water palestine is arab".
Here are protestors at Columbia University chanting "Filastin arabiyyeh".
Let’s be real, a lot of people are saying it’s genocide. I’d say, if Israel stopped shooting journalists, even more people would be saying it.
Maybe the billionaire islamo-fascists dictators who rule palestine with an iron fists have incentive to lie about genocide. Do you also believe former Republican state representative and grand wizard of the KKK David Duke when he says that zionists are committing genocide against white people in the Americas? Do you believe Putin when he claims zionist ukraine is committing genocide against russians in teh Donbas?
The venue made the right move. They canceled him, and now people like you and me are hearing his message.
Everyone wins, right? Or are you not happy unless everyone believes what you believe?
The original point you made was that the musician didn’t do the right thing, and I was explaining why I thought you were wrong. We weren’t talking about whether it was right or wrong for the venue to deplatform him.
I’m happy to talk about that, but I am curious about your thoughts in reaction to my original response
Streisand Effect. I agree with your opinion, if they are hired and paid to preform at a venue, then that type of work should be free of personal message or bias.
If they had paid for use of the venue(basically a tour or show) then that would be a platform they are welcome to explain their message.
That being said, no idea why your are being down voted, you are having a friendly and respectful conversation here, and even I can see merits in your debate.
Thanks for the response. It’s typical hive mentality. And I don’t mean that in a bad way- but this type of thing is common on social media. its no different here than it was Reddit.
There’s a general theme to the opinions/topics that are considered within the margins of acceptability here. Sadly, nuanced discussion is lost in this to the point that it’s essentially not allowed without ridicule or downvoting it into oblivion.
It’s to be expected.
people need a bread from the negativity
Freudian typo: as long as people have "bread and circuses" it's surprising what you can get away with.
lol! Good catch.
